Are women more logical?

Warning: This is a social sciences thread.

Hear me out on this one: Traditionally, the stereotype has been that women are more right-brain dominant (creative, intuitive, emotional) and not logical. Problem is, Hemispheric dominance has long fallen out of favor with actual cognitive psychologists and neurologists.

I think you could actually make the opposite case that men are emotional and women are logical, based on the confidence gap between sexes.

Basically, men tend to overestimate their own abilities and take more risks due to testosterone, whereas women underestimate their abilities for lack of it along with societal conditioning. Emotion can be both rational and irrational, in defiance of the Spock stereotype. In the case of overconfidence, however, men's emotions overpower their ability to accurately, realistically assess their situation.

Women are less prone to overconfidence and a lot more prone to underconfidence, which is more rational and thought-out.

Unfortunately, you rarely hear wild success stories of people who underestimated themselves and didnt live up to their full potential - ergo, women are judged as less competent, even though their self-assessment is more grounded in reality.

I dont know shit, its just an idea I had based on the Dunning-Krueger Effect.

Also before anybody tells me to take this to /pol/, you know damn well what their circlejerk response would be. Thought I'd have more luck here.

>This is a social sciences thread.
drop'd

>you know damn well what their circlejerk response would be
You're not in luck user. Most Veeky Forums people here have nothing to do with social sciences (including me). The rest are /pol/ and /r9k/ lurkers who try to validate their views through science no matter how delusional or biased. I'll give you one guess as to which threads a scientifically illiterate polack is going to reply in, either the one that has to do with actual natural science, or the one that he can easily turn into a woman-hating circlejerk.

I sincerely hope this thread turns into something more legit than a circlejerk, but don't keep your hopes up. You'll probably have better luck discussing social science in Veeky Forums.

Emotions are genetically and environmentally induced evaluation methods for evolutionary stability. As our society grows in understanding of what is a more realistic view of reality, obviously emotional evaluation will approach a better function for existing in this reality, but it will be bound to the past events. So according to your logic women are better at doing logically true things that have already been understood as logically sound by the general populous. Hence testosterone men are the ones that expand the horizons of humanity and women are mere civil engineers.

The big problem here is that your generalizing, and putting everybody in one camp or another based on gender.
There's far more variation between individuals than between genders.
An unusually illogical man is more emotional than the average woman, and an unusually logical woman is less emotional than the average man.

I believe your argument is akin to the difference between pure math and applied math.

Focusing on the side of "pure" logic women probably are more logical than men. They rarely waste their resources on creating monuments, writings or activities to celebrate fleeting/subjective features like beauty and love.Women pay more attention to a wider array of social cues. And are far more invested and critical of their mates characteristics when it comes to selection and children.

Meanwhile on the "applied" logic side men are more logical than women. The activities they take part in tend to emphasize greater levels of future proofing and utilization. They tend to have more observations of their surroundings, derive connections from them and exploit them. And lastly have more interest in structure and categorization of natural and man made phenomenons.

Obviously there's a lot of crossover between the two but that seems like the general take between the two.

>underconfidence is more logical than overconfidence
What?

>women are more logical than men
I know this is anecdotal, but have you actually ever talked to a woman?

...

Not really scientific but think about it this way.

In my experience girls are way more controlled by their feelings. I've seen them cry for no reason at all, I've seen seemingly complete irrational behaviour that I never see guys fo. Have you ever heard of a guy that dumped his gf cause "he wasn't feeling it"? Me neither, yet girls do that very regularly. It's just my opinion and experience ofc

I believe the case OP brought up is caused by society.
I think that women crying more than, and generally being "more emotional" are due to society forcing men to be "more manly", not crying and etc.

And on the reverse, you have men that might get genuinely angry and get into a fight for almost no good reason at all. Anecdotes like these don't really prove anything desu. It could also be this . The study of such behaviours is extremely inaccurate.

Men are taking more risks than women since females are sexually attracted to men taking risks. Men taking risks there fore have an advantage in reproduction. So even this presumed male irrationality derives from women.

Nature has selected for women investing high parental investment in their children, traits eliciting sympathy from others, and of course visual fertility. The first two contrast any sense of rationality.

Then there is your argument of confidence. Underconfidence is adaptive in acquiring help from others, typical female tactics. Overconfidence is adaptive for an organism that needs to do any activity.

There is no way that men are more emotional than women. Just think about some basic facts. Mood disorders are 2,3 times more common in women, females use 3 times more facial expressions, and all this is not even mentioning fluctuating hormone levels.

Why does everyone have to be so wordy whenever it's a social science thread, fuck

Its proven that men's hormones fluctuate more, and again you can still say that its all caused by society and not by biology.

Because they can speculate and spout all the shit /anecdotes that supposedly support the bullshit theory they have on a matter. It's not like natural science where you have hard facts and evidence to refute idiots' theories. This is why social sciences suffer and will continue to suffer.

>Problem is,
problem is that you 3 are pathetic betas clinging to your fantasy of ''rationality'' (do not hesitate to define this), precisely because you know that you are less successful than women.


Many men claim that, contrary to the men, the female is the least rational creature, whereas
the men would be the least emotional. In reality, the exact converse holds.
Most men remain, on the other hand, completely emotional towards their existence in general, towards the woman in particular.

it is natural for men to crave the validation of their existence and get depressed if they fail to feel relevant, responsible.
The best way for a man to cater his need for approval is to serve some woman (and some of her children) through emotional&financial support.
Men are pleased to contribute to someone else life, to support their family.

Why women are a good way to feel relevant? Because women love to be provided for and each woman will always find a man ready to please her.
[for most men, the best feeling of feeling real is when the girl moans from your cock in her pussy]

THe problem for men is that they are disposable in the eyes of each woman, since all men wish to serve the few women who talk to them.
Men must thus invent several ways to please women, invention and creativity which strengthen their feeling of being worthy, relevant, in touch with reality.
Men are too impotent to find other way to feel real.
Once that the a woman replaces a man by another provider, the man gets very upset and depressed.
THis leads men to think that they are better than women, stronger, smarter and that they must built a life outside women. Some men manage to indeed built an empire, but they will always loos it for some women.
Women give meaning to men and betas, no matter how successful outside women, will always give up everything for some relationship with some woman who claim to fancy them.

>social science
>starts right away with the left brain right brain idiocy

good job social "science"

>>>/tumblr/
Get out roastie REEEEE

How is under-confidence more rational than overconfidence, they are both faulty logic.

Something tells me you wouldn't make this thread if you ever had a girlfriend.

No way they are the extreme opposite of logical.

I honestly thought that this is just another pol meme, But then I checked articles ... god fucking damnt, fucking feminists and women, I wish I were gay

>ex breaks up with me, tell me she wasn't ready for a relationship
>she had a lot of issues, I wasn't going to stay with her long-term anyway, didn't protest
>still lingering sexual tension, I started talking to her again "as friends"
>Get her to hang out with me because I want to bang her one more time
>Making out, shes pratically naked
>Starts saying she broke up w/me because she thought I didn't care about her, but now sees that I do
>wants to get back together
>NOPE

Tbqh I remember those articles, and Guardian comments mostly shat on the author and the articles, including some women, so it's not as bad as it seems.

>Are women more logical?
Without reading your post, I'll say "No."

BTFO

I think males are more 'aggressive' not sure about emotional, I don't think sadness and happiness effect males more than females, but definitely have a point on anger.
Depending on the term 'logical' it would be clear to say that females are less outspoken and are more analytical of themselves than males meaning also that they are less likely to do stupid things if that =logical then yeah, females are more logical.
In Crime statistics there is a clear sign of the disparity between males and females with males committing 96% of murders (UN 2013 survey), and since a majority of murders either require lack of reasoning or an aggressive response I agree with the conclusion. (this doesn't only apply to murders, practically every crime is committed more by males than females)

Though the disparity could be to a number of factors I've come to the conclusion that females reflect more often and males just do whatever they feel like, meaning that females do less stupid things.
Whether they self conscious because they are logical or they are logical because they are self conscious I don't know but it's obvious that females ACT more logically.

males are more physically aggressive

Not only are you completely missing the point, you are assuming that for every male everything in his existence revolves around females. Sweetie, there is a world outside of social conformation.

Find the logic in letting millions of rapists into Europe.

Also please tell me you are kidding. The amount of women who do the most stupid bullshit and have less self control than a fucking dog is astounding.

I mean look. I love my girl but if I let her make even 10% of the household decisions we would probably be homeless or dead.

>I am civilized, therefore everybody is, and if they're are more violent than me, it's the environment's fault. That'll change once they enter Europe
I know that's false, but that's the general thought running in social academia and the general public

>last row
>just "witches"
>no further explanation needed

>Have you ever heard of a guy that dumped his gf cause "he wasn't feeling it"?

Are you fucking kidding me? When I hear that that makes me think women are more logical. When someone says they're 'not feeling it' I hear that although the relationship wasn't completely terrible they were able to recognize all of the small social/biological cues that there would be long term compatibility issues. Long term relationships need to have a certain amount of passion and energy to work. If a woman can recognize that there isn't any possibility for personal development then take stock and cut her losses earlier on, I would view her as more logical than the boyfriend who is clinging to the relationship just because it hasn't failed yet.

>they were able to recognize all of the small social/biological cues that there would be long term compatibility issues
Not him, but I think his point is that many people form an opinion without being able to explain why or how.
Women probably tend to do this more than men.
I know my wife does it a lot, and it's really frustrating.
It means there's no debate or discussion possible, she just wants "x" and can't explain why, or compromise in any way.
This lack of being able to intellectually examine her decisions makes her seem far less logical, even when her opinion has merit.

I think that it's humans relying on all kinds of ingrained/learned heuristics that sum up to an inexplicable opinion. It's probably benefited humans a lot to have these decisions done subconsciously (time/energy savings).

That and putting a decision into a natural language can destroy the meaning behind the decision, especially when the language/culture it's being communicated has a different value set than the subconscious thought process does.

The best thing to do (this is pretty much what sociopaths do) is to learn to read this "subconscious language" for humans and discover its rules/value set empirically instead of trying to reason within the english language frame.

>I know this is anecdotal, but have you actually ever talked to a woman?

Have you? Apparently not, faggot.

Anyone who has spent any period of time around women will realise they stop mentally aging at about 18 and maintain the mindset of an 18 year old up until menopause.

Thus they are highly emotional, completely irrational, and absolutely illogical.

Let me know when you make some testable predictions.

Ones that wear tight pants and like to have photos of them taken to be posted on social media are not.

Op sounds like he either a female, a white knight, or the gay friend.

Most women are not more logical than most men. Most women make decisions off their "feelings" and can't explain how they come to their conclusions. Men tend to be more physically aggressive, and most crimes are committed by teenage men that haven't fully developed their prefrontal cortex were logic comes from. Women tend to be the caregivers, men the providers, which is why they are more risktaking. Risk-taking is necessary to advance in life and provide for your family. Women don't take risks because it would be detrimental to care giving. Don't take this the wrong way, but most woman are wired to be caregivers, it doesn't mean they can't do the "provider" things like have a job, own and manage things, and men can be nurturer too. Most of the time though both sexes would be better and happier doing their respective roles.

>Women are less prone to overconfidence
The virginity is strong with this one.

>Women don't take risks because it would be detrimental to care giving
women do not take risks since they get men to take risks for them.

boring psychophilologic topic mods why haven't you deleted this yet?

and men are happy to take risks for women (men think that they are valuable, if they manage to win something, once they are in a situation that they believe is risky)

in fact, men even feel sad and depressed when they do not get noticed by women.

The ones who don't have a career path and can validate themselves

>the position of the sun does not affect our lives

is this what Veeky Forums believes?

As a guy who likes to think of himself as fairly logical and as someone who recently broke up with an exgf because I was "not feeling it," I can say that it was really a sum of a lot of different factors. Some were my own deep-seeded personal flaws but a lot were definitely her. I mean I could have explained it far more in-depth to her but that would just turn into a long conversation of me basically insulting her the entire time.

No one, not even women, break up with someone because they're "just not feeling it." That really means they're "just not feeling [like explaining] it."

And I agree with the other user: it's far more aggravating to watch a girl cling to a relationship that should have been over for years.