Why Men don't Ask for Directions

Science Court
Science deals in true or false, but the law deals in right or wrong. Science leans heavily on deductive reasoning. Law leans heavily on inductive reasoning. The majority of men are predisposed to deductive reasoning, while the majority of women are predisposed to inductive reasoning. Carefully consider this argument that a couple might experience, when a woman says, ‘We never go out anymore.’ In response, her male companion recalls that the last time they went out together was two weeks prior, so he concludes her statement is false, so he thinks to himself, ‘Now what did I do.’ Feeling under attack he responds by counterattacking with, ‘You’re always exaggerating,’ or some such nonsense, and their argument escalates.

Now to prevent this communication failure in the first place the woman could have said, ‘We never go out anymore, since a couple of weeks ago.’ This qualifies her statement and overcomes the objection of being obviously false, but the man then wonders, ‘So,’ or, ‘What’s the point?’ Which is progress. At least he understands a point was intended, which he completely misread in the original version, when he felt blamed for something he didn’t do, which missed the point by a mile.

So how does a woman achieve the best of both possible worlds: conveying her point without seeming to make false accusations? Try this simple trick. ‘I feel we never go out anymore,’ is a true statement. There’s no arguing about the way a woman genuinely feels. It also conveys her feelings, which are hard to express in words, and implies that she doesn’t like feeling that way. These are natural conclusions a man might draw, and since men like to fix things, it gives him the opportunity to do or suggest something that might remedy the situation. And best of all it avoids an argument, so long as the woman refrains from countering with, ‘That’s a stupid idea.’

So let’s reexamine our couple’s dilemma using the Rules of Reason model. The woman began by saying, ‘We never go out anymore.’ Women are typically inductive, so let’s look at inductive reasoning in the table, and we see listed under given: cause. The effect is feeling upset. So what’s the cause and the rule? She decides the cause is cabin fever, and the rule is insufficient social outlets. But when her male companion hears her statement, how does he interpret it? Men are typically deductive, so let’s look at deductive reasoning in the table, and we see under given: cause. From a rule and a cause he can infer an effect. Her statement is a rule, and he infers the effect is that she is feeling upset, but what’s the cause? It has something to do with ‘we,’ so he takes it personally and infers that she is accusing him of being the cause, which triggers a subjective reaction, with unintended destructive consequences.

Let’s look at the revised statement, ‘I feel we never go out anymore.’ Is it a cause or an effect? It’s a rule, an objective statement of fact, in which ‘we never go out anymore’ is a metaphor for the way she is feeling. Her male companion correctly identifies this as an effect, but the cause is not taken personally because the focus is on ‘I’ not ‘we.’ He infers that a new cause is in order to produce a more desirable effect, triggering an objective reaction, with intended constructive consequences.

So what have we learned? Women typically think in inductive terms. The input of induction is an effect, which can be her feelings. The output of induction is a rule, which she expresses to her friends. Girlfriends understand this instinctively and apply the rule to their own experiences. Through analogy girlfriends communicate similar personal experiences. Misery loves company. However, men take a rule and infer an effect, which is her feelings. She’s feeling dissatisfied. He also infers a cause. Instead of relating to her feelings he infers that the cause is him and he feels blamed. To bypass male deduction, a woman needs to communicate objective rules not subjective rules. ‘I feel’ statements do this by turning a subjective rule into an objective fact.

What about advice for men, when communicating with women? To be fair, male speech misfires at times too. Men tend to express opinion as fact, and men typically think in deductive terms. The input of deduction is a rule. For women rules tend to be truisms about relationships, old wives tales and such, but for men rules tend to be ideas. With ideas as the input, the output of effects is sterile and unemotional, like a mathematician’s calculations. This gives deduction the impression of objective facts, rather than subjective opinion or statements of reason.

A man might say, ‘You should do this,’ rather than, ‘If this is your problem, then this might fix it.’ The prior statement gets the bum wrap that men don’t listen, because it’s in the form of a command, which sounds like an objective fact. By explicitly restating what he understands the problem to be, in the latter statement, he overcomes this perception, because it’s in cause and effect form. Now his understanding of the problem can be disputed, as well as the validity of his stated rule. An incorrect premise can lead to an incorrect conclusion. A conclusion cannot be refuted without being able to discredit the thought process that inferred it. ‘If then’ statements bring transparency to men’s thought process, as ‘I feel’ statements lend transparency to women’s thought process.

Otherwise, deduction gives the impression that men lack feelings, or the capacity to express them, or as an attack on a woman’s feelings. However, feelings reside in the realm of induction, not deduction. So deduction is unemotional, while men who lack inductive skills lack a means to express emotions. Analogy is middle ground in the battle of the sexes, which is the realm of empathy. Discussing common interests is a win-win situation. The other middle ground is abduction, where problem diagnosis takes place.

So now we have the background to diagnose some deep mysteries about men and women. For instance, ‘Why don’t men stop to ask for directions?’ The answer is elementary. Deductive reasoning is a process of elimination. It’s divide and conquer. When all else fails the backup plan is trial and error. Not all problems can be solved deductively. We can only explain things that we know rules to explain. When the rules we know are inadequate then we need to discover new rules. Deductive reasoning is not a rule making process, but a rule application process. The deductive reasoning mode suffers from self perpetuating ignorance, often to epidemic proportions. From the outside it’s obvious when a man gets lost, but from the inside a man is oblivious to the symptoms, until he runs out of options.

This mystery could just as easily be reworded in the female context, ‘Why do women feel compelled to stop and ask for directions?’ The answer is elementary too. Inductive reasoning is a process of reinforcement. Surveys are an example. The more responses we collect the greater the accuracy. That’s why girlfriends compare notes on relationship issues: to reach a consensus on what’s really happening. For us, the usefulness of this model extends well beyond sex roles.