RoR: Forum

Rebirth of Reason

Forum : Article Discussions : Objectivism, Venus and Mars

Thursday
April 7, 2005

Objectivism, Venus and Mars by Robert James Bidinotto

Sexually-based (or -influenced) differences in cognitive and communications styles, and core personal values, have profound implications for those who wish to run Objectivist clubs and events. Communicating Objectivist ideas and values in a typical "male" fashion -- i.e., via "logical structure" discussions, and abstract, largely deductive analysis seeking the "one right answer" to a given question -- is a sure-fire way to guarantee that most women will never return to your events. (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (121 messages)

Friday, April 8, 2005 - 9:31am

Mr. Perigo, in Post #75, belittles the gallant and gargantuan efforts made here to determine whether, in fact, female cognition and evaluation differ markedly from that of men. Says he: "Never in the field of human polemics has so much nonsense of so little import been spewed forth by so many at one time on one thread. Wotta loada bollocks!"

Ah, but we find that such has not always been his view! Check out this August 2000 post from Mr. Perigo:

Come to think of it, ALL women should be horse-whipped daily as a matter of course. The silly creatures can't drive or read maps, & the world of linear logic is closed to them. They are driven entirely by their hormones. They turn every little thing into a cosmic drama, & there's no point in trying to reason with them since they are congenitally incapable of listening. If they do, by accident, manage to absorb something you say, they tuck it away & quote it back at you thirty years later. Daily floggings wouldn't cure them - there is no cure for women known to man - but they'd certainly be very satisfying to administer.

Well, well...

Since Barbara Branden (Post #0) and even SOLO Founder Perigo have weighed in so decisively on the side of my thesis, it should be clear to all that I am (once again) incontrovertibly right, and that there is nothing more to say on this matter.

Friday, April 8, 2005 - 9:36am

Robert, you say, "don't debate, just listen." Oh, I think I love you. That sums up in four wonderful words my problem with the men of Objectivism that I knew. I'm one of those women you referred to who was "into" Objectivism years ago in New York. The hairsplitting and debating was intolerable. (That wacko Russian guy that now trolls NIF was pretty much the norm back then in New York.) All the guys were outdoing themselves trying to be some kind of rational John Galt. It's been many years since I've had any desire to have even a conversation with such rational gentlemen. I'm slowly getting my feet wet, since I do love the philosophy and a good conversation. And by good conversation, I mean just that. I don't mean being lectured to and being told what is wrong with me! From what I've read on SOLO, things have changed since those bad old days, which I'm delighted to see.

Ginny

Friday, April 8, 2005 - 9:45am

Lindsay wrote:

Daily floggings wouldn't cure them - there is no cure for women known to man - but they'd certainly be very satisfying to administer.

Why, perhaps Linz's sexual inclinations are more diverse than I had realized!

Friday, April 8, 2005 - 9:47am

Don't debate them: Just ask, and just listen. You may be surprised and sobered by what you hear.

Just listen. That's what a woman wants. Kicking back and listening is alien to men because we are always looking for answers. To relax and listen (to just listen without offering answers or even wanting to) goes against the way a man operates. That's the trouble. Listening to a woman talk for 5 minutes about whatever is on her mind will build more trust than 10 years of Objectivist lectures. Damn listening is hard though. :-)

Friday, April 8, 2005 - 10:18am

Lance wrote:

Just listen. That's what a woman wants. Kicking back and listening is alien to men because we are always looking for answers. To relax and listen (to just listen without offering answers or even wanting to) goes against the way a man operates. That's the trouble. Listening to a woman talk for 5 minutes about whatever is on her mind will build more trust than 10 years of Objectivist lectures. Damn listening is hard though. :-)

Five minutes?! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Marry a Latin American woman and prepare for three hours in one sitting, mister!

Always set a time limit with people, male or female, who want you "just to listen." As Charles Givens wrote in the chapter on "Handling Talkers and Dumpers" in his book SuperSelf, "Dumpers are drainers." Listen to the whole story only once, then ask, "What can I do to help?" The answer is usually, "Nothing." Be sure to stop them dead in their tracks the next time they start with the same song and dance again by asking, "What can I do to help?" If the answer is still, "Nothing," then suggest they bring a more productive topic to the table.

Friday, April 8, 2005 - 10:24am

Oh boy, Luke, have you ever put your foot in it!

In male-female communication, men typically have an agenda: to get to some point or solve a problem. But for women, the communication is frequently its own end: they want to be heard and understood, and frequently talking it out is the way they get a handle on a problem, and their own feelings about it.

Your typical "Mars" approach to communication is great for a business setting. In a relationship with a woman, it can be fatal. Go out and buy a copy of one of John Gray's "Mars-Venus" books.

It could save your life.

;^)

Friday, April 8, 2005 - 10:30am

Robert, you forget about cost-benefit analysis: How much am I willing to listen versus how much do I benefit from a particular relationship? John Gray never addresses this. When listening to a long-winded monologue from anyone, the classic Mike Myers line from his "Dieter" skits on Saturday Night Live comes to mind: "Your story has become tiresome, and this is the time that we dance."

Having listened to John Gray's first audio book, I think I prefer Being a Man in a Woman's World much better.

What you describe is more an extrovert versus introvert distinction than a male-female distinction. Extroverts like to "talk their way through" things while introverts like to retreat to their caves to mull. Why Should Extroverts Make All the Money? discusses this distinction at length.

(Edited by Luther Setzer on 4/08, 10:37am)

Friday, April 8, 2005 - 10:37am

But for women, the communication is frequently its own end:

Which explains my boredom when talking to such women... fortunately this generalization doesn't apply to all women.

they want to be heard and understood, and frequently talking it out is the way they get a handle on a problem, and their own feelings about it.

You just said: "For women, communication has no other purpose than itself. For women, communication has the purpose of getting a handle on a problem." Huh?

Friday, April 8, 2005 - 11:00am

Shayne,

Come on, you're nitpicking here. Granted, the sliced-out statements appear sloppy. In the interest of a genuine quest for clarification (and not just an "Aha! caught you! spirit"), here is a different wording of what I take to be Robert's meaning:

Talking about an issue, for some, does not always have problem-solving as its end; sometimes the end is 1) the better understanding gained by being forced to verbalize thoughts and 2) the psychological visibility gained by discussing one's emotions with a loved one.

Hope I've done you justice, Robert.

Jason

Friday, April 8, 2005 - 11:01am

Robert,
I agree with most of your article and subsequent 'defense'/additional explication.

One point of correction, however.

Stereotypical 'boys clubs' (of course this is, and has been, changing) such as professional Physics/Engineering, Politics, and computer related businesses/departments can hardly be said to be 'marginalized'. These, and many other examples could be cited, still have enormous influence on the world and will (hopefully!) continue to do so for some time to come. (I would be the first to cheer any of these becoming much more co-ed.)

That said, I echo your sentiment, vive la difference! Of course, one could wish the differences within the sexes got a little more respect, too.

Friday, April 8, 2005 - 11:19am

Jason,

Calling communication its own end has a pretty clear meaning. I think it's really up to Robert to recant this not you. I've got little doubt he'll take you up on it though.

I don't see this as being about "aha, I caught you!" What he said was just plain nonsense and I'd say something regardless of who said it. Just because he keeps saying nonsense doesn't mean I have it out for him. (Which isn't to say I'm not forming my conclusions about him based on what he's said. Is that a Solo sin?)

Friday, April 8, 2005 - 11:42am

Robert, with regard to the thinking differences between men and women, I seem to fall exactly where I fell in a previous discussion of introversion and introversion: I am equally both, and I'm unable t say that I fall more into one camp than the other. (Although I do agree with Sam Erica: my eyes and my mind glaze over when I'm confronted with "explanatory" charts; and when we were in high school I once reduced Joan Blumenthal to tears as she was vainly attempting to explain to me some principles of geometry.)

Your distinction between the two thinking styles makes sense to me, it fits my own observations, and I do plan to investigate some of the books you recommended.

I think the following is relevant to your point. There was an old joke in which one was told that one came to a fork in the road where two signs were posted, pointing in different directions. One said: Heaven. The other said: Lectures on Heaven. The question was: Which road would one take? I had the uneasy feeling that I probably would opt for the lectures.

I'm disappointed that so many of the women posting to this thread have announced their dislike for most women. Jennifer, woman are not all "giggles and gossip." The world is filled with fascinating, intelligent, creative and philosophical women. I once shared your view, until I realized that the dopey woman I encountered came from the same sub-culture as equally dopey men. I was looking at the wrong women and forming my generalizations from them. I, too, was once flattered when I was told that I "thought like a man." But I don't. I think like a woman who has a lot of male in her and in her thinking process. Beside, we women have a great deal in common besides the obvious; we face the same problems and the same difficulties; there is much we cam share and much we can learn from one another. I cherish my women friends equally with my men friends, and I am proud to have many of each. And I have found that since the feminist movement, with all its flaws, women tend to be much more thoughtful and much more interesting than once was the case. Give them a chance, ladies, and don't go to the Valley -- or to Paris Hilton -- to find them.

Barbara

Friday, April 8, 2005 - 11:47am

This is the most disgusting thread I�ve ever encountered at SOLO. The endless stereotyping and whining...without any specifics�

Goodbye, SOLO gentle-�men�.

PS. Linz is not gentleman. She is queen.

Friday, April 8, 2005 - 12:18pm

"Male and female represent the two sides of the great radical dualism. But in fact they are perpetually passing into one another. Fluid hardens to solid, solid rushes to fluid. There is no wholly masculine man, no purely feminine woman."
Margaret Fuller

I came across this quote and felt it appropriate to my feelings about this thread.

John

Friday, April 8, 2005 - 12:53pm

Aw, come on, Hong. Actually I'm quite lovable. Even Ginny says that, and she's never met me... Though I see that that doesn't seem to stop such feelings from arising around here. ;^)

Ginny (post #81): As a movement veteran, like me, you obviously "get it," having seen many examples of what I'm talking about. Barbara's closing line in Post #0 on this thread suggests she gets it, too. BTW, Barbara, I loved that joke about the two paths. Perfect!

Luke (post #86): I hope that approach has served you well with the ladies! ;^)

Jeff, the difference between the professional associations you're discussing and a philosophical movement are quite profound. Advancing professional objectives and changing a culture (or creating a new one) are very different goals. You can accomplish the former without reference to sex. How you can build or change a culture without regard to
sex is another matter.

Jason, I appreciate your effort to actually grasp what I was driving at in my hasty post. You got it right. No communication is literally "for its own sake", of course; it always has objectives. But differences between male and female communication frequently center around objectives that are at cross purposes: problem-solving, versus psychological visibility. Neither is an "irrational" objective. However, not knowing what the other sex is seeking in a given conversation can contribute to grave misunderstandings, tension, frustration and hostility.

I'm going to follow this with another post to clarify -- I hope -- some other possible grounds of misunderstanding.

(Edited by Robert Bidinotto
on 4/08, 1:16pm)

Friday, April 8, 2005 - 12:57pm

Luke and Barbara:

I didn't see the threads on introvert/extrovert styles; but while they may overlap with what I'm discussing -- cognitive styles -- I don't think they're quite the same thing.

The (largely deductive) "analyst" and the (largely inductive) "synthesist" are distinguished primarily by their psychoepistemological "comfort zones": a facility and preference for one kind of rational mental activity over the other.

A constellation of personality traits, values and activities can form around such mental habits -- among them, introversion or extroversion. But the latter, I think, are usually social consequences of the distinctive psychoepistemologies, and not primary.

Now, about those mental methodologies...

There is nothing wrong with a preference for applying concepts (deduction), or a preference for creating new concepts (induction). There are those who prefer to apply and extend existing principles and concepts, and those who prefer instead to generate and invent new ideas. Both are productive, rational uses of the mind, and both are equally necessary and complementary uses of the mind. But they are quite distinctive.

Moreover, we must distinguish these two rational cognitive styles or habits from their irrational counterfeits: rationalism and empiricism.

The "analyst" who habitually employs deduction from valid premises is not irrational. But a "rationalist," who exists in an isolated mental world of deduction from platonic abstractions, cut off from reality, is irrational. Likewise, the "synthesist," who loves the inductive process of creative generalization from empirical facts, is not irrational. But the "empiricist," who wallows in a concrete-bound world, and who either doesn't generalize at all, or who generalizes arbitrarily, is irrational.

The essential differences are between those who use or abuse deduction -- and between those who use or abuse induction. So you see, we really have four psychoepistemological habits or styles, not two: two rational, two irrational.

Finally, let me add that these are habits or tendencies, and shouldn't be thought of as "archetypes." People tend to move from one mental activity to another over time and under different circumstances; they seldom remain rooted in one frame of mind. Think of these as "cognitive habits" or "cognitive preferences" -- psychoepistemological "comfort zones."

I just didn't want to get into all that in my essay, which had a much narrower socio-cultural purpose.

(Edited by Robert Bidinotto
on 4/08, 1:19pm)

(Edited by Robert Bidinotto
on 4/08, 1:30pm)

Friday, April 8, 2005 - 1:09pm

Robert wrote:

But differences between male and female communication frequently center around objectives that are at cross purposes: problem-solving, versus psychological visibility. Neither is an "irrational" objective. However, not knowing what the other sex is seeking in a given conversation can contribute to grave misunderstandings, tension, frustration and hostility.

I agree that both amount to worthy goals regardless of gender. I further contend that the speaker has a positive obligation to state such goals up front to make the speaker intelligible to the listener. Ayn Rand herself said this in "The Psychology of Psychologizing":

It should not be necessary to say it, but today it is: anyone who wants to be understood, has to make damn sure that he has made himself intelligible. ... The unprocessed chaos inside [a mind] ... are of no interest, significance, or concern to anyone outside a therapist's office. ... There is no great mystery about it.

Once the goals have been clearly stated, then the listener can decide if continued listening adds value to the listener's life.

A recent issue of Toastmasters magazine featured an article contending that men in pre-industrial eras were much more emotional and expressive. It quoted passages documenting famous men weeping openly, etc. The article suggested that both industrialization and militarization led to widespread male emotional suppression since both institutions demanded men who practiced diligence, not emotionalism. Can our resident historians comment on this thesis?

Friday, April 8, 2005 - 4:59pm

Regarding cognitive styles:

When I was a young man studying basic problems solving techniques in engineering and physics I would habitually first go to the worked examples of the text to get a feel for what kind of problems were being addressed and see what the terminology looked like. Then I'd read the problems at the end of the section to get further ideas on what the problems were. Only then would I go to the start of the text to follow the linear presentation of the theory. At that point I had a context into which I could relate. I also regarded lectures as setting a context for my further efforts.

This strategy allowed me to participate, in some small degree, in the joy of coming to understand the principles by myself instead of being lead by the hand through each step.

This of course is an example of concretes leading to generalization by means of induction.

Sam

Friday, April 8, 2005 - 5:19pm

The world is filled with fascinating, intelligent, creative and philosophical women.

Barbara, you hit the nail right on the head. I too am disturbed when both men and women buy into these negative stereotypes of giggles, gossip and stuff. I tend to look at individuals as just that... individuals. Some rock, some suck. You definitely rock. Thank you.

Friday, April 8, 2005 - 5:32pm

That is indeed the key - to look at the persons as individuals, not as members of some tribe of whatever kind, and in so doing discover an immense number of diversed delightful persons to enjoy the company of......... is also, btw, why use the word 'persons' instead of 'people', as the one recognises the individuality the other doesn't.