<p>If women are better than men at reading thoughts and emotions by looking at eyes, because they are born for this, then is there a way to make a man to be as sensitive as women? </p>

<p>Is it similar to language acquisition? Even when it is impossible for a non-native speakers to know all vocabulary that a native one posses, at least they can learn to the point that native ones can't really differentiate who's who in daily conversations.</p>

<p>As a related but might contradicted example, when having sex, it might be useful to touch on the right spots at the right time. According to my counselor, heterosexual persons who have switched to homosexual tend to stay homosexual because the same gender partner knows what to do more. So while a woman might be satisfied more by another woman, a man can also be satisfied more by a man too.</p>

<p><sup><a href="http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-15/women-better-than-men-reading-thoughts-and-emotions/8618120?pfmredir=sm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Women better than men at reading thoughts and emotions by looking at eyes</a><br>
Hirsh, D. &amp; Nation, P. What Vocabulary Size Is Needed to Read Unsimplified Texts for Pleasure? Reading in a Foreign Language 8, 689–96 (1992).</sup></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-12-23T14:40:52.643Z
This question could have been off-topic, but you did an awesome job providing context. Thank you for putting in so much effort into the question.
Seanny123
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-12-23T16:42:09.783Z
To live up to our minimal research expectations on this site,  I would still appreciate any source backing up your first claim the follow up questions are based on. First of, I highly doubt the claim applies to all men, even if it would be shown to be (statistically) true. If you have a source stating (or claiming) this as truth, only then would your follow up question become meaningful and even more, answerable. How exactly do you measure or define "reading other's needs"? If we have a common source detailing this claim, only then can we provide a more meaningful answer.
Steven Jeuris
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-12-23T21:35:03.220Z
@StevenJeuris: (sorry for butting in) I think this should suffice:[ABC AU: "Women better than men at reading thoughts and emotions by looking at eyes, study shows"](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-15/women-better-than-men-reading-thoughts-and-emotions/8618120) for the fact that at least some think that. ]Previous research](https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/women_more_empathic_than_men) wasn't so conclusive.
got trolled too much this week
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-12-23T21:43:47.890Z
And one more place where the claim is made [Time Magazine: How the New Economy Hurts Men and Helps Women](http://time.com/3984017/men-women-economy/). Not bases on any science in this one, but the entire article (much like this question) is predicated on the assumption.
got trolled too much this week
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-12-23T21:52:36.463Z
What I don't like in this question (and the reason I haven't upvoted it) is that IMHO it mixes too many things. Having the same biological make-up during sex seems to provide a sort of "home advantage". Thought experiment: a bisexual male attracted 50/50 to both genders would be (on average) better pleased by a woman (owing to her presumably better  emotion reading) or by a man (with whom he shares the aforementioned biological common ground)?
got trolled too much this week
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-12-24T11:27:55.837Z
@Fizz I agree these suffice as sourcing the claim, however, without doing so the question becomes more dependent upon the interpretation of anyone answering it and as a result it will likely become less meaningful. A source (scientific or not) helps in providing a more elaborate context within which to frame the answer.
Steven Jeuris
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-12-24T13:22:12.503Z
@StevenJeuris can I use other persons's opinions as sources?
Ooker
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-12-25T03:45:14.083Z
Definitely. It often helpful to show that an opinion is commonly held.
Seanny123
<language><gender>
Is there a way for a man to be as sensitive as women in understanding other's thoughts and emotions?
Ooker
# Is there a way for a man to be as sensitive as women in understanding other's thoughts and emotions?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-12-23)

If women are better than men at reading thoughts and emotions by looking at eyes, because they are born for this, then is there a way to make a man to be as sensitive as women?

Is it similar to language acquisition? Even when it is impossible for a non-native speakers to know all vocabulary that a native one posses, at least they can learn to the point that native ones can't really differentiate who's who in daily conversations.

As a related but might contradicted example, when having sex, it might be useful to touch on the right spots at the right time. According to my counselor, heterosexual persons who have switched to homosexual tend to stay homosexual because the same gender partner knows what to do more. So while a woman might be satisfied more by another woman, a man can also be satisfied more by a man too.

[Women better than men at reading thoughts and emotions by looking at eyes](http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-15/women-better-than-men-reading-thoughts-and-emotions/8618120?pfmredir=sm)  
Hirsh, D. & Nation, P. What Vocabulary Size Is Needed to Read Unsimplified Texts for Pleasure? Reading in a Foreign Language 8, 689–96 (1992).

**Tags:** language, gender

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: This question could have been off-topic, but you did an awesome job providing context. Thank you for putting in so much effort into the question.  
> **username_2**: To live up to our minimal research expectations on this site,  I would still appreciate any source backing up your first claim the follow up questions are based on. First of, I highly doubt the claim applies to all men, even if it would be shown to be (statistically) true. If you have a source stating (or claiming) this as truth, only then would your follow up question become meaningful and even more, answerable. How exactly do you measure or define "reading other's needs"? If we have a common source detailing this claim, only then can we provide a more meaningful answer.  
> **username_3**: @StevenJeuris: (sorry for butting in) I think this should suffice:[ABC AU: "Women better than men at reading thoughts and emotions by looking at eyes, study shows"](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-15/women-better-than-men-reading-thoughts-and-emotions/8618120) for the fact that at least some think that. ]Previous research](https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/women_more_empathic_than_men) wasn't so conclusive.  
> **username_3**: And one more place where the claim is made [Time Magazine: How the New Economy Hurts Men and Helps Women](http://time.com/3984017/men-women-economy/). Not bases on any science in this one, but the entire article (much like this question) is predicated on the assumption.  
> **username_3**: What I don't like in this question (and the reason I haven't upvoted it) is that IMHO it mixes too many things. Having the same biological make-up during sex seems to provide a sort of "home advantage". Thought experiment: a bisexual male attracted 50/50 to both genders would be (on average) better pleased by a woman (owing to her presumably better  emotion reading) or by a man (with whom he shares the aforementioned biological common ground)?  
> **username_2**: @Fizz I agree these suffice as sourcing the claim, however, without doing so the question becomes more dependent upon the interpretation of anyone answering it and as a result it will likely become less meaningful. A source (scientific or not) helps in providing a more elaborate context within which to frame the answer.  
> **username_0**: @StevenJeuris can I use other persons's opinions as sources?  
> **username_1**: Definitely. It often helpful to show that an opinion is commonly held.  

---

## 0 answers

