Who each have their own distinct personalities? I don't understand all of these books who state and men are like this and women are like that and that's just the way things are. Seems like every site is full of people saying that folks are hardwired to act and think certain ways. But is this really true? I read leaf through these books' simplistic advice from the '50s or the 1850s and think, are things really like this? Am I some sort of mutant for thinking that people are a bit more complicated than that? Also, these books tend to get some high ratings and give the sort of advice for relationships I would not want to be in in a million years as they sound like HELL.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Then I recommend you not be in a relationship like that.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Well, that makes sense, but there seems to be some sort of underlying thing that insists that all relationships MUST be like that for some reason (social stability? Reading a fascinating book about the history of marriage that talks about how these folks were stating that women's equality would destabilize the institution of marriage. Does equality REALLY destabilize marriage, and does society's stability depend on a certain portion of society not having much say or is that just some sort of illusion?)
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Seems like every site is full of people saying that folks are hardwired to act and think certain ways.
of course we're hardwired to act and think a certain way! No escaping that.
Now, whether we *should* act and think that way is a different story. We're not slaves to our biology, at least not completely, and can make decisions about how we ought to act.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Who each have their own distinct personalities? I don't understand all of these books who state and men are like this and women are like that and that's just the way things are.
There are two kinds of people in the world, Synesthesia: those who think there are only two kinds of people in the world, and people who know better.
Generalizations are dumb (generally speaking).
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Such books are like a form 1040EZ. It makes comprehensible what is marginally more complicated than tying your shoes, for people who aren't interested in intellectual effort. And heck, it mostly works for most of the population, even if it isn't optimal for more than a small minority.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
But they seem so.. DIPPY and ridiculous and over simplistic and everything I hate and can't stand because facts about people are way more interesting to me. It probably doesn't work for more people, but they say it does anyway and it becomes the norm (got distracted by penguins) I want to know facts facts facts because I am nerdy about accuracy and stereotypes don't help, especially when I never fit them very well.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But they seem so.. DIPPY and ridiculous and over simplistic and everything I hate and can't stand because facts about people are way more interesting to me.
Well, yes.
quote:I want to know facts facts facts because I am nerdy...
I'm not sure you want facts. I think you want details. Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:But they seem so.. DIPPY and ridiculous and over simplistic and everything I hate and can't stand because facts about people are way more interesting to me.
Well, yes.
quote:I want to know facts facts facts because I am nerdy...
I'm not sure you want facts. I think you want details.
Details are nice... just lots of interesting details. Plugged directly into my brain so I can learn more! Stereotyping and over simplicity gets in the way of that.
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Who each have their own distinct personalities? I don't understand all of these books who state and men are like this and women are like that and that's just the way things are. Seems like every site is full of people saying that folks are hardwired to act and think certain ways. But is this really true? I read leaf through these books' simplistic advice from the '50s or the 1850s and think, are things really like this? Am I some sort of mutant for thinking that people are a bit more complicated than that? Also, these books tend to get some high ratings and give the sort of advice for relationships I would not want to be in in a million years as they sound like HELL.
"Individuals are smart. People are dumb panicky animals." You can never predict what one person will do or act like with any real certainty but large groups are completely predictable. Kind of like water molecules or hives of social insects really.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
So, why are you reading things that upset you?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Large groups are perfectly predictable? Really?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Are you just responding to the hyperbole? Otherwise, the statement isn't that objectionable.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I don't even think large groups are particularly predictable, much less perfectly. Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
It's called "psychohistory". Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: So, why are you reading things that upset you?
Because I am extremely silly. Though other than snatches of Act Like a Lady Think Like a Man I haven't read the whole book because just by reading the reviews and those snatches I KNOW it will annoy me. All of those books seem to be How to Meet the Sort of Men I Hate and Assume that All Men are Like that Even though I know People are Individuals with Minds of their Own and their Own Individual Needs.
I don't know if groups of humans are like insects as when you focus in on them they are still individual people with their own minds and opinions. Some may want to conform to what they are taught and what the larger society says, some may question it. Questioning it is a lot more interesting like looking at individual families, individual people and how they think.
(Also that fascinating book about Marriage stated that the policies of the thinkers and law setters is waaaaaaaaaaay behind compared to the actual trends of people.)
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I don't even think large groups are particularly predictable, much less perfectly.
Well, no arguments on the perfect part.
Are we discussing predictability in terms of how much we, currently, understand, or as some sort of capacity to be understood?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Currently. I think it's a little speculative to imagine that we might get better for some unknown reason at predicting the behavior of large groups of people. In fact, I think the opposite is true; I think we will soon get very good at predicting the behavior of individuals.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Right, just checking.
I think that the behavior of groups is more predictable because it's easier to measure. Indeed, the insurance industry is based off this premise, no?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Except that's not actually the behavior of the group; that's the likelihood that an individual within the group will do something specific. And, sure, that's basically how probability works. Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
That "something specific" is one of the behaviors we're talking about, though.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sean Monahan: It's called "psychohistory".
Someone's been reading Asimov. Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Cliology.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Except that's not actually the behavior of the group; that's the likelihood that an individual within the group will do something specific. And, sure, that's basically how probability works.
Well, the same principle is being applied in these books. It's not that Men or Women, as a collective, are going to go out and do something. It's that individual men and women are going to make decisions and because there are A) certain human traits that people in general share as well as B) certain traits that males and females are more likely to have due to physiology, you can theoretically offer advice to people on ways their partners are likely to behave and how you can/should react if they do.
How many of these books are actually based on reputable scientific evidence and how many are merely repeating old stereotypes that are easy to prove false under any scrutiny... I have no idea.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:There are two kinds of people in the world, Synesthesia: those who think there are only two kinds of people in the world, and people who know better.
Here I thought this was a Tom Robbins quote, only to find out via google that it's Robert Benchley. Oh well.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I find personality groupings more valuable than gender groupings, but there are generalizations that can be made about groups of humans and how they might respond in certain situations.
If I'm talking to someone from my accounting department, I'm going to tread differently than if I were talking to someone from sales, or from legal, or upper management. Not just because their job focus is different, but because different kinds of people gravitate toward those positions.
It's helpful to learn personality "types" in a nonspecific sense, so that you can learn to position yourself differently when dealing with different types of people. While each individual must be assessed on their own merits and flaws, there are trends that can be observed and taken into account in interpersonal interaction.
Can this be broken down into gender? I don't think so, at least not exclusively. But I'm not willing to rule it out as a part of the equation.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
Syn, I assume you're reading this material to get an idea of how to do better at your own relationships or to better find a person to have a relationship with. In my experience most relationship literature is written for an audience that (1) has at least some practical experience under their belt and (2) has stereotypical relationship (and gender role) expectations. That's probably because people that fit that description are the largest demographic, so that's what sells.
I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate that you don't have a lot of experience in relationships and as such your expectations may be unrealistic. (Let me stress that this is nothing to be ashamed of. It wasn't that long ago that my experiences were extremely limited and I had ideas about how things worked that were inaccurate to say the least and were not serving me well. I've learned a lot since then, and I'm much happier in this area of my life, but still I recognize that I have lots more to learn.) Gaining experience for yourself (and talking to your friends about it) is going to be a much more effective way of learning about relationships than reading literature designed for squares.
For my part there were a lot of little things that got me going in a better direction, but perhaps the biggest one was letting go of the idea that I had to be different, special, unique in every area. The idea that wearing designer clothing would make me a sellout. The idea that to attract someone (read: make someone fall in love with me) I had to show them all the things that I liked about myself, like how smart I was, and hide the things I didn't like, that being normal wasn't enough. As it turns out, now I get a lot more positive attention simply from being well-dressed and well-groomed and carrying myself well and being open to simple, almost meaningless interactions than I ever did by showing off or pining from afar.
Your milage will vary, of course. Your path will be different from mine. If you are dissatisfied with your current situation, think about where you want to be, take baby steps, and most importantly, test your assumptions. You may be wrong about the most basic things, even your own desires. And by all means, don't take anyone's advice too seriously, even mine. Good luck!
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Groups will do things the individuals would never consider. I wouldn't take away someone's property, but we might - if we agree we are justified.
There are undeniable differences between men and women. Books like these are generalizations and might be accurate for 70 out of 100. If you're one of the 30 out of 100, remember there are the 30 out of 100 on the other side.
I can't stand being around people who give of the: I just read "How to Make Friends and Influence People", vibe. Even when I can't see through the technique immediately, they can't keep up the act forever.
[ December 14, 2009, 07:44 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk:
quote:There are two kinds of people in the world, Synesthesia: those who think there are only two kinds of people in the world, and people who know better.
Here I thought this was a Tom Robbins quote, only to find out via google that it's Robert Benchley. Oh well.
Huh. I thought it was Robbins, too.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
You know, it is very possible for individuals to be themselves, with all the perks and problems that entails, but there still be trends based on the population that are true and measurable.
How much of that is nature and how much of it is environmental is up for debate, though. I think it is a fair measure of both, and as far as I know the current research bears that opinion out.
It is a fact that far more little girls than little boys prefer playing with dolls, particularly dolls resembling little babies. That doesn't mean every little girl does....it doesn't even mean any specific girl would. And it isn't all cultural context, or environmental...there is a nurture instinct that appears to be stronger in women than in men.
Acknowledging this doesn't mean you give up individuality, because a statistical trend doesn't predict or limit the actions of an individual. Knowing how MOST men and women process information can be helpful developing strategies to teach them specific tasks, too, but that doesn't mean every man thinks the same way.
We are not carbon copies of each other....but we do have common characteristics. It's just a matter of degree, usually.
And I say this as a man who played flute, loves kids and animals, and had a doll as a young kid (he name was Daisy). Posted by Marek (Member # 5404) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by Sean Monahan: It's called "psychohistory".
Someone's been reading Asimov.
So it's not just me thinking it as I read all this?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Groups will do things the individuals would never consider. I wouldn't take away someone's property, but we might - if we agree we are justified.
There are undeniable differences between men and women. Books like these are generalizations and might be accurate for 70 out of 100. If you're one of the 30 out of 100, remember there are the 30 out of 100 on the other side.
I can't stand being around people who give of the: I just read "How to Make Friends and Influence People", vibe. Even when I can't see through the technique immediately, they can't keep up the act forever.
I hear you there..but most of the people giving off that vibe either never bothered to read the whole book, or failed to understand what it said. They give off what I call a "Used Car Salesman" vibe, and I hate it.
It isn't about being fake, it's about how to communicated better. Pretending to be interested in a persons hobbies to make a sale isn't valid, and not what is recommended.
I found it to be valuable as a kid because it taught me how to express my interests to other people in a positive manner. If you really DO care about other people, things DO become easier once you understand how to convey that.
I like that book, dated as it is, but it has to be one of the most misused books of it's type in the world.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike: Syn, I assume you're reading this material to get an idea of how to do better at your own relationships or to better find a person to have a relationship with.
I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate that you don't have a lot of experience in relationships and as such your expectations may be unrealistic. And by all means, don't take anyone's advice too seriously, even mine. Good luck!
Naw, mostly I'm reading such books out of curiosity, but I just cannot identify with them, nor do I think every man and woman fits into those neat little boxes. Like Steve Harvey will try to speak for all men, but I'd never try to speak for all women because I know all women are not like me. Just like all men are not like Steve Harvey, who kind of annoys me and seems to be from a similar cultural background to me. I don't think I want a man from my cultural background... Mostly I want a nice man. I don't have much experience because it's hard for me to meet new people due to shyness, possible aspergers and other issues. But none of these books, especially Rules for Marriage seem very healthy when it comes to having a real good decent relationship. They seem to be teaching women how to be doormats and mixing in just enough feminism to make it seem like they are not doing that.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Generalizations have their uses. Complex ideas are, well, complex, and don't always help us to understand or interact with the world. Our brains seem to work by creating categories for things and then placing new information into those categories, melding it into the current worldview. Slowly, over time, this new information can cause a worldview to change, but initially most new information is understood in light of what we already know -- or thing we know.
Yes, people are all individuals, but there are far too many individuals for us to get to know them all so we create archetypes for them. This is the root of prejudice, but it is a fairly natural thing to do.
One of the first ways we categorize other human beings is by gender, and those stereotypes run deep.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
How many books would sell if they simply said "Men and women are unique individuals, so there's no particular reason to think any given piece of advice in this book is any more likely to be effective than the exact opposite advice"? Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: How many books would sell if they simply said "Men and women are unique individuals, so there's no particular reason to think any given piece of advice in this book is any more likely to be effective than the exact opposite advice"?
It probably would be a short book that would just say, "Talk to your husband... Talk to your wife. COMMUNICATE."
I reckon, Christine, but so many people fall through the cracks like that. And we miss out on fascinating facts, which i love.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)