Comments on: Men Chatty as Women | Avoid Sloppy Thinking | Facebook Snubbing http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/07/men-chatty-as-women-avoid-sloppy.php Understand your mind with the science of psychology - Mon, 04 May 2009 10:30:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Jeremy (PsyBlog author) http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/07/men-chatty-as-women-avoid-sloppy.php/comment-page-1#comment-20148 Jeremy (PsyBlog author) Wed, 11 Jul 2007 07:46:00 +0000 http://spring.org.uk/2007/07/men-chatty-as-women-avoid-sloppy-thinking-facebook-snubbing.php#comment-20148 Dr G, yes, it's about getting off thinking autopilot sometimes.<br /><br />Will, I take your point about Brizendine's work! <br /><br />As for social networking, you're definitely making me a little more optimistic. The problem is then I have to really get on one of these networks and put my mouse where my mouth is (if you see what I mean). My excuse has been so far that I've already got a blog...perhaps that's not enough? Dr G, yes, it's about getting off thinking autopilot sometimes.

Will, I take your point about Brizendine's work!

As for social networking, you're definitely making me a little more optimistic. The problem is then I have to really get on one of these networks and put my mouse where my mouth is (if you see what I mean). My excuse has been so far that I've already got a blog...perhaps that's not enough?

]]> By: Will http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/07/men-chatty-as-women-avoid-sloppy.php/comment-page-1#comment-20138 Will Sun, 08 Jul 2007 13:38:00 +0000 http://spring.org.uk/2007/07/men-chatty-as-women-avoid-sloppy-thinking-facebook-snubbing.php#comment-20138 Jeremy, I don't mean to nitpick, but I find your use of the term "research" to describe Brizendine's work a little odd. In this Language Log post, Mark pretty thoroughly demolishes any illusion that any real research went into that statement, demonstrating that the references do not back up her point as she claims.<br /><br />I'm inclined to agree with dr. grumpus. The proliferation of urban legends, hoaxes, and just-plain-silly chain letters demonstrates this tendency. One critical aspect of our modern world is being able to recognize when we are engaging in social thinking with anonymous sources, as we do so often online. We need critical faculties to evaluate the true source of a message and the trustworthiness of that source. One problem is being able to do that in less time than it took Golding to realize his teachers were frauds.<br /><br />As far as social networking, this may be slightly OT, but I think it bears a lot more watching and I wouldn't mind seeing more research. Not to sound overly excited, but I get the impression that a lot of (especially young) people are using these services to eliminate geographical barriers in their social circles. I think it's just the beginning, and these are fairly primitive and buggy implementations, but that as time progresses we will see increasing sophistication and social networking software will actually become a powerful tool for social interaction across boundaries. Of course, at the same time, they will be used for silliness, stalking, and advertising too, but all powerful communication media will be so abused. Jeremy, I don't mean to nitpick, but I find your use of the term "research" to describe Brizendine's work a little odd. In this Language Log post, Mark pretty thoroughly demolishes any illusion that any real research went into that statement, demonstrating that the references do not back up her point as she claims.

I'm inclined to agree with dr. grumpus. The proliferation of urban legends, hoaxes, and just-plain-silly chain letters demonstrates this tendency. One critical aspect of our modern world is being able to recognize when we are engaging in social thinking with anonymous sources, as we do so often online. We need critical faculties to evaluate the true source of a message and the trustworthiness of that source. One problem is being able to do that in less time than it took Golding to realize his teachers were frauds.

As far as social networking, this may be slightly OT, but I think it bears a lot more watching and I wouldn't mind seeing more research. Not to sound overly excited, but I get the impression that a lot of (especially young) people are using these services to eliminate geographical barriers in their social circles. I think it's just the beginning, and these are fairly primitive and buggy implementations, but that as time progresses we will see increasing sophistication and social networking software will actually become a powerful tool for social interaction across boundaries. Of course, at the same time, they will be used for silliness, stalking, and advertising too, but all powerful communication media will be so abused.

]]> By: Dr. Grumpus http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/07/men-chatty-as-women-avoid-sloppy.php/comment-page-1#comment-20137 Dr. Grumpus Sun, 08 Jul 2007 01:23:00 +0000 http://spring.org.uk/2007/07/men-chatty-as-women-avoid-sloppy-thinking-facebook-snubbing.php#comment-20137 As for the three grades of thinking, indeed there is some insight to be gathered from this, in my opinion, but as evidenced by the author of the original post, the trap of distinguishing between "sloppy thinking" and a "sloppy thinker" is an easy egotistical trap to fall into.<br /><br />I prefer conceptualizing it in the following way: We all, because of the evolutionary adaptive benefits, engage in social thinking; we are hardwired to use schemas and heuristics to facilitate "good enough" thinking. The errors produced from social thinking in more primitive times had less of a impact, given less complex social structures.<br /><br />As society has become more complex, the impact of the social thinking errors (in the form of stereotypes and prejudices) have increased.<br /><br />How to reduce this? Develop critical thinking skills, the first of which is the recognition that we ALL, <i>by default</i>, engage in social thinking. As for the three grades of thinking, indeed there is some insight to be gathered from this, in my opinion, but as evidenced by the author of the original post, the trap of distinguishing between "sloppy thinking" and a "sloppy thinker" is an easy egotistical trap to fall into.

I prefer conceptualizing it in the following way: We all, because of the evolutionary adaptive benefits, engage in social thinking; we are hardwired to use schemas and heuristics to facilitate "good enough" thinking. The errors produced from social thinking in more primitive times had less of a impact, given less complex social structures.

As society has become more complex, the impact of the social thinking errors (in the form of stereotypes and prejudices) have increased.

How to reduce this? Develop critical thinking skills, the first of which is the recognition that we ALL, by default, engage in social thinking.

]]>