Just potentially interacting with a woman makes men dumber

[Erloas]

Why Interacting with a Woman Can Leave Men "Cognitively Impaired" (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-interacting-with-woman-leave-man-cognitively-impaired)
"In one experiment, just telling a man he would be observed by a female was enough to hurt his psychological performance."

It says nothing about how to fix the problem, just that it is there. This doesn't seem to happen the other way around. So why, again, are men supposed to take the lead in the whole dating thing?

[SaintRidley]

It says nothing about how to fix the problem, just that it is there. This doesn't seem to happen the other way around. So why, again, are men supposed to take the lead in the whole dating thing?

Patriarchial society and the treatment of women as property and courtship as a property transaction.

[Sturmcrow]

Yeah, pretty much holdovers from the past.

Then again one might argue that the rise of women's power in society has increased the anxiety in men. To bad we do not have studies from back in the day to compare.

(B.A. in Psychology by the way, I love this sort of thing)

[Coidzor]

So why, again, are men supposed to take the lead in the whole dating thing?

Because if you're able to get a girl using only half of your brain, that just shows how awesome your brain cred is?

[Ravens_cry]

Apparently, they only tested on young heterosexual males.
I wonder if the same effect can be seen in lesbian woman?

[Erloas]

Apparently, they only tested on young heterosexual males.
I wonder if the same effect can be seen in lesbian woman?

Well they also tested young heterosexual women too. But yeah, it would be interesting to see how things varied by age and orientation. The other thing they didn't mention is how it broke down by people in relationships already and not. It would also be interested to see the deviation in the average between the two. Did it happen to *all* men and *none* of the women or was it just the majorities. It was an average after all.

Of course I didn't need a scientific study to tell me I can't think right when working with women that I haven't known for quite a while.

[pffh]

Apparently, they only tested on young heterosexual males.
I wonder if the same effect can be seen in lesbian woman?

Or if men have that effect on gay men. Or if men and women have that effect on bi men. Oh god maybe bi male brains only work at full capacity when completely alone.

[Erloas]

Oh god maybe bi male brains only work at full capacity when completely alone. Then what do you get with a narcissistic person?

[Mono Vertigo]

Asexuals are obviously the superior beings here. :smallamused:
Socially-awkward asexuals like me though don't gain any benefit. :smallsigh:

[Reluctance]

They're using university students. Try it on 40 year old professionals, the results will probably skew some. The collegiate dating environment isn't exactly a mysterious phenomena.

It's the old "sex is like air" line. People who practically have it on tap don't stress about it. Those who are cut off, do. Environment matters a lot; I'm sure closeted gay kids (if there was a reliable, ethical way to find and test them) would Stroop worse than their out peers.

The article covers Naut's personal hypothesis as to why this happens. It looks sound to me.

[Solaris]

There's a joke in there about diffusion, but I'm pretty sure it would be in bad taste.
Yeah, as it turns out people don't think so good under stress. To a young male, unknown females are a stressor.

[Anxe]

Give me an experiment where you tell women that they AREN'T being observed by men and see if they perform better. I remember that they generally do. That would mean that both sexes feel more anxiety when being observed by the opposite sex. It also means the the assumed observer is a male.

[Story Time]

...not to offend anyone...but that is one of the most useless and almost completely false articles about psychology and behavior that I have ever read. It provides no neurological data of any kind. Any fool with common sense can reason out that there might be potential anxiety in a subject if they are told that they are anonymously observed. This is not cognitive impairment as termed by the article. It is, in fact, emotional influence.

Although, I will admit, I do feel a bit poisoned by the sheer thoughtlessness required to make that article.

Again, no offense, but the words used in the title of the article do not reflect its content.

[Erloas]

Give me an experiment where you tell women that they AREN'T being observed by men and see if they perform better. I remember that they generally do. That would mean that both sexes feel more anxiety when being observed by the opposite sex. It also means the the assumed observer is a male.They said they had both men and women taking part in the test and told all of them that they were going to be observed by someone that was male or female (implied at least, used a very common male name and a very common female name) and then tested again. So it was male-male, male-female and female-male, female-female.


Any fool with common sense can reason out that there might be potential anxiety in a subject if they are told that they are anonymously observed. This is not cognitive impairment as termed by the article. It is, in fact, emotional influence.Same as above... they said specifically that males didn't change when they were being observed by another male and the females didn't change either way. It was also a general mental processing test rather then a subject which they may or may not be proficient in. But as for it being emotional influence versus cognitive impairment... how do you even try to make the distinction? Obviously the reason you are thinking less clearly is emotional but its causing you to think less clearly, so that is thinking impairment, one is a cause the other is an effect. Emotional influences can cause a lot of different things and cognitive impairment can be caused by a lot of different things; they are not competing ideas, they are complementary.

[Anxe]

Oh! That is interesting...

[Story Time]

...just as likely that the males were able to tell that they were being lied to by a female researcher about someone observing them. The article does not present any neurological data and the study material is unavailable.

The results reflect the speed ( this is important ) of the second Stroop Test, not the accuracy of its completion. Conscientiousness and / or suspicion could just as easily be a culprit as the yet-to-be-proven cognitive impairment.

Until some person can show me directly recorded neurological information about the subject, I'm just going to have to brush it off as hokey.

No offense, of course. :smallsmile:

[Erloas]

...just as likely that the males were able to tell that they were being lied to by a female researcher about someone observing them. The article does not present any neurological data and the study material is unavailable.

The results reflect the speed ( this is important ) of the second Stroop Test, not the accuracy of its completion. Conscientiousness and / or suspicion could just as easily be a culprit as the yet-to-be-proven cognitive impairment.

Until some person can show me directly recorded neurological information about the subject, I'm just going to have to brush it off as hokey.

No offense, of course. :smallsmile:
Well I don't know the specifics of the Stroop test but I have to assume it has some measure for accuracy and speed, since it is a standardly used test. My guess is a time penalty for incorrect answers.

As for neurological data, I don't know of any way to get that non-intrusively. And then you start running into the observer effect. Its hard to not draw suspicion and do blind studies when you start hooking people up to things.
As for the conscientiousness and/or suspicion, if that were the case it should show up regardless of the gender of the possible observer.
In the end though it seems like a first pass study, confirm some ideas so that they can be expanded on and studied further at a later date.

[Kalmageddon]

I don't know, speaking for myself I find I'm more motivated to do something if a girl I'm interested in is watching and thus I perform better.

[noparlpf]

I think I'm dumber around other guys, to be honest. I mean, I'm always full of crap, but it gets worse around guys.

[H Birchgrove]

I think I'm dumber around other guys, to be honest. I mean, I'm always full of crap, but it gets worse around guys.

Yeah... I get more potty-mouthed, or used to, when I am among a certain class of men... :smalleek: :smallannoyed:

When you're near the ladies, you behave. :smallamused:

(Though I knew a trio of girls during elementary school and gymnasium - senior high school - who got very potty-mouthed and racy when they were together.)

[Elemental]

I'm just going to put the whole thing down to primordial instinct.

For one, people just don't like being watched while they do things. Let alone by an unknown individual who is probably judging them.

Secondly, back in the extremely old times before civilisation and/or tribal societies, the only way to legitimately gain a partner was by impressing them with some sort of display of skill or strength or something. You had to show yourself as competent, strong and intelligent enough to raise a family. It's hard enough with modern conveniences, let alone when you had to fight for your very survival.
The short version is: Men and women need to impress potential partners, otherwise they don't have any chance of raising children.

I don't see how it could affect them cognitively, except by making them anxious.