Let me begin this by giving my definition of gullible. Gullible is the tendency to believe what you are told without strong objective evidence to support the statement. I have known for a long time that more women than men are strongly religious. Go to your average church service and you will nearly always see more women. Religion, of course, is a superstition, in that there is no strong empirical and objectively derived evidence to support its tenets. I was doing some reading on alternative medicine and I was interested to see that more patients of quackery are women. http://www.gendermedicine.com/1st/images/P82.pdf Ditto for astrology. So why is it, we see more women than men patronising obvious superstitions? Are women more gullible? I can even envisage an evolutionary reason for this. We all know how common it is for a man to lie to a woman in order to get sex. If women were not gullible, they would not fall for that, and human reproduction might be a lot less productive. Note that gullible does not mean stupid. I have met a lot of very intelligent people who nevertheless believe things they have been told without supporting evidence. So when I ask if women are more gullible, please do not think I am accusing them of being less than smart. But am I right? Whaddayathunk?
I think women are more duty bound when it comes to church, its not that men don't believe they just don't want to go to church in the morning. I think women feel like it is their job to take care of the family, so that means making everybody do stuff they don't want to do because she believes it to be in their best interest. Whether that's church on Sunday or family night on Tuesday, these ideas are usually a woman's doing. Not a whole lot of college aged women at church, the churches near a few colleges where I live complain about students low attendence every year. But those women might be back in a decade or so. As for medicine, more women are patients in general. Women are generally more interested in both alternative methods and scientific ones seeing as men are rarely interested in getting professional help with their own health for whatever manly reasons they have. Just like the women who drag their husbands to church, women also drag their husbands to the doctor and dentist. While I know from what I've experienced that more women than men get a kick out of astrology, I can't remember ever meeting anyone who actually believed it whole-heartedly. So I can't say anything about that. However, I know for me it's fun to think about though. It might be because it talks about things like cheesy romance and the like which men aren't as interested in reading about. Men however are far more likely to get swept away in good luck charms. Hang around any group of male athletes or even just fans and you'll find quite a few with lucky shoelaces, an unwashed jersey or sweatband...etc. The idea of lucky horseshoes and rabbits feet, probably weren't invented by women... I think it just depends on what people value and are interested in that makes them develop superstition around it. Humans seem to be superstious by nature. I don't think there is a gender difference when it comes to believing things with no evidence. Men may lie to get sex, but women are by no means less crafty when it comes to getting what they want from men. How many 65 year old men believe their 25 year old girlfriend actually loves them? And how many men are raising kids they falsely assume are their own? Unfortunately for those guys...far too many.
One aspect you have maybe not considered for this is that (as I have recently discovered after my father died and my mother started going to church): women tend to see the church as a social thing. Sure, my mother goes to church on a Sunday morning and whatnot, but the rest of the week she's out at church-led bring and buy sales, keep fit classes, social evenings &c. Women, therefore, I suggest, are probably more numerous in churches because of the social aspect which men are not particularly interested in. Every time I go to visit her it's "Church this and church that", but every single mention is about an otherwise (i.e. if it weren't specifically church-led) secular occasion.
On-line dictionary definition : easily deceived or cheated. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gullible which I think is pretty much the same as my personal definition. There is no doubt, though, that women are more religious than men. While socialising may be a factor, it is certainly not THE cause for their religiosity. http://www.livescience.com/7689-women-religious-men.html I quote : "A mountain of Gallup survey data attests to the idea that women are more religious than men, hold their beliefs more firmly, practice their faith more consistently, and work more vigorously for the congregation," Gallup wrote.
How many women have started a war? How many women are in jail compared to men for being a con artist of some type like Bernie Madoff? I'd say that all humans are gullible depending upon the situation at hand not that any one sex is more so.
CT Those are not examples of gullibility. Nor is patronising prostitutes. Those acts may not be smart, but they are not gullible. Note the big difference between gullibility and stupidity. Many highly intelligent people are gullible. As I have quoted before, a survey of Canadian mensa clubs showed that nearly half of their members (all in the top 2% of the population in terms of IQ) believe in astrology. Many highly intelligent mensa members are gullible. At the same time, there are many relatively low IQ people who are not at all gullible. Non gullible people might visit prostitutes for their own reasons, or for quite cynical reasons start wars or be con artists.
No shit. Survey results published in New Scientist. A lot of people think intelligence means you must be rational. Not true. Heaps of highly intelligent people are irrational, and gullible. Intelligence and gullibility often live together.
LG A little confusion here? The New Scientist report was not gender oriented - just Mensa Club members.
you were talking about women being more gullible yes? just curious how many of the new scientist staff are female, and how this fits in with your new found thesis.
When in trouble, women are more likely to reach out for help than men. Men tend to put more effort into their ego-maintainance than women. For a man, being a jerk is often perceived as better than being a loser. Sure, asking for help can sometimes take on a strange course, but at least those asking for help (often women) are doing something about their problems.
LG The survey published in New Scientist related to men and women. I mentioned that to make the point that gullibility and intelligence are not mutually exclusive. The idea of women being more gullible is one I raised as a question - not an affirmed statement. I am interested in how people respond to the question. I certainly do not have a clear answer. Some gender differences are clear cut. Women tend to be more religious than men, more superstitious, and more likely to patronise those who sell stuff that does not work, whether reiki therapy, or tarot cards. Obviously this does not apply to all women. I know many women (including my wife) who are stridently sceptical. But are women in general more gullible than men? If not, what is the alternative explanation?
Unless you think being on the staff of New scientist also means one is less intelligent, its not clear why you think I am contesting that. If you want to concede that the women who work for new scientist and who marry you aren't gullible whereas the women who go to church and apply natural medicine are, you have a hot little type I error on your hands as far as your assessment of women as a population vs gullibility is concerned That you are painting up a set of activities as being patronized by the gullible (we will leave aside the assessment whether such activities actually are, just for the sake of argument) and fallaciously drawing up some sort of correlation based on populations. I say fallaciously because your have not drawn up a complete assessment of "gullibility" as a term to identify a population by.
BTW .... :bravo: kudos Not even skeptical saw that one coming ....... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
