Empathising and Systemizing: What is the Fundamental Difference?

[einbert]

So I am reading this interesting book I picked up the other day called "The Essential Difference". It is about the differences between the male brain/thought process and the female brain/thought process (on average of course).

I have hit a pretty big roadblock in my understanding of its contents, and I was hoping maybe some of you guys could point me in the right direction. The main theme of the book is that males tend to be stronger at "systemizing", that is understanding systems, while females tend to be stronger at "emphasizing", which involves understanding human emotions.

A system is described as something that functions while receiving inputs and outputs. It could be a business, a piece of music, a sports league, limit hold em, internet forums, a million other things. But I believe the defining aspect of a "system" is that when given a set of inputs, the same output is always produced. Someone can correct me on that if I'm wrong.

In the book, emphasizing it divided into two parts: the cognitive aspect and the reactive aspect. The cognitive aspect involves the receiving of input in the forms of nonverbal and verbal communication from other human beings in order to interpret their feelings and emotions, while the reactive aspect involves reacting appropriately (?) to that person's specific mental and emotional state (in order to achieve a specific desired result?).

Here is my big hurdle in understanding all this: How is an aptitude for "systemizing" fundamentally any different than an aptitude for "empathizing"? I just can't figure out how human beings, including all their thoughts and emotions and everything else, aren't systems themselves. If someone is very strong at interpreting communication from other human beings, and then reacting to them appropriately, how is that any different from my ability to interpret someone's hand range from the available information, and then react appropriately in a game of limit hold em? What is the core, fundamental difference?

Maybe I shouldn't post this at all until I finish reading the book, and it will become clear to me as I continue on in it. But maybe I will get some insight from you guys that isn't even in the book. Hopefully some good will come of it, and not much bad really can come from thinking deeply about these kinds of things right? /images/graemlins/laugh.gif And I wanted to have a dialogue with you guys, since I have unfortunately been unable to access the internet for a while.

Thanks for your thoughts, they are appreciated.

[ QUOTE ]
The main theme of the book is that males tend to be stronger at "systemizing", that is understanding systems, while females tend to be stronger at "emphasizing", which involves understanding human emotions.
...
Here is my big hurdle in understanding all this: How is an aptitude for "systemizing" fundamentally any different than an aptitude for "empathizing"? I just can't figure out how human beings, including all their thoughts and emotions and everything else, aren't systems themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]


This doesn't seem very complicated. Historically, males have been the warriors, hunters, builders, etc. and have a certain aptitude for understanding systems relevant to these pursuits. Females have raised children and are better adapted for nurturing and responding to human needs and emotions (empathizing) since that is basically the essence of child-raising. You are trying to make this too complicated with your "but aren't humans systems?" line, and I doubt you are really struggling with this concept (maybe trying to show your deeper understanding of systems thinking?).

[ QUOTE ]
Here is my big hurdle in understanding all this: How is an aptitude for "systemizing" fundamentally any different than an aptitude for "empathizing"?

[/ QUOTE ]
Empathizing involves actually recreating the feelings another person is experiencing inside your own mind, and providing subtle emotional responses;
Systemizing involves taking data such as body language, vocal tone, the presence of tears, and analyzing it based on past experiences.

Example: You see a friend crying and they start telling you a sad story. You listen and:

- Actually feel some of what they're feeling, and be in tune with their emotions as they tell it. You respond to their emotions as they tell the story, and live the experience yourself.
- Hear what they're saying, analyse how difficult/unusual/painful it must have been, and respond by offering socially appropriate sympathy and understanding.

They are two vastly different processes that occur inside the brain, but can often result in similar behavior.

Disclaimer: I've never read a psychology book or come across the term 'systemizing' before, this is just what I've observed and the terms seem to fit.

[Darryl_P]

I agree with the responses so far and I should add that IMO the key difference is which part is conscious and which part is left to the subconscious.

Men tend to analyze consciously and sense emotional stuff subconsciously while with women it tends to be vice versa. The end result is often the same, though, so it's not always clear what type of process was used.

[einbert]

[ QUOTE ]
Empathizing involves actually recreating the feelings another person is experiencing inside your own mind, and providing subtle emotional responses;
Systemizing involves taking data such as body language, vocal tone, the presence of tears, and analyzing it based on past experiences.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for your post, ÖÖΘ. I think it is really helping me understand these two concepts.