Friday, August 31, 2012

Science names the Hamster

"Reverse Frontostriatal Connectivity" is the neurobiological term for the Rationalization Hamster:
Women and men differed in the brain mechanisms that enabled self-controlled decisions. During self-control men showed a stronger decrease in some limbic regions than women. An increased frontostriatal coupling helped men to control immediate reward desiring. Women showed the reverse frontostriatal connectivity during a ‘desire-reason dilemma’.
Translation: Men use reason to override their feelings. Women use feelings to override their reason.

This would help expain why it is difficult to utilize logic to convince a woman of anything. The more you succeed in convincing her, the more she will be inclined to amp up her feelings in order to counteract that success. Applying logic to the science, this suggests a more successful strategy would be to simply skip the logical process entirely and go straight to making an appeal to her emotions.

Sound familiar?


swiftfoxmark2 said...


Zbignu said...

And yet we let them vote. No wonder we're doomed.

Cail Corishev said...

Another translation: "Men sometimes use reason to override their feelings. Women don't."

There have been studies of people who have no emotions due to brain damage, and they have very little ability to make decisions at all. They'll go around and around about small things like what to have for lunch, presumably because there's no logical "best" choice. The common conclusion was that we tend to make decisions with our emotions and then use reason to rationalize them. But there's another possibility: that we use emotions as a tie-breaker when reason doesn't produce a quick winner. This study might indicate that women do the former, while men do the latter.

Daniel said...

Aw crap. Science just proved Game. That must mean Game is wrong.

VD said...

Science just proved Game. That must mean Game is wrong.

I think we're still potentially okay until the federal government declares that Game exists.

Trust said...

Science is usually okay when it tries to prove the observable. Earth is a sphere orbiting around the sun, mammals need water and oxygen, women have hamsters, etc.

It is when then try to prove unobservable theories based on faith in their.leftist religion that they stumble. Big bang, no God, gay gene, female as more compassionate, etc. With evolution they absolutely succeed at making monkeys of themselves.

rycamor said...

Funny how as youths we deride things said by stuffy old men, only to see them validated in force. My high school principal at a conservative Christian school once said (to a boys-only assembly), "Men use emotion to punctuate their logic, while women use logic to punctuate their emotions."

Which is why a very common pattern when men and women argue is for the man to get less in command of his arguing skills as the emotion ramps up, ending in sputtering rage, while a women actually gets better command of hers.

Stickwick said...

And that its appointing a task force to figure out how to distribute it more equitably amongst the Game-disadvantaged.

Michael Maier said...

Damn... I've known for some time I need to get over my instinct to PROVE I'm right with women... this just puts an exclamation point on that idea.

Or at least make me work differently to convince their heart beforehand. Which should have its own benefits.

If I'd just apply my brain to this more, I could probably become scary good at getting into womens' heads.

Michael Maier said...

And THAT is why I love this place.

Daniel said...

The only point to get inside women's heads is to take a jaunty excursion across a bizarre emotional landscape. Sort of a fun ride, but don't expect some logical results at the end of it.

You can't "convince" a heart. You can only hope to make a heart feel good about where you are going.

Unknown said...

I suspect we're dealing with Pareto's Law here, which means it's okay for 20% of women to vote.

For that matter only 20% of men should be allowed to vote.

Actually it'd probably be best if I was Benign Dictator. I'd settle for King, though.

Giraffe said...

And that its appointing a task force to figure out how to distribute it more equitably amongst the Game-disadvantaged.

Of course they are going to educate teh womyn's to understand game in order to resist it. Nobody cares about the gammas.

MendoScot said...

Vox, did you come across this yourself? The reason I ask is that the time stamp is prior to my post on the Free society or political equality thread and Brain Research isn't exactly a high profile journal.

MendoScot said...

Looks like different time stamps - but I'm still curious.

enna said...

I suspect we're dealing with Pareto's Law here, which means it's okay for 20% of women to vote.

Some of us do our best to override the hamster. I tend to end up in a state where I'm emotionally attached to one decision, but force myself take the other, logical decision. It's like fighting my own brain.

Athol Kay said...


RC said...

Diekhof and Gruber performed a similar experiment, published in 2010, with both males and females but didn't break out the results with that in mind. I'm supposing that they discovered the difference in the raw data and then set out with the next series of experiments, possibly letting the evidence drive the conclusions. If so, +1 to them. Search "desire-reason dilemma" if you're interested. The full published article from 2010 is available on-line for free.

Joe Blow said...

Or as I paraphrase my wife's arguments, "Your puny human reasoning does not work here, mortal."

Aeoli Pera said...

Just so I'm clear on this, the proper way to resolve an argument with a woman is to give off the right vibes?

So here is Paul Ekman's list of emotions, insofar as I could glean from wikipedia:

Pride In Achievement
Sensory Pleasure

Say a woman is starting to rant. Presuming you make eye contact to engage her empathy circuits, which of these vibes are okay to give off?

I assume amusement is safe in many circumstances

JCclimber said...

Brilliant. Teaching that one to my 6 year old son.

Daniel said...

Not really. The proper way to resolve an argument with a woman is to make certain she isn't included in it. If dispute must happen, then the key is to determine what emotional salve will produce the most security in her.

For example: if the argument is that you don't care about the kids homework, she might be feeling that a) you haven't been paying attention to her feelings lately b) you aren't capable of protecting your children or c) she has to do everything outside of work and you don't appreciate her burden.

So, same argument, different vibe, depending on where she is in the emotional landscape. For a) the vibe should absolutely NOT be amusement, but a sober guilt. For b) the vibe should be rage against her in a demonstration of savage anger that shows her you are a violent man who can defend his own. For c) the vibe needs to be a sad and gentle reassurance that you think she's the most amazing woman in the world.

Problem: her alphabet goes past z, and you don't stand a freaking chance of "picking up" on enough clues to select the proper vibe from the menu. You'll end up in vibe wars, randomly tossing out emotions until you end up having some of your own that will most assuredly not match her meter.

Solution: stop worrying about vibes. Be reserved and thoughtful in your interactions, and always have your mind on where you'd like to lead things. Follow your own personal mission and vision for the family, especially when she doubts or questions it. If you are consistently following it, the other stuff will fall in place.

Do not play the vibe game: you aren't a girl and she will beat you like a very pretty drum with one emotional randomizer tied behind her back. It is important to treat her emotions as mostly irrelevant to reality, at least when it comes to arguments.

VD said...

No, I looked up the link you provided at VP.

SarahsDaughter said...

^ "How do you write women so well?"
"I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability." - Melvin Udall

MendoScot said...

Gut. Just to set my threshold for what I send or post. As RC points out below, there is a huge amount of stuff out there. I go through it professionally, but I don't want to clog up the arteries, as it were.

Anonymous said...

Down, brain! Bad brain! Bad, bad!

The novel "Jane Eyre" depicts Jane's agonizing struggle of reason versus passion. Yes, agonizing. Best battle w/ the hamster ever! Guess that's why we all love plain Jane.

Unknown said...

"Which is why a very common pattern when men and women argue is for the man to get less in command of his arguing skills as the emotion ramps up, ending in sputtering rage, while a women actually gets better command of hers."

I dunno. Women get hysterical pretty quickly in an argument, which means they make very little sense. I'm pretty sure that's why St. Paul said women couldn't speak in church, which means not speak in public. Look at any female Democrat or especially leftist academic.

Aeoli Pera said...

That's way easier!

(I've tried reasoning with these strange creatures, and you can probably guess how well that's worked.)

I should mention I'm not asking from interest in relationship Game. I'm more interested in surviving my workplace, where most of the management is female (disparate impact!), and navigating encounters with my family.

Any differences?

Aeoli Pera said...


Speaking of hamsters, I saw that the urban dictionary has a couple of good definitions for special snowflake. I suggest putting the term in the Voxicon.

Here's a modified version you might want to use:

Snowflake: A person who is so unique and special that they can't be categorized, particularly if the category reflects poorly on them. They are similarly hostile to objective metrics and data, which can't possibly capture their unique experiences, circumstances, and certainly don't cater to their grandiose self-conceptions.

Here's an example of myself snowflaking, though you can probably find more entertaining examples:

I scored a 28 on the ACT (possibly a lowball: my psychiatrist estimated my IQ to be in the 99th percentile)...

-A delusional person on the internet

Here's the urban dictionary's version:

2. special snowflake

A problem person. A person who thinks they are unique, different and therefor more special that everyone else. Derived from too many parents telling their kids they are "special," like a "snowflake." Typically used by used by those in the customer service or retail industry to refer to bad customers.
That lady was a special snowflake, in a blizzard of other special snowflakes; shes unique, just like everyone else.

3. Special Snowflake
Often found on popular internet forums as an option to a poll, the "Snowflake" option refers to individuals whose answers, experiences, and opinions are as unique as a snowflake, and therefore cannot be categorized into one of the regular poll options.

Can also appear as just "snowflake."

Have you ever stolen from the grocery store?

a. Yes
b. No
c. I'm a Special Snowflake

Aeoli Pera said...

If I still have your attention, I'd like to say I'm sorry for being an asshole here.

I wanted to justify the end with the means. Ii was retarded.

I'd like your forgiveness, even though I know you won't forget.

LP2021 Bank of LP Work in Progress said...

I hope this leads to more interesting findings about the eveh over-thinking wildly spinning hamster!

rycamor said...

I didn't say they make sense. I just meant that they are in control of their argument skills, knowing how to choose biting words and phrases, and diverting the argument down multiple channels to derail the man's thinking. It's the use of superficial logic simply in support of their emotions, rather than in discovery of truth.

One can build a completely logical sentence structure, but it is nonsense if it builds upon false premises.

Lucas said...

"I think we're still potentially okay until the federal government declares that Game exists."

Or until women admit that game works.

Anonymous said...

Wow.. this is very enlightening to find out exactly what men think about women. Seems to me the only thing women have of any value to a man is ultimately her womb. So instead of dating and implying that you are interested in the woman and eventually having a relationship because you want children, maybe men should be more truthful with their view of the woman and her place in the world and offer to hire her womb for 9 months.

Anonymous said...

They already do that but nobody would pay for that length of time at $100 an hour.

Anonymous said...

No they hire a pussy.. and you guys have determined that that's worth $100 hr. Imagine the price a woman will put on her womb to grow your 'seed' when you can't?! You guys have created this for yourselves by your superior attitudes. Men have determined the woman's worth... unfortunately men give sluts more value than their own partners. Sorry guys you get what you give.

Anonymous said...

It's awesome to pay a quick visit this website and reading the views of all mates concerning this paragraph, while I am also zealous of getting know-how.

Here is my blog post :: Patricia Meske

Post a Comment