Why women are so extremely emotional?

[Linker]

Every time I'm asking, why almost every woman have almost no mental srengths; they have big problems to be courageous, there are almost no women in military institutions, almost no female Heavy Metal bands, etc. Moreover, women compared with men are physically weak.

I have set my thoughts here: http://linkerdynamics.wordpress.com/2014/05/09/why-men-are-the-better-soldiers-and-women-are-the-better-nurturers/

 

But now I offer my question: What are the molecular, not evolutionary reasons for that women feel fear more intense or why there is a "Tend or be friend" syndrome in women when they are under stress?

I search for answers for example like this: "Women feel fear more intense because they have statistically more genes that are coding for enzymes that set the brain structure so that there is more activity in Amygdala. Furthermore because they have less testosterone and more estrogen the stress reaction is regulated in that way that there is released more oxytocin; Oxytocin regulate that genes that are required for social interactions, crying with tears, etc..."

 

[dimreepr]

Really: what makes you think emotional intelligence is so much less important?

[Linker]

I think that women are very sensitive with their emotions, because I have seen and heard it very often.

[Prometheus]

Do you have you any evidence the premise is true (not anecdote)?

 

Assuming it is true, why do you assume it's an innate behaviour rather than a learnt one?

[Arete]

I think that women are very sensitive with their emotions, because I have seen and heard it very often.

 

Your personal experiences are anecdotes, influenced by your personal biases. Do you have any actual evidence - as in a quantifiable measure of differential emotional response to stimuli?

 

Searching for a molecular mechanism for a trait is; a) intrinsically linked to the evolutionary processes by which the trait came about, and b) reliant on the trait being objectively quantifiable.

 

Neglecting evolution and simply assuming the trait is there due to anecdotal experience is unlikely to yield a sensible explanation.

Edited May 9, 2014 by Arete

[Linker]

I think so:

1 year old girls are more fear sensitive then 1 year old boys (Literary source: Pink brain, blue brain - Author: Lise Elliot). Lise Elliot thinks that the sex differences in fear and risk taking bases on neuronal activity differences in male and female brains. Women percept fear with the right half of the Amygdala (the brain region for emotions), men percept fear with the left half of the Amygdala. So, when projecting these research facts on everyday life, right Amygdala has the neural circuits for the "Tend and be friend" syndrome.

Moreover, there are not so much social influences that make women less riskier and more emotional. Only the parents that trust more in physical abilities of boys rather than girls or some informations from the environment.

In my eyes it seems that women are generally weak. The case that any woman is interested in a military job is very rare. "The more testosterone a person has, the more it is interested in a military job", so I can think.

 

What are the biochemical reactions for a stress reaction that is affected by testosterone/estrogen? Are there any biochemical evidence that women are more emotional and what are the molecular mechanisms?

 

[Dekan]

Linker, what you say may be true, but it's not "politically correct". Therefore it will be rejected.

[CharonY]

I think so:

1 year old girls are more fear sensitive then 1 year old boys (Literary source: Pink brain, blue brain - Author: Lise Elliot). Lise Elliot thinks that the sex differences in fear and risk taking bases on neuronal activity differences in male and female brains.

 

That is quite interesting, considering that apparently the author thinks differently.

 

To quote from the book blurb:

 

In the past decade, we've come to accept certain ideas about the differences between males and females—that boys can't focus in a classroom, for instance, and that girls are obsessed with relationships. In Pink Brain, Blue Brain, neuroscientist Lise Eliot turns that thinking on its head. Calling on years of exhaustive research and her own work in the field of neuroplasticity, Eliot argues that infant brains are so malleable that small differences at birth become amplified over time, as parents and teachers—and the culture at large—unwittingly reinforce gender stereotypes. Children themselves intensify the differences by playing to their modest strengths. They constantly exercise those “ball-throwing” or “doll-cuddling” circuits, rarely straying from their comfort zones. But this, says Eliot, is just what they need to do, and she offers parents and teachers concrete ways to help. Boys are not, in fact, “better at math” but at certain kinds of spatial reasoning. Girls are not naturally more empathetic; they’re allowed to express their feelings. By appreciating how sex differences emerge—rather than assuming them to be fixed biological facts—we can help all children reach their fullest potential, close the troubling gaps between boys and girls, and ultimately end the gender wars that currently divide us

 

Assuming you read the book (which does not appear to be the case) you have come to quite a different conclusion than the author herself. In various interview she reinforced her finding that current literature does in fact no support substantial differences between genders at birth. Hormones and other developmental factors do form a bias, but only through cultural and social shaping do these emerge in the differences that we perceive later on. In other words, her main thesis that society shapes and forms gender differences.

 

One cited examples was a lab study in which 11-month olds crawled over a carpeted slope and the moms could change the angle of the slope. Both genders were equally good at crawling, but the mothers consistently overestimated the boy's ability, while underestimating the girl's.

 

Or to summarize, read what is written, not what you think is written.

[Dekan]

Or, read the evidence of your own eyes, instead of swallowing media-guff?

[Prometheus]

You mean to say you rate anecdote higher than peer-reviewed research?

[Acme]

Every time I'm asking, why almost every woman have almost no mental srengths; they have big problems to be courageous, there are almost no women in military institutions, almost no female Heavy Metal bands, etc. Moreover, women compared with men are physically weak. ...

...In my eyes it seems that women are generally weak. The case that any woman is interested in a military job is very rare. "The more testosterone a person has, the more it is interested in a military job", so I can think.

 

What are the biochemical reactions for a stress reaction that is affected by testosterone/estrogen? Are there any biochemical evidence that women are more emotional and what are the molecular mechanisms?.

Women's Strength: The Myths That Shrink Us

 

NYC psychotherapist Colette Dowling, LMSW, author of the following article on women's strength, has written eight books on women's psychological issues, including The Cinderella Complex: Women's Hidden Fear of Independence, which was published in 23 languages.

 

Women's strength has been historically underestimated. Myths about physical weakness have affected what women can do in many areas of life.

...

While many men have more lean muscle mass than many women--due, in part, to their having more testosterone--women actually have some physical advantages over men. In part these are due to greater supplies of estrogen. Recent studies suggest that estrogen buffers women against muscle soreness after exercise. Such soreness is the result of micro-tears in muscle tissue. Male rats show much more muscle damage, post-exercise, than female rats. "Estrogen seems to explain the difference," says exercise physioloigist Priscilla Clarkson. When male rats were given estrogen they sustained less muscle damage. Estrogen may do its good work by stabilzing muscle membranes, protecting them from tearing.

...

The precious "sex hormones" affect far more than women's strength. For example, research indicates that testosterone increases spatial ability in women but inhibits it in men. A fascinating study published in Perceptual Motor Skills tested spatial abilities (visualization and orientation) in 150 men and 150 women collegiate athletes in different varsity sports. Across the board, women scored significantly higher than men in their ability to visualize and orient, but in basketball their superior spatial capacities were off the charts.

...

Today, women are coming to see that fear of physical risk-taking is the only thing holding them back, athletically.

...

More...

 

Gender differences in strength and muscle fiber characteristics: US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health

 

Abstract

Strength and muscle characteristics were examined in biceps brachii and vastus lateralis of eight men and eight women. Measurements included motor unit number, size and activation and voluntary strength of the elbow flexors and knee extensors. Fiber areas and type were determined from needle biopsies and muscle areas by computerized tomographical scanning.

...

The greater gender difference in upper body strength can probably be attributed to the fact that women tend to have a lower proportion of their lean tissue distributed in the upper body.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

[Dekan]

You mean to say you rate anecdote higher than peer-reviewed research?

 

If Galileo, Newton and Darwin had been subjected to "peer-reviewed" research, would they have got anything published?

[Delta1212]

 

If Galileo, Newton and Darwin had been subjected to "peer-reviewed" research, would they have got anything published?

Almost certainly. That's a bit of a non-sequitur, though.

[Dekan]

Note that no women were involved.

[Prometheus]

 

If Galileo, Newton and Darwin had been subjected to "peer-reviewed" research, would they have got anything published?

 

You didn't answer the question, unless i am to take it you mean you do rate anecdote higher than peer review.

 

All the scientists you name were subject to peer review anyway, just not todays format, but their peers certainly weighed in.

 

Anyway, shall we not hijack the thread any further with this.

[Dekan]

OK, let's get on denying the obvious, that Science is not a woman's thing,

[Acme]

To name just a few.

 

Historical Women in Science

 

Before 1600

Hypatia (370-415)

Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179)

 

1600-1800

Maria Sibylla Merian (1647-1717)

 

1800-1900

Maria Mitchell (1818-1889)

Florence Nightingale (1820-1910)

Clara Barton (1821-1912)

Elizabeth Blackwell (1821-1910)

Ellen Richards (1842-1911)

Marie Curie (1867-1934)

Alice Hamilton (1869-1970)

Florence Sabin (1871-1953)

Lise Meitner (1878-1968)

Margaret Sanger (1879-1966)

Karen Horney (1885-1952)

 

1900-present

Margaret Mead (1901-1978)

Barbara McClintock (1902-1992)

Grace Hopper (1906-1992)

Rachel Carson (1907-1964)

Myra Adele Logan (1908-1977)

Joy Adamson (1910-1980)

Chien Shiung Wu (1912-1997)

Mary Leakey (1913-1996)

Dixie Lee Ray (1914-1994)

Gertrude Belle Elion (1918-1999)

Elisabeth Kubler-Ross (1926- )

Jane Goodall (1934- )

Antonia Novello (1944- )

Sally Ride (1951- )

[CharonY]

Or look at department websites. Or maybe one should just ignore the troll.

[Dekan]

Hm, Acme's list includes the name "Florence Nightingale". Was she a scientist?

[Acme]

Hm, Acme's list includes the name "Florence Nightingale". Was she a scientist?

Hmmm...yes she was. Did you bother to look? Hm...no you didn't.

 

Source

 

Statistics and sanitary reform

 

Florence Nightingale exhibited a gift for mathematics from an early age and excelled in the subject under the tutorship of her father. Later, Nightingale became a pioneer in the visual presentation of information and statistical graphics.[33] She used methods such as the pie chart, which had first been developed by William Playfair in 1801. While taken for granted now, it was at the time a relatively novel method of presenting data.[34]

 

Indeed, Nightingale is described as "a true pioneer in the graphical representation of statistics", and is credited with developing a form of the pie chart now known as the polar area diagram,[35] or occasionally the Nightingale rose diagram, equivalent to a modern circular histogram, to illustrate seasonal sources of patient mortality in the military field hospital she managed. Nightingale called a compilation of such diagrams a "coxcomb", but later that term would frequently be used for the individual diagrams. She made extensive use of coxcombs to present reports on the nature and magnitude of the conditions of medical care in the Crimean War to Members of Parliament and civil servants who would have been unlikely to read or understand traditional statistical reports.

In her later life, Nightingale made a comprehensive statistical study of sanitation in Indian rural life and was the leading figure in the introduction of improved medical care and public health service in India. In 1858 and 1859, she successfully lobbied for the establishment of a Royal Commission into the Indian situation. Two years later, she provided a report to the commission, which completed its own study in 1863. "After 10 years of sanitary reform, in 1873, Nightingale reported that mortality among the soldiers in India had declined from 69 to 18 per 1,000".[35]

 

In 1859, Nightingale was elected the first female member of the Royal Statistical Society. She later became an honorary member of the American Statistical Association. ...

[CharonY]

Yes, she was (among other things) a statistician. Also she was the first woman to become member of the Royal Statistical Society.

 

 

Edit: Crossposted.

Edited May 9, 2014 by CharonY

[Dekan]

Well, it shows women can be good at statistics and sanitary reform, at least.

[Acme]

Well, it shows women can be good at statistics and sanitary reform, at least.

And you show that sexism is intransigent in some men. As a form of prejudice, it is also against forum rules.

 

As to the original poster's uninformed view

...almost every woman have almost no mental srengths...

I have another more generalized link.

 

Women in science

Women have made contributions to science from the earliest times. Historians with an interest in gender and science have illuminated the scientific endeavors and accomplishments of women, the barriers they have faced, and the strategies implemented to have their work peer-reviewed and accepted. The historical, critical and sociological study of these issues has become an academic discipline in its own right. ...

Contents [hide]

1 History 1.1 Ancient history

1.2 Medieval Europe

1.3 Scientific Revolution (16th, 17th centuries)

1.4 18th century

1.5 Early 19th century

1.6 Late 19th century in Europe

1.7 Late 19th century in the United States

1.8 Early 20th century 1.8.1 Europe before World War II

1.8.2 United States before World War II

 

1.9 Later 20th century 1.9.1 Europe after World War II

1.9.2 United States after World War II

1.9.3 Australia after World War II

1.9.4 Israel after World War II

 

 

2 Nobel laureates 2.1 Physics

2.2 Chemistry

2.3 Physiology or Medicine

 

3 Statistics

4 Social, historical, and critical studies 4.1 Social effects

4.2 Science and gender

4.3 Margaret W. Rossiter

4.4 Media coverage

 

5 Efforts to increase representation

6 Recent controversies

7 See also

8 References

9 Further reading

10 External links

Edited May 9, 2014 by Acme

[CharonY]

 

And you show that sexism is intransigent in some men. As a form of prejudice, it is also against forum rules.

 

Just imagine that these people have children (*shudder*). Guess how much they will encourage their daughters to pursue a science career.

[Acme]

Just imagine that these people have children (*shudder*). Guess how much they will encourage their daughters to pursue a science career.

Therein lies the reason to speak up loud & strong when confronted with those ready & willing to perpetuate such stereotypes. We can also take some hope in the fact that children rebel and that the broad availability to educational resources outside that of parents is present and growing. The recent kidnappings in Nigeria of schoolgirls is certainly an extreme example of the kind of prejudice we see in this thread, but it is in every way encouraged by it.

 

Returning to a vein of positivity & hope, here's a quote from that last reference that I gave.

...

Efforts to increase representation [of women in science]

 

A number of organizations have been set up to combat the stereotyping that may encourage girls away from careers in these areas. In the UK The WISE Campaign (Women into Science, Engineering and Construction) and the UKRC (The UK Resource Centre for Women in SET) are collaborating to ensure industry, academia and education are all aware of the importance of challenging the traditional approaches to careers advice and recruitment that mean some of the best brains in the country are lost to science. The UKRC and other women's networks provide female role models, resources and support for activities that promote science to girls and women. One of the largest membership groups in the UK is Women's Engineering Society which has been supporting women in engineering and science since 1919. In the specific field of computing, the British Computer Society specialist group BCSWomen is active in encouraging girls to consider computing careers, and in supporting women in the computing workforce.

 

In the United States, there are numerous national organizations that attempt to address the needs of women in science at all levels. The Association for Women in Science is one of the most prominent organization for professional women in science. In 2011, The Scientista Foundation was created to empower pre-professional college and graduate women in STEM to stay in the career track. There are also several organizations focused on increasing mentorship. One of the best known groups is Science Club for Girls, which pairs undergraduate mentors with high school and middle school mentees. In 2013, the Grolier Club in New York hosted a "landmark exhibition" titled "Extraordinary Women in Science & Medicine: Four Centuries of Achievement", showcasing the lives and works of 32 women scientists.[70]

 

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) developed a "Women in Science" video series highlighting the stories of female researchers at NIOSH. Each of the women featured in the videos share their journey into science, technology, engineering, or math (STEM), and offers encouragement to aspiring scientists.[71] NIOSH also partners with external organizations in efforts to introduce individuals to scientific disciplines and funds several science-based training programs across the country.[72][73]

...

source