I’ve been thinking about mirror neurons after seeing a wonderful video at the PBS/Nova site. These specialized brain cells help us relate to our surroundings and other people. Mirror cells build empathy and connection. They are activated when we watch and listen to others.
The video suggested that mirror neurons function even more profoundly when we witness an emotion or activity that we ourselves have experienced. This explains why my husband can feel intensely involved when simply watching a football game and I am unmoved. Could this also explain why women are more often affected by “chick flicks” that explore subtle or complicated emotional situations? (Sorry for the stereotypes in this entry, I use them only to offer simple examples!) In this case, young girls and women in our culture seem to practice and explore these “complicated emotional situations” more than men.
For example, I recently met a manager who was supervising a team of eight women: “Tom’s” struggle to relate to his team compelled him to attend one of my EI seminars. Tom confessed that he wasn’t comfortable expressing emotions. He also acknowledged that the women on his team seemed like an alien species. If Tom isn’t emotionally literate, are his mirror neurons less able to help him relate to the “emotional” women at work?
Learning about brain structure continues to help me understand how emotional intelligence offers practical assistance in daily life. I see the benefit of constantly developing our awareness of emotional states. For Tom, recognizing his own fears and angers could help his mirror neurons fulfill their function–helping Tom connect with his team so he can actually lead.
Laura Lewis-Barr
That’s almost funny !
Males do not relate to the world around them the way females do. They are wired so as not to be able to assess female emotional states accurately – especially anger. Facial recognition programming is inferior to female ability.
Like all generalizations, this one must be modified both as to the individual and by age : but men judge by tangible physical results and even by abstract concepts of publicly acceptable ‘morality’rather than emotionally loaded content. They rate those above declarations of intent.
‘Blindness’ as to the real motives of the opposite sex make them an agent easily manipulated by playing with sex drive. They are not as resented in leadership positions because they can’t compete in intrigue and do not have competitive expressive body language or vocabulary. Since they must exhibit industry to be perceived as desirable mates – I know, not a popular idea – acquisition skills are prized and a self-rating of competence.
Emotional openness is a trait suppressed in childhood because it leads to physical attack by those seeking to exploit perceived weakness ! Gang psychology requires the ability to hide and even suppress empathy. That’s not an easy heritage to overcome.
I didn’t come to these ideas ‘out of the blue’. Some think they are a discredited explanation of why males ‘lead’ so much of the time – to whit – males are often in charge because females fight more with their own sex !