Why Do Women Always Try and Pigeon-Hole Men’s Behavior?
Precision is one of the most effective concepts to bring to bear when analyzing problems and coming up with solutions. Conversely, lack of precision causes confusion and ineffectiveness. If this is true, then why do so many people attempt to use broad brush stroke generalizations to describe so many things in life? What possible advantage could this convey? This post comes up with a possible answer.
I live in Berlin and I have a lot of ex-pat friends here. One of them is an English girl, Natasha, that I know well and we were discussing art recently and I said that I could paint her portrait, if she wished. At first she was incredulous that I could even paint (it seems that engineers are famed as being autistic, not artistic) and so I showed her a photo of a painting that I did some years back and which is displayed in this post. She still said no to the idea, but then as she thought about it the whole thing became more and more appealing to her and she talked about it more and more. I haven’t done any painting for several years so I suggested that we take a look at some contemporary portraits to get an idea of what she liked, what I liked and what I thought I was actually capable of producing. On a recent visit to London, I visited the National Portrait Gallery and viewed the winners of the BP Portrait Award 2008. I was surprised by how outstanding the work was and so I bought a book full of the reproductions and brought it back to Berlin to show Natasha.
So we went out for dinner and I was expecting to go through the book with her and discuss what was good, what was bad and what was possible. Natasha invited two of her German girlfriends along and insisted that we would speak German all evening. That didn’t do much for my mood as discussing the creation of a portrait with a prospective sitter is quite a personal thing, plus I only have survival level German and I knew that I wouldn’t be able to communicate any of the finer points of portraiture that way. As expected, the dinner conversation between the girls was beyond me and Natasha was only half interested in what I had to say as she found the conversation of her friends much more interesting.
They were talking about a subject of perennial interest to women: how to describe men in such a fashion that one explanation fits each and everyone of them. I sat there feeling bored and ignored apart from the occasional question, one of which was, “Are men embarrassed to admit that they met their girlfriend over the internet?” and “Do men think that women should wear a man’s boxer shorts, or not?” I gave my usual answer to such questions, which is basically that some men are/do and some men aren’t/don’t. My answers were clearly unsatisfactory and after a polite nodding of the head they then went on to more talk of “Men do blah, blah, blah” and “Men are blah, blah, blah” until I finally got thoroughly annoyed and raised my voice at them (Natasha says that I shouted at them, but I later found out that her definition of shouting is far removed from mine).
I said to the girls that one of the little known factors that has an enormous influence on how well people do in life and how content they become has to do with precision. I said that the more precisely that you describe a problem and that the more accurately that you describe the solution, the better in life that you do. I said that the more you attempt to make individuals fit into a generalization, the less well you will be able to interpret and respond to the actions of a single individual. Instead of accepting reality and responding to it effectively, you end up denying reality, because it doesn’t fit your rules and your concept for how things should behave, and hence the more baffled, confused and problem prone you become.
One of the girls smiled awkwardly and nodded agreement with me and the other said that she could classify men that way. I said “All of them?” and she said, “Yes, at least 90% of them.” I attempted to explain that it was the other 10% that would always make a mockery of her efforts to come up with perfect generalizations but she was totally unmoved by my proposition. Exasperated, I gave up and ordered another beer.
I don’t often get annoyed in that fashion but I was irritated by what I considered the futility of their actions and also, how such thinking had caused me countless problems in the past. My efforts to untangle the mental mess that I got into over the years really began to turn the corner when I read “People In Quandaries” by Wendell Johnson. In the book he explained, in relatively simple terms, how the principles of a school of thought called General Semantics work. One of the principle tenets of Generals Semantics is to bring accuracy of verbal description into everything that we do. The problem for humans is that although we receive sensory input from the real world into our bodies, we can mostly only consciously think about things by converting those sensory inputs into words.
For example, right now I’m looking at a cup. Cup is the word used to describe what is a porcelain receptacle, about three inches in diameter, and three inches tall, with a slightly flared rim to make sipping easier. This particular cup is colored white with a glossy glaze. It has a handle in the shape of a large ‘C’ with the top surface flattened so that you can put your thumb on top of it and I could go on and on. Words become a shorthand for reality (would you really want to use that description each time you wanted to talk about a white cup?). The problem is that words remove accuracy. That doesn’t have such a big impact if you only ever talk about real world objects and things that you can point to and that people can see, hear, touch, taste and smell for themselves. However, these days, the world of humans is rarely that simple. We have to convey abstract concepts. These are things that cannot be assessed by our physical senses. Instead we we create these things in the mind.
As we construct things in the mind we seek to both explain something and, consequently, to predict possible outcomes. I find prediction a very fascinating subject. When I think about religious ideas, beliefs, scientific theories (as opposed to scientific laws) and the girls’ dinner table conversation, all of this effort, discussion and speculation is all designed to come up with accurate predictions for how things work.
If we bring great accuracy of investigation and description into our theories and models, then we can get excellent predictive results. This is the great advantage that the scientific method brings us. It is the best tool that we have for problem solving. Theories are developed and increasingly refined as new information from real world results is assessed, understood and included. The great question for me is, “Why do we insist on making generalizations (which are inherently inaccurate and hence cause difficulty), when a more accurate description could allow us to respond much better?”
My conclusion again stems from my point of view that we should essentially see ourselves as biological mechanisms almost 100% devoted to surviving and the game of survival is inherently a risky process. Most of our personal, internal struggles in life come from attempting to do things that go against our deep-rooted survival instincts. Consequently, anything that can allow us to predict how things will behave in a given situation can lead to a survival advantage. It means that we can assess the risks involved before entering into a situation and it means that we can prepare for them, if necessary.
My own experience is that a lot of fears develop initially from real world reflections upon threatening events. If you have ever experienced doing something incredibly risky, or devastatingly humiliating or painful, then you have probably replayed those moments over and over again in your head. I speculate that what is happening here is that the brain is attempting to learn from the experience and that it is attempting to link causes and effects together. The mind will then come up with a belief, i.e. an imagined fact about what cause leads to this effect, in a somewhat desperate effort at prediction in order to avoid coming into risk and harm again. By imagining this happening over and over again this creates fear as a painful emotional response that prevents us from taking risks. Our survival drives are so strong that we will cling to any number of irrational and limiting beliefs and fears, because surviving is so much more important than being right.
To prove that you are right, usually means that you have to put yourself at risk again in order to validate whether your theories about cause and effect, and hence prediction are accurate or not. For our nervous system, this is simply too risky a proposition. This means that an inaccurate description and an inaccurate prediction that works (basically, by being overly risk averse) is much more likely to lead to survival and hence reproduction in the next generation. This then favors more spurious conclusion making until it becomes ingrained as a beneficial process in the whole species. It usually takes rationalization and a deep and accurate questioning of fears, and the beliefs that support them, in order to undo them.
Coming back to the girls’ insistence on attempting to pigeon hole men (and I know; men do it to women too) and my question, “Why do we insist on making generalizations, when a more accurate description could allow us to respond much better?” The answer is that we willingly adopt ineffective methods if, by default, they enhance the chances of survival. Consequently, generalizations must have more advantages for survival than accurate analysis of problems and accurate responses more often than not. That tends to favor inefficiency and ineffectiveness for the general public, but, for the wise and enlightened readers of this blog, you now have a new insight into this situation and so you can take advantage of it to live your life better.
Generalizations are fine for describing and predicting the movement of rocks and trees (unless, of course, you happen to specialize in those fields, in which case you will need more accurate descriptions). Generalizations can work fine for large thronging masses in many circumstances, but when it comes to describing your loved ones, please be ever willing to throw out the generalizations when they don’t fit. The sooner you accurately describe your loved one as he, or she, is and the sooner that you accept that reality, then the sooner you can get on with adapting yourself to that reality and the sooner you can get on with responding to that reality. Any time that you sit there pondering why so-and-so doesn’t fit the general model and “What’s wrong with him/her?” you are more likely to lose. Any time that you think, “Well, that’s my reality, how can I use it to my advantage?” you are more likely to gain. The ceaseless desire to predict is ingrained and you won’t overcome it easily, but you can at least choose to predict with greater accuracy those things that are the most up close and personal to you. That will bring advantage to you.
Related links:
General Semantics: Deferring to reality brings us sanity
BP Portrait Award 2008 - Exhibitors
If you would like to receive more fundamental insights into better living, then subscribe to the nickpagan.com newsletter and you will receive a FREE copy of the ebook ‘Understand How to Operate Your Brain Perfectly.’ Please use the form at the head of the page.
#1 - Permalink Vincent August 5th, 2008 at 1:22 amFrom a software developer’s point of view, we always try to generalize or factorize problems so that we can solve them with more generic algorithms/solutions, because it is not convenient and uneasy to maintain too many specific algorithms/solutions.
In real life, it is also easier to learn and apply one “universal solution” to a given problem type than trying to look deeper. Doing so could also be out of lazyness.
There is also experience involved. Let’s say if you always meet a specific type of person or culture, then you will believe that this type of person or culture always act a certain way, until you get enough proofs that it is not always the case. This is why people who travel a lot get a more accurate view of the world than people who stay in the same place. It is a common problem with stereotypes and prejudice.
#2 - Permalink admin August 5th, 2008 at 4:29 amI agree that it is not always worth the effort to investigate things in detail, if that thing is remote and not often encountered (such as generalizing about people in a far distant country if you never go there). A rough idea is often enough for day to day purposes.
The big problem comes when people fail take note of the proof that a generalization is not always the case. If a generalization becomes a proxy belief, then it is very difficult for people to accept that they might be wrong about their interpretation of things. That’s the great downside of generalizations.
When dealing with people, up close and personal, it is a much better approach to deal with and adapt to the reality of their behavior, than to become bewildered because they don’t fit the stereotype, but, sadly, this is exactly how a lot of people behave.
#3 - Permalink ellen August 7th, 2008 at 4:13 pmI appreciate your discussion, having just begun studying General Semantics, but at the risk of stating the obvious have to ask why you decided to discuss this with these girls? A man offering to paint a womans portrait is showing a very definite interest. The woman turning up with two friends and keeping the conversation on a banal level is possibly playing a long game, not interested, shy, wants the portrait but not the interest or many other possibilities. I don’t think your situation was about stereotyping at all for any of these girls. As a woman (55, divorced, much battered and bruised by life and the confusion of it all) I have learnt (the hard way)that in such situations the verbal content of such encounters is secondary and often a deliberate attempt to obscure motive. The body language is a much easier read.
Having said that, a very interesting post. Most of us cling to our assumptions and predjudices way beyond any residual usefulness because we mistakenly believe our thoughts are ourselves.
#4 - Permalink admin August 7th, 2008 at 4:52 pmHi Ellen,
It wasn’t my intention to discuss such things with the girls; it just came out. The conversation was in German and I tuned out most of the time, only I kept hearing “maenner” (which means men in German) repeated again and again and again, plus the questions trying to pigeon hole men’s behavior and I just gave vent to my frustration, a) because not all men are the same as each other and b) because I know that attempting to make reality fit our generalizations, assumptions and prejudices just leads to more perplexity.
As for the other possible subtexts of the situation, I really wouldn’t like to give an opinion. I’m not so good at dealing with indirect meaning.
#5 - Permalink Bart August 7th, 2008 at 5:58 pmNick,
You’ve opened up a huge can of worms here. I agree with you, there is a lot of evolutionary psychology going on here. Making snap judgments about men is very important on a biological level.
However, I think you’ve missed some subtle sexual-psychology at play in this particular example. Who’s reality is stronger - the woman’s stereotype or the man’s individual character and ability to convey it? The stronger mental frame wins and people sucked into the frame fall in line and often DO act like we expect - due to our potent expectations.
Also, women generally believe they are the choosers or the “prize” in the dating realm. Guys approach and pursue them constantly and they need to screen out the majority of applicants. It’s not just a precision thing - it’s clever time management.
#6 - Permalink ellen August 7th, 2008 at 8:40 pmI didn’t mean to stir up the can of worms and I’m certainly not qualified to criticise anyone else’s interaction in the man/woman game so I apologise if it came across that way.
The whole thing used to irritate, bore and confuse me and I was glad to leave it behind. I did figure out though that to participate in the game at all I had to at least attempt to play by the conventional rules of engagement. (A sort of jokey, light-hearted tentative dance, feeling out the ground and each other, lots of exits left open for a quick getaway) Most women appreciate a man who can laugh at himself and who can make them laugh.
I find this stuff, e.g. General Semantics, very interesting but I rarely find anyone else (man or woman) interested in it and it doesn’t make for good casual conversation, people find it abstruse and a bit scary. When I do bring it up its in passing or in a jokey fashion because otherwise I generally get one of two reactions, the eyes glaze over or it is perceived as a threat, a power play perhaps as in ‘ellen is bludgeoning me with her greater knowledge in an effort to be superior’–not quite what I want in a casual conversation.
I find it helps me to be clear to myself on my motives in any interaction—if I know what I want at the outset then I tend not to concern myself too much with the other party’s
manouverings.
#7 - Permalink ellen August 7th, 2008 at 9:03 pmSorry, I seem to have taken the discussion off on a tangent, the point I wanted to make was that context is quite important to establish when deciding at what level to pitch the communication. To be effective the communication level has to be comfortable and engaging for both parties which demands some flexibilty.
#8 - Permalink admin August 7th, 2008 at 10:40 pmHmmm, all very interesting comments, however, my message for this article was two-fold. The first was to come up with a reason for why people adopt thinking, and hence behaviors, that often create more problems than they solve. To me, that seems a little insane and so I was attempting to justify the behavior by seeing it as a survival tactic. From that perspective, I could see how it might make a lot of sense.
Secondly, I wanted to show that even though generalizations might prove very useful for many situations, it is important to recognize when holding onto them creates far more problems than solutions.
Precision in the way that we describe our reality to ourselves is vital for robust mental health. When we adapt ourselves to reality and accept things as they are and not as we would like them to be, then we remove the confusion from our lives that can come from attempting to make reality fit our personal mental maps of the world. Those mental maps are often inaccurate and, in this example, perpetually seeking to find the one generalization that fits for all occasions, when such a thing probably doesn’t exist, just creates more confusion and misunderstanding.
#9 - Permalink ellen August 8th, 2008 at 9:20 amAgreed. A confusion that has plagued me until quite recently is the ’survival’ notion.
My whole life has been about ’survival’ and it wasn’t until I examined this notion in great and painful depth that any clarity came.
Survival is fundamentally about physical continuity, the survival of the body. The innate responses of the body do not care about the theories in my head and can adequately handle the survival issue with the very basic patterns laid down years ago.
I came to realise that the bit I call me, my identity, personality, character, is formed by the conclusions and beliefs I have accumulated over the years and the need ‘to be right’ which my mind previously mistakenly labelled ’survival’ is about the intact continuation of that mental construct, i.e. ‘me’- which is an abstraction- rather than any real issue of physical survival.
Once that was clarified, assumptions, beliefs, models and conclusions become temporary and disposable vehicles for better understanding of ‘the world out there’ rather than intrinsic building blocks of the bit I call ‘me’–which does not exist in any concrete sense.
I wouldn’t attempt to try to explain this in any context other than one in which the other party had expressed a real and deep interest in the subject.
#10 - Permalink Nick Pagan August 8th, 2008 at 10:49 amIt seems that we are quite like-minded in this respect. I found General Semantics a vital piece of the puzzle on my journey to understanding how the mind works. It wasn’t until I figured out the desire-emotion-response mechanism and decided to make survival instincts the default response that I really got to grips with the issue.
I think of this blog as a productivity blog, but paramount to getting anything done is to set possible objectives and to feel good most of the time so that you actually want to carry those objectives out. That’s why I write about these psychological issues in the blog too.
#11 - Permalink ellen August 8th, 2008 at 4:01 pmI have to say that this clarity has been of enormous benefit to me but I think it is only possible now because of my age. Previously, biological imperatives for physical survival and reproduction would simply override all my best laid plans, my mistaken notion of ‘identity survival’ added to the confusion. We are culturally encouraged also to indulge our emotions to the detriment of focused concentration, mental discipline is rarely taught. The emotional dramas we all concoct as our life stories seem to grow out of boredom as distraction and entertainment.
My current understanding seems to have taken care of a lot of that as well as all of the fears (with the exception of the fight/flight stuff) surrounding being in the world and risk is no longer an issue at all.
Well worth the effort.