skyler@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (10/29/88)
I'll try to describe the women and logic point a little better. There are two ways to look at this issue: sociologically and physiologically. First, in our culture, logic is generally considered better than emotion. A group of people is more likely to believe Joe Engineer who lists statistics than Joe Shmoe who cites poetry, his feelings, and so on. [People are often moved by emotion--but seem to like to deny it.] Especially in academic/business/professional settings, logic is supposed to be best. It is a kind of weakness to show emotion. Sometimes this attitude is called logocentrism. Just as ethnocentrism means that people of one ethnicity make their ethnicity the center and assume everything else is some kind of fringe, so logocentrism means that some people put logic at the center. 1) Sociologically. Women are socialized to be more emotional. Men are trained to repress emotions. [Note, however that in many relationships, men will use their wives or lovers to express emotions vicariously--that is, they will encourage their wife or lover to get emotional about an issue and then say, "Don't get so upset."] Also, women are often ridiculed and/or shut out from discussion due to their being emotional about a discussion. You can sometimes see discussions of rape or pornography or something which is likely to get a stronger reaction from women during which a woman is told that her "emotional" reaction is not appropriate, or means that she should stay out of the discussion since she can't talk about it rationally. Sometimes, that amounts to a power move. In groups you can sometimes see a man goad a woman (slam feminists, crack dirty jokes, call her honey, make misogynist comments) and if the woman calls him on it, will say, "Calm down. Can't you take joke?" He wins. 2) Some people think that women are physiologically less comfortable with logic and are more at home with more flowing forms of language. This is NOT because women are stupid or have less spatial perception or something. It is supposed to be because logic mimics the male method of dealing with world--logic is like the phallus--it is something which separates things, which is itself a separarable entity (that invokes an odd image), which dominates. The male sexual experience and hence, physical experience, is a discrete experience with an identifiable beginning and end. This attitude is supposed to be carried over into perceptions of the world. Women, however, are more into flow. I'll leave all this here right now, because I don't feel comfortable explaining a theory with which I don't have much sympathy. I really wish someone who does feel a lot of sympathy with this would explain it. -Trish
vicki@gatech.edu (Vicki Powers) (10/29/88)
I have something to add to this discussion of women and logical thinking.
First I should point out that I'm a woman. I'm also a mathematician, and
I can think very logically. I spent my childhood solving those "logic
problems" (you're on an island where everyone always lies or always tells
the truth, etc.) I can program, I can think recursively. And at the same
time I'm a very emotional person! I cry at sad movies, I cry at happy
movies, Kodak commercials can make me cry! The other day I saw a half-dead
lizard on the sidewalk and it upset me all day. I'm definately one of
those emotional women. Is there a contradiction here? I don't think so.
Why can't we be logical AND emotional????
Vicki
--
Vicki Powers | vicki@mathcs.emory.edu PREFERRED
Emory University | {sun!sunatl,gatech}!emory!vicki UUCP
Dept of Math and CS | vicki@emory NON-DOMAIN BITNET
Atlanta, GA 30322 | gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (10/29/88)
[This question directed to me in email, but I have no idea what the answer is. I am hoping that someone else will know the answer--have Lacanian feminists tried to look at other cultures?] > It is supposed to be because logic mimics the male >method of dealing with world--logic is like the phallus--it is something >which separates things, which is itself a separarable entity (that >invokes an odd image), which dominates. How that theory explains the Chinese philosophy? It was dominated by men, and had a different way of arguing. Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu
jd@cis.ohio-state.edu (12/05/88)
I was very, very interested in the article by Sue McPherson which described a test-based conclusion that females were more logical and males were more intuitive. This matches my personal observations. I have consistently found that males tend towards an intuitive approach in their activities. They quite often seem to regard interim steps as tedious and unnecessary, and to base their procedure on "hunches". Overall, they seem to operate in a more 'instinctive' mode. Females, on the other hand, seem to operate in a step-progression mode, in which each item is regarded as a logical dependency. They tend to patternize an activity, and to integrate conclusions prior to determining the next action. Overall, a more 'logical' mode. This is, of course, only a personal observation. Most of the lore and literature that surrounds me takes the opposite view. I do not know whether my observations are narrow and invalid, or whether the socialization of the words "logical=superior, intuitive=inferior" may have caused us to apply these words in a non-scientific manner. Since this forum addresses the particular subset of humanity who are involved in computers, and computers are uniquely logical in nature, I would be interested in reading the views of the other computer-folks on this topic. Jo Duston
gazit@bein.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (12/06/88)
In article <6041@ecsvax.uncecs.edu> osu-cis!att!cbnews!cblpn!jd@cis.ohio-state.edu writes: >of the lore and literature that surrounds me takes >the opposite view. I do not know whether my observations >are narrow and invalid, or whether the socialization of >the words "logical=superior, intuitive=inferior" may have >caused us to apply these words in a non-scientific manner. >Since this forum addresses the particular subset of >humanity who are involved in computers, and computers >are uniquely logical in nature, I would be interested >in reading the views of the other computer-folks on this topic. There are several problem that we (computer scientists) know an easy and fast way to solve them using randomize algorithms (which means that there is a probability that the answer is *not* correct ), but we don't know any good (fast) deterministic (always true) algorithm to solve them. The phenomena occurs especially in parallel processing. If we assume that the brain is a parallel processor, and intuition is some kind of "randomness" (I can't justify the second assumption, it is an intuitive one 1/2 :-)), then intuition should give *in most cases* better and faster result. >Jo Duston Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu
bill%cosi%mccc%njsmu@princeton.edu (12/09/88)
In article <6041@ecsvax.uncecs.edu>, osu-cis!att!cbnews!cblpn!jd@cis.ohio-state.edu writes:
]
] which described a test-based conclusion that females were
] more logical and males were more intuitive.
]
] This matches my personal observations. I have
] consistently found that males tend towards an
] intuitive approach in their activities...
] Females, on the other hand, seem to operate in a
] step-progression mode, in which each item is regarded
] as a logical dependency...
]
] This is, of course, only a personal observation. Most
] of the lore and literature that surrounds me takes
] the opposite view.
My gut-feeling about your personal observation is that it is as
unscientific as the lore and literature to which you refer. Of
course, your intuition may be right.
Could it be possible that your observation has something to do
with a notion you have about "logical" being "superior"?
--
Bill Michaelson, COS, Inc. \ "Better to keep your mouth shut, and let
Voice 609-771-6705 / people think you're a fool, than to open
rutgers!princeton!mccc!cosi!bill \ it..."
CompuServe 72416,1026 / -Mark Twain