Quote Originally Posted by upthemaggies View Post
Nobody seems to have offered any thoughts on this question and it's turned into another Meadow Lane memory thread, which is no bad thing, but at the risk of being thoroughly offensive, toxic, problematic and controversial I'll give it a go.

I've always assumed there is a difference between how male and females process memory, generally speaking, though it may be more pronounced in some cultures than others, There must have been some evolutionary pressure applied in that respect as humans moved into less stable climates and less fertile lands where you'd need to be able to make more associations (neural connections) as to how, where and when to secure food and shelter as well as avoiding danger.
Pattern recognition, organising and categorising take on a whole new level of importance.

For obvious reasons men would have been more on the front line, so to speak, than women, with men not being handicapped once a month or out of action on a more permanent basis due to dependents. So presumably there was a not insignificant shift between the two ***es as to how memory was stored as the environment in which they found themselves in drastically changed. Which is not to suggest women haven't evolved in the processing of memory, as they would have had to learn new skills to adapt also, but the emphasis in their case would have been more on the creative than practical (making clothes, creating temporary living spaces) and being more attuned to emotional needs in more turbulent situations.

So basically we have a greater male-female divide between more practical and more emotional memory out of necessity, or to put it another way a divide between practical and emotional thinking, or you could just reduce it to practical and emotional. Which isn't an issue unless you introduce the idea that there is a hierarchy between the two and disrupt the balance. A power struggle for the sake of a power grab.
Mmm, it has turned into a thread of reminiscing, and I've deviated into Notts memories too, but it is an interesting subject. I've often wondered about this as even straight after a game, I couldn't replay in my head the passes which led to a goal, but I would remember that Kasper had clattered the upright with his studs multiple times, or other random nonsense like Lionel Perez careering towards us when the ball got wedged under one of the children's seats and he was too impatient to wait for the ball boy to retrieve it.

Some people seem to be able to remember the entire passage of play leading to a goal. I've always been in awe of that.

By the way, I don't think that's a toxic view at all. This piece is a bit heavy, and I haven't had a chance to read it properly yet, but it does seem to bear out that there are differences: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...ies%20%5B13%5D.