http://www.stuff.co.nz/inl/index/0,1008,897151a4560,FF.html
Ignoring the stuff about New Zealand, theres some interesting stuff about Male/Female thought processes mentioned here.
Apparently Women can do 4 things at once, while guys can only do 1. =/
ID:193885
 Oct 3 2001, 5:50 am
|
|
Botman wrote:
Apparently Women can do 4 things at once, while guys can only do 1. =/ While I admit the "tunnel vision" description is somewhat true, to say men can only do one thing at a time (which isn't exactly what they're saying) is utter crap. | |
Skysaw wrote:
Botman wrote: I think you'll find they are talking about conciously. Like Nadrew said, he can chew and type at the same time, it's because you can chew subconciously. Same as walking and talking. For example, try typing (or writing) while having an intelligent conversation with someone, if your anything like me, you'll either start writing what your;ve been saying without realising it, or you'll just blurt out nonsence and have no idea what you just said. | |
Botman wrote:
Skysaw wrote: You know how true that is? My girlfriend trys to talk to me while I am chating and I either end up puting some weird stuff in the chat are making her be quiet by talking to her in saying things like lol and brb etc... | |
Botman wrote:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/inl/index/0,1008,897151a4560,FF.html "Pease says men's brains are mono-tracked and are organised to do just one thing at a time. So, when they go to read a street directory, they turn the radio down." "If they are driving around a roundabout and a woman talks to them, they'll miss the turn-off. Men can't have sex and talk at the same time, he says." How many men here are really this limited? I've never experienced this sort of thing... | |
Botman wrote:
For example, try typing (or writing) while having an intelligent conversation with someone, if your anything like me, you'll either start writing what your;ve been saying without realising it, or you'll just blurt out nonsence and have no idea what you just said. A job I had long ago had me counting money and stacking it. I developed the ability to hold a conversation while counting, which none of my co-workers could do. Incidentally, most of them were women. Certain pairs of things are very hard to to together, as any beginning piano student will tell you. Reading two different staves, while having each hand do something different takes practice for male and female alike. Add to that pedaling and maybe even singing, and you are stacking a number of tasks that seem impossible to the unlearned. Not sure where I'm going with this, but there you have it. | |
Shadowdarke wrote:
Botman wrote: I'm not sure, but I might turn the radio down or off if I'm really trying to concentrate on something. But who wouldn't? Women? I'm not sure what man is incapable of talking during sex either, though I imagine that some are simply not interested in talking at that time, or perhaps are at a loss as to what to say. Again, are women that much different? I tend to talk just as as much as my partner. | |
Botman wrote:
For example, try typing (or writing) while having an intelligent conversation with someone, if your anything like me, you'll either start writing what your;ve been saying without realising it, or you'll just blurt out nonsence and have no idea what you just said. My limit for simultaneous distinct conversations is 6, less if they require serious thought. Any more than that and I start to get confused. | |
Shadowdarke wrote:
Botman wrote: The last I heard, the record for simultaneous games of chess played while blindfold had neared 200. Now that's multi-tasking! | |
Skysaw wrote:
Shadowdarke wrote: But how many did he win? :) I think the important thing to keep in mind here is that they (the authors) are generalising about normal people. There are going to be exceptions, but I'm sure for the general population its trueish. | |
Skysaw wrote:
The last I heard, the record for simultaneous games of chess played while blindfold had neared 200. Now that's multi-tasking! I can't play one game of chess while blindfolded! | |
Shadowdarke wrote:
Skysaw wrote: Even among strong chess players, only a small percentage can play blindfolded. I tried to play blindfolded on a couple of occasions, but couldn't get beyond the first six or seven moves. | |
Generalities can be "proven" to be true without proving a thing. For instance: it's a widely known fact that one of the sexes is much worse at driving, that one of the sexes cannot admit to being wrong, and that one of the sexes is much more demanding in the bedroom.
But which one??? Watch any long-running sitcom from start to finish, take note of all the gender generalities they throw out there... and notice that, with obvious exceptions for anatomical impossibilities, they all end up being re-phrased in a different episode to apply to the other gender. When people talk about "what men are like" or "what women are like," they're really describing "what PEOPLE are like." When you start out with a premise like "[1/2 the population] are terrible with road maps" and you go out to prove it, you end up focusing on each and every little case that supports your thesis and ignoring ones which tend to disprove it as being "exceptional." Everybody goes through life feeling like the people they're talking to aren't really listening. At the same time, we're trained to think of women as sympathetic and responsive, so when a woman isn't really listening, or is just kind of nodding and giving stock responses ("Mmmm hmmm... I know what you mean. That's so true. Good for you."), we store this under the heading of "Gosh, she really cares," whereas when a man does this, it gets filed under "Why do I even bother?" Men interrupt more. Women are more conversational. What's wrong with these "statistics?" I'll tell you: who's defining what's an interruption and what's conversation? Tiffany: I was going to the store the other day-- Amber: The one on Walden St? Tiffany: --uh huh, and guess who I saw there? Tiffany: I was going to the store the other day-- Biff: The one on Walden St? Tiffany: God damn it, you New Zealand pig, can't you let me spit out a f***ing sentence to save my life? CHRIST! The authors of this and countless other bullshit studies would tell you that Amber's purpose was to interject interaction into Tiffany's story for the purpose of building a social bond whereas Biff just wanted Tiffany to get to the point. How do they know this? "Because everyone knows that men and women are different." But can they prove that, without running evidence through a filter that starts with that same assumption? A man and a woman get into the same accident, pulling slowly into the same parking space (on different days). They both scrape up the front fender, or bumper, or whatever the hell you call the front of your car. How do the Peases account for this? They say that the woman had trouble gauging the distance and the man can't see what's right under his nose while he listens to his talk radio. Where's the evidence for this? Well, obviously the woman couldn't gauge the distance, because she scraped up the car, and obviously, the man couldn't see what's right in front of him while the radio was on. Two other little nibblets I'm going to throw out there: by all accounts, having "tunnel vision" at night while driving causes accidents, rather than preventing them. Highway hynposis and all that, right? Everyone I know... male, female, and points between... turns the radio on when they drive long distances at night, or, if someone else is in the car, strikes up a conversation. The last thing you want to do is focus on the road. | |
One only needs to look at my taskbar to debunk this whole thing. On a typical day, I have a couple browsers open, one or two ICQ windows, an email program, and a file=sharing app (which I probably only check every ten minutes or so). And thats if I don't have any programming project open.
I talk on the phone and do all of this every night. Sure, I slow down a bit, but I'm still able to do it all. And now for an interesting story.. according to historical accounts, Napolean was supposedly able to simultaneously dictate around 10 different letters, going back and forth between them, without losing track of where he was in each one. -AbyssDragon | |
And now for an interesting story.. according to historical accounts, Napolean was supposedly able to simultaneously dictate around 10 different letters, going back and forth between them, without losing track of where he was in each one. Heres another interesting historical account: Napoleon lost. Tee hee hee. I still think your missing the point, alot of these actions we do subconciously. Try doing 2 things at once that require your ocncentration like readin and writing (though I dont think even feamles can do that, though im probly completely and utterly wrong). | |
LexyBitch wrote:
Two other little nibblets I'm going to throw out there: by all accounts, having "tunnel vision" at night while driving causes accidents, rather than preventing them. Highway hynposis and all that, right? Everyone I know... male, female, and points between... turns the radio on when they drive long distances at night, or, if someone else is in the car, strikes up a conversation. The last thing you want to do is focus on the road. That's definitely true. Focusing on the road at night is a sure way to get hypnotized by it. I don't drive late too often, but when I do I make sure to keep the radio or something on. I find, however, that some things can be too distracting. When my mother's in the car, she talks up a storm. If she's gabbing next to me, and I get caught up in the conversation, I'm likely to miss a turn or something. What usually happens is that I'm used to a certain route, and plan to take a turn off of that to use a different route or go somewhere else, and while she's talking I totally miss the turning and end up taking the long way to get to where I'm going. Of course, I don't multitask well to begin with. :) Lummox JR | |
Who's deciding that it's conscious or subconscious? Obviously, whenever you're multi-tasking, only one action can actually be at the forefront of your brain (unless you're extremely talented and have developed this capability specifically, something that no amount of hormones or social training or whatever it is they're saying accounts for these differences could accomplish). Are you saying that Napoleon could dictate 10 letters subconsciously?
F***, that's a better trick than being able to do it consciously! If I could write anything subconsciously, I'd be published all over the place. I just got off the phone with my girlfriend. I was typing this, reading R.A. Salvatore, and thinking about my current game project at the same time. I have no idea what I said to my girlfriend, and I'm not sure what I'm accomplishing on my game, except that progress is being made. Clearly, some of the actions are "less conscious" than others. That's beside the point. Is your argument that if you can't remember doing something, it didn't happen? | |
Now, see, this is what I'm talking about. If you dig long enoug, anyone can throw up an extreme example (an extremely gabby person you probably can't afford to ignore or brush off) which the Peases would no doubt love to include in their next book as a supporting anecdote... while in reality, this one only supports the thesis that "If you're too focused on one thing, you lose track of other things."
| |
wrgone I cna oh wati ::pulls gum out of mouth:: Better,I can chew gum and type/talk at the same time so they're wrong about men.
::Puts gum back in::
WNDAER