|
On April 20 2012 10:18 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 10:12 hkf wrote:On April 20 2012 10:07 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On April 20 2012 10:04 hkf wrote:On April 20 2012 09:17 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On April 20 2012 08:42 Ruscour wrote:On April 20 2012 08:04 hkf wrote:There is absolutely no advantage gained in StarCraft from being male Are you kidding me and No seriously, are you fricking kidding me There's this cool thing you can do when disagreeing with something, it's called explaining and making an argument why. I am yet to see any evidence that what's between your legs affects your potential skill at StarCraft. There is a difference between your impact on the scene, but as I discussed in the OP, that should not be that relevant. I think it's how the brain functions actually. This may come as a shock, but male and female's process information totally different. Men take negativity much easier than women do, "be a man" for example, while girls cry over negative things easier "he didnt even say goodnight!" So, like I posted earlier, it can be said the only thing holding most women back is the fact they can't grind as many games without getting overly frustrated because it's a lot of negativity which they generally do not respond well too. That being said, I agree that the poster hkf is an idiot. you're half right, but in the wrong aspect. Have a look at what the target audience for starcraft is, as well as the design process for about 90%~ of modern video games (released in 2000-2010). And come back and tell me that they are not designed for a male audience PRIMARILY. It's a common fact that you design to maximise profit. There are also NUMBEROUS peer-reviewed studies (hell, I've even co-authored one or two during my university days) that demostrate that there are differences in cognitive processes when it comes to approaching interfaces between male and females. Bottom line is, something designed to exploit a market is always going to favour the target market, unless the design was a complete failure. I'm sorry, what are you saying, women don't enjoy these games? Last time I checked WoW is HEAVILY populated by female gamers... Doubt that was the target at creation. But I guess you "numberous" knowledge on the subject of developers cornering the male market and saying fuck off the the females is probably right You would be very surprised at what the target audience for certain games could be. Using WOW as a comparison is VERY weak in your arugment, as the game is able to be constantly evolved due to its nature. How likely is it for SC to add in a minigame where you control your automaton-2000 and battle their scantipede in a duel to see who gets to take their 3rd first? And not 'all women don't enjoy RTS's'. It is the exception rather than the rule. All you've made are assumptions based on your own opinion, stop it, it's spamming this discussion and getting anyone no where....
And you're not posting your own opinion right, you're posting ... something else?
Since when has anything in the entertainment industry been a meritocracy?
Since esports
|
On April 20 2012 10:23 hkf wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 10:18 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On April 20 2012 10:12 hkf wrote:On April 20 2012 10:07 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On April 20 2012 10:04 hkf wrote:On April 20 2012 09:17 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On April 20 2012 08:42 Ruscour wrote:On April 20 2012 08:04 hkf wrote:There is absolutely no advantage gained in StarCraft from being male Are you kidding me and No seriously, are you fricking kidding me There's this cool thing you can do when disagreeing with something, it's called explaining and making an argument why. I am yet to see any evidence that what's between your legs affects your potential skill at StarCraft. There is a difference between your impact on the scene, but as I discussed in the OP, that should not be that relevant. I think it's how the brain functions actually. This may come as a shock, but male and female's process information totally different. Men take negativity much easier than women do, "be a man" for example, while girls cry over negative things easier "he didnt even say goodnight!" So, like I posted earlier, it can be said the only thing holding most women back is the fact they can't grind as many games without getting overly frustrated because it's a lot of negativity which they generally do not respond well too. That being said, I agree that the poster hkf is an idiot. you're half right, but in the wrong aspect. Have a look at what the target audience for starcraft is, as well as the design process for about 90%~ of modern video games (released in 2000-2010). And come back and tell me that they are not designed for a male audience PRIMARILY. It's a common fact that you design to maximise profit. There are also NUMBEROUS peer-reviewed studies (hell, I've even co-authored one or two during my university days) that demostrate that there are differences in cognitive processes when it comes to approaching interfaces between male and females. Bottom line is, something designed to exploit a market is always going to favour the target market, unless the design was a complete failure. I'm sorry, what are you saying, women don't enjoy these games? Last time I checked WoW is HEAVILY populated by female gamers... Doubt that was the target at creation. But I guess you "numberous" knowledge on the subject of developers cornering the male market and saying fuck off the the females is probably right You would be very surprised at what the target audience for certain games could be. Using WOW as a comparison is VERY weak in your arugment, as the game is able to be constantly evolved due to its nature. How likely is it for SC to add in a minigame where you control your automaton-2000 and battle their scantipede in a duel to see who gets to take their 3rd first? And not 'all women don't enjoy RTS's'. It is the exception rather than the rule. All you've made are assumptions based on your own opinion, stop it, it's spamming this discussion and getting anyone no where.... And you're not posting your own opinion right, you're posting ... something else? Since esports
There is a difference between me posting my opinion, and then posting my opinion as if it was fact... You post, and say this is how it is, I post, present relative data (when I deem in needed, as I was when replying to the poster above you) and the present my opinion as the truer true. Notice the difference? No need to be condescending.
|
On April 20 2012 10:23 hkf wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 10:18 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On April 20 2012 10:12 hkf wrote:On April 20 2012 10:07 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On April 20 2012 10:04 hkf wrote:On April 20 2012 09:17 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On April 20 2012 08:42 Ruscour wrote:On April 20 2012 08:04 hkf wrote:There is absolutely no advantage gained in StarCraft from being male Are you kidding me and No seriously, are you fricking kidding me There's this cool thing you can do when disagreeing with something, it's called explaining and making an argument why. I am yet to see any evidence that what's between your legs affects your potential skill at StarCraft. There is a difference between your impact on the scene, but as I discussed in the OP, that should not be that relevant. I think it's how the brain functions actually. This may come as a shock, but male and female's process information totally different. Men take negativity much easier than women do, "be a man" for example, while girls cry over negative things easier "he didnt even say goodnight!" So, like I posted earlier, it can be said the only thing holding most women back is the fact they can't grind as many games without getting overly frustrated because it's a lot of negativity which they generally do not respond well too. That being said, I agree that the poster hkf is an idiot. you're half right, but in the wrong aspect. Have a look at what the target audience for starcraft is, as well as the design process for about 90%~ of modern video games (released in 2000-2010). And come back and tell me that they are not designed for a male audience PRIMARILY. It's a common fact that you design to maximise profit. There are also NUMBEROUS peer-reviewed studies (hell, I've even co-authored one or two during my university days) that demostrate that there are differences in cognitive processes when it comes to approaching interfaces between male and females. Bottom line is, something designed to exploit a market is always going to favour the target market, unless the design was a complete failure. I'm sorry, what are you saying, women don't enjoy these games? Last time I checked WoW is HEAVILY populated by female gamers... Doubt that was the target at creation. But I guess you "numberous" knowledge on the subject of developers cornering the male market and saying fuck off the the females is probably right You would be very surprised at what the target audience for certain games could be. Using WOW as a comparison is VERY weak in your arugment, as the game is able to be constantly evolved due to its nature. How likely is it for SC to add in a minigame where you control your automaton-2000 and battle their scantipede in a duel to see who gets to take their 3rd first? And not 'all women don't enjoy RTS's'. It is the exception rather than the rule. All you've made are assumptions based on your own opinion, stop it, it's spamming this discussion and getting anyone no where.... And you're not posting your own opinion right, you're posting ... something else? Since esports
Well, either it is, and these female programers deserve to be where they are based on their skill, and we don't have a problem, or they are where they are because of something other than their skill (or, more likely, a combination of their skill and other factors), and it's not a meritocracy.
I think it's reasonable to say that eSports is not a meritocracy - a more relevant question might be: why should it be, when no other sport, and no other form of entertainment is? Or: sure, there are players out there who "deserve" to be sponsored, or "deserve" to be drafted based on their skill, but why do we pick on the female players as the ones supposedly taking their spots? There are a number of male progamers (and sportspersons alike) who probably don't deserve to be where they are, or got there through a combination of skill and other factors, but no one seems to snipe at them for wasting valuable progamer space.
|
Girls are intimidated by how male-dominated things are
Girls don't play Starcraft 2 for the same reasons as men. It's too difficult.
I played RTS games most of my life, and looking back to my class in highschool, there was myself, and 3 other people in my grade who played Broodwar(Broodwar was just released a year before graduation). A few others had played it for awhile, but no one had the balls and mental muscle to go onto battle.net.
Most people who tried the game would state the same thing,
It's too difficult.
Male dominated is a statement that attempts to accrue conflict and controversy. When you are trying to understand people in modern times, this is never a place to start.
To the best of my knowledge, video games are an activity,that are more heavily dominated by male consumers in the first place. Females do play them, though they do not spend as much time and money here as the average male would.
If it were asked, why do females not play Starcraft 2? The answer is, they do not want to! Guys generally prefer guns and armies, dreaming of war and spending their free-time and imagination role-playing national history, history of war and military styles.
Finally, the players of Starcraft 2 should understand, that they are an exceptional group. Perhaps 1/1000 people, geographically speaking ever touched the game. You can use deductive reasoning from there to understand how it doesn't fall into the hands of many girls. Perhaps this whole idea originates from an sc2 gamer's concept of utopia... or the dream of romantic love to truly be seeable on the horizon.
|
On April 20 2012 00:22 Azure Sky wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 22:34 RenSC2 wrote:
As for Scarlett, that's an interesting case. I do wonder if Scarlett may actually hurt the female scene. Imagine being a girlfriend of a SC2 fan who is trying to get you into SC2. He shows you this girl, Scarlett, who can compete with the guys. Except you notice something odd about Scarlett (as a whole lot of people did), and then your boyfriend admits that Scarlett is transgender. So, essentially, the best female was born as a male. Do you really think a girlfriend or just some other young girl is going to be inspired by that or does it reinforce the stereotype of the game being dominated by males, no matter how they live their lives? To be honest with you, I'm not a big fan of Starcraft 2 and at most I'll just click on the results spoilers in GSL threads if I'm curious who won even though I'll typically have no idea who played. However, Scarlett's IPL4 run was the first time I ever really followed a Starcraft 2 tournament closely. So my answer to you would be no, not at all.
Me too, can't speak for the whole of womankind but for me Scarlett has motivated me to ladder more, and if anything reinforces the stereotype of sc2 being dominated by males its the razer models draping themselves over boy gamers (remember that?).
|
Ok, so I read the thread and think it's really interesting and wanted to add two or three points.
- It's always a question of quality vs. quantity. You could use the same arguments to argue on how Starcraft II should be developed.
Blizzard will focus on making the game easier, pro-players will focus on balance / adding complexity in the game.
It's the same with the female eSport scene.
You can have 10 beautiful women like Seltzer or Uncontrollable that don't know anything about the game as host OR you can have 10 "gamer"-women that actually play the game and have a decent level.
You have kinda the same situation with casters too, Analytical casters vs. Play by play casters.
My opinion on this matter is that we should hire / support people that actually play the game at a decent level.
It's not me being elitist or anything, it just makes the evolution of a scene like Starcraft II eSports much quicker because problems will quickly be detected.
For example MLG, they organize great tournaments but had "extended series" for about 2 years despite a LOT of pros complaining about it for a long time. Why does this happen ? Because MLG direction / organizers don't play the game.
It's plain and simple. That always bothers me.
(Sundance on SotG. Incontrol : "What race do you play ?",Sundance : "Huh ... I play as the marine". How do you want this guy to understand if his tournament format is appropriate or not ?)
It's always hilarious to watch Interviews by female interviewers that don't go as planned. That's the moment when you see if they actually play the game.
- Like Ruscour (the Op) said, if a top 8 master female player talks with a team she might not get picked-up because she's not "good looking". I would even add that hiring "hot" women hurts eSports because it means that an actual Starcraft II female pro / semi-pro won't get the chance to have a sponsored team.
- Barcrafts will i think play a crucial role in the evolution of Starcraft. Because that social aspect that Bnet-2.0 doesn't have is really important to female players (more than males).
- Like you said, Scarlett did a lot more for female players in eSports than all the others combined. Why ? Because she got judged based on her accomplishments.
|
On April 20 2012 01:11 qrs wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 23:00 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 19 2012 19:32 Zanno wrote:On April 19 2012 19:23 Ruscour wrote:On April 19 2012 19:20 Zanno wrote:
you are aware Scarlett is a dude right
that's not even a rumor
i do not have any bias against transgenders at all but i do not think Scarlett qualifies as a victory towards female recognition in competitive starcraft Scarlett is female. I am aware she is transgendered. There is absolutely no advantage gained in StarCraft from being male, therefore there is no reason why she couldn't be considered a success for the female SC2 scene. EDIT: This will be the only reply I make about this issue. Please don't discuss it here, it undermines the point I'm trying to make. Of course it undermines the point you're trying to make There's a large body of literature out there that shows that the male brain and female brain develop differently and as a result there are certain problems that males are better equipped to deal with and certain problems that females are better equipped to deal with Undergoing sex reassignment surgery does not magically undo two decades of the human body's growth as a male and if you are going to ignore this then I don't know what to say Yeah well, people used to have the same machist idiotic reasoning in chess, and then came Judit Polgar (and her sisters), who has demolished everybody since she is 6, has been one of the greatest prodigy child in history of chess and has been ranked as high as world number 8, having defeated world champions or former world champions Karpov, Anand, Kasparov, Spasky, Smilsov, Topalov, Ponomariov, Khalifman and Razhimdzdhanov. Yes, then came Judit Polgar, and then came...who? Yifan? Not yet, at any rate. Without making speculative statements about why males thus far have the competitive edge in chess and in Starcraft, it's hard to deny that currently they do—and one proof of that is that people still feel the need to hold separate female-only events. With regard to chess, Judit Polgar is the exception that proves the rule: yes, she cracked the overall top 10 for a while—and she's the only female ever to come close to doing so. With regard to Starcraft—well, look at how the OP, even as he theorizes that there ought to be no disadvantage to being female, admits that, Scarlett aside, no girl has actually been "good enough to be considered a competitor in her own right". And as for Scarlett, well, Scarlett is transgendered, and without getting into questions of etiquette, I don't think you can entirely ignore that fact if the discussion is about comparing female gamers to male gamers. Whatever the reason is that males have generally dominated the top of the Starcraft scene, it's certainly the case that they have—and so long as that remains an unexplained fact, I don't see how you can blithely assume that someone born male (and perhaps still biologically male? I don't know), with all of the biological and cultural things that go along with that is wholly representative of people born female, with all of the biological and cultural things that go along with that. The pronoun you use to refer to Scarlett is one thing; the inferences you draw from Scarlett's success are something else entirely. In my opinion, you won't be able to prove something about the legitimacy of the non-transgender female scene until a non-transgendered female has had a legitimate level of success.
Yeah fine, that's absolutely true, most of the top 100 chess players are males. In fact 99 of them are males since Judit Polgar is the only one to have ever broken into the top 100. Why? It's not science rocket. It's statistic:
Male dominate chess because chess is socially a male activity. The little boy is put to play chess and the little girl is put to dance or whatever. Go in a chessclub and you will see the junior section with basically only little boys. It's even worse in countries that actually produce most of champions: Russia, Azerbadjan, etc... You just won't see a little girl in a chess club because parents don't put them at chess.
The three Polgar sisters are exception because they had an environment that was devoted to make them great chess players. Their father was a grand master and luckily he didn't have any of these silly prejudices. And he designed their education to make them brilliant players. And without surprise, they all became elite players, regardless of their gender.
SC2 is just the same. Boys play Starcraft, Girls play the Sims. That's the way people are being raised, because boys have blue rooms and girls pink rooms, that boys are offered GI Joe and girls Barbie doll, boys are dressed with sport clothes and girl with dresses etc... It has absolutely nothing to do with the intrinseque capacity of each gender, but about stereotypical education that we all get, that generates the kind of sensibility we have, the way we think and what we can do.
Now, about chess, the Polgar family (keep in mind, they were three sisters, they all became grand master, that's a 100% success rate in the family) is enough to shut the mouth of everybody who pretend women can't compete at the highest level. They can, if they are given the environment from their youngest age, which is unfortunately incredibly rare.
There were no women composer until the mid XXth century. NOT ONE except for "wives of": Clara Schumann, Alma Mahler and Fanny Mendelssohn, period. So it was supposed to be a male activity, and women were discourage to compose. You would be told the same crap than we are being served in this thread, you know, about male qualities, the genius, creativity, whatever, backed up with the facts: 100% of male composers and the fallacious argument: there must be a good reason. Surprise, now that most (not all as we can see) of those stereotypes have disappear, we have a good 50% of women in contemporary composers.
Feminism has a long way to go.
One last thing: you can say the exact same thing and that becomes evn more obvious with skin colour. Take Fields medal laureates. Surprise! Everybody is white. That means nothing about racial differences. It just says that when you are white you are a zillion times more likely to have the environment to become a great mathematician. And yet you still have racists using these kinds of datas to prove white men are more clever.
|
I agree with more or less everything Biff just said. Yay.
|
On April 20 2012 17:53 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 01:11 qrs wrote:On April 19 2012 23:00 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 19 2012 19:32 Zanno wrote:On April 19 2012 19:23 Ruscour wrote:On April 19 2012 19:20 Zanno wrote:
you are aware Scarlett is a dude right
that's not even a rumor
i do not have any bias against transgenders at all but i do not think Scarlett qualifies as a victory towards female recognition in competitive starcraft Scarlett is female. I am aware she is transgendered. There is absolutely no advantage gained in StarCraft from being male, therefore there is no reason why she couldn't be considered a success for the female SC2 scene. EDIT: This will be the only reply I make about this issue. Please don't discuss it here, it undermines the point I'm trying to make. Of course it undermines the point you're trying to make There's a large body of literature out there that shows that the male brain and female brain develop differently and as a result there are certain problems that males are better equipped to deal with and certain problems that females are better equipped to deal with Undergoing sex reassignment surgery does not magically undo two decades of the human body's growth as a male and if you are going to ignore this then I don't know what to say Yeah well, people used to have the same machist idiotic reasoning in chess, and then came Judit Polgar (and her sisters), who has demolished everybody since she is 6, has been one of the greatest prodigy child in history of chess and has been ranked as high as world number 8, having defeated world champions or former world champions Karpov, Anand, Kasparov, Spasky, Smilsov, Topalov, Ponomariov, Khalifman and Razhimdzdhanov. Yes, then came Judit Polgar, and then came...who? Yifan? Not yet, at any rate. Without making speculative statements about why males thus far have the competitive edge in chess and in Starcraft, it's hard to deny that currently they do—and one proof of that is that people still feel the need to hold separate female-only events. With regard to chess, Judit Polgar is the exception that proves the rule: yes, she cracked the overall top 10 for a while—and she's the only female ever to come close to doing so. With regard to Starcraft—well, look at how the OP, even as he theorizes that there ought to be no disadvantage to being female, admits that, Scarlett aside, no girl has actually been "good enough to be considered a competitor in her own right". And as for Scarlett, well, Scarlett is transgendered, and without getting into questions of etiquette, I don't think you can entirely ignore that fact if the discussion is about comparing female gamers to male gamers. Whatever the reason is that males have generally dominated the top of the Starcraft scene, it's certainly the case that they have—and so long as that remains an unexplained fact, I don't see how you can blithely assume that someone born male (and perhaps still biologically male? I don't know), with all of the biological and cultural things that go along with that is wholly representative of people born female, with all of the biological and cultural things that go along with that. The pronoun you use to refer to Scarlett is one thing; the inferences you draw from Scarlett's success are something else entirely. In my opinion, you won't be able to prove something about the legitimacy of the non-transgender female scene until a non-transgendered female has had a legitimate level of success. Yeah fine, that's absolutely true, most of the top 100 chess players are males. In fact 99 of them are males since Judit Polgar is the only one to have ever broken into the top 100. Why? It's not science rocket. It's statistic: Male dominate chess because chess is socially a male activity. The little boy is put to play chess and the little girl is put to dance or whatever. Go in a chessclub and you will see the junior section with basically only little boys. It's even worse in countries that actually produce most of champions: Russia, Azerbadjan, etc... You just won't see a little girl in a chess club because parents don't put them at chess. The three Polgar sisters are exception because they had an environment that was devoted to make them great chess players. Their father was a grand master and luckily he didn't have any of these silly prejudices. And he designed their education to make them brilliant players. And without surprise, they all became elite players, regardless of their gender. SC2 is just the same. Boys play Starcraft, Girls play the Sims. That's the way people are being raised, because boys have blue rooms and girls pink rooms, that boys are offered GI Joe and girls Barbie doll, boys are dressed with sport clothes and girl with dresses etc... It has absolutely nothing to do with the intrinseque capacity of each gender, but about stereotypical education that we all get, that generates the kind of sensibility we have, the way we think and what we can do. Now, about chess, the Polgar family (keep in mind, they were three sisters, they all became grand master, that's a 100% success rate in the family) is enough to shut the mouth of everybody who pretend women can't compete at the highest level. They can, if they are given the environment from their youngest age, which is unfortunately incredibly rare. There were no women composer until the mid XXth century. NOT ONE except for "wives of": Clara Schumann, Alma Mahler and Fanny Mendelssohn, period. So it was supposed to be a male activity, and women were discourage to compose. You would be told the same crap than we are being served in this thread, you know, about male qualities, the genius, creativity, whatever, backed up with the facts: 100% of male composers and the fallacious argument: there must be a good reason. Surprise, now that most (not all as we can see) of those stereotypes have disappear, we have a good 50% of women in contemporary composers. Feminism has a long way to go. One last thing: you can say the exact same thing and that becomes evn more obvious with skin colour. Take Fields medal laureates. Surprise! Everybody is white. That means nothing about racial differences. It just says that when you are white you are a zillion times more likely to have the environment to become a great mathematician. And yet you still have racists using these kinds of datas to prove white men are more clever.
You should watch Hjernevask (Brainwash), a Norwegian science documentary. Particularly episode one, "The Gender Equality Paradox.
What you have said is complete nonsense based on wishful thinking and an emotional desire to see everyone as equal.
Gender differences are observable immediately after birth. Female babies are more socially inclined and prefer to look at human faces, while male newborns are more mechanically inclined and will look at machines longer.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=327138
The example of the Polgar family that you used itself seems to be strong evidence that genetics is the key factor in becoming a chess grandmaster.
On April 20 2012 18:51 chocopan wrote:
I agree with more or less everything Biff just said. Yay.
Everything Biff said is wrong.
|
Everything Biff said is wrong.
What, everything? [This question is, of course, rhetorical. Please don't reply.]
|
On April 20 2012 19:39 Zaqwe wrote:
Everything Biff said is wrong.
\o/ And you should read Kimmel's extensive and exhaustive work in the sociology field - especially those works regarding gender and gender identity. Or honestly, any noteworthy sociology text will agree with the crux of what Biff has said.
|
On April 20 2012 19:55 pedostare wrote:\o/ And you should read Kimmel's extensive and exhaustive work in the sociology field - especially those works regarding gender and gender identity. Or honestly, any noteworthy sociology text will agree with the crux of what Biff has said.
Sure, but those sociology texts are wrong.
Brainwash 1 : 7 - The Gender Equality Paradox
http://vimeo.com/19707588
The vimeo password is "hjernevask".
|
On April 20 2012 19:39 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 17:53 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2012 01:11 qrs wrote:On April 19 2012 23:00 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 19 2012 19:32 Zanno wrote:On April 19 2012 19:23 Ruscour wrote:On April 19 2012 19:20 Zanno wrote:
you are aware Scarlett is a dude right
that's not even a rumor
i do not have any bias against transgenders at all but i do not think Scarlett qualifies as a victory towards female recognition in competitive starcraft Scarlett is female. I am aware she is transgendered. There is absolutely no advantage gained in StarCraft from being male, therefore there is no reason why she couldn't be considered a success for the female SC2 scene. EDIT: This will be the only reply I make about this issue. Please don't discuss it here, it undermines the point I'm trying to make. Of course it undermines the point you're trying to make There's a large body of literature out there that shows that the male brain and female brain develop differently and as a result there are certain problems that males are better equipped to deal with and certain problems that females are better equipped to deal with Undergoing sex reassignment surgery does not magically undo two decades of the human body's growth as a male and if you are going to ignore this then I don't know what to say Yeah well, people used to have the same machist idiotic reasoning in chess, and then came Judit Polgar (and her sisters), who has demolished everybody since she is 6, has been one of the greatest prodigy child in history of chess and has been ranked as high as world number 8, having defeated world champions or former world champions Karpov, Anand, Kasparov, Spasky, Smilsov, Topalov, Ponomariov, Khalifman and Razhimdzdhanov. Yes, then came Judit Polgar, and then came...who? Yifan? Not yet, at any rate. Without making speculative statements about why males thus far have the competitive edge in chess and in Starcraft, it's hard to deny that currently they do—and one proof of that is that people still feel the need to hold separate female-only events. With regard to chess, Judit Polgar is the exception that proves the rule: yes, she cracked the overall top 10 for a while—and she's the only female ever to come close to doing so. With regard to Starcraft—well, look at how the OP, even as he theorizes that there ought to be no disadvantage to being female, admits that, Scarlett aside, no girl has actually been "good enough to be considered a competitor in her own right". And as for Scarlett, well, Scarlett is transgendered, and without getting into questions of etiquette, I don't think you can entirely ignore that fact if the discussion is about comparing female gamers to male gamers. Whatever the reason is that males have generally dominated the top of the Starcraft scene, it's certainly the case that they have—and so long as that remains an unexplained fact, I don't see how you can blithely assume that someone born male (and perhaps still biologically male? I don't know), with all of the biological and cultural things that go along with that is wholly representative of people born female, with all of the biological and cultural things that go along with that. The pronoun you use to refer to Scarlett is one thing; the inferences you draw from Scarlett's success are something else entirely. In my opinion, you won't be able to prove something about the legitimacy of the non-transgender female scene until a non-transgendered female has had a legitimate level of success. Yeah fine, that's absolutely true, most of the top 100 chess players are males. In fact 99 of them are males since Judit Polgar is the only one to have ever broken into the top 100. Why? It's not science rocket. It's statistic: Male dominate chess because chess is socially a male activity. The little boy is put to play chess and the little girl is put to dance or whatever. Go in a chessclub and you will see the junior section with basically only little boys. It's even worse in countries that actually produce most of champions: Russia, Azerbadjan, etc... You just won't see a little girl in a chess club because parents don't put them at chess. The three Polgar sisters are exception because they had an environment that was devoted to make them great chess players. Their father was a grand master and luckily he didn't have any of these silly prejudices. And he designed their education to make them brilliant players. And without surprise, they all became elite players, regardless of their gender. SC2 is just the same. Boys play Starcraft, Girls play the Sims. That's the way people are being raised, because boys have blue rooms and girls pink rooms, that boys are offered GI Joe and girls Barbie doll, boys are dressed with sport clothes and girl with dresses etc... It has absolutely nothing to do with the intrinseque capacity of each gender, but about stereotypical education that we all get, that generates the kind of sensibility we have, the way we think and what we can do. Now, about chess, the Polgar family (keep in mind, they were three sisters, they all became grand master, that's a 100% success rate in the family) is enough to shut the mouth of everybody who pretend women can't compete at the highest level. They can, if they are given the environment from their youngest age, which is unfortunately incredibly rare. There were no women composer until the mid XXth century. NOT ONE except for "wives of": Clara Schumann, Alma Mahler and Fanny Mendelssohn, period. So it was supposed to be a male activity, and women were discourage to compose. You would be told the same crap than we are being served in this thread, you know, about male qualities, the genius, creativity, whatever, backed up with the facts: 100% of male composers and the fallacious argument: there must be a good reason. Surprise, now that most (not all as we can see) of those stereotypes have disappear, we have a good 50% of women in contemporary composers. Feminism has a long way to go. One last thing: you can say the exact same thing and that becomes evn more obvious with skin colour. Take Fields medal laureates. Surprise! Everybody is white. That means nothing about racial differences. It just says that when you are white you are a zillion times more likely to have the environment to become a great mathematician. And yet you still have racists using these kinds of datas to prove white men are more clever. You should watch Hjernevask (Brainwash), a Norwegian science documentary. Particularly episode one, "The Gender Equality Paradox. What you have said is complete nonsense based on wishful thinking and an emotional desire to see everyone as equal. Gender differences are observable immediately after birth. Female babies are more socially inclined and prefer to look at human faces, while male newborns are more mechanically inclined and will look at machines longer. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=327138The example of the Polgar family that you used itself seems to be strong evidence that genetics is the key factor in becoming a chess grandmaster. Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 18:51 chocopan wrote:
I agree with more or less everything Biff just said. Yay. Everything Biff said is wrong.
Yeah I know people desperately want to justify social order and inequalities with science. That's even a constant in science history.
So let me first tell you that most human science researcher absolutely back up my claims. And don't forget that in the XIXth century, very serious scientists were calculating that the size of the skull of "nigers" was smaller than the one of white people and that was the reason why they were less intelligent and subject to be colonized or put in slavery. Things don't change. Tomorrow we will smile at today's scientists attempts to justify sexist prejudices the same way that now we smile at yesterday's scientists trying to justify racist prejudices.
I am not saying men and women are biologically speaking exactly the same. But to claim that women can't compete with men at something like chess because of genetical disposition is just a fancy way to repeat the most obscene of sexist prejudice: that women are less intelligent. Anyway, explain me a little why they were no women scientist or philosophers until we started to question the dumb prejudices you are defending and as sonn as we did DADA!!! we started to have Marie Curie and other Hannah Arendt? Answer: because when we started to change women education / environment it appeared they were just as smart as men while everybody were certain during six thousand years they were dumb as fuck and unable to think rationally. They were no women scientist because women didn't have the possibility to be a scientist in yesterday's society.
Education and gender issues (gender =/= biological sex) are the reason we behave differently. They are not based on nature, they are a social construction.
|
On April 20 2012 20:15 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 19:55 pedostare wrote:On April 20 2012 19:39 Zaqwe wrote:
Everything Biff said is wrong. \o/ And you should read Kimmel's extensive and exhaustive work in the sociology field - especially those works regarding gender and gender identity. Or honestly, any noteworthy sociology text will agree with the crux of what Biff has said. Sure, but those sociology texts are wrong. Brainwash 1 : 7 - The Gender Equality Paradoxhttp://vimeo.com/19707588The vimeo password is " hjernevask".
"Everybody but my random norwegian documentary is wrong. I know it because I have seen that documentary and you know errr it was right. Because it's on the screen and they are people dressed in white."
|
On April 20 2012 20:15 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 19:55 pedostare wrote:On April 20 2012 19:39 Zaqwe wrote:
Everything Biff said is wrong. \o/ And you should read Kimmel's extensive and exhaustive work in the sociology field - especially those works regarding gender and gender identity. Or honestly, any noteworthy sociology text will agree with the crux of what Biff has said. Sure, but those sociology texts are wrong. Brainwash 1 : 7 - The Gender Equality Paradoxhttp://vimeo.com/19707588The vimeo password is " hjernevask".
Yes, one of the most respected sociologists in the U.S. as well as many others are incorrect because some JOURNALIST says so. I think perhaps you need to learn a hard lesson in judging the information you absorb based on its quality and not how much it affirms what you believe in. That's honestly one of the biggest problems with science today. There are too many pseudo-scientists publishing articles that skew data to conclude what they want and exclude/dismiss any evidence that disagrees with their points. Any good researcher would make a point to include the information that suggests the contrary, and Kimmel, among other respected scientists, does exactly that.
|
Thread is derailing/dispute is dead-ending - amusing as the repartee has been, what say we agree to come back in, what, 200 years? and see where the gender gap is then. That should solve the dispute; or at least give us a lot more data.
Back to esports and how we keep it growing.
I'm actually (I think) slowly coming round to accepting the idea that teams should recruit even some so-so skill-wise women players onto their teams, whatever the rationale (eg. looks/community "saleability"), just because it does break the ice for stronger players down the road. The thing is though they have to be really serious about training them and putting them out there on the tournament circuit. If they hire a woman to play, she should play, eventually, in real competitive games. If Eve, Aphro and their ilk just end up on promo posters and so on, that's a really bad sign for the future.
I still think the Scarlett thing is the best thing to happen in recent sc2 history as far as women in the sport are concerned, I just hope more are coming up behind her.
|
On April 20 2012 20:41 chocopan wrote:
Thread is derailing/dispute is dead-ending - amusing as the repartee has been, what say we agree to come back in, what, 200 years? and see where the gender gap is then. That should solve the dispute; or at least give us a lot more data.
Back to esports and how we keep it growing.
I'm actually (I think) slowly coming round to accepting the idea that teams should recruit even some so-so skill-wise women players onto their teams, whatever the rationale (eg. looks/community "saleability"), just because it does break the ice for stronger players down the road. The thing is though they have to be really serious about training them and putting them out there on the tournament circuit. If they hire a woman to play, she should play, eventually, in real competitive games. If Eve, Aphro and their ilk just end up on promo posters and so on, that's a really bad sign for the future.
I still think the Scarlett thing is the best thing to happen in recent sc2 history as far as women in the sport are concerned, I just hope more are coming up behind her.
Pretty much.
I think it depends a lot also of the effort the video game market makes to promote their products to girls. I have to say the example of Brood War was a bit saddening. Girls were spectator hiding their face while giggling stupidly and / or "stargirls" that were supposed to be hot and do nothing.
If you think about how much young girls have been involved as fans and audience in the BW scene in Korea and how little have played the game at all, it's frightening.
So promoting female players by maybe giving them a spot where a male of the same skill wouldn't have a chance may not be a bad idea IF it's not for promotion by using cute girls that stay on the bench. And they have to compete the same way than everybody else, even if that means we won't see many of them in the highest spots for a long time.
|
On April 20 2012 20:27 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 19:39 Zaqwe wrote:On April 20 2012 17:53 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2012 01:11 qrs wrote:On April 19 2012 23:00 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 19 2012 19:32 Zanno wrote:On April 19 2012 19:23 Ruscour wrote:On April 19 2012 19:20 Zanno wrote:
you are aware Scarlett is a dude right
that's not even a rumor
i do not have any bias against transgenders at all but i do not think Scarlett qualifies as a victory towards female recognition in competitive starcraft Scarlett is female. I am aware she is transgendered. There is absolutely no advantage gained in StarCraft from being male, therefore there is no reason why she couldn't be considered a success for the female SC2 scene. EDIT: This will be the only reply I make about this issue. Please don't discuss it here, it undermines the point I'm trying to make. Of course it undermines the point you're trying to make There's a large body of literature out there that shows that the male brain and female brain develop differently and as a result there are certain problems that males are better equipped to deal with and certain problems that females are better equipped to deal with Undergoing sex reassignment surgery does not magically undo two decades of the human body's growth as a male and if you are going to ignore this then I don't know what to say Yeah well, people used to have the same machist idiotic reasoning in chess, and then came Judit Polgar (and her sisters), who has demolished everybody since she is 6, has been one of the greatest prodigy child in history of chess and has been ranked as high as world number 8, having defeated world champions or former world champions Karpov, Anand, Kasparov, Spasky, Smilsov, Topalov, Ponomariov, Khalifman and Razhimdzdhanov. Yes, then came Judit Polgar, and then came...who? Yifan? Not yet, at any rate. Without making speculative statements about why males thus far have the competitive edge in chess and in Starcraft, it's hard to deny that currently they do—and one proof of that is that people still feel the need to hold separate female-only events. With regard to chess, Judit Polgar is the exception that proves the rule: yes, she cracked the overall top 10 for a while—and she's the only female ever to come close to doing so. With regard to Starcraft—well, look at how the OP, even as he theorizes that there ought to be no disadvantage to being female, admits that, Scarlett aside, no girl has actually been "good enough to be considered a competitor in her own right". And as for Scarlett, well, Scarlett is transgendered, and without getting into questions of etiquette, I don't think you can entirely ignore that fact if the discussion is about comparing female gamers to male gamers. Whatever the reason is that males have generally dominated the top of the Starcraft scene, it's certainly the case that they have—and so long as that remains an unexplained fact, I don't see how you can blithely assume that someone born male (and perhaps still biologically male? I don't know), with all of the biological and cultural things that go along with that is wholly representative of people born female, with all of the biological and cultural things that go along with that. The pronoun you use to refer to Scarlett is one thing; the inferences you draw from Scarlett's success are something else entirely. In my opinion, you won't be able to prove something about the legitimacy of the non-transgender female scene until a non-transgendered female has had a legitimate level of success. Yeah fine, that's absolutely true, most of the top 100 chess players are males. In fact 99 of them are males since Judit Polgar is the only one to have ever broken into the top 100. Why? It's not science rocket. It's statistic: Male dominate chess because chess is socially a male activity. The little boy is put to play chess and the little girl is put to dance or whatever. Go in a chessclub and you will see the junior section with basically only little boys. It's even worse in countries that actually produce most of champions: Russia, Azerbadjan, etc... You just won't see a little girl in a chess club because parents don't put them at chess. The three Polgar sisters are exception because they had an environment that was devoted to make them great chess players. Their father was a grand master and luckily he didn't have any of these silly prejudices. And he designed their education to make them brilliant players. And without surprise, they all became elite players, regardless of their gender. SC2 is just the same. Boys play Starcraft, Girls play the Sims. That's the way people are being raised, because boys have blue rooms and girls pink rooms, that boys are offered GI Joe and girls Barbie doll, boys are dressed with sport clothes and girl with dresses etc... It has absolutely nothing to do with the intrinseque capacity of each gender, but about stereotypical education that we all get, that generates the kind of sensibility we have, the way we think and what we can do. Now, about chess, the Polgar family (keep in mind, they were three sisters, they all became grand master, that's a 100% success rate in the family) is enough to shut the mouth of everybody who pretend women can't compete at the highest level. They can, if they are given the environment from their youngest age, which is unfortunately incredibly rare. There were no women composer until the mid XXth century. NOT ONE except for "wives of": Clara Schumann, Alma Mahler and Fanny Mendelssohn, period. So it was supposed to be a male activity, and women were discourage to compose. You would be told the same crap than we are being served in this thread, you know, about male qualities, the genius, creativity, whatever, backed up with the facts: 100% of male composers and the fallacious argument: there must be a good reason. Surprise, now that most (not all as we can see) of those stereotypes have disappear, we have a good 50% of women in contemporary composers. Feminism has a long way to go. One last thing: you can say the exact same thing and that becomes evn more obvious with skin colour. Take Fields medal laureates. Surprise! Everybody is white. That means nothing about racial differences. It just says that when you are white you are a zillion times more likely to have the environment to become a great mathematician. And yet you still have racists using these kinds of datas to prove white men are more clever. You should watch Hjernevask (Brainwash), a Norwegian science documentary. Particularly episode one, "The Gender Equality Paradox. What you have said is complete nonsense based on wishful thinking and an emotional desire to see everyone as equal. Gender differences are observable immediately after birth. Female babies are more socially inclined and prefer to look at human faces, while male newborns are more mechanically inclined and will look at machines longer. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=327138The example of the Polgar family that you used itself seems to be strong evidence that genetics is the key factor in becoming a chess grandmaster. On April 20 2012 18:51 chocopan wrote:
I agree with more or less everything Biff just said. Yay. Everything Biff said is wrong. Yeah I know people desperately want to justify social order and inequalities with science. That's even a constant in science history. So let me first tell you that most human science researcher absolutely back up my claims. And don't forget that in the XIXth century, very serious scientists were calculating that the size of the skull of "nigers" was smaller than the one of white people and that was the reason why they were less intelligent and subject to be colonized or put in slavery. Things don't change. Tomorrow we will smile at today's scientists attempts to justify sexist prejudices the same way that now we smile at yesterday's scientists trying to justify racist prejudices. I am not saying men and women are biologically speaking exactly the same. But to claim that women can't compete with men at something like chess because of genetical disposition is just a fancy way to repeat the most obscene of sexist prejudice: that women are less intelligent. Anyway, explain me a little why they were no women scientist or philosophers until we started to question the dumb prejudices you are defending and as sonn as we did DADA!!! we started to have Marie Curie and other Hannah Arendt? Answer: because when we started to change women education / environment it appeared they were just as smart as men while everybody were certain during six thousand years they were dumb as fuck and unable to think rationally. They were no women scientist because women didn't have the possibility to be a scientist in yesterday's society. Education and gender issues (gender =/= biological sex) are the reason we behave differently. They are not based on nature, they are a social construction.
One hundred years of research has established that East Asians and Europeans average higher IQs than do Africans. East Asians, measured in North America and in Pacific Rim countries, typically average IQs in the range of 101 to 111. Caucasoid populations in North America, Europe, and Australasia typically average IQs from 85 to 115 with an overall mean of 100. African populations living south of the Sahara, in North America, in the Caribbean, and in Britain typically have mean IQs from 70 to 90.
Discoveries using Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), which creates a three-dimensional image of the living brain, have shown a strong positive correlation (.44) between brain size and IQ (see Rushton & Ankney, 1996, for a review). And there is more. The National Collaborative Perinatal Project on 53,000 children by Sarah Broman and her colleagues, showed that head perimeter at birth significantly predicts head perimeter at 7 years — and head perimeter at seven years predicts IQ. It also shows that Asian children average a larger head perimeter at birth than do White children who average a larger head perimeter than do Black children.
Racial differences in brain size have been established using a variety of modern methods. Using endocranial volume, for example, Beals et al. (1984, p. 307, Table 5) analyzed about 20,000 skulls from around the world. East Asians averaged 1,415 cm3 , Europeans averaged 1,362 cm3, and Africans averaged 1,268 cm3 . Using external head measures to calculate cranial capacities, Rushton (1992) analyzed a stratified random sample of 6,325 U.S. Army personnel measured in 1988 for fitting helmets and found that Asian Americans averaged 1,416 cm3, European Americans 1,380 cm3, and African Americans 1,359 cm3. Finally, a recent MRI study found that people of African and Caribbean background averaged a smaller brain volume than did those of European background (again see Rushton & Ankney, 1996, for review).
|
On April 20 2012 20:34 pedostare wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 20:15 Zaqwe wrote:On April 20 2012 19:55 pedostare wrote:On April 20 2012 19:39 Zaqwe wrote:
Everything Biff said is wrong. \o/ And you should read Kimmel's extensive and exhaustive work in the sociology field - especially those works regarding gender and gender identity. Or honestly, any noteworthy sociology text will agree with the crux of what Biff has said. Sure, but those sociology texts are wrong. Brainwash 1 : 7 - The Gender Equality Paradoxhttp://vimeo.com/19707588The vimeo password is " hjernevask". Yes, one of the most respected sociologists in the U.S. as well as many others are incorrect because some JOURNALIST says so. I think perhaps you need to learn a hard lesson in judging the information you absorb based on its quality and not how much it affirms what you believe in. That's honestly one of the biggest problems with science today. There are too many pseudo-scientists publishing articles that skew data to conclude what they want and exclude/dismiss any evidence that disagrees with their points. Any good researcher would make a point to include the information that suggests the contrary, and Kimmel, among other respected scientists, does exactly that.
Harald Eia has a degree in sociology. But he lets the sociologists and scientists do most of the talking anyways, so I don't see how it matters that he is a comedian (not journalist).
|
On April 20 2012 20:57 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 20:27 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2012 19:39 Zaqwe wrote:On April 20 2012 17:53 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2012 01:11 qrs wrote:On April 19 2012 23:00 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 19 2012 19:32 Zanno wrote:On April 19 2012 19:23 Ruscour wrote:On April 19 2012 19:20 Zanno wrote:
you are aware Scarlett is a dude right
that's not even a rumor
i do not have any bias against transgenders at all but i do not think Scarlett qualifies as a victory towards female recognition in competitive starcraft Scarlett is female. I am aware she is transgendered. There is absolutely no advantage gained in StarCraft from being male, therefore there is no reason why she couldn't be considered a success for the female SC2 scene. EDIT: This will be the only reply I make about this issue. Please don't discuss it here, it undermines the point I'm trying to make. Of course it undermines the point you're trying to make There's a large body of literature out there that shows that the male brain and female brain develop differently and as a result there are certain problems that males are better equipped to deal with and certain problems that females are better equipped to deal with Undergoing sex reassignment surgery does not magically undo two decades of the human body's growth as a male and if you are going to ignore this then I don't know what to say Yeah well, people used to have the same machist idiotic reasoning in chess, and then came Judit Polgar (and her sisters), who has demolished everybody since she is 6, has been one of the greatest prodigy child in history of chess and has been ranked as high as world number 8, having defeated world champions or former world champions Karpov, Anand, Kasparov, Spasky, Smilsov, Topalov, Ponomariov, Khalifman and Razhimdzdhanov. Yes, then came Judit Polgar, and then came...who? Yifan? Not yet, at any rate. Without making speculative statements about why males thus far have the competitive edge in chess and in Starcraft, it's hard to deny that currently they do—and one proof of that is that people still feel the need to hold separate female-only events. With regard to chess, Judit Polgar is the exception that proves the rule: yes, she cracked the overall top 10 for a while—and she's the only female ever to come close to doing so. With regard to Starcraft—well, look at how the OP, even as he theorizes that there ought to be no disadvantage to being female, admits that, Scarlett aside, no girl has actually been "good enough to be considered a competitor in her own right". And as for Scarlett, well, Scarlett is transgendered, and without getting into questions of etiquette, I don't think you can entirely ignore that fact if the discussion is about comparing female gamers to male gamers. Whatever the reason is that males have generally dominated the top of the Starcraft scene, it's certainly the case that they have—and so long as that remains an unexplained fact, I don't see how you can blithely assume that someone born male (and perhaps still biologically male? I don't know), with all of the biological and cultural things that go along with that is wholly representative of people born female, with all of the biological and cultural things that go along with that. The pronoun you use to refer to Scarlett is one thing; the inferences you draw from Scarlett's success are something else entirely. In my opinion, you won't be able to prove something about the legitimacy of the non-transgender female scene until a non-transgendered female has had a legitimate level of success. Yeah fine, that's absolutely true, most of the top 100 chess players are males. In fact 99 of them are males since Judit Polgar is the only one to have ever broken into the top 100. Why? It's not science rocket. It's statistic: Male dominate chess because chess is socially a male activity. The little boy is put to play chess and the little girl is put to dance or whatever. Go in a chessclub and you will see the junior section with basically only little boys. It's even worse in countries that actually produce most of champions: Russia, Azerbadjan, etc... You just won't see a little girl in a chess club because parents don't put them at chess. The three Polgar sisters are exception because they had an environment that was devoted to make them great chess players. Their father was a grand master and luckily he didn't have any of these silly prejudices. And he designed their education to make them brilliant players. And without surprise, they all became elite players, regardless of their gender. SC2 is just the same. Boys play Starcraft, Girls play the Sims. That's the way people are being raised, because boys have blue rooms and girls pink rooms, that boys are offered GI Joe and girls Barbie doll, boys are dressed with sport clothes and girl with dresses etc... It has absolutely nothing to do with the intrinseque capacity of each gender, but about stereotypical education that we all get, that generates the kind of sensibility we have, the way we think and what we can do. Now, about chess, the Polgar family (keep in mind, they were three sisters, they all became grand master, that's a 100% success rate in the family) is enough to shut the mouth of everybody who pretend women can't compete at the highest level. They can, if they are given the environment from their youngest age, which is unfortunately incredibly rare. There were no women composer until the mid XXth century. NOT ONE except for "wives of": Clara Schumann, Alma Mahler and Fanny Mendelssohn, period. So it was supposed to be a male activity, and women were discourage to compose. You would be told the same crap than we are being served in this thread, you know, about male qualities, the genius, creativity, whatever, backed up with the facts: 100% of male composers and the fallacious argument: there must be a good reason. Surprise, now that most (not all as we can see) of those stereotypes have disappear, we have a good 50% of women in contemporary composers. Feminism has a long way to go. One last thing: you can say the exact same thing and that becomes evn more obvious with skin colour. Take Fields medal laureates. Surprise! Everybody is white. That means nothing about racial differences. It just says that when you are white you are a zillion times more likely to have the environment to become a great mathematician. And yet you still have racists using these kinds of datas to prove white men are more clever. You should watch Hjernevask (Brainwash), a Norwegian science documentary. Particularly episode one, "The Gender Equality Paradox. What you have said is complete nonsense based on wishful thinking and an emotional desire to see everyone as equal. Gender differences are observable immediately after birth. Female babies are more socially inclined and prefer to look at human faces, while male newborns are more mechanically inclined and will look at machines longer. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=327138The example of the Polgar family that you used itself seems to be strong evidence that genetics is the key factor in becoming a chess grandmaster. On April 20 2012 18:51 chocopan wrote:
I agree with more or less everything Biff just said. Yay. Everything Biff said is wrong. Yeah I know people desperately want to justify social order and inequalities with science. That's even a constant in science history. So let me first tell you that most human science researcher absolutely back up my claims. And don't forget that in the XIXth century, very serious scientists were calculating that the size of the skull of "nigers" was smaller than the one of white people and that was the reason why they were less intelligent and subject to be colonized or put in slavery. Things don't change. Tomorrow we will smile at today's scientists attempts to justify sexist prejudices the same way that now we smile at yesterday's scientists trying to justify racist prejudices. I am not saying men and women are biologically speaking exactly the same. But to claim that women can't compete with men at something like chess because of genetical disposition is just a fancy way to repeat the most obscene of sexist prejudice: that women are less intelligent. Anyway, explain me a little why they were no women scientist or philosophers until we started to question the dumb prejudices you are defending and as sonn as we did DADA!!! we started to have Marie Curie and other Hannah Arendt? Answer: because when we started to change women education / environment it appeared they were just as smart as men while everybody were certain during six thousand years they were dumb as fuck and unable to think rationally. They were no women scientist because women didn't have the possibility to be a scientist in yesterday's society. Education and gender issues (gender =/= biological sex) are the reason we behave differently. They are not based on nature, they are a social construction. One hundred years of research has established that East Asians and Europeans average higher IQs than do Africans. East Asians, measured in North America and in Pacific Rim countries, typically average IQs in the range of 101 to 111. Caucasoid populations in North America, Europe, and Australasia typically average IQs from 85 to 115 with an overall mean of 100. African populations living south of the Sahara, in North America, in the Caribbean, and in Britain typically have mean IQs from 70 to 90. Discoveries using Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), which creates a three-dimensional image of the living brain, have shown a strong positive correlation (.44) between brain size and IQ (see Rushton & Ankney, 1996, for a review). And there is more. The National Collaborative Perinatal Project on 53,000 children by Sarah Broman and her colleagues, showed that head perimeter at birth significantly predicts head perimeter at 7 years — and head perimeter at seven years predicts IQ. It also shows that Asian children average a larger head perimeter at birth than do White children who average a larger head perimeter than do Black children. Racial differences in brain size have been established using a variety of modern methods. Using endocranial volume, for example, Beals et al. (1984, p. 307, Table 5) analyzed about 20,000 skulls from around the world. East Asians averaged 1,415 cm3 , Europeans averaged 1,362 cm3, and Africans averaged 1,268 cm3 . Using external head measures to calculate cranial capacities, Rushton (1992) analyzed a stratified random sample of 6,325 U.S. Army personnel measured in 1988 for fitting helmets and found that Asian Americans averaged 1,416 cm3, European Americans 1,380 cm3, and African Americans 1,359 cm3. Finally, a recent MRI study found that people of African and Caribbean background averaged a smaller brain volume than did those of European background (again see Rushton & Ankney, 1996, for review).
Well maybe IQ is a fucking dumb measure, sweety. You know you can raise your IQ in two weeks dramatically with appropriate exercizes? For a measure that's supposed to calculate your "intelligence" that's a pretty big flaw.
And even though, you don't think environment is quite a big factor in our intelligence? And that Africans have typically a different environment than the average white guy?
And don't you think that the size of the skull has nothing to do with your intellectual potential, as proven by a zillion studies despite the stuff you throw there that seems to make no difference between correlation and causality? Because see, whales would be quite fucking clever.
You believe africans are less intelligent, and that women can't think rationally. Well, look, you are a racist and a sexist, and I'm off this discussion, because see, I have experienced many times that racists and sexist are unable to think rationally, and not very clever. Bye.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
