Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science

You know, it’s common knowledge that women communicate in a language with semantics unavailable to men, and that the female mind is impenetrable to man. But it is not common knowledge that Did you ever notice that when a woman talks to a man she has to change her language? I don’t know if they consider it dumbing down, but they speak like they do Did you ever notice that when a man talks to a woman he interprets it as ‘dumbing down’? Did you ever notice that when a man walks into a room of women talking, they immediately change body language, behavior, and speech? Did you ever notice that when a woman walks into a room of men talking they immediately change their body language, behavior and speech? Always and everywhere. Despite a relationship with what I consider one of the smarter or smartest women in technology, I have never met a woman I could talk to who possessed the what I would call the spatial-theoretical (predictive or modeling) capacity of man. I have met gay men who can largely interpret the language of women. And sometimes I think gay men have the advantage if they have the intelligence, of understanding both sides, and gay women understanding neither. The only way I know how to test this is interpersonally by continuously expanding the scope of an idea that the person is familiar with to their limits. Men have much higher limits – OR they are unafraid to transgress their limits. I am not sure which, but I think that might be the answer, and I have no way of testing that – although it should be testable. We are both ignorant of the minds of the others. Women are shallower than the aspie men, and aspies tend to be nearly unlimited theoretically, and I am relatively sure that the same cognition that prevents women from violating NAXALT and violating groupthink, keeps them out of theory. Which is why women contribute almost nothing to theory that is true (feminism is a great example) but that women DO produce empirical work of high quality – especially about humans or the physical world. In other words, women are limited at great scale by their integration. And we are limited at local scale by our lack of it.

You know, it’s common knowledge that women communicate in a language with semantics unavailable to men, and that the female mind is impenetrable to man. But it is not common knowledge that Did you ever notice that when a woman talks to a man she has to change her language? I don’t know if they consider it dumbing down, but they speak like they do Did you ever notice that when a man talks to a woman he interprets it as ‘dumbing down’? Did you ever notice that when a man walks into a room of women talking, they immediately change body language, behavior, and speech? Did you ever notice that when a woman walks into a room of men talking they immediately change their body language, behavior and speech? Always and everywhere. Despite a relationship with what I consider one of the smarter or smartest women in technology, I have never met a woman I could talk to who possessed the what I would call the spatial-theoretical (predictive or modeling) capacity of man. I have met gay men who can largely interpret the language of women. And sometimes I think gay men have the advantage if they have the intelligence, of understanding both sides, and gay women understanding neither. The only way I know how to test this is interpersonally by continuously expanding the scope of an idea that the person is familiar with to their limits. Men have much higher limits – OR they are unafraid to transgress their limits. I am not sure which, but I think that might be the answer, and I have no way of testing that – although it should be testable. We are both ignorant of the minds of the others. Women are shallower than the aspie men, and aspies tend to be nearly unlimited theoretically, and I am relatively sure that the same cognition that prevents women from violating NAXALT and violating groupthink, keeps them out of theory. Which is why women contribute almost nothing to theory that is true (feminism is a great example) but that women DO produce empirical work of high quality – especially about humans or the physical world. In other words, women are limited at great scale by their integration. And we are limited at local scale by our lack of it.