Yes, but only one day at a time.
This is false in 2 ways. First, there are many well-validated psychological measures. Secondly, many (most?) generate other than dichotomous results.
So many more men than women have won the Darwin Award they have a page discussing it.
Well, a different thinking process, according to Socionics, would only allow for one primary explanation; Nature. According to Socionists; Personality is largely inborn and genetically determined. Early development couldn’t entirely be ruled out, though.
This still wouldn’t assume a static potential difference between men and women. Sexual selection could determine that certain types would be more prevalent in the sexes because they happen to be more favored due to cultural values (i.e a feeling woman may be more attractive due to our culture valuing nurturing women). Personality traits could more often be passed down by gender. Obviously this all just speculation.
What would you explain is the reason for men scoring 10-25 percent higher in the thinking, opposed to feeling, category across 30 different countries with several different cultures after taking the MBTI?
The OP links to what appears to be the results of a Myers Briggs Personality test. The Master has covered this.
It’s not quite woo, but I wouldn’t call it science either. We can translate the OP as, “Why do men and women answer differently in this linked questionnaire?” Except there was no questionnaire that was linked to, only a summary measure without a methodological description.
Wiki seems to think that there are better psychological metrics: Myers–Briggs Type Indicator - Wikipedia
A reporter at Vox writes this sour article: “Why the Myers-Briggs test is totally meaningless”.
This breakdown by gender, suggests that male and female samples differ most along the “Feeling” scale. http://www.statisticbrain.com/myers-briggs-statistics/ The test is a series of yes or no questions. Assuming it’s something like this, I’ll rephrase things this way: why do men and women often answer the following questions differently (assuming they do)?
You trust reason rather than feelings
YES NO
You easily empathize with the concerns of other people
YES NO
You are strongly touched by stories about people’s troubles
YES NO
The Briggs Myers chart has several personality types, from which you get several permutations based on Extrovert/ Introvert, Sensing/Intuition, Thinking/Feeling, Judging/Perceiving.
None of which are defined as rational or irrational.
Perhaps you would like to present some information/citations/hell anything to justify the correlation between a ISTJ an ISFH ( your cite which shows men having a larger ISTJ % and women falling into the ISFH category) and any commonly accepted definition of rational (bad attempts at math jokes not withstanding) .
The Myers Briggs website doesn’t seam to refer to any one type of personality being rational or irrational so could you tell us which buckets of ISTJ,ISNT ,FCKT,WTHISIDK groups fall into rational and irrational, and why?
Just to help you out , from your Mriggs Byers citation the difference between the men and women largest population is in the T/F ie thinking/feeling area. In case you were equating feeling vs thinking with irrational/rational you might like to read your own source material and see here
Then check with a definition of rational
“having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense:”
And thus you will see that having a feeling approach to something can also be entity rational, as the words mean different things.
So it can’t be the T/F thing, equating thinking vs feeling = not thinking, therefore not thinking = irrational would be silly, and not logical, based on the source citations you provided, so what is it? Do you have some personal opinions about a group of people , that you wish to justify through some sketchy pseudoscience , that you would like to share with us?
Group me with the people who think the TMIB thing is more of a gage of how someone views themselves, at the time they took the test.
There is actually a rational thought function in Socionics that describes this behavior. According to Socionics; Some rational thinkers prefer using intuition. Intuition is a form of thinking that unconsciously relies on an internal model of past experiences to solve a problem. It “knows” without knowing why, and people relying primarily on this thinking function struggle to explain their reasoning, and why their solutions are correct.
Socionics wouldn’t say it’s diametrically opposed either.
I agree in general. A programmer in touch with his emotions is a well-balanced individual who will probably be able to relate to his co-workers, and work better in a team, but it’s most important that he be able to perform the primary function of his job, and that requires rational thinking.
I wouldn’t say everyone better at math is more rational than me. Personalities attempt to describe preferences; Not ability. Someone who doesn’t primarily rely on rational thinking functions may still be really good at using them; They just prefer not to.
I could direct you to the Wikipedia page , however the first line is
“This article has multiple issues.”
so it may not be worth it.
Basically, any type that has an NT in it is considered a rational thinker. N stands for intuition, as opposed to sensing, and T stands for thinking, as opposed to feeling.
Here’s an explanation from Wikipedia:
Sensation – all perceptions by means of the sense organs
Intuition – perception by way of the unconscious, or perception of unconscious events
Thinking (in socionics, logic) – interpretation of information based on whether it is correct or incorrect
Feeling (in socionics, ethics) – interpretation of information based on its ethical aspects
Nope, MBTI was developed by a woman named Katharine Cook Briggs and her daughter Isabel Briggs Myers. Regardless, even if men did decide what the type is; None of them ever forced a women to achieve a certain result on the test.
Well, you probably wont ever see much research into it because of incidents like the one you mentioned.
Is this even a rational question?
Who said any type with an NT in it is rational?
I think you are confusing your Jungian Thinking/Feeling with the Briggs Myers Thinking vs Feeling
Jung had the four types as intuition, sensation, feeling, and thinking. The Feeling and thinking are both given as rational or deciding functions, the intuition and sensation as irrational or perceiving. MBTI uses thinking / feeling in a different way, neither of which can be considered rational or irrational. The wiki on scionics seam to indicate they take the Jungian point of view , so why are you using MBTI data which uses rational/irrational in a different way to what a more colloquial useage might be to prove a Jungian point? MBTI does not reference rational/irrational.
Given you pointed us to MBTI data, can you please point to which buckets of ITSF etc fall into the rational/irrational types, maybe with some meaningful definition of rational or irrational that we can tie the MBTI definitions of ISTJEtc etc to.
Once we have that we could look at the conclusion you draw from the assertion that ISBlah bla = irrational
Another point of caution is that Jung used his types in dealing with people with significant mental health issues ( considered at the time). MBTI is mostly helpful in determining who will be best at (can be suckered into) organizing the leaving card/new baby flowers and who will absolutely insist on which crap restaurant to go to for lunch and will be unhappy with any other choice and therefore is best avoided at lunchtime food discussions.
More complex and transcendent too, I imagine.
No, I’m not confusing them. The Thinking/Feeling and Intuition/Sensing have the same meaning as they do in MBTI code. You’re confusing the functions with the code. Socionics uses the 4 functions you mentioned (8 actually since they can all be introverted or extroverted functions) and forms a 4 letter code. MBTI uses this exact same code.
No it doesn’t; It uses it in the exact same way. Functions like emotions are, by definition, irrational and how much the personality has a preference for rational thinking will depend on the dominance of a given function.
I’m not really sure what you’re trying to say here 
I was explaining what the NT codes meant in a type to a poster; I was not making an argument. MBTI most certainly references 4 personality types as being primarily rational thinkers.
INTP
ENTP
INTJ
ENTJ
More people than Jung have contributed to the theory, and his version of it takes nothing away from the current theory in the same way that Darwin’s ideas should not be discussed when talking about the modern Theory of Evolution.
I think men and women can both be extremely irrational, just about different subjects.
And each gender sees how irrational the other gender is on those subjects, while failing to see the proverbial planks in their own eyes.
I actually meant that to NOT be so explicitly binary, so my bad. What I should have said was: On the woo <—> science scale of 0 <—> 10, where does this lie?
Then they are simply incorrect, according to what we know from other scientific research. Personality is present at birth, I agree. But I don’t agree that “rationality”, as commonly defined (the quality of making conclusions based on facts or reason and not on emotions or feelings), is part of innate personality. That’s taught.
Exactly. Nurture alters brain development, as well as altering epigenetic expression of inherited traits.
Until we have a significant sample size from cultures which treat their boys and girls in exactly the same way - and we don’t, because they don’t exist - then we cannot know how much of an influence cultural factors are having on them. You say not much. I say quite a bit. We simply don’t have objective data enough to resolve this disagreement in a rational way.
Yep, it wouldn’t be a free-market society, I agree there. Indeed, being the deeply pessimistic person that I am, I don’t believe it is possible at all, given the nature of humans, especially but not only male humans. I don’t believe that a society in which compassion, empathy, and nurturing are high values is within the human repertoire. But hey, it’s a cloudy morning and I haven’t had my caffeine yet.
You can get a good sense of MB from the Cecil column. I’d call it 1950s psychology. It has no real empirical grounding and is based on outdated theories (ie/eg Karl Jung). It’s a diverting parlor game though. Where would you place surrealist automatism or lawn darts on your scale?
I see from wiki that Socionics is a thing in countries of the former Soviet Union. I can sort of understand how they might want to use personality surveys for career placement. I don’t know the quality of their empirical work though. I will observe that without market wage data, measuring career outcomes in Soviet times may have proven challenging. I am unaware of any peer reviewed literature in Socionics that is available in English, though this is unsurprising as I first learned of the term in this thread.
Right, in the link, people are categorized as more rational or feeling based on the Myers Briggs test. It’d be one thing if it was based on brain scans and seeing if the parts of the brains associated with logic or emotions lit up more in men or women. Or if simulations were done where the subjects had to work together or solve problems and the researchers could see that men were more likely to solve the problem this way using more rational approaches, and women were more likely to do it this other way based on emotional approaches.
But when you’re answering questions about yourself, it’s much more subjective. Men know that they are supposed to be more rational and less emotional, so they answer that Yes they trust reason more than feelings. Women are raised to be more emotional and nurturing to others, so they answer No to trusting reason more, but Yes to being touched by other people’s troubles. WhyNot’s post goes into this as well.
I’d like to see also people better defining what they mean by acting rational. I’m sure I can find instances of men being praised as rational thinkers, and women doing the exact same things and being called emotional. You can’t separate culture and biology.