Interesting Facts 

What is the difference between female logic and male logic? Opinion of men: female logic is the absence of logic? What else is the difference



She is between dlom and leisure
I discovered the secret of how a spouse
Self-rusted to rule ...
A.S. Pushkin

To shame a liar, to make fun of a fool
Or arguing with a woman is all the same,
What to churp water rѣshetom.
Deliver us from these three, O God!
M. Lermontov

The text is inspired by the phrase of one reader: “A woman is impulsive and emotional. Her argumentation is not like a line, but like balloons, they are extremely bright and fly out chaotically ... "

There are, as it were, two components in any dispute. In a live discussion, these components are present in an indivisible unity, but we will single them out for the purpose of further analysis (and then re-connect them).

One of them is actually finding out the truth. However, there is a second one, which is not always realized by the disputants. Namely - a person defending his point of view in a dispute, at the same time striving to be a leader. If the point of view of one of the disputants triumphed, and he (the winner) turned out to be more right than his opponent, then now the defeated must acknowledge his rightness and, as it were, come to terms, stand under the banner of the winner, recognize his supremacy. Victory in an argument warms our pride because it (pride) is connected not so much with self-love as with the need to win and lead.

Thus, in the dispute there is - in one degree or another and in one form or another - an element of the struggle for leadership. And here we come to the most important thing.

In the discussion between men, this element of the struggle for leadership does not dominate, that is, it is not primary. The most important thing is to find out the truth, it is primary, and not self-esteem, the desire to win, to crush an opponent. And already from this relationship and subordination follows (and is born) the so-called. "male logic" - the desire to build a coherent system of "iron" arguments, each of which is based on proven knowledge. "The moment of leadership", the desire to win in the choice of male argumentation is almost never present (men with sick self-esteem are, of course, not considered here). It is this fact that determines the clarity, persuasiveness and - in many cases - even the beauty of male logical constructions.

The most important thing is that a (normal) man has a mental readiness to come to terms with the arguments of the enemy and admit his ultimate innocence. Humble your pride, your pride in view of the new truth. Truth - if it is such - acts on men first convincingly, and then humbly; they are ready, as it were, to line up in front of her. And this is because so many men have a "flair for the truth."

Moreover, the defeated in the dispute will not feel completely humiliated (although he may feel a certain shade of humiliation) - he will be compensated by the pleasure from the truth found and the feeling of unity with the opponent. In general, emotionally it resembles a combat draw. Both are satisfied.

A man builds his argumentation in such a way that, first of all, it is possible to find out the truth or to approve a point of view that he considers to be true. For a (normal) man, this point of view is correct not because it is his own, but on the contrary: it became his point of view, since he recognized it as true.

A man lives and works in society. His experience, his mind and the fruits of his reflections will always be in demand among other men. A man is called to serve the values ​​of himself high order- to their work, vocation, people, leader, sovereign. The search for truth, the highest Truth - necessary part almost any male ministry. Even if a man does not have charisma, and in general does not know how to do absolutely anything except to provide for his family, then he is working somewhere, makes his opinion about politics and the world around him, communicates with colleagues and friends. And therefore, even in this case, his knowledge and experience can be of benefit to someone.

A man is a leader from the very beginning, he strives to achieve (leadership or excellence - often this is the same thing) in his field. That is why evolution "forced" men to focus on the search for truth, on the primacy of logic in a dispute with their own kind.

It is not at all the same in women. The most famous psychologist in the USSR once noticed that "The whole apparatus of expression is aimed at one thing in a woman - to influence us, and is distorted by this everlasting goal" .

Only from the point of view of strict male logic are female arguments accidentally taken off colorful balls, each of which is elementary broken into pieces. In fact, a woman is not interested in the fate of her individual arguments. Let's pay attention: a woman does not like to discuss each of them. Moreover, each of the arguments given by a woman is in a sense accidental: "A man can say that twice two is not four, but five or three and a half, and a woman will say that twice two is a stearin candle" (I.S. Turgenev) ... The woman controls the flow of "arguments" as a whole, and this flow has a very definite direction.

Namely, in any dispute (and especially with a man) a woman must win, subjugate him. The very desire for leadership, which is only latent in a man's argument, lies right on the surface in women; the clarification of the truth is secondary for her and has no special value. Actually, for a woman, the main thing in a dispute is victory per se, “in pure form”, This is the whole essence of female logic. Truth lies somewhere on the periphery of the female consciousness, and most often it is identified with it with pleasure. V this case- with pleasure from victory.

It was stated above that the truth of the adversary's views (usually) acts humbly on a man. It is not so with women: they are first convinced, and then humbled, not by the rational persuasiveness of the opponent's arguments (or views). The overwhelming majority of women are not ready to admit the correctness of another, if not _w_y_w_s_t_in_y_e_t_ behind him _with_and_l_u_, a firm conviction in their own views or arguments. It is to this force that a woman first of all reacts. That is, again, on emotions (in this case, the emotional series is specifically masculine, associated with strength).

But what is strange in the fact that a woman reacts to argumentation in a woman's way, that is, first distinguishes an emotional component in them? Nature has created us mutually complementary: what is on the surface of men is primary, for women is secondary and of little value; and vice versa. Actually, it shouldn't be otherwise.

This is where the key features of the so-called "female logic" follow: the arguments used by a woman may in no way be connected with the preceding and subsequent arguments, and are selected not in logical connection with the male ones, but with the _with_and_m_in_t_n_th_ goal _one_de_r_zh_a_th_th_t. Of course, they are not included in any harmonious system, but it cannot be said that this argumentation does not obey its specific laws.

The woman does not argue, she parries, that is, simply "hits the ball". For her, what matters is not the rational overcoming of male argumentation, but the usual victory - even in the case of each separate argument. The woman must gain the upper hand, fend off at any cost, put the man in his place. Women's "arguments" are chosen not by chance (as it seems at first glance), but in connection with the primacy of women's need for leadership.

It is this feature that determines the well-known incredible flexibility of a woman in a dispute that does not fit into the male consciousness, that is, the ability to spontaneously unexpected argumentation: she strikes a blow from where you are not only not expecting, but you cannot wait.

The feminine parry is not completely spontaneous. If there is another woman nearby, she is with high degree reliability can predict what our disputant is tending to and even what attack she will inflict now. Since women's "argumentation" has a clear purpose, it is not accidental. As Shakespeare put it, "this chaos has its own logic."

Moreover, even being completely convinced, the woman nevertheless feels “humiliated and insulted”. An unpleasant aftertaste will remain all the same, and will never be able to compensate for some kind of pleasure from the acquired truth. By and large, the truth for women does not exist (or is to achieve your own, in this case - to take over). "For a woman, truth is in happiness, for a man, happiness is in truth."

Even being defeated in an argument, the woman nevertheless declares: "You may be right, but I am also right in my own way." One author aptly noted that this phrase is completely reduced to the statement "I am always right." Or, altering - "I am a woman, then you are wrong." What is this if not a desire to dominate?

For a woman to be right, to gain the upper hand, to win is to be good. A woman organically cannot argue, as this means shaking her self-esteem.

Feminine nature is genetically "sharpened" for the preservation of the hearth and family foundations. Initially, the woman lived and worked primarily in the house. If a woman had not learned to build a relationship with a man, she would not have survived. It was necessary to somehow come to an agreement with him, to learn how to influence the man so that he did not devour all the prey brought from the hunt himself, but shared it with her and the child.

The experience of a woman, her efforts have always been necessary, first of all, for her relatives. And therefore, the female mentality passes the most rational arguments through the filter of personal relationships (and, above all, attitudes towards herself). Guess three times what is the bottom line? Any male argument is perceived not from the point of view of logic (that is, logic, reason and compliance with the truth), but from the point of view of how they treat her, a woman: “Since you argue with me, then you don’t love”. Unconsciously, a woman always associates love with obedience.

A woman traces not the logic of arguments, but a personal attitude, even if it is not there. And this attitude is analyzed by her in a strict, maximalistic division of "loves - dislikes", is ready to give in to her, or not. The subconsciously emotional "leadership analysis" (which one takes the upper hand in the argument) usually comes first.

It is this "leadership need" of nature, combined with sensitivity and emotionality, that determines the child's maximalism of a woman - either everything is good or everything is bad. Deprived of a rationalistic core, and therefore not able to distinguish and subordinate the main and the secondary, female soul ready to cling to any little thing to turn it into a key problem. "People are divided into those for whom world problems are personal, and those for whom personal problems are global." For men and women :)

A man is a leader from the very beginning, he strives to achieve leadership (or excellence - often this is the same thing) in his field. That is why evolution "forced" men to focus on the search for truth, on the primacy of logic, rationality in a dispute with their own kind. Leadership is always associated with intelligence and rationality, and specifically male. Let's remember what women leaders are like.

Unlike a man, a woman does not hesitate to do anything in order to achieve superiority. And this is so because a man is already by his very essence, by origin, by male status there is a leader, a leader (even in the absence of pronounced leadership qualities). Therefore, he somehow especially struggles for dominance and does not need anything. The "leadership component" of nature (natural status) is already present as a necessary component of his activities. Most often, the assertion of leadership occurs by itself (for example, in a situation of special danger, men readily unite around the person whose rightness or benefit they feel), and a man does not really need to fight for it. Is that to confirm it with your whole life. Therefore, a normal, psychologically full-fledged man sets himself the primary goal of subjugating another only in exceptional cases.

Archpriest A. Ustinsky, in a letter to V. Rozanov, shares the following observation: "Even at the time of the wedding itself ... the bride ... tries to raise her wedding candle above the groom, paying tribute to that sign that in doing so, she will have an advantage over her husband and control him in life ..."

The woman has a clear, pronounced goal of gaining the upper hand over the man. Its leadership does not exist as an internal, ontological given, but as an intention. A woman seeks to achieve leadership precisely because initially she does not have it. Where strong striving is evident, there is still no real achievement.

The very striving for leadership - an external, strained striving - should have proved to a woman that she is not a leader from the very beginning. Trying to gain supremacy, a woman, in fact, commits a betrayal both against her nature and the established order of things, that is, she sells herself for lentil stew liberal values.
On the other hand, leadership is so familiar to a man that he often easily loses it - "what we have, we do not keep."

Thus, the point is not in illogicality and logic, not in the opposition of reason and emotions, but in the question of domination, of power. Who is the true leader: we, who received it with our birthright, or women who are increasingly acquiring leadership in the process of liberal restructuring of the world?

From all of the above, it follows that arguing with a woman () is decidedly useless. Male logic from the point of view of "logic" is absolute, not limited by rationality or any high principles, is something awkward, callous and stubborn-impenetrable. A man holds on to some incomprehensible, abstract truths that a woman does not need for nothing, and which, in her perception, inevitably succumb to such great things as Love, Happiness, Sincerity, Trust, Reciprocity and Understanding;)

Well, what else should be said ... Just as some men are oriented towards pleasure and "consumption", while others are oriented towards service and the search for truth, there are women who "fall for" wealthy men and "theoreticians". The proportions of both are about the same, so that everyone can find a pair.
The most important thing (I’m talking about the meaning of life :) is to understand in time what category you belong to, and then not to get confused with this matter.

Severe critics of the described female structure should know that this state of affairs is very beneficial for us. Experienced men know that it is not worth cutting the truth-womb to a woman in the face, like "when we are together, then only I will be the head of the family, you must obey me unquestioningly," and so on. On the contrary, one should take into account the woman's leadership habits and satisfy them with the following statements: "you are the best, I love you, and we will do everything together ..., reciprocity ..., sincerity ..., etc." - I have already given the list :) Of course, all this needs to be said in a confident tone, with inner strength and complete conviction in his voice - well, you already know :). And more often kiss her, and pamper her (give some kind of thread of flowers, make all sorts of surprises, and other small crap). In the meantime, little by little take the reins into their own hands.

In general, if a man brought the matter to an argument with a woman, then he, consider, has already lost, since women's logic is not rationally overcome. A woman can only give in, and give in to (internal) strength, however, with one "but ..."

In this case, the man lost big, and here's why. The very _f_a_k_t_ of the occurrence of a dispute shows that a man _n_e_ _y_m_e_e_t_ steer a relationship, for life together not fully matured, and his leadership (I mean genuine, not formal) is, shall we say, in question. Most likely, he (leadership) will soon be done away with. And then, perhaps, with a man. For a man who surrendered, obeyed her (I mean, in general, in the end, and not in one episode), a woman will never respect - at least in the depths of her soul. And then he will be frank on forums like "funny habits of our men."
Experienced man the matter does not lead to disputes at all. He knows how to initially make him obey - without wrangling, but also without a scuffle and raising his voice.

The stupidest thing a man can do is to start playing by women's rules, that is, without them at all, and strive to gain the upper hand at any cost. A normal man always remains strong, noble, and himself (even with such a nightmarish creature as a woman :). His girlfriend (I mean - normal woman, not spoiled by liberalism-feminisms) will not object to the above-stated state of affairs. Should she get something in return for the lost leadership? Well, let him get love.

Everything should be paid for; for the opportunity to be with a beloved woman - even love. I understand, of course, that this is horror :), but after all, this will not lose us. One can only lose power; love only enriches. Even the Creator of the Universe has not lost anything from His love. Well, or almost nothing ...

The most important thing is that you yourself should not relax, "drown in emotions", as 16-year-old boys in love drown in them. In significant moments, you need to implement your decisions (or views) firmly and consistently. Woe to the one who yielded! Endowed with incredible intuition - aimed primarily at a man, at a deep assessment of his weakness and strength - a woman will immediately feel the weakness, and will try to use it in order to gain the upper hand. Can't help but take it. Moreover, all this goes on unconsciously, that is, it does not reach the level of consciousness. What, by the way, is a woman strong. While we, with our brains and logic, get to something there, lo and behold, the woman has already decided and done everything. Direct action, bypassing the brain stage, like a good karateka. Instincts, sir.

Also, don't be a stubborn maniac. A woman should be very much consulted on many issues - first of all, everyday. It is in this area that flexible female brains show their immeasurable superiority over male rationality. In short, people, you need to create the illusion of a woman's leadership, and everything will be okay.

The female need for domination is a superficial thing, brought in, it (the need) is very superficial, and rather needs an "official ideology" that a woman dominates in this union, that they are inferior to her, and so on. This simplest life need (and most women, as a rule, do not have others) may well manage at the level of attributes and symbols. All these women’s troubles (the first of which is stubbornness associated with the desire to gain the upper hand) are easily overcome. Provided that the process is not allowed to take its course, that they (troubles) are monitored, they mean. This should actually be done "automatically", as you squeeze the clutch before changing gears.
Having lost power, it cannot be returned. With regard to the family, such attempts most often end in divorce.

Really strong and clever man always knows how to be a leader in the family, without resorting to rude physical strength(in general, it should be demonstrated primarily in the area of ​​beliefs). The first sign of true strength is a condescending attitude toward the weakness of others.
Sooner or later, a woman will certainly prevail over a weak man. Well, that's what he needs. In addition, it cannot full-fledged family(that is, a living system) exist without a leader. Leave the talk of "freedom, equality and fraternity" to someone else. Who wants to experiment with the introduction of democracy in their family. Everyone knows how it ends.

*23 The following example is given in the text "The Philosophy of Womanhood".
“The motorcycle also tends to fall - but for some reason we do not scold it for this, but we try to drive so as to ride normally. We fill it with gasoline, change the oil and filters. We inflate the tires and carefully monitor the fluid level in the brake hydraulics. We keep our balance during the trip, we burn the high beam even during the day, and turn on the turn signals before changing lanes. In the evening we carefully erase dust particles from it and put it in a well-guarded garage. Perhaps a woman is a creature no less complex and interesting than a motorcycle :) "

*24 Two extreme beliefs - both in complete democracy and equality between the sexes, and in a victorious brute force - are characteristic only of youngsters (and persons equated to them).

It has long been known that male and female logic is different, however, few people know why. This is exactly what we will talk about in this article. First of all, it should be noted that in male logic prevails "collective intelligence", that is, the opinion of friends or sometimes even ordinary acquaintances becomes practically decisive.

Because of this, communication with other people very often leads to a significant change in all previous plans.

Men's logic

Also, representatives of the stronger sex are often confident that male logic is undeniable, and are very proud of their unique analytical thinking. But even here, according to experts, there is a catch, since not every logical decision is correct: usually those who focus their own attention on solving a certain problem do not take into account a number of various factors that affect this situation... Sometimes reality is significantly different from the ideas of men, and this circumstance makes them suffer.

Most men set a specific minimum program for themselves, then they connect intermediate links, which, according to their logic, should lead to the achievement of the final goal. In male logic, there are much fewer detailed and clear tasks that are designed for the long term, as is usually the case with women, however, they always know exactly what and how to do in the very near future.

How to understand female logic?

Men often wonder how to understand feminine logic. In women's logic, the maximum program is considered the usual priority. At the same time, we cannot always explain the ways of achieving it, therefore the sequence of achieving the goal, like the goal itself, seems to be absolutely unrelated to each other.

In critical situations, the speech of men becomes more accurate, so they are able to explain in detail the course of events, and also, regardless of the correctness of the assumption, draw their own conclusions. In women in such a situation, thoughts can be confused, and phrases, accordingly, are built with a huge number of interjections and at the same time are not always finished.

Due to these features in difficult situations it is quite difficult for a woman to understand a man, and vice versa. In women, the links of the logical chain are replaced by intuition and phrases such as: "I am sure", "I think so", "I think so." It is very typical for women to think based not on the laws of logic, but on personal experience and all kinds of associations.

Differences in thinking between men and women

Men, in turn, think deductively. They, when solving any problem based on existing regulations constitute a chain of inferences. They often infer from general to specific: for example, if most people do something that way, then one person is likely to do the same. In women, on the contrary, the thinking goes from the opposite: if, for example, one person hurts her, then all other people are also bad.

Finding yourself in a difficult position or critical situation, a woman usually awaits a decision from a partner, since he reacts much faster, sets a specific minimum program for himself and immediately tries to solve it.

In a society that is built on the basis of male thinking, the scheme female thinking very often it remains simply inexplicable, which is why there is a misunderstanding between the sexes, a contradiction between male and feminine logic... And the fact that outstanding minds are much more common among men is explained by psychologists by the fact that men have much more opportunities to show own abilities occupying high positions v different areas activities. In addition, they usually do not do several things at once.

For example, if a man is distracted from the most important telephone conversation, then he may become irritated, since any smallest hindrance will prevent him from concentrating. It is this part of the male consciousness that helps men not to pay attention to any extraneous problems that, in their opinion, have absolutely nothing to do with the goal, and to concentrate as much as possible on their work.

But if we consider male logic with enough low level intellectual abilities, it turns out that on the social ladder such men will be significantly lower than women with exactly the same level. Indeed, in the first case, the ability to focus attention on a specific matter, when a person completely devotes himself to a single problem and at the same time discards everything secondary, gives excellent results, and in the second, a too narrow view of the world can lower a man to the bottom rung of the social ladder.

Male and female images thinking often does not match. There are well-established concepts - male and female logic. And they are not a prejudice, but have long been scientifically proven fact.

Men and women look at the world as if wearing different glasses. Generally, this can be explained as follows: if men have a "focused view" on everything around, then women see it in a "broader perspective". Both of these points of view are equally true.

Consciousness of men seeks to connect one object with another consistently, and then gradually build a complete picture. This method of seeing helps to connect one part to another, in order to end up with something whole.

The female consciousness is more spacious, at the level of intuition it perceives everything around it as a whole, and then gradually reveals its components, figuring out how these parts relate to the whole. They are more likely to see the environment than what is in it.

This difference in orientation has a large impact on values, interests, and priorities. Since the "female open mind" perceives our relationship, then, therefore, women will more men interested in love, communication, exchange of emotions, harmony in communication and constant contact with a person. And men show more interest in productive activities, achievement of the set goals, work, logic, since the "male focused consciousness" marks the way in which the parts form a single whole.

Women don't really need the usual male logic. She can admire the logical constructions of a man, like a bizarre pattern, and act anyway, relying on her intuition and feelings. For men, many of the views and arguments of women seem not serious, funny and down-to-earth. But in most cases, they turn out to be much closer to life and reality than the reasonable and logical constructions of men. Therefore, men should not chop off the shoulder, but sometimes it is worth listening to what the woman says to him, trying to explain and understand the current situation for himself. Again, if a woman needs her opinion to be listened to, she needs to learn how to correctly and harmoniously express her thoughts and convey them to the man.

What is the difference between feminine and masculine logic?

  • For mental activity men are characterized by a deductive method - from the general to the particular. For women - inductive: from particular to general. For example, a man thinks like this: "All girls love flowers, which means that mine will be glad to receive such a gift." And the woman: “A guy cheated on me. So all the guys are womanizers. "
  • Women are more prone to false generalizations, oversimplification and extremes. It is difficult for them to realize the entire space of options, so they strive to reduce the phenomena to "zero" or "infinity." In a conversation, this can be manifested by the use of words such as "all", "always", "eternal", "nobody", "nothing", "never". An example of such a situation is that if a husband has a lot of work and does not always manage to go out with her to a theater or a restaurant, then a woman can tell him: “We don't go anywhere with you, I always sit alone at home.” A textbook example: "I have absolutely nothing to wear," while all the closets are overflowing with clothes. In fact, the woman means that she has not had new clothes for a long time, or that she gained weight or lost weight, so there was an urgent need to update her wardrobe. She simply does not mention this as something self-evident, and the man thinks that there is no logic in her words.
  • Men have more developed abstract thinking, because they mainly have to solve strategic problems. Women are by nature tactful and focused on certain issues. Signs and symbols are primary for them. In an unknown area, a man looks for a road using a map, and a woman - according to landmarks known to her (“turn right behind the store”). A man can consider himself rich when he has a stable income or a bank account for a lump sum. For women, the concept of wealth is inextricably linked with the possession of certain things, such as a fur coat, jewelry, a car, an apartment. With all this, for a woman to go into debt or save on food in order to buy "status" things and prove to herself and others that she is rich is worthless. For a man, the content determines the form; for a woman, it is the form that is important.

The difference between masculine and feminine logic can be seen most clearly in the controversy.

The main thing is to establish the truth (for this a man builds a clear and coherent system of evidence);

I am ready to admit that the enemy is right if he gives more convincing reasons;

The pleasure of the found truth will be received not only by the winner, but also by the loser, therefore both participants in the controversy will benefit.

Finding out the truth is not so important, and the main thing is to win the argument;

I am completely sure that I am right, and finds and selects arguments more or less spontaneously;

Able to recognize the point of view of another only when she feels on herself inner strength the enemy and his conviction in this matter;

The arguments of the interlocutor are not particularly attached essential... Personal relationships are of higher priority;

Can accept criticism and, in general, any attempt by the opponent to start an argument for expressing hostility, and a concession on his part for showing sympathy or feelings.

In any conversation or dispute, the emotional component is primary for a woman. Raised voice and repeated confident repetition of the same arguments. And in an extreme situation, a woman can use her main weapon - tears, as indisputable proof that she is right. They are much more likely than men to use dishonest techniques of sophistry, for example, the substitution of concepts and the very subject of discussion, the transition to personalities and personal qualities. For example, a woman may refuse to attend a performance with the participation of a famous actor because she does not like his appearance or he was born under a zodiac sign she does not like. Often a woman can use the "ladies' argument" - they oppose their opinion with the most ridiculous of opposing solutions question, and then put the interlocutor before a choice. They perceive silence as a sign of agreement, while a man may take a break to consider objections.

In order to understand what actions and words our neighbor expects from us, how to deal with him, it is necessary to put ourselves in his place. But understanding another person is far from easy. Everyone knows the expression "female" logic. It happened again from the inability to understand each other. Often to men, the conversations and actions of women seem wrong and illogical, but in fact a woman simply has her own truth, her own vision of the world. For example, a woman says the phrase: "I absolutely do not care what kind of chocolate you buy me." A man, following his logic, will ask: “What does it mean“ indifferent? I'm going to buy you a chocolate bar and I don't know which one you want. So be so kind, tell me exactly: milk or dark chocolate? " And this is an example a typical mistake... Behind the woman's phrase "I absolutely do not care ..." is literally the following: "Do an act! Well, show that you are able to make a decision, that you can take care of me, that you are ready to take responsibility. " In this situation, she wants to experience the happiness of interacting with a man, to feel this presence, and in comparison with this, the pleasantness from the sensation of a certain taste of chocolate is sheer nonsense! As they say, a gift is not expensive, but attention is expensive. A woman knows what she wants, but the way she presents it is for a man dark forest... And a man may also be offended, think that the fact that he wants to buy a lady a chocolate bar is completely indifferent to her. After all, if she cannot explain which one she wants, then she does not want her at all. A man understands one and the same phrase literally, but a woman sees a completely different meaning in it. Men do not like implications and hidden messages. They like to put everything on the shelves. A woman sees the end result, which she considers important for herself or for the family, or for something else, sees, as it were, the problem as a whole. And it is important for a man to solve a problem that precedes the result, a logical chain that leads to the final goal. This, again, is rooted in the man's ability and purpose to make decisions.

The difference in the way of thinking between men and women is due to their nature. Since ancient times, the main tasks of a man have been to understand the essence of things, the development of new territories and the provision of food for his family. To do this, he needs to think in abstract terms. The main function of a woman is raising children and maintaining the home. She must distinguish shades of emotions and use intuition to understand why a child is crying, who still cannot coherently explain what is wrong with him.

It should be noted that there is no deep gulf between male and female logic. Although it is much more difficult for a man to understand the reasoning of an average woman than it is for a woman to understand his logical constructions.

Well, to some extent, the secret of the destiny of a man and a woman has been revealed. The whole essence of the above can be expressed in one phrase: “A man should be masculine, and a woman should be feminine. And by interacting, they help each other to be themselves. Of course, there can be no equality between a man and a woman. They are infinitely individual. Each has its own great vocation and mission, its own functions. He and she are polar. Plus cannot be equal to minus, but it is precisely because of this that they are attracted, which means that men and women perfectly complement each other and together can cope with any problems.

As for the logic of mathematical, professional or everyday life, then I do not see any fundamental differences between masculine and feminine logic... Having the same data for analysis, having the same knowledge, both a man and a woman will come to the same conclusions. Provided the same, of course.

In general and on average, the level of intelligence in men and women is approximately the same. The fundamental difference was beautifully articulated by Edward Trondike: “Although the male and female types are very similar in terms of mental ability, there is one important difference with respect to deviation from general norm... Highest standing man in any ability is more gifted than a woman, and a low male type stands below all women. Therefore, among men there are more outstanding minds but also twice as many idiots. "

I would it fundamental difference defined a little differently: the gradation of mental abilities in men is greater - from geniuses to complete idiots. For women, this gradation is noticeably less, therefore there are very few geniuses among women, but there are practically no complete idiots.

Again, this observation confirms once again my thought about the characteristics of male and female nature- "to know the essence of things" and "to ensure the continuation of life." Men are more vulnerable in their striving, while women are more resilient. Men, in order to get to the depths, focus their attention narrowly. Women, on the other hand, always keep a wide field in mind, because this way they are the most stable and the least vulnerable. Women can do several things at the same time without prejudice to the case. For men, this does not work out - either the business suffers, or the depth is not achieved, or the results do not bring satisfaction.

However, let's ask the question, why do we need logic at all? That's right - for making a decision! And this is where it really begins fundamental difference between men and women... It is here that we fully observe all the manifestations of male and female nature that we have discussed in the previous chapters - to learn the essence of things and ensure the continuation of life, open and hidden initiative, peculiarities of the worldview and the system of values. And in this regard, I propose to recall the formula formulated by Lenin brilliantly and proposed by him in the "April Theses": "Maximum program, minimum program, intermediate goals and objectives and ways to achieve them."

So, due to their nature, for women, the maximum program has priority. Intermediate goals and objectives are not very specific, therefore sometimes they cannot really explain them, or each time they motivate in different ways.

And for men, the minimum program has priority so men great importance give intermediate goals and objectives and ways to achieve them. The maximum program in the minds of men is very abstract and, depending on the circumstances, adjustments can be made to it.

Therefore, women are so arranged that they quite accurately set goals in life and selflessly achieve them. However, they enjoy the fruits of their achievements for a short time, and after that they set new goals for themselves, not that they are opposite, but at least deny the previous ones. For example: first they want to receive a good education, then they want a family, children and home comfort... (It would seem, why then education?) Having built a family, they want freedom and earn money on their own, make a career. (Which is very difficult to relate to family.)

The goals are sometimes less global, but they often follow in the same order that denies each other. Each of these desires separately is completely normal and correct., but in the aggregate it becomes difficult for men to understand such layouts of events. Because men usually do not have specific long-term goals, but, nevertheless, within the framework minimum programs one goal logically flows into another.

Weakness v male logic lies in the fact that an error can creep into the logical circuit. The error can also be contained in the original data on which the logical chain is based. And, thirdly, what do men most often pierce, truly not understanding why the wrong result was obtained, diligently looking for errors in the logical chain or initial data and not finding them there? The goal itself is simply wrong!

The difference in the nature of thinking is manifested, including in the speech of men and women. As, for example, the handwriting of masculine and feminine differs, so also masculine and feminine speech differs. More precisely, the construction of sentences and individual phrases. This difference becomes most contrasting in stressful situations... In men, the chain is clearly distinguished: the cause, the course of development, the prognosis of the development, the conclusion. As far as they are true, it is separate question. ;)

In women in stressful situations, every phrase, it is the reason, it is the conclusion, and between the ellipsis phrases is the beloved female sign punctuation. Of course, within these phrases, both the course of development and the forecast of the situation are implied, but they are not specified by women.

Women understand each other perfectly, men help each other to understand the situation, easily delving into it. But here's a rapport between men and women especially difficult in stressful situations.

When making decisions, women often use intuition, based on what the soul tells them. Therefore, they themselves often cannot explain why they acted this way and not otherwise. Men are more guided by reason. Therefore, their actions can always be logically explained. (A logical action does not necessarily mean a reasonable one, here the request is not to identify these concepts, the whole point is in the goal).

What is intuition? It is not just a feeling or a sensation. Intuition is a joker in a logical chain that replaces missing or not specified links. Men also use intuition, solving their goals and objectives, but not so often, and only for the time being can afford to use such a joker. Still, they prefer to get to the bottom of it.

In women, the main category of thinking is maximum program, where intermediate goals and objectives, of course, exist, but they are not clearly specified, and even have gaps between them. Therefore, all this is replaced in the female consciousness by a large number of jokers - that is, intuition.

There is a competent opinion that deductive thinking is more characteristic of men, that is, from the general to the particular, and they have a problem with inductive thinking. Remember Sherlock Holmes and his deductive reasoning! For women, inductive thinking is more characteristic - from the particular to the general, therefore they also have a problem with deduction. This once again confirms that for women in the process of thinking, the maximum program has priority, and in particular - already insofar as. For men, with their desire to learn the essence of things, it is the particulars that are prioritized, and the maximum program is something distant and not very clear.

For those who have not watched a movie about Sherlock Holmes, I will give more simple examples deductive (masculine) and inductive (feminine) thinking. Deduction - i.e. From general to specific; if all the girls do that, then mine will do the same. Now an example of inductive thinking, i.e. from particular to general; since one guy offended me, it means that all men are goats.

Based on these features of thinking, women have a problem when they need to quickly make a decision in difficult situation... Because this decision lies in the plane of the minimum program, and it is inconvenient for women to think in this category. If she has a man, then she, knowing that men have a different way of thinking, expects him to make a decision for her, but in such a way that it is in her interests.

If she does not have such a man who would make a decision for her, then a woman can reason for a long time and intelligently on a given topic, to concretize all the links of the logical chain, to draw the right conclusions, but to make a decision is still difficult for her. Why? Because in fact, they are trying to bring some kind of logical chain under the possible or in advance already decision... Men do the opposite: their solution matures at the end of the logical chain!

This contradiction in the schemes of thinking and decision-making is intensified in women by the fact that education and culture as a whole are organized according to male patterns of thinking. Any theorem, statement or action must be explained or proven. If this is a work of art, then it must contain some kind of hidden meaning to be discovered and motivated to explain.

That is, women with early childhood teach to reason and make decisions according to male patterns. As long as we are talking about the arts and sciences - nothing else! Girls learn what they are taught with patience and concentration, and are even ahead of boys in this. Because there is a maximum program - to finish school well (a year, a quarter). As for the essence of the material they have learned, they do not particularly ask questions and do not express their own opinion, their own analysis of the material studied. V best case on their own they can only say what they intuitively feel about the topic, not forgetting to think about whether this will coincide with the official opinion, originally built on male pattern? If not, then it is better to keep your opinion, more precisely, keep your feeling of the topic to yourself, otherwise bad grade you can get it.

Boys at school do not shine with analytical skills because at this age they are not yet ripe. However, they are more likely to ask questions such as: "Why is this so and not otherwise?" At the same time, they can even offer their own solution and develop a thought. Often, from the point of view of an adult, these arguments look ridiculous, because an adult obviously sees the mistakes made by a child, but if an adult is smart, then he will not hit his hands, but will praise the very idea of ​​the question - “why is this so and not otherwise? " - and for trying to figure it out.

There is one anecdote that clearly and hyper-contrast demonstrates the difference between male and female thinking, in which we can trace maximum program in women and minimum program m in men, as well as their tendency to know the essence of things. We know that computers, like all science, work according to the masculine principle of thinking: “If” is a condition, “That” is a result. So:

“The wife decided to cook dinner (the maximum program!) And sends her husband-programmer to the store. Gives him the task - to buy the missing products:
- Buy a stick of sausage. If there are eggs, take a dozen.
(You are already laughing, because you know that your beloved husband brought home - ten sticks of sausage!)
- Why so much sausage?
- But there were eggs! .. "

Why is that? Because he does not see the maximum program - what will be for dinner - and acts rationally and logically within the minimum program: go to the store, buy food, according to the specified conditions.

And there is one more interesting moment, dictated by the difference between the nature of male and female. Any business, after making a decision about it, can be divided into two components: process and result.

If a man has something in mind, then for him the result is more important than the process. If the process does not need constant monitoring and can go on by itself, then men will only occasionally take an interest in the course of the process, but they will show interest in the result. Exceptions are hobbies, hobbies, where they enjoy both the process and the result. Or ideas about morality and honor - not every method is suitable for achieving the goal.

If a woman has conceived something, then the process is of paramount importance for her. She will constantly participate in it or follow him, and by the end, when an already clear result will soon appear, she may even leave.

But this logic, these patterns from mathematics, physics and other sciences men and women try to transfer to the relationship with each other, but the results are not at all the same, and this gives rise to painful experiences. If girls in the process of education, without knowing it, teachers teach them to think male categories, then boys neither in childhood, nor later in adulthood to think in female categories is not taught in any form. The point is that in relationships between men and women completely different patterns operate, and the logic that is suitable in mathematics, in the profession or in everyday affairs is completely unsuitable for building relationships between man and woman but this science is not taught. Accordingly, the basis for making decisions should be different.

Both men and women intuitively try to fill in the gaps in the understanding of these patterns, but act on the basis of their own considerations, that is, women - from women, and men - from men. This is the key mistake!

Men do not hard work to concretize particulars and make decisions. Therefore, they very rarely turn to external sources for specific advice on how to behave. Men usually look for missing information in order to receive the most correct solution... Here, as usual, there is always a lack of facts, and if there are a lot of facts, then they cease to lend themselves to analysis.

However, men should remember that there is also a maximum program, that is, a distant goal. Therefore, in this matter, I can recommend to men to correctly set long-range goals in a relationship with a woman, and then it will not be difficult for you to take the initial data, build logical chains and make a decision.

Women try to concretize particulars, and since the categories of their thinking do not contribute to this, they try to learn from external sources: magazines, TV series, horoscopes, reasoning of girlfriends, fortune tellers, etc., etc. Looking for ready-made recipes for relationships! So, dear women, no one will give you specifics of what to do, because there are no universal relationships in a relationship. ready-made recipes... To the person who gives you specific advice on how to deal with a specific man or in a particular situation, you need to be treated with caution. Most likely, this is either an incompetent person, or a swindler, or a sectarian. By the way, our humorists, with their keen eyes and sharp tongue, very well concretize particular cases and patterns in relations between men and women.

But even in this book you will not find specific advice... But, I hope, it will help you understand what scheme you need to make a decision so that it is the most correct for you.

For women, when making a decision, it is more effective female scheme, based precisely on feelings and sensations that women are rarely deceived:

  • If you really want to do exactly that, and you know that if you don’t do that, then later you will regret it, then you should do as you want;
  • If you want to do this, but you know that you will later regret what you did, then perhaps you should refrain from this idea.

I must say that most women make mistakes on this - they cannot refrain from implementing the idea when they really want to, even foreseeing obvious problems, not to mention that they simply do not think about possible consequences- the problem with the minimum program.

This is because feelings are replaced by emotions: "Let it be worse for me later, but now I ..." By the way, this is a favorite technique of all kinds of manipulators and intriguers - to force a person to make decisions and act on the basis of emotions. It doesn't even matter if it is a man or a woman, because on the basis of emotions, a person begins to make mistakes, moreover, well-predictable mistakes.

As for science, profession or worldly wisdom, then everything is clear with logic, the nature of thinking and decision-making schemes. We are taught this from an early age. And on the basis of what to make decisions in building relations between men and women?

First you need to bring your mind and your soul into relative balance. Trust me - it's easy! After all, we are talking about a relative balance, we are not monks or yogis. (It is they who strive for an absolute balance to achieve other goals.) And now, having combined their mind and soul in relative balance, like a front sight and a sight bar - well, so that they are at least close to you - you will see the goal! And once you see the goal, it will not be difficult for you to make a decision. You and I usually try to be like a shooter, who must first see the target, and then correctly aim. Relationship science is not about shooting.

How to combine your mind and soul? First you need to calm down to weed out feelings from emotions. Because emotions will mislead you. Then listen to yourself, to your feelings, your thoughts, your desires, bring them into balance, and then the decision will be the most correct for you. Be less guided by generally accepted stereotypes and patterns of behavior - they may not coincide with the needs of your personality.

In general, in psychology, everything is simple, and the solution of even the most seemingly complex and deep problems, it is not tricky and lies on the surface. If you began to philosophize slyly and invent multi-pass schemes, then you are on the wrong path. This means that it is necessary to formulate the condition of the problem more correctly.

because in psychology, unlike other sciences, the main thing is not the solution, but the condition of the problem! If you're right, pushing off own soul and your own mind, based on your own personality, formulate the task, then its solution for you will become obvious and simple: one or two, less often three actions.

If your own personality has already become overgrown with a thick layer of complexes, stereotypes, generally accepted morality and other "cultural layer", all this can introduce distortions in the process of combining mind and soul and can lead to wrong goals.

Therefore, you will have to try hard to abstract from all this in order to hear exactly yourself, that part of your personality that is inherent in you, the one with which you were born. This is what will help you determine your desires. Then you yourself will make decisions about what you need and what not, what is valuable to you and what is a fetish, what you really like and what not, what is really important to you and what is not very much, what you are ready to endure, and what you will never put up with.

When setting the problem, there is one more necessary condition: the task must be set so that it does not go to someone at evil or at a loss, then it will be really correct.

7 About mental abilities... For some reason, in the Western manner, we began to replace the concept of "intelligence" with the concept of "erudition". That is, we replace the concept of "mental and cultural abilities" with the concept of "amount of knowledge". For example, if you pay attention, IQ tests are a test of acquired knowledge, as well as methods for solving problems of certain types, but not mental abilities.

Offer a modern academician with a gray beard to take an IQ test, he is unlikely to show a decent result, although no one doubts his mental abilities.

Another example is various shows based on the “What? Where? When?". In fact, these are the games of polymaths! We are being told from the screen that people earn money with their own intellect. On the one hand, many of them, of course, are intellectuals, but they earn in this game not with their intellect, but with their erudition! Author's note.