I think this is a big reason STEM guys are predisposed to be extremely bad with women. They (we TBH) live in a logically-scaffolded world where words, phrases and ideas have very concrete and stable meanings from day to day and environment to environment. It seems that is just not at all the way most women's worlds work, and we resent the guys who are good with women because we see them as having no cognitive integrity, having nothing of which we value. It's also a reason Game can be so dramatically effective for STEM-type guys - once you make them realize how different it is, and train them to swim in that emotional swamp, they can become very good at it because they are by definition very skilled and disciplined.The key phrase is "nothing of which we value". Despite the differing contexts, this is no different than the mistake that the Marxians make with the labor theory of value. All value is subjective. This is both a logically deduced and empirically observed fact.
Women don't value cognitive integrity. Nor do most men. So, it is not only self-defeating, it is illogical to behave in a manner assuming they do. (See what I did there, STEM guy? Stings a little, doesn't it. BAZINGA!) The point is that it is not only a complete waste of time to expect women to appreciate cognitive integrity, let alone be attracted to it, it is foolish to expect it from them.
Furthermore, and this is vital, their perspective is entirely legitimate in terms of human action. Moral integrity is a moral issue, cognitive integrity is not. While one may wish to utilize cognitive integrity as a display of dominance, (after all, it is child's play to make someone look a fool when they are willing to openly contradict themselves on the basis of their current emotional state), one should not feel bound to it when communicating with anyone, male or female, who neither respects nor values it.