Thread: Gender Language

I recently discovered that men and women talk differently... Bounce these ideas with me.

Men:

Talk using thoughts, logic and direction reason.

Women:

Talk feeling using emotions, drama and empathy.

Women tend to use this approach in most of their encounters with both men and women, I have found out that women seem to think it offensive to directly talk to people about feelings or directly what is on their minds. And that they indirectly approach 99% of all their discussions with both sexes. Yet still approach using methods that invoke emotions.

Using this idea I have observed that women speak to stimulate feelings, such as emotions drama and empathy. Men use their words to make you think, use logic etc. Therfore I can understand why the whole 'women are impossible to understand' and 'men are impossible to understand'.

It isn't what or how we are saying things, it is the approach and the choice of nomenclature of our human behaviours and states of minds.

For instance, every time I talk with a woman any age now I use the way women talk and I get a much more responsive, thorough and interesting conversation. I have also noticed that the reason one of my closest girl buddy's an also my dear old auntie gets on so well with me in convo is because they are aware of this gender language. They both always talk when addressing something about me with thought, logic and reason and it works wonders. Now I've learned the other side of the park its also a much more fiery conversation and its great. It works wonders in many places where I meet women now.

What do you guys think, and girls.... feel, about this

......Can you teach me? lol

I think that's a reasonable description of the average for men and women, at least in Western culture. I remember a friend telling me how she explained "girl talk" to her father (with whom she was very close) - women tend to be indirect because we think it's more polite. I actually do that quite a lot without really meaning to, over small things - for example, asking my boyfriend if he's hungry when really, I'm the hungry one and I just want to know if we're going to have dinner soon.

Women are illogical? And thoughts are different from emotions?

.....Strange. :?

Originally Posted by tritai

Women are illogical?

Every single one I've ever met, yes.

Originally Posted by tritai

And thoughts are different from emotions?

.....Strange. :?

Well, I think of emotion as a way of generalising your thoughts within a given period.....

So yes.

Originally Posted by drowsy turtle

Originally Posted by tritai

Women are illogical?

Every single one I've ever met, yes.

Originally Posted by tritai

And thoughts are different from emotions?

.....Strange. :?

Well, I think of emotion as a way of generalising your thoughts within a given period.....

So yes.

One, you need to meet more women. I've found that no one is 100% logical or 100% illogical. Two, the OP is not about whether or not women are capable of being logical, but in the differences between the way men and women communicate. Since emotions are behavioral motivators, it is not completely illogical to appeal to someone's emotions when you're trying to communicate with them, especially if you're trying to affect their behavior.

Although males and females comprise of discrete thought - reasoning, logic and emotion patterns, each are still consistent in their ability to convey any given message, albeit this would be lacking if conforming to the conventional gender (That is to say that -- females would communicate more efficiently with their own gender if confined to their gender role, and vice versa for males). In essence, both are still consistent - if both were lacking, I doubt humanity would have reached this far, although there are still distinct traits, such as: males being dominant, females being a supplement for life (i.e. an opposite that would support its parallel). However, despite this, although both are fundamentally discrete, they will utilize the same mental processes in an effort to achieve a given desire; that is, a female would utilize her emotion/other gender-specific neural processes in reach for her desire, whether it be to achieve greater power or to support a loved one, whereas a male would commit to using his gender-specific processes. Nevertheless, if the desire is achieved, they have ultimately succeeded - regardless as to whether the female was more emotional, of whether the male was more rational, either had still succeeded.

Personally, despite comprised with parallel mental activity, they are still as equally capable of achieving a desire; a man can achieve world domination as much as a woman could.

It's not as pronounced in English, but many languages, like Japanese, display gender specific speech patterns that are part of the language.

I'm not sure how much these are due to something innate in women and men though, rather they could be something that has to do with gender conformity and socialization.

Mary Wollstonecraft wrote in A Vindication of The Rights of Women, that women were forced into behaviors, such as being emotionally manipulative, by the social positions they were trapped in. Women have much more liberty today, but Wollstonecraft's argument still holds some merit after 250 years.

I sincerely doubt that a boy raised in the absence of any other males would speak as we expect males to speak.

Originally Posted by paralith

Originally Posted by drowsy turtle

Originally Posted by tritai

Women are illogical?

Every single one I've ever met, yes.

Originally Posted by tritai

And thoughts are different from emotions?

.....Strange. :?

Well, I think of emotion as a way of generalising your thoughts within a given period.....

So yes.

One, you need to meet more women. I've found that no one is 100% logical or 100% illogical. Two, the OP is not about whether or not women are capable of being logical, but in the differences between the way men and women communicate. Since emotions are behavioral motivators, it is not completely illogical to appeal to someone's emotions when you're trying to communicate with them, especially if you're trying to affect their behavior.

All we know is what we personally percieve via our senses. Our logic concerning deciphering the thoughts and intentions of others is inherently flawed logic based on our own perceptions of past experiences. I would say, therefore, that no one can ever be anything other than biased and illogical a hundred percent of the time.

Originally Posted by gottspieler

Originally Posted by paralith

Originally Posted by drowsy turtle

Originally Posted by tritai

Women are illogical?

Every single one I've ever met, yes.

Originally Posted by tritai

And thoughts are different from emotions?

.....Strange. :?

Well, I think of emotion as a way of generalising your thoughts within a given period.....

So yes.

One, you need to meet more women. I've found that no one is 100% logical or 100% illogical. Two, the OP is not about whether or not women are capable of being logical, but in the differences between the way men and women communicate. Since emotions are behavioral motivators, it is not completely illogical to appeal to someone's emotions when you're trying to communicate with them, especially if you're trying to affect their behavior.

All we know is what we personally percieve via our senses. Our logic concerning deciphering the thoughts and intentions of others is inherently flawed logic based on our own perceptions of past experiences. I would say, therefore, that no one can ever be anything other than biased and illogical a hundred percent of the time.

The brain isn't magic and is built on a form of logic. If you see a table, sure, your brain recognizes the object from its memory and past experiences but it can't be fully accurate - it may give the delusion that a table is there, when in fact, it's a chair - it'll falsify the image of the table into a chair based on a recognition pattern through past experience. Furthermore, data interpreted could easily be falsified - you can interpolate it with hypnosis and experience, ultimately altering how one perceives reality.

Given the ambiguity of perception, we could all be constrained within a matrix - a big dream, with a system falsifying our senses, and death is nothing more than disconnecting from our alternate experience. Should this be true, then the actual reality could be a false experience built upon another, and so forth - an infinite of false interpretations - there would be no such thing as actual reality, and thus logic.

The brain isn't magic and is built on a form of logic.

Your logic and my logic are not the same. For that matter, what is "logic"? It's a word humans came up with to describe a concept. Furthermore, what is a concept? We could go on ad infinitum. My point is that everything is subjective. Time (if not, we'd have no time zones), space (where I am will be seen in relation to where you are in your eyes)...everything we know. Now, you might say that objective data exists in evolutionary biology and anthropology, for example...yet all that you can be (relatively) sure of is that the bones you touch and see "exist" in your mind...

you may think that you have what psychologists call a "theory of mind", or a basic understanding of the mental states of others (unless certain portions of your prefrontal cortex are damaged , of course)...what you know is your own mind's interpretation of external data input...you can't even be sure that other people exist, or that your brain isn't bathing in a vat somewhere in a top secret lab, attatched to numerous electrodes which emulate the brain's electrical impulses (as Daniel Dennett once proposed in The Mind's I.

Originally Posted by gottspieler

The brain isn't magic and is built on a form of logic.

Your logic and my logic are not the same. For that matter, what is "logic"? It's a word humans came up with to describe a concept. Furthermore, what is a concept? We could go on ad infinitum. My point is that everything is subjective. Time (if not, we'd have no time zones), space (where I am will be seen in relation to where you are in your eyes)...everything we know. Now, you might say that objective data exists in evolutionary biology and anthropology, for example...yet all that you can be (relatively) sure of is that the bones you touch and see "exist" in your mind...

you may think that you have what psychologists call a "theory of mind", or a basic understanding of the mental states of others (unless certain portions of your prefrontal cortex are damaged , of course)...what you know is your own mind's interpretation of external data input...you can't even be sure that other people exist, or that your brain isn't bathing in a vat somewhere in a top secret lab, attatched to numerous electrodes which emulate the brain's electrical impulses (as Daniel Dennett once proposed in The Mind's I.

You're right, definitions created by humans are nothing more than a mere concept, albeit may be accurate but can never be fully accurate - they can be improved, but older versions are incompatible with future Sciences. Essentially, archaic Science, although may provide the foundations of, and supplement the discovery of other rudiments, will ultimately be inconsistent with future Science - thus, Science is never correct and is a constant movement of trial and improvement.

Also, the only way by which we can have a consistent understanding of a concept is through learning. In my opinion, learning is synchronous - you can "learn" independently but would have inconsistencies against a conventional comprehension of whatever it is you were learning. Although, despite synchronization, we would still interpret our inputs discrete to each other - we all have our own interpretations that are experienced instinctively, and are unable to be transfered via cognitive means (Although, perhaps in the future sometime, Science may allow for feelings and other instinctive perceptions to be transfered).

I gave up trying to be the sensitive guy when it was getting me nothing but loads of female platonic friends. This was in the 80's when Alan Alda, Donahue wimps were in vogue.

Nowadays, I find a friendly smile and relating to what the chick tells me, but in a masculine way gets alot more interest. Maybe it's my age, but it's really easy to tell now when a chick is interested in possibilities and when she's just talking to you.

I like chix in their 20's. They seem to be perpetually interested in possibilities.

Originally Posted by Bad Wolf

Women:

Talk feeling using emotions, drama and empathy.

So Prozac makes depressed people talk like women? What? How???