I’ve never bought into the whole “men and women communicate differently” thing. The only time I’ve ever run into that kind of problem has been when men tried to anticipate the right way to communicate with a woman and came up with something convoluted that bogged us all down.
I definitely agree that the message transmitted and the message received isn’t always the same, but that’s a much more universal problem than you suggest. And, I suspect, it has more to do with people’s tendency to focus only on what they’re looking for and to perceive things in terms of their own experience than it does gender differences.
It’s the same kind of narrow view that makes us all willing to dismiss one another if something doesn’t “click” in the first fifteen minutes over coffee, isn’t it? We “know” what we’re looking for and so we can’t see anything else, no matter how enchanting it might turn out to be if we were looking. And, of course, on a dating profile the vast majority of relevant information is missing–there are no visual cues, no tones, no body language, no simple sense of a person, no ability to gauge how a person interacts spontaneously rather than how he presents himself when he has all the time in the world to sculpt the right message.
One person might put up a profile picture of herself with her dog because she’s crazy about the dog. Another might do the same because she thinks it’s a very flattering picture. Some people use dogs as props, because they’re uncomfortable just standing there posting for a picture. Some may be insecure and use their dogs as buffer. There are probably many other possible explanations as well…many of which probably don’t bear reading into.
Whatever the reasons, though, they are (like most things) not gender-specific. Lots and lots of men post pictures of themselves with their dogs. Or motorcycles.
Or horses.
We all hear gender based cliches daily:
Men want sex; women want romance;
Men are from mars; women are from venus.
These gender based cliches, generalizations and stereotyping always fall apart under scrutiny. On one hand, there are men who are very romantic and there are also women who are too. On the other, there are also women and men who are not very romantic at all.
The men are from mars and women are from venus hype is tripe. It’s used to sell a vast array of both related and unrelated products, services and fuel online dating sites and relationship based blogs. We would be foolish not to observe that many growth industries rely upon the faulty foundation of advertising of gender based sensationalized cliches, stereotypes and generalizations in order to fuel their markets, obtain new customers, and maintain their existing customers’ brand loyalty.
Earthlings seek compatible loving partners
sorry tiffany, many scientific investigations have shown that there are physical differences in brain development as a result of the influences of sex hormones which correlate directly to differences in communication style. brains which develop under the influence of estrogen use a far greater number of words (tens of thousands more than testosterone influenced brains on a daily basis) to express themselves. also, estrogen creates far greater connectivity between hemispheres of the brain resulting in greater complexity of both thought and emotion than in testosterone fueled brains. the truth is that many of the stereotypes which society has relied upon to describe the communication differences between the sexes are being born out through clinical studies which show that men who’s brains develop under a greater influence of estrogen than testosterone develop “feminine” physical brain characteristics and communication tendencies, and vice versa. does this mean that it is hopeless to communicate? no. in fact, many people are using these findings to increase our understanding of each other and avoid the traditional pitfalls of male female communication. I suggest a great book called Why men don’t listen and why women cant read maps. I know its an inflammatory title, but it was written by a husband and wife who are both highly credentialed brain scientists, and they were probably just trying to sell books.
Aaron, I’m familiar with the science–being the kind of person much more prone to data than emotion. I’ve read and heard speakers on the “differences” on multiple occasions, and every time I have nearly laughed out loud as I heard virtually everything about my communication styles and preferences attributed to men. The “increased understanding” you speak of has created pitfalls for me in the workplace on more than one occasion, as some fool man tried to accommodate my emotions when I wasn’t having any and really wanted to get to the point and get something done. I can read maps; I’ve taught both math and logic; I can’t stand poetry or digression; the descriptions of how women sit and look at one another and tend to touch one another when they talk strike me as more appropriate to elementary school students than adult women. Are the stereotypes statistically valid? Perhaps. But, of course (as with any stereotype), there will be vast numbers of people who don’t fit them, and there’s very little that’s more frustrating than having someone “accommodate” you by adapting to concerns and communication styles you don’t have.
Absent previous acquaintance with you, the most reasonable course of action is to assume features that you are statistically likely to have. If you don’t have these features, you can correct the incorrect assumption, and the speaker is no worse off than not having made any assumption to begin with.
If you’ve taught math and logic, you should see the logic of this approach.
I disagree, Julius–I think a person is always best off to begin with an open mind and react based on actual observation rather than making something up and trying to stuff other people into the box. But I wouldn’t disagree so strongly if people were willing to give up their preconceptions more easily. In that case, it might be nearly true that the person relying on false assumptions was “no worse off” than not having made any assumptions. The problem is that most people, having made those assumptions, are unwilling to let go of them no matter what the evidence to the contrary.
If the statistically valid assumptions save time the majority of cases — say, 90% of all cases — and the time lost in correcting the misperception in the remaining 10% of the cases is less than the time saved in the majority of the cases, then there is an argument for net efficiency.
It seems to me that you’re not really approaching this problem logically or mathematically.
Julius, your argument assumes a lot. For instance, that saving time is the primary goal in human interactions. And, of course, that 90% is anywhere near representative of the situation at hand.
We could probably estimate that in 90% of cases in which you step out in front of a moving car, it will stop. It definitely saves time to just walk out into the street, rather than waiting around until the traffic clears. Does that mean that net efficiency suggests it’s best for you to just blindly enter the street, since the statistical likelihood is that you won’t get run over? Or are there other factors to be considered, which might alter your decision?
My primary goal is getting things done — and communicating what’s necessary to that end.
If your primary goal is wasting my time, then I’ll treat you the way you’re asking to be treated — as an obstacle.
You’re pretty much proving my point here.
> Does that mean that net efficiency suggests it’s best for you to just blindly enter the street,
Are you threatening me with bodily harm unless I do as you say?