In the Mood for Rationality

As it is possible to be "in the mood for love," is it possible to be in the mood for . . . truth?

Rationally-inclined folk and many an intellectual seem wary of arguments presented in a passionate manner. There is a good reason for this. The more strongly we desire something to be true, the easier it is for us to perceive it that way. The treasured and the repulsive will bend the lines of thought.

Yes, feelings influence thinking. As a bit of recent psychological research illustrates. At ScienceDaily I came across this news release:

A Passing Mood Can Profoundly Alter 'Rational Decisions'

Experiments on investing behavior and mood found that -

...loss aversion waxes and wanes in flexible ways, depending of whether or not the person is experiencing different fundamental motivational states, such as self-protection or looking for a mate.

Better investing decisions are more rational. You don't want to completely gamble with your money. Or hide it under your mattress. It seems decisions made when in a more lustful or more fearful mood compromised a person's financial decision-making.

First author Jessica Li notes this interesting gender difference in results:

"For men in a mating frame of mind, loss aversion completely disappeared and they became more focused on wins than losses. For women, on the other hand, mating motivation led them to be even more loss averse, to focus less on possible gains and even more on the pain of loss."

Hear that investment banking firms? Seems you definitely should hire attractive women to consult with your heterosexual male clients (attractive men to make sales pitches to homosexual male clients). The reverse may the case for female clients.

But don't. That would be unethical. Wouldn't it?

My overall point: with this study we find more evidence that objectivity really ought to be equated with equanimity.

According to the stereotype, men are an uncooperative lot. Maybe even socially inept. At least relative to the masters of getting-along: women.

But maybe not. In the least, the stereotype is a gross exaggeration (as most are). A recent study has found that, according to "a quantitative review of 272 studies comprising 31,642 participants in 18 countries" -

Men and women cooperate equally for the common good

A little more specifically, "men are equally cooperative, particularly in situations involving a dilemma that pits the interests of an individual against the interests of a group."

Hmm. And then there is this:

While there was no statistical difference between the sexes when it came to cooperating when faced with a social dilemma, when the researchers drilled down they did find some differences. Specifically, women were more cooperative than men in mixed-sex studies and men became more cooperative than women in same-sex studies and when the social dilemma was repeated. [emphasis added]

Slight red flag there. This basically a re-analysis of existing data. Which isn't bad. It just isn't excellent. Meaning that we shouldn't use this one piece of research to base an opinion or conclusion upon. Rather, the rational individual weighs as much information as he or she can. And depending upon the quality and quantity of that information, comes to a position of proportional confidence.

On a related note, will future research show that women are nearly as aggressive as men, particularly if less-violent forms of aggression are included in the measure? I wonder.

It seems that besides "spreading their seed" to foreign lands, rambling men have been transmitters of new languages. At least that's the conclusion presented by this new science finding:

Mother Tongue Comes from Your Prehistoric Father

First the data:

... genetic markers (the male Y chromosome and female mtDNA) from several thousand individuals in communities around the world ...

and the languages spoken by the carriers of those genetic markers. From discovered patterns, the researchers conclude:

Language change among our prehistoric ancestors came about via the arrival of immigrant men -- rather than women -- into new settlements.

That seems to make sense. Throughout history it has been largely men that have left the home and homeland in pursuit of resources beyond. As for why new languages tended to take hold and be found today along with traces of immigrant DNA, the authors speculate:

"Prehistoric women may have more readily adopted the language of immigrant males, particularly if these newcomers brought with them military prowess or a perceived higher status associated with farming or metalworking."

A "mother tongue" is usually associated with a homeland. But languages aren't mined from the earth. Rather, they accompany the gene-bearing people that speak them.

Quite a bit of research has linked having good social relationships (emotional support) and physical health, particularly in late life. Recently a gender difference in workplace relationships and health was found.

"[P]eer social support, which could represent how well a participant is socially integrated in his or her employment context, is a potent predictor of the risk of all causes of mortality," the researchers wrote. "An additional (unexpected) finding … is that the effect of control on mortality risk was positive for the men but negative for the women." [emphasis added; source]

In other words, men did better when in positions of control (another way of saying having relationships in which they bore more responsibility and wielded more power), while women did worse.

Which is interesting. As for potential reasons for the difference--and this is speculation on my part--I would imagine that one would be the possibility of women in a position of control being resented and resisted by men (and likely other women, for culture nurtures both sexes for better and worse). Who does she think she is?

There may also be an innate predisposition involved, small in some, larger in others, and even non-existing in yet others. It is a cultural universal that boys and men seem to gravitate and enjoy competitive struggle more than girls and women. Perhaps on some level, "the average women," feels less positive about wielding social power. And less positive feelings lead to poorer health.

Research published earlier this year has revealed this statistically significant gender difference: Men appear better at located the source of a sound. At least when that sound was one of many, a single tree in a forest of noise. [source]

While I can see how gender differences in math skills could be under the influence of social learning and culture, I'm not sure how the same could be the case for auditory skills. Of course, it would be mistaken to claim that what isn't obviously "nurture" must the be a case of "nature." The issue is complex.