Who is emotionally stronger, women or men?

[ARealConservative]

hm....hadn't heard of the trolley test...I killed the one guy...it will haunt me until I die but I made the BEST decision under the circumstances

as to the surgeon, I view it very differently...I do not take the healthy organs he owns them, I have no right because there is no critical decision to make only a choice to be had

you are faced with an identical dilemma in both cases. you chose to kill 1 to save 5 once. strange to not do it again.

 

[_Sal]

you made the same decision in both cases. you chose to kill 1 to save 5.

no actually in the latter, I chose to allow nature to take it's course

which is what I really did in the first one too

 

[ARealConservative]

no actually in the latter, I chose to allow nature to take it's course

which is what I really did in the first one too

in the first one, 5 would of died if you let events unfold.

I see no distinction in your choices, yet you came to different ones.

 

[_Sal]

in the first one, 5 would of died if you let events unfold.

I see no distinction in your choices, yet you came to different ones.

for me the logical choice in the first is to allow the one to die...now if the gorilla had been on one track and that kid's mother on the other, well it would have been a harder choice...

I do not believe a healthy individual should be sacrificed to save five sick ones and logically the five sick might not survive anyway

 

[Cardinal]

no actually in the latter, I chose to allow nature to take it's course

which is what I really did in the first one too

That's fatalism. Not that there's anything necessarily wrong with that, but that is the path you're using. You're saying that the Trolley conductor exercises his will on the situation when he encounters the possible victims on the tracks. Yet when the example centers around the doctor, where did his own ability to carry out his choosing go?

 

[Cardinal]

for me the logical choice in the first is to allow the one to die...now if the gorilla had been on one track and that kid's mother on the other, well it would have been a harder choice...

I do not believe a healthy individual should be sacrificed to save five sick ones and logically the five sick might not survive anyway

Or they might have because the doctor saved them. And if you're going to go the "what if" route, then you could just as easily say that the healthy patient would have been hit by a truck while exiting the clinic, and then six people would have died instead of the one.

For anyone who's interested, you can read a brain twisting explanation by Judith Thomas in chapter 35 under The Trolley Problem. I'm going to need to spend some time digesting it myself.

https://books.google.com/books?id=P...ge&q=jarvis thomas transplant problem&f=false

 

[Cardinal]

I am glad you posted that variant. they are the same decision, but people come to drastically difference choices

I've seen the statistics before and indeed the majority of the people who heard these dilemmas chose the five in the Trolley example and the healthy patient in the second. I think that Piratemk1's position explains it easily enough. In the second example we now know something about the six possible victims whereas before literally the only the fact we had to go on was how many of them there were. Listeners automatically choose the healthy patient because of the notion that the five sicks ones had their chance and nature chose them for death while the healthy one has his entire life ahead of him (which is totally a bias), even though the doctor still has the identical power to save the greater number of people as the conductor did in the Trolley Problem. To clarify, the doctor can make those five patients as good as the healthy one is now, but people still treat the problem differently. I wonder if there is a degree of fatalism at work here.

 

[_Sal]

That's fatalism. Not that there's anything necessarily wrong with that, but that is the path you're using. You're saying that the Trolley conductor exercises his will on the situation when he encounters the possible victims on the tracks. Yet when the example centers around the doctor, where did his own ability to carry out his choosing go?

no, I chose to allow the five to die because I believe it would be paramount to executing the healthy individual, thus nature would take it's course

that is my choice and my reason for it

label it what you will but from your explanation EVERYTHING is fatalism

 

[_Sal]

Or they might have because the doctor saved them. And if you're going to go the "what if" route, then you could just as easily say that the healthy patient would have been hit by a truck while exiting the clinic, and then six people would have died instead of the one.

For anyone who's interested, you can read a brain twisting explanation by Judith Thomas in chapter 35 under The Trolley Problem. I'm going to need to spend some time digesting it myself.

https://books.google.com/books?id=P...ge&q=jarvis thomas transplant problem&f=false

yes and actually I meant to bring that scenario into the equation...the healthy individual may well die prior to the other five

and in fact any of the five may experience a recovery

none the less the question was would you kill the healthy man and my answer was and still is no

 

[Gathomas88]

This seems like something which is probably impossible to really quantify. I'd definitely say that women are more emotional (on average, at least) than men. However, I don't think that necessarily equates to either "strength," or the lack thereof, in and of itself. It's more of a "case-by-case" kind of thing.

 

[Bodi]

Women generally make things a mess. I can't remember how many times I her females say that they think that men are complicated. :lol:

Women are so complicated that they think that men are complicated. Men are so simple it is amazing!

 

[_Sal]

Women generally make things a mess. I can't remember how many times I her females say that they think that men are complicated. :lol:

Women are so complicated that they think that men are complicated. Men are so simple it is amazing!

and yet you guys keep on coming back for more...:lol:

 

[Bodi]

and yet you guys keep on coming back for more...:lol:

Because you gals got something that we like... and in our simpleton mind set we think things will simplify not realizing how truly complicated women are and will remain.

 

[_Sal]

Because you gals got something that we like... and in our simpleton mind set we think things will simplify not realizing how truly complicated women are and will remain.

I know

it's complicated :lamo

 

[Fearandloathing]

So. Typically speaking, men are seen as the colder and more rational under pressure of the sexes. Women are seen as making better emotional decisions as they are more compassionate and more able to empathize.
A few opposing thoughts on this:

Women's Brains are More Sensitive to Negative Emotions

Guess What? Men are More Emotionally Fragile Than Women

Is there a general rule for this or is it a crap shoot that depends on the wiring of each and every individual?

And...debate!
Or just discuss and philosophize. Either and/or...

".....more rational under pressure"

Whoever said that has never heard of PMS.

 

[Fearandloathing]

I know

it's complicated :lamo

Not at my age.

There are certain certainties after 65, the first being that to women your own age, you are invisible or at least an obstacle to them getting a closer look at the shoes in the window who should know better!

The upside is that young women see you as safe and like having you sit with them on the bus so that really creepy guys can't

 

[Gaztopian]

That's more of a tough one than I'd have thought. I'm inclined to say men are emotionally stronger than women, but I've met a couple of women who were emotional fortresses in the face of great adversity.

 

[Jredbaron96]

I am a strong and independent man who don't need no woman.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

How does a decision based on emotion be "better"?
It seems as there needs to be a logical component to it to make it "better". The more logic the better. Which then leads it to being a more rational decision.

So it seems to me that the person making the less emotional and more logical decision is the one being more rational, be that person a man or a woman.

One of the traits of sociopaths is that all their decisions are purely rational and without any emotion. I am a rational person, but conscience and emotion should factor into some decisions.

 

[ARealConservative]

One of the traits of sociopaths is that all their decisions are purely rational and without any emotion. I am a rational person, but conscience and emotion should factor into some decisions.

way oversimplification. the traits of sociopaths is that they don't have empathy for others. having empathy, but choosing to act on other factors is not sociopathic behavior

 

[ALiberalModerate]

way oversimplification. the traits of sociopaths is that they don't have empathy for others. having empathy, but choosing to act on other factors is not sociopathic behavior

If you read any profile of a sociopath they base all their decisions on what is purely rational to them. The fact that they lack empathy is another trait. If the lack of empathy in and of itself made you a sociopath, then anyone with Borderline Personality Disorder would be a sociopath as well.

 

[Lovebug]

It really depends on the individual man or woman. Is there any doubt?

 

[Excon]

One of the traits of sociopaths is that all their decisions are purely rational and without any emotion. I am a rational person, but conscience and emotion should factor into some decisions.

I am not going to get into the accuracy/inaccuracy of your "purely rational" comment or whether emotion is needed or not in a specific decision.

But you should have seen in what you quoted that I clearly said, "it seems as there needs to be a logical component to it to make it "better"."

A component is a single part of the whole here, and in this case, was used as an in addition to, to state what would be "better".

Not the only thing.

 

[Excon]

Same difference. The choices are equally bad morally speaking. It doesn't really matter what you pick. There is no right choice in EITHER test.

No, it is not the "same difference".
In one, all die no matter what you choose.
In the other you have the choice of saving only one or saving five.

Secondly I spoke to "better", not "right".
Given the facts as presented, one of the choices is "better".
You change the known facts the "better" decision may change also.

 

[Surrealistik]

If you read any profile of a sociopath they base all their decisions on what is purely rational to them. The fact that they lack empathy is another trait. If the lack of empathy in and of itself made you a sociopath, then anyone with Borderline Personality Disorder would be a sociopath as well.

Psychopath, not sociopath.

A sociopath (Trump) is the impulsive cousin to the cold calculation of the psychopath (Hillary), though both lack or are even utterly devoid of empathy: Differences Between a Psychopath vs Sociopath | World of Psychology