This section is to provide some biological insight into how the male and female brain differ in the processing of stimuli.
Let's consider hearing.
Women hear in stereo as both ears operate at the same time. Men hear in mono as our ears operate one at a time. This finding was arrived at through the use of an experiment where two similarly sounding words were uttered a quarter of a second apart. The women heard both words while the men only heard one word.
With improvements in brain imaging, it is possible to map out which parts of the human brain are activated when exposed to different kinds of stimuli.
For instance, take how sound is perceived by different parts of the human brain.
Some parts of the brain handle complex or creative tasks while other parts handle basic or rudimentary tasks.
In an experiment involving how human voice is processed by brain, male and female adult participants were exposed to male and female voices and their brain activity was measured.
The results were:
- For males exposed to male voices, the rudimentary brain was activated.
When males heard female voices, the creative brain was activated.
- For females, exposure to either male or female voices only activated the rudimentary brain. Curiously, with the female group, the creative brain was not activated to process human speech.
The implications of these finding are numerous as in real life as we are never exposed to just one sound or one voice. There is a chorus of voices out there!
However, what we interprete depends on which part of the brain is active in a context and how it is loaded. We are cognitive misers - i.e. we take short cuts to lessen the thinking load, else we have to think deeply about everything. However, with the differences in the way our brains are wired between across the sexes, each sex then adopts coping strategies.
For a male:
- when the rudimentary brain is used, concurrently performing multiple but simple tasks seem to be a possibility however, speech may be inhibited to making rudimentary grunting like noises.
An example I like to use is the kind of 'speech' a guy who has been woken up in the morning, can muster when his spouse asks him a question or two. Seems to be that grunt like noises prevail.
Once he's more awake, his creative brain goes to work and his responses are more lucid.
- when the creative brain is active, intense focus on a complex activity is possible provided distractions are minimized else this can disrupt his entire process.
- Having to decipher a female voice and focussing on a complex cognitive activity works out to 2 complex tasks. [and he either gets angry or shuts down or both]
For the female:
- since the rudimentary brain is only required to process speech, the creative brain is freed to attend to other cognitive tasks, unhindered.
Does this help to unravel why women can multi-task? Perhaps, but I suspect that it isn't the only factor.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Part 5 - Cultural Projection
As individuals, we instinctively project our unique culture onto others when we meet people. After which, what we think about the person is determined in part by how they compare to our standard of things. This is an effortless and automatic process, for most people.
It is generally when people fail to meet our expectations that we then start to question why.
Looking at the psychology of culture shock, I theorized that males and females within any cultural group could also be thought to be belonging to two sub-cultures that constantly interact with each other. When each sex deals with same sex communication, the underlying cultural norms are similar and ideas and attitudes are exchanged.
Using a very simplistic model to explain culture, males tend to be individualistic while females veer towards colectivism [explained in alliances]. When males and females communicate, it is as if people from two different cultures are talking and consequently, each may project on the other an image that is not congruent with the model of themselves. When this happens, each person then misinterpretes the signals sent back and forth as the difference in culture has not been taken into account.
For example, a woman looks at a man and thinks to herself, this guy is really together as he can do so much (i.e. multi-task) and keep it all together. Well, is that really true? It could only be true if the culture and thinking patterns of both parties were similar, as in the case of one woman remarking the same thing onto another woman.
It is generally when people fail to meet our expectations that we then start to question why.
Looking at the psychology of culture shock, I theorized that males and females within any cultural group could also be thought to be belonging to two sub-cultures that constantly interact with each other. When each sex deals with same sex communication, the underlying cultural norms are similar and ideas and attitudes are exchanged.
Using a very simplistic model to explain culture, males tend to be individualistic while females veer towards colectivism [explained in alliances]. When males and females communicate, it is as if people from two different cultures are talking and consequently, each may project on the other an image that is not congruent with the model of themselves. When this happens, each person then misinterpretes the signals sent back and forth as the difference in culture has not been taken into account.
For example, a woman looks at a man and thinks to herself, this guy is really together as he can do so much (i.e. multi-task) and keep it all together. Well, is that really true? It could only be true if the culture and thinking patterns of both parties were similar, as in the case of one woman remarking the same thing onto another woman.
Part 4 - Multi tasking
When it comes to higher cognitive functioning, this is a capability that all women have, to different degrees. If you think of everyone positioned on a spectrum, then some women will be at the higher end where they process multiple things in the split of a second and some might be at the lower end of the spectrum where they seem to think almost like men - i.e. a bit more simplistically.
Men unfortunately cannot multi task to save our lives! Let me be specific and then let me present an example to illustrate this. First, this applies to things that require higher cognitive functioning and parallel processing. For things that require lower cognitive processing, yes, we can roughly handle
that.
To cope with multiple complex tasks, men do something that seems like multi tasking, to the untrained observers (aka women) but, obviously isn't. We work like single-processor computers and we "time-splice". This is where we do one activity, pause, then another activity, pause, and get back to the first activity, pause and so on. Some men are more skillful than others such that we can shorten the pauses so that it seems to be a seemless process of handling multiple activities. However, we are never truly multi tasking. We are just switching really fast.
A way to highlight or see this process at work is to disrupt it. When you attempt to disrupt a man in the middle of his process stream, the rest of the processes get derailed too and he becomes very lost.
Now an example to illustrate. After reading the scenario below, think about who comes to mind and more importantly, who does not.
Scenario
Imagine a scene in which a person is sitting on a couch, feeding a new born, intently watching a program on TV, talking to a friend on the phone and, supervising a child in the background.
Now, who comes to mind? Ask yourself, "why did I think that?"
Next, consider who did not (for the most part) cross your mind and why.
Instinctively, most will say, of course it's a woman or mother or someone female.
Well, of the 1000+ people that I've questioned since 2007, all but a handful of people have ventured that a male could do it!
At which point, I present what I think is a plausible effect if a male tried it:
- the baby would not get fed,
- he'd completely miss what was going on, on the TV,
- his friend at the other end of the phone would have by now got fed up with him and,
- the child might have run away from home, without him noticing it.
I should clarify that not all women would be able to handle all the 4 complex tasks efficiently but, they'd fare better than any male I have thus far observed.
Now, it has been pointed out (by many men) that in this scenario, the 1st task seems more of a perceived maternal role so I could be skewing the result towords women. However, even when the 1st activity is excluded, respondents still respond the same way!
The tasks that I've chosen are everyday activities. Realistically, I conceptualize that just about anyone could perform any of the tasks in isolation without much problem. I've described these tasks as complex as each require understanding, observation, knowledge and action. For example, in feeding the baby, only so much liquid formula or milk can be ingested by the baby before it needs to be burped. The volume is equivalent to the size of the baby's clenched fist, roughly equal to the size of its stomach. Failure to observe how much liquid goes into the baby results in that liquid backing up and spilling onto the person feeding the baby. It's complex when you consider it this way.
Is it possible to teach a male to multi task complex activities?
I remain hopeful though I have yet to see it. Also, research I have been doing so far seems to suggest otherwise. Some males will disguise this inability to multi task in the domestic setting as "women's work". Now, that's just a coping skill.
Now, if women can multi-task and men cannot, then it would appear that women would always trump men. However, there are a lot of situations where the opposite seems to be more prevalent.
Multi-tasking seems to come with a unique disadvantage too. The women cannot stop multitasking.
Men unfortunately cannot multi task to save our lives! Let me be specific and then let me present an example to illustrate this. First, this applies to things that require higher cognitive functioning and parallel processing. For things that require lower cognitive processing, yes, we can roughly handle
that.
To cope with multiple complex tasks, men do something that seems like multi tasking, to the untrained observers (aka women) but, obviously isn't. We work like single-processor computers and we "time-splice". This is where we do one activity, pause, then another activity, pause, and get back to the first activity, pause and so on. Some men are more skillful than others such that we can shorten the pauses so that it seems to be a seemless process of handling multiple activities. However, we are never truly multi tasking. We are just switching really fast.
A way to highlight or see this process at work is to disrupt it. When you attempt to disrupt a man in the middle of his process stream, the rest of the processes get derailed too and he becomes very lost.
Now an example to illustrate. After reading the scenario below, think about who comes to mind and more importantly, who does not.
Scenario
Imagine a scene in which a person is sitting on a couch, feeding a new born, intently watching a program on TV, talking to a friend on the phone and, supervising a child in the background.
Now, who comes to mind? Ask yourself, "why did I think that?"
Next, consider who did not (for the most part) cross your mind and why.
Instinctively, most will say, of course it's a woman or mother or someone female.
Well, of the 1000+ people that I've questioned since 2007, all but a handful of people have ventured that a male could do it!
At which point, I present what I think is a plausible effect if a male tried it:
- the baby would not get fed,
- he'd completely miss what was going on, on the TV,
- his friend at the other end of the phone would have by now got fed up with him and,
- the child might have run away from home, without him noticing it.
I should clarify that not all women would be able to handle all the 4 complex tasks efficiently but, they'd fare better than any male I have thus far observed.
Now, it has been pointed out (by many men) that in this scenario, the 1st task seems more of a perceived maternal role so I could be skewing the result towords women. However, even when the 1st activity is excluded, respondents still respond the same way!
The tasks that I've chosen are everyday activities. Realistically, I conceptualize that just about anyone could perform any of the tasks in isolation without much problem. I've described these tasks as complex as each require understanding, observation, knowledge and action. For example, in feeding the baby, only so much liquid formula or milk can be ingested by the baby before it needs to be burped. The volume is equivalent to the size of the baby's clenched fist, roughly equal to the size of its stomach. Failure to observe how much liquid goes into the baby results in that liquid backing up and spilling onto the person feeding the baby. It's complex when you consider it this way.
Is it possible to teach a male to multi task complex activities?
I remain hopeful though I have yet to see it. Also, research I have been doing so far seems to suggest otherwise. Some males will disguise this inability to multi task in the domestic setting as "women's work". Now, that's just a coping skill.
Now, if women can multi-task and men cannot, then it would appear that women would always trump men. However, there are a lot of situations where the opposite seems to be more prevalent.
Multi-tasking seems to come with a unique disadvantage too. The women cannot stop multitasking.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Part 3 - Group hierachy
In mixed functional groupings, there is an interesting dynamic that transforms the manner in which the group's information is discussed and disseminated to other groups.
The assumption (largely held by men) in paternalistic societies is that the men are in charge. However, an observation of families as well as people in organizations where there are at least two women in the group points to something else.
When groups are made of men and women, the top down structure seems to be:
1.Elder woman
2.Elder man
3.Younger woman
4.Younger man
Essentially, the women take control over the group especially if they are an alpha female of a particular kind [to be discussed later]. The elder woman trumphs the younger woman in that she has had more years to hone her craft. When this person is highly skilled as a manipulator, she is not seen to be directing anything.
The men take second and also last spot. The elder man's sphere of influence extends to manipulation of the younger women and younger men in the grouping. He is largely defenceless to the manipulation by the elder woman though he may sometimes have an awareness that he is being manipulated by her but without suitable strategies to deal or challenge her manipulative behavior.
The younger man remains oblivious to the manipulation by the women (all of them). Unfortunately, he does this to the point of delusion. It doesn't even occur to him that his behaviour is being manipulated. For example, when manipulative efforts direct the younger man to do something on behalf of, or for the group, he thinks he is being chivalrous and "willingly" does it! It is the same situation when as an adult, the younger man does what his mother tells him to do.
The assumption (largely held by men) in paternalistic societies is that the men are in charge. However, an observation of families as well as people in organizations where there are at least two women in the group points to something else.
When groups are made of men and women, the top down structure seems to be:
1.Elder woman
2.Elder man
3.Younger woman
4.Younger man
Essentially, the women take control over the group especially if they are an alpha female of a particular kind [to be discussed later]. The elder woman trumphs the younger woman in that she has had more years to hone her craft. When this person is highly skilled as a manipulator, she is not seen to be directing anything.
The men take second and also last spot. The elder man's sphere of influence extends to manipulation of the younger women and younger men in the grouping. He is largely defenceless to the manipulation by the elder woman though he may sometimes have an awareness that he is being manipulated by her but without suitable strategies to deal or challenge her manipulative behavior.
The younger man remains oblivious to the manipulation by the women (all of them). Unfortunately, he does this to the point of delusion. It doesn't even occur to him that his behaviour is being manipulated. For example, when manipulative efforts direct the younger man to do something on behalf of, or for the group, he thinks he is being chivalrous and "willingly" does it! It is the same situation when as an adult, the younger man does what his mother tells him to do.
Part 2 – Alliances
Alliances are groupings that serve multiple functions.
Definition from Wikipedia: “An alliance is an agreement or friendship between two or more parties, made in order to advance common goals and to secure common interests.”
In the context of human relations between same-sex groups, there is a different dynamic that is at play.
Within groups of men, the alliance is congruent with the definition above. This seems to be because men tend to be concrete, and what you see is pretty much what you get. Men tend to also deal with other men at only a superficial level, so the alliance doesn't permeate very far. For example, if men are allied by a formal military treaty, then the alliance relates only to the military aspect of their relations. It has little or no bearing on how their families work or what kind of food is eaten.
Within groups of men, the alliance is congruent with the definition above. This seems to be because men tend to be concrete, and what you see is pretty much what you get. Men tend to also deal with other men at only a superficial level, so the alliance doesn't permeate very far. For example, if men are allied by a formal military treaty, then the alliance relates only to the military aspect of their relations. It has little or no bearing on how their families work or what kind of food is eaten.
Women, on the other hand, form alliances differently. Alliances are formed one member at a time by another member. Once the alliance is formed, communication between individual members is at multiple levels. In this way, the breaking of alliances is a very complex process, because it involves severing of ties at different levels. Alliances, for women, serve multiple purposes. The bigger the alliance, the wider the sphere of influence of its members. Alliances are functional things, and the function of the female alliance is not to conquer other alliances, but to incorporate new unaligned members. Membership in the alliance is by personal selection. Existing members of the alliance invite other women to come in. Sometimes a women who is not a member of the alliance may seek entry into the alliance, however she can only gain entry into the alliance if “sponsored” by another alliance member.
Alliances of women also have male members, however, males are completely unaware that:
1) they belong to the alliance, or,
2) have any control over the workings of the alliance.
By and large, male participation seems to be honorary and utilitarian. However, as males are unaware that they belong (in a possessive sense) to an alliance, they may violate some of the communication and behaviour rules of the alliance. When they do this, women in the alliance may see this as a betrayal, because they too are unaware that the male is unaware of the violation (and indeed of his membership in the alliance itself).
Women see the boundaries of alliances everywhere. As such, they tread carefully because the repercussions of crossing an alliance can be severe. Men see nothing of this and behave as though they see nothing of this too. Often, when a man is confronted by a woman for the "violation" of the alliance, he is just so confused.
Part 1 – Labels
Labelling or categorisation makes our world simpler. When labels are used to describe behaviours, they tend to be specific. Labels used to describe people, e.g. a lazy person tends to be a vague description and as such can be confusing. When men use labelling on people, it seems to be an afterthought as it is not in their present focus, for the most part. I conceptualize it as an afterthought as once a label has been attached to a person, the man may actually forget that he has given that person a label. In essence, the label doesn’t stick. When women label a person, it sticks for far longer than men can even conceptualize. However the kind of labels that women use for largely other women and to a smaller degree, for men, are dependent on how they view that person in relation to themselves and in relation to the context and time.
Labels, for women, serve more than just a utilitarian purpose. They seem to also serve a higher psychological need.
Labels like “the angry one” may denote a person who is frustrated, and without a grouping to draw from. [I’ll explain that later when I talk about alliances] Once assigned, the label seems to persist over time, even if the situation and context in which the label was generated, changes. Labels are not always derogatory. For example, “one of the good children” may refer to a colleague (usually more junior) who is conscientious, hard-working and accommodating. Typically labels come with more than one word. A combination of two words or more adapts or morphs the meaning to something that is very specific, in the context and at the time. When labels are shared, they infiltrate the group. Very rarely do new labels override the existing ones. The exception seems to be the slight variation on the theme of the label.
Labels like “the angry one” may denote a person who is frustrated, and without a grouping to draw from. [I’ll explain that later when I talk about alliances] Once assigned, the label seems to persist over time, even if the situation and context in which the label was generated, changes. Labels are not always derogatory. For example, “one of the good children” may refer to a colleague (usually more junior) who is conscientious, hard-working and accommodating. Typically labels come with more than one word. A combination of two words or more adapts or morphs the meaning to something that is very specific, in the context and at the time. When labels are shared, they infiltrate the group. Very rarely do new labels override the existing ones. The exception seems to be the slight variation on the theme of the label.
Women give other women labels all the time. The practice is so widespread and seemingly permeates cross culturally that to not label is almost an alien concept. Sometimes, a woman may reserve judgement until more is known of the person they are dealing with before proceeding to label them. Again, once a person is labelled, the label sticks.
Occasionally, a man create a label that a woman picks up on. However, the woman will personalise the label to suit her needs, and in this form, it may not resemble the original form.
As women teach traditions, they seem well equipped to perpetuate labels.
Women, at some future point in time, may remind the men that it was the men that created the label without fully realising that there was personalisation was done by them and the label does not even resemble the original concept that the men came up with. Seemingly, that’s but one reason why the men don’t remember anything.
As women teach traditions, they seem well equipped to perpetuate labels.
Women, at some future point in time, may remind the men that it was the men that created the label without fully realising that there was personalisation was done by them and the label does not even resemble the original concept that the men came up with. Seemingly, that’s but one reason why the men don’t remember anything.
Intro
The phrase "Empty Room Syndrome" roughly refers to state of a man's mind when he awakens to a special realization about communication patterns between women. As I recall, the phrase was coined by one of my aunts, after hearing one of my descriptions.
In the December of 2005, I volunteered at a school that dealt with kids with special needs. I subsequently joined as a special education teacher the following January. Here was an environment where like most schools in Singapore, the adult females outnumbered the adult males. In the situation I placed myself, it was nine female teachers to one male teacher. Now, I thought I was there to teach kids with ASD (autistic spectrum disorder). What the situation taught me, was something completely different. Up to that point in my professional life, I had been working in the engineering and logistics lines, where the working atmosphere or culture was largely male-centric. In this new environment, I noticed things I had never seen before as patterns of behaviour seemed to be largely exaggerated . When I clarified with my wife on some of the dynamics that I had observed, I was given a picture that I had never seen before. From there, it sparked my interest to want to know more. After leaving this organisation, I maintained contacts with people in the organisation. I had even recommended a friend of mine to the organisation as she seemed to be a better fit than me. A month after leaving the organisation, I happened to chat with one female ex-colleagues on the phone. In our conversation, I inquired after the status of the friend who had joined shortly after I had left. It was from hearing her remarks about this friend of mine that I had an epiphany.
In the December of 2005, I volunteered at a school that dealt with kids with special needs. I subsequently joined as a special education teacher the following January. Here was an environment where like most schools in Singapore, the adult females outnumbered the adult males. In the situation I placed myself, it was nine female teachers to one male teacher. Now, I thought I was there to teach kids with ASD (autistic spectrum disorder). What the situation taught me, was something completely different. Up to that point in my professional life, I had been working in the engineering and logistics lines, where the working atmosphere or culture was largely male-centric. In this new environment, I noticed things I had never seen before as patterns of behaviour seemed to be largely exaggerated . When I clarified with my wife on some of the dynamics that I had observed, I was given a picture that I had never seen before. From there, it sparked my interest to want to know more. After leaving this organisation, I maintained contacts with people in the organisation. I had even recommended a friend of mine to the organisation as she seemed to be a better fit than me. A month after leaving the organisation, I happened to chat with one female ex-colleagues on the phone. In our conversation, I inquired after the status of the friend who had joined shortly after I had left. It was from hearing her remarks about this friend of mine that I had an epiphany.
It innocently started with “Oh! You mean the angry one?”, which was what I thought to be a perculiar remark. It was from there, when I clarified why such a label was being used on this person, that more of this mystery started to unravel.
As there is considerable literature already on male behavior and male group behavior, I have not spent much time explaining what guys do or how they behave except in cases where a contrast between behaviors (of males & females) is being explored.
As there is considerable literature already on male behavior and male group behavior, I have not spent much time explaining what guys do or how they behave except in cases where a contrast between behaviors (of males & females) is being explored.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)