|
+ Show Spoiler [stuff about my blogs] +After writing my 1 year TL anniversary post I was inspired by some of the nice things people wrote to share my opinion more, I do think of stuff a lot (and in quite a bit of detail) and if I can just put that into writing, maybe some people will enjoy it, and that's a pretty good feeling. So if you enjoy this blog or not, it'd mean a lot if you could just leave your opinion, cos I wanna start writing these more.
This is a topic that has been beaten to death. This is not going to be a post by one of the "supporters", the "you go girl!" type that watch all female events and spend their time replying to every single hater in a thread. This is not going to be a hater post, saying that it's sexist that there's female only tournaments, or saying that females have no place in StarCraft. This is me sharing my opinion on why the female scene should be supported, but why it's supported for the wrong reasons.
I've thought about this for a while, and Scarlett really brought these thoughts to a conclusion. She was, in my eyes, the first female to actually be good enough to be considered a competitor in her own right. There have been other females that have been competitive, but the only reason people even know who they are is because they're female. I'm not going to name names because I don't want people to focus on that drama, but I don't think there's going to be anyone that would seriously argue against me saying that before Scarlett had her impressive IPL4 run, there was never a female considered a legitimate threat at an open tournament. Even if Scarlett was male, people would have noticed his run, maybe he would have scored an interview for how well he did. This hypothetical male wouldn't have gotten a team sponsorship, or anywhere near the level of support, but he wouldn't have been ignored for being an unknown who beat some progamers.
That's how I'm justifying female progamers as 'legitimate', as negative as that may sound. Think if anyone would care about them if they had the exact same skill, but were male.
I'm going to address the main problem that people have with females in SC2. People don't think it's fair that there are tournaments exclusively for females, because it's taking money away from those "more deserving". It feels sexist, eSports is still very much growing, and it's survival of the fittest. It feels like a letdown that there are sponsors throwing money at eSports that the best players aren't getting a chance to compete for. People are also frustrated that the primary reason that these tournaments have any viewership is because girls are attractive.
Female-only tournaments serve the same person as country-only tournaments, or region-only tournaments, or college-only, or school-only, or age-only, or anything like that. They are crucial because they specifically promote interest within that community, which grows the fanbase for the rest of the scene. If you throw some money at a tournament for your university, people from your university are gonna watch, and those who don't really care about SC2 might get into it. Maybe I hear about this big Australian national qualifiers for the B.net tournament, and I'm just a casual gamer, and I'm interested enough to check it out, then I decide I want to play. It's a similar deal.
I say similar because it's not quite the same. Female tournaments don't exist to bring in more female gamers, female gamers aren't exactly much of a population. In my eyes, I see it as the best opportunity you're gonna get to drag your girlfriend into SC2 (aside from showing how handsome SaSe is). Girls are intimidated by how male-dominated things are, seeing female competitors is encouraging. The Girls of StarCraft Facebook group and community is great, really doing great things for the female scene, and female-only competition engages not only those already in that community, but helps bring people in as well.
This is all pretty obvious, though. In theory, female-only competition is great. There aren't many female progamers, and far fewer that are actually good, but that's okay, hopefully female progamers get more motivated to become better and work harder. The problem is that they're a minority group that isn't just people from another place, or at a different age, or anything like that. The problem exists because there are a lot of lonely guys on the internet.
I can tell you right now that there's at least one guy, most likely lurking alternate starcraft communities, who would pay a decent amount of money for a picture of Flo's feet. Look at the comments on the Colagirl vs ST.Miss showmatch for example. It's pretty civil, but in my eyes there are way too many people that are only interested because of looks, and that's a bad image to give. Would SlayerS.Eve have been recruited if she was unattractive? In my eyes, that image is really hurting ESPORTS.
This hurts ESPORTS in a few ways. First of all, and this isn't much of a big deal, but it makes the community look immature and fickle. What if you introduce your girlfriend to SC2, and she's watching MLG with you (trying to act interested), and doesn't spot a female in the crowd. That's offputting, but then you show her what the female scene looks like, and all the female SC2 players are gorgeous. She's gonna be smart enough to figure out that's not a coincidence, especially considering the stereotype of how gamers live; there aren't a lot of fit progamers (or gamers in general). The problem? The way the female scene is right now makes female progamers look like cheerleaders.
Compare cheerleaders, and women's football players (football can mean whatever it means to you where you're from, it's rugby league to me, but the example works for any code). Who watches cheerleaders in men's football? Men. Who watches women's football? Women (generally). StarCraft II, and ESPORTS, don't need to draw in more guys. How much exposure does a team actually get from the male audience for recruiting a female progamer aside from the hype and drama caused by the announcement? If they're not competitive players, then you're not going to get any continued exposure aside from female-only tournaments, which aren't drawing the eyes of your primary (male) audience.
I don't know if this is the case or not, but there is nothing more scary to me in the world: imagine a top 8 masters player who's just been practicing her butt off, maybe she's beaten some progamers on ladder. She contacts a sponsored team, she wants a shot at going full-time, and correctly thinks it'll be easier for her to get recognised for her gender, I don't think there's anyone in ESPORTS who would want the female scene to decline. They talk, both parties find a good deal, and all is well; and then the dreaded moment in my fictional situation occurs: "send me a photo of yourself". Because of the way the scene seems to be right now, looks are more important than skill.
Who's doing this correctly? Quantic. Flo is involved in female-only tournaments of course, but she has decent runs at tournaments, and they play her in team leagues. I don't know her or follow her closely, but she doesn't seem to really care about her image, more focused on improving her skill. Even though I'd say she's just not quite there yet in terms of skill, Quantic and Flo is the best example I have for a sponsored female progamer, doing it right. Also, I'm not gonna say Scarlett and Eclypsia, because I'm 99% sure that it was a response to the hype and time will tell how that plays out.
Who's doing this wrong? SlayerS and StarTale. I have nothing against female progamers, you've read what I've written so far, you know I support the scene quite a bit. There's no non-blunt way to say this: SlayerS.Eve and ST.Miss might as well be cheerleaders. Yeah, Miss is masters on the Chinese server, which is probably somewhere around SEA in terms of server difficulty. No Chinese progamer plays on the Chinese server seriously, they all play on the Korean server. What on Earth is a Chinese progamer going to do for StarTale anyway? And everyone jokes about Eve's skill level, but it doesn't matter if she's good or not. You know why? Because she has never played in a tournament before.
I know fan service is real, and it helps viewership. Guys like hot girls. There is a place for them; as much as I don't really like it, they're emceeing, they're interviewing, they're doing that stuff. I'm not trying to undermine that work, but in essence, that's the place for "cheerleading" in SC2. My personal favourite host is Seltzer, she does great work, but would she be hired for as many events if she wasn't stunning? Sadly, I'm thinking the answer is no. Is it a coincidence that all of IPL's interviewers and translators were female? No, it isn't. There are actually people watching the interview streams solely because there's girls on them. While I will never understand why, it exists. And that's okay.
It's a win-win. For the female scene to be taken seriously and for it to grow, skill needs to be the primary factor for teams sponsoring female talent. It's not just for my Utopian ESPORTS future, it's for the teams as well. Teams aren't getting exposure from players that aren't making it to broadcasted matches at tournaments. Teams need exposure, and if they have a female player that is actually that good, then they're going to get a ton of it. And yet, they opt for looks instead.
Tournaments know the value of females to their predominately male audience, and that's where sex appeal can fit in to ESPORTS. It's at the player and team level that I just don't understand why things are the way they are. I hope that you'll agree that Scarlett has done far more for the female scene in a few days than SlayerS.Eve ever did.
I think that's all the points I wanted to make. I hope you enjoyed my blog, feel free to offer a differing opinion, I'd be happy to discuss it. Long live ESPORTS.
 
|
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
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Speaking of which, whatever happened to JongMi/ maRie on oGs?
The last time I saw her was with oGs during the Blizzard Cup finals opening ceremony. I have no clue what she has been doing recently.
Otherwise, excellent blog.
|
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.
|
Very interesting blog, thanks for taking the time. Well reasoned. I'm not sure I agree with every single line - there are female gamers, sure the market isn't anywhere near what the male one is, but it is most certainly not just "girlfriends" - but definitely the overall account I feel is pretty accurate.
I guess I'm mostly hoping that Scarlett is the first of many; maybe not next week, but that over time more genuinely competitive women gamers will appear and score wins out in "the real world". While I'm supportive of any woman who puts herself out there to try and compete in sc2, I can't say I don't cringe a little when she plays poorly (or does a poor interview or whatever else).
At the very least, the gamer scene now is not what it was 5 or even one year ago. More women out there and more legitimate women players appearing. It can only get better from here right?
|
On April 19 2012 19:23 Ruscour wrote:Show nested quote +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
|
On April 19 2012 19:25 chocopan wrote:
Very interesting blog, thanks for taking the time. Well reasoned. I'm not sure I agree with every single line - there are female gamers, sure the market isn't anywhere near what the male one is, but it is most certainly not just "girlfriends" - but definitely the overall account I feel is pretty accurate.
I guess I'm mostly hoping that Scarlett is the first of many; maybe not next week, but that over time more genuinely competitive women gamers will appear and score wins out in "the real world". While I'm supportive of any woman who puts herself out there to try and compete in sc2, I can't say I don't cringe a little when she plays poorly (or does a poor interview or whatever else).
At the very least, the gamer scene now is not what it was 5 or even one year ago. More women out there and more legitimate women players appearing. It can only get better from here right?
Yeah, I totally agree. There are definitely female gamers and it's definitely more encouraging for them to see a scene where skill is valued higher than appearance. I definitely didn't talk about that population enough, mainly because I was trying to capture the concept of minority-exclusive tournaments bringing new people into SC2 within that minority, and girl gamers are exposed to ESPORTS as much as male gamers. With such a large male fanbase, I think that the female scene is a great selling point for bringing girls into SC2 who aren't really "gamers", so yeah.
It's also a personal thing because I don't actually know a girl gamer in real life, which probably made me underestimate how many female gamers there are. Good point though.
|
I don't think there's much to discuss on the subject to be honest. If there were female players as good as male players, they would be sponsored... problem is, the amount of girls playing is small, and the amount of girls who are seriously good enough to do well in tournaments is tiny. I doubt there's any team going "This player is awesome, but it's a girl, so we won't recruit", so there's really no discussion to be had.
I would love to see more female pro gamers... but only if they are good enough to actually be pro gamers.
|
On April 19 2012 19:32 Zanno wrote:Show nested quote +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
The burden of proof is on the accuser. Can you actually provide any evidence that being female is a disadvantage in StarCraft? The way you're talking it just comes across like you're saying males are genetically superior. The only physical aspects to StarCraft are concentration, hand speed, reaction time etc, and I fail to see how any of that has anything to do with sex...
|
How do you feel about Aphrodite?
|
On April 19 2012 19:42 mizU wrote:
How do you feel about Aphrodite?
Remains to be seen. I don't know if she practices at the house or not, I know she is quite good. She's only really participated in female tournaments though, for me to be a happy panda I'd like to see her play in more tournaments. The difference between between her and the others I cited is that she was recruited for being good, which was the biggest factor I was supporting. I just hope she turns out to be a progamer, and not just a "female progamer". There doesn't have to be a difference, there's no reason for it, but there is 
|
On April 19 2012 19:48 Ruscour wrote:Remains to be seen. I don't know if she practices at the house or not, I know she is quite good. She's only really participated in female tournaments though, for me to be a happy panda I'd like to see her play in more tournaments. The difference between between her and the others I cited is that she was recruited for being good, which was the biggest factor I was supporting. I just hope she turns out to be a progamer, and not just a "female progamer". There doesn't have to be a difference, there's no reason for it, but there is
But do you think it's fair to invite female players to tournaments instead of male players that are better? I think Aphrodite is really good, and i think she lives with her boyfriend Rainbow.
|
You completely forgot about ST_Aphrodite. She is high masters on the korean server and is training daily in order to be able to qualify for code A (she already tried and failed once or twice but that obviously doesn't mean she's bad). Startale recruited her after her victory in the Zowie Divina female tournament mainly because they saw that there are more and more big female only tournaments and having a person compete (and do well) in them, is a good thing for the team (exposure etc).
Rainbow (her fiance) told her that her "real" competition are all the male progamers and not the females which also means she knows that winning a girl only tournament is certainly nice, but not an amazing achievement either (qualifying for code A being more important for example) so maybe Startale is not doing it completely wrong either.
You're saying that skill should be the main factor when recruiting a girl (I assume you believe this should also be true when recruiting a male). Some non korean teams have players who are not very good (Incontrol on EG or Destiny on Quantic for example). However, they both bring a lot of attention to their team because they are popular and this is the main reason they are on these teams and I don't think it's a bad thing. Same goes for some of the girls on teams (Eve for example).
I'm very tired so I hope my post makes some sense x.x
Edit: I wrote all this so slowly that I missed almost all the answers..bleh
|
I am so confused when people bring the gender of a player up, just to justify their own insecurity because they feel threatened. A player who is good, is a player who is good. Doesn't matter if you're male, female, transsexual or a hermaphrodite. In the end your performance is all that matters. The rest is just silly "alpha-male" behaviour
|
On April 19 2012 19:57 Linwelin wrote:
You completely forgot about ST_Aphrodite. She is high masters on the korean server and is training daily in order to be able to qualify for code A (she already tried and failed once or twice but that obviously doesn't mean she's bad). Startale recruited her after her victory in the Zowie Divina female tournament mainly because they saw that there are more and more big female only tournaments and having a person compete (and do well) in them, is a good thing for the team (exposure etc).
Rainbow (her fiance) told her that her "real" competition are all the male progamers and not the females which also means she knows that winning a girl only tournament is certainly nice, but not an amazing achievement either (qualifying for code A being more important for example) so maybe Startale is not doing it completely wrong either.
You're saying that skill should be the main factor when recruiting a girl (I assume you believe this should also be true when recruiting a male). Some non korean teams have players who are not very good (Incontrol on EG or Destiny on Quantic for example). However, they both bring a lot of attention to their team because they are popular and this is the main reason they are on these teams and I don't think it's a bad thing. Same goes for some of the girls on teams (Eve for example).
I'm very tired so I hope my post makes some sense x.x
I neglected to mention a ton of female progamers and their individual situations. When mentioning StarTale I did not mention Aphrodite because I don't consider her recruitment to have anything to do with what I was pointing out with Miss. That said, with my whole point about making it so that the female scene isn't just this separated scene would greatly help the female scene overall, I would really like to see Aphrodite participate in more open tournaments. She attempted to qualify for Code A, if she's seriously practicing and just hasn't had success there, then that's great, but it's hard to tell, the Korean scene is so much less transparent than the foreign one.
Also, personalities also have far more opportunities for exposure than females do, and those personalities are at least competitive. There are females on sponsored teams who simply aren't. For example, take Check Six. The amount of fans they're able to bring in through MaximusBlack and his YouTube popularity has got to be far larger than the exposure that ailuj gives them, even considering she was on the stage at MLG, and it was mainly luck that her open bracket games got a chance to be broadcast. I don't actually know how good she is so I can't have much of an opinion of the matter, just saying why I think it's silly that teams seem to have this token female requirement lately.
|
On April 19 2012 20:05 Ruscour wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 19:57 Linwelin wrote:
You completely forgot about ST_Aphrodite. She is high masters on the korean server and is training daily in order to be able to qualify for code A (she already tried and failed once or twice but that obviously doesn't mean she's bad). Startale recruited her after her victory in the Zowie Divina female tournament mainly because they saw that there are more and more big female only tournaments and having a person compete (and do well) in them, is a good thing for the team (exposure etc).
Rainbow (her fiance) told her that her "real" competition are all the male progamers and not the females which also means she knows that winning a girl only tournament is certainly nice, but not an amazing achievement either (qualifying for code A being more important for example) so maybe Startale is not doing it completely wrong either.
You're saying that skill should be the main factor when recruiting a girl (I assume you believe this should also be true when recruiting a male). Some non korean teams have players who are not very good (Incontrol on EG or Destiny on Quantic for example). However, they both bring a lot of attention to their team because they are popular and this is the main reason they are on these teams and I don't think it's a bad thing. Same goes for some of the girls on teams (Eve for example).
I'm very tired so I hope my post makes some sense x.x
I neglected to mention a ton of female progamers and their individual situations. When mentioning StarTale I did not mention Aphrodite because I don't consider her recruitment to have anything to do with what I was pointing out with Miss. That said, with my whole point about making it so that the female scene isn't just this separated scene would greatly help the female scene overall, I would really like to see Aphrodite participate in more open tournaments. She attempted to qualify for Code A, if she's seriously practicing and just hasn't had success there, then that's great, but it's hard to tell, the Korean scene is so much less transparent than the foreign one. Also, personalities also have far more opportunities for exposure than females do, and those personalities are at least competitive. There are females on sponsored teams who simply aren't. For example, take Check Six. The amount of fans they're able to bring in through MaximusBlack and his YouTube popularity has got to be far larger than the exposure that ailuj gives them, even considering she was on the stage at MLG, and it was mainly luck that her open bracket games got a chance to be broadcast. I don't actually know how good she is so I can't have much of an opinion of the matter, just saying why I think it's silly that teams seem to have this token female requirement lately.
I can tell you for a fact that Aphrodite is practicing a lot because I talk with her and Rainbow frequently (which is why I focused on her in my first answer)
Overall, I don't completely disagree with your blog, I was just pointing out a few things.
P.S: I have never heard of MaximusBlack ;o
|
The SC2 player base for male and female players follows a gaussian distribution... which means as long as the player pool for female gamers is very small, the chance for female top tier progamers is even smaller.
To have more female progamers, we need to increase the whole female player base. Having progamers like Aphrodite, Eve, etc. helps get women interested in SC2 as it shows that it's not a men-only hobby, so it's actually good for the community if teams pick up female gamers even if they can't (yet) compete with their male counterparts.
There is a chance that a girl that gets inspired by Aphrodite today becomes the "FemFlash" of tomorrow.
That women are good PR is a nice side effect for the teams and if the women would have problems with that they wouldn't sign the contracts, so who are we to tell them otherwise? It's a decision they have to make for themselves (unless you assume they can't think for themselves).
|
On April 19 2012 19:35 Ruscour wrote:Show nested quote +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 The burden of proof is on the accuser. Can you actually provide any evidence that being female is a disadvantage in StarCraft? The way you're talking it just comes across like you're saying males are genetically superior. The only physical aspects to StarCraft are concentration, hand speed, reaction time etc, and I fail to see how any of that has anything to do with sex...
On the aspect of reaction time:
"Overall, males tended to show shorter reaction times than females [...]. [I]t is consistent with previous studies showing shorter reaction times for males than females in spatial choice reaction time tasks (Simon 1967, Lahtela et al. 1985).
Importantly, the male superiority seemed to be tied to a specific information processing strategy. That is, for the compatible condition, males showed a stair-like increment in reaction time as a function of stimulus position, while females showed a linear increment. This differential pattern of reaction time as a function of stimulus position could be interpreted as suggesting that females may have employed a `serial, left-to-right’ processing strategy and males a `binary, split-half’ (or dichotomizing) strategy in which the 4-element stimulus array is broken up in a left and right part. Such a dichotomizing strategy would entail that participants first identify the signal and its corresponding response as lying within the left or right section, and then to determine its (relative) position within that section. The shorter reaction times for the left section might reflect a bias to inspect the left section first. Welford (1980) pointed out that a dichotomizing strategy is the most efficient procedure according to classical information theory (Shannon and Weaver 1949)."
From J. J. ADAM (1999): Gender differences in choice reaction time: evidence for differential strategies, Ergonomics, 42:2, 327-335
Males and females are not the same.
|
I generally tend to agree with you, but something you didn't mention is the cultural impediment - not specifically with regards to a geographical culture, but with ESPORTS culture in general. (Also, any reason you always use ESPORTS capitalized?) While the SC2 community seems to have avoided the general misogynistic overtones that exist in some forms (the big uproar in the FG community, for example) there still seems to be a general... not necessarily misogynistic, just disbelief or shock whenever a female player does well. And of course the immediate gender debates that spring up when a female player does well. As an example, look at the MLG when Ailuj was streamed on the mainstage in a match (against Destiny?). Tastosis seems to be perplexed, and while they try to get past the "Omg, a girl!" to the game, they come back again and again to her gender. The community itself through its reactions seems to be something that might be a turn-off to females wanting to become progamers - do you think male players would be driven to succeed at the same level if a good half of the community reaction focused on their looks, or that they are playing really well "... for a guy". It just seems to me like, in the wider community, there is some latent resistance to the idea of female progamers AS progamers first. Similar to certan geographical areas, where you might not be actively disliked or barred from going, but where the "alienness" of your presence causes people to be uncomfortable. The SC2 (and wider competitive ESPORTS) community seems like it's that way - not that we prevent female players from competing but that we just don't know how to handle it.
|
Interesting thread.
Rereading through it I guess one future I most definitely do -not- want for sc2 is one in which teams have 1 or 2 cute girls in a sort of PR function, and then other girls do interviews and stuff.
It's all well and good to say "women can decide for themselves what jobs to take" etc, and obviously that's true; but if the final outcome is that sc2 has the image of a "mans sport", where the women are just there for color, well, that would be a lost opportunity I think. I don't expect to see a 50/50 gender split in gaming any time soon; nor do I think it's appropriate for me to go around criticising women who are lucky enough to be born attractive who manage to get X or Y job on A or B team for whatever reason. My only concern is just about the image this new sport is creating and where that might leave the game in a few years time (and, by extension, gamer culture generally).
(For this reason I am 150% behind Scarlett, as a genuine potential talent.)
|
Pretty sure that ST Aphrodite would be better than Scarlett IMO. Not to mention it took Aphrodite like... 1-2months to get masters in KR, with the help of Rainbow of course.
I'd say if Aphrodite got serious about going to international tournies, which is super hard for her I'd assume, she would beat a lot of the 'top' NA players.
Aphrodite also said the reason why SlayerS hasn't played Eve, is cause shes only low-mid diamond level, and that a Aphrodite vs Eve showmatch would only be a one sided domination in her favour. \
Now, you can say that ST and SlayerS are doing it wrong; but how so? They are supporting female programmers, no matter the skill level - to encourage players like Scarlett and others to come out of the woodwork's, to beat DOWN the stereotype of programmers only making it big are male.
|
On April 19 2012 21:30 Sickkiee wrote:
Pretty sure that ST Aphrodite would be better than Scarlett IMO. Not to mention it took Aphrodite like... 1-2months to get masters in KR, with the help of Rainbow of course.
I'd say if Aphrodite got serious about going to international tournies, which is super hard for her I'd assume, she would beat a lot of the 'top' NA players.
Aphrodite also said the reason why SlayerS hasn't played Eve, is cause shes only low-mid diamond level, and that a Aphrodite vs Eve showmatch would only be a one sided domination in her favour. \
Now, you can say that ST and SlayerS are doing it wrong; but how so? They are supporting female programmers, no matter the skill level - to encourage players like Scarlett and others to come out of the woodwork's, to beat DOWN the stereotype of programmers only making it big are male.
Eve is masters now and Aphrodite did beat a few "low-mid tier NA pros" on ladder
|
On April 19 2012 21:30 Sickkiee wrote:
Pretty sure that ST Aphrodite would be better than Scarlett IMO. Not to mention it took Aphrodite like... 1-2months to get masters in KR, with the help of Rainbow of course.
I'd say if Aphrodite got serious about going to international tournies, which is super hard for her I'd assume, she would beat a lot of the 'top' NA players.
Myself I'm with Scarlett. But until Aphro actually plays a real tournament we can't know. (She definitely has the advantage of an awesome practice environment/coaching.)
With the "what are these teams doing wrong" aspect, well, they are choosing women they consider "have potential", who also happen to be cute; rather than signing up women who have already demonstrated their skill (the way it works with boys). Stephano is cute as all get out but that wasn't what got him his team.
|
I'm a live and let live kind of person but have you stopped to consider how actual women might think about it taking a biological male to legitimize female esports in your eyes? I suppose some wouldn't care while it might ruffle the feathers of others (that's an idiom, females biological or otherwise don't have feathers (to the best of my knowledge))
Secondly about Eve and such, they have opportunities in esports they wouldn't normally get from their looks. There are other gamers who were chosen for their looks, like Bisu, most handsome progamer of all time. If you think they are unaware of their own status as actual players I think you're mistaken. They are likely just as sober to the fact as you and the rest of the fans are. You can like it or leave it but it's hardly your place to approve or disapprove.
I feel like there's always a subversive undercurrent to these blogs like it's a man's responsibility to legitimize what a girl tries to do. "I approve of you being a part of a team this way, but not this way" who are you to judge? It's just bizarre why so many guys seem to think it's in their hands to sweepingly accord female gamers 'legitimacy' or not.
Why are these blogs never made by the actual girls who play? I'd love to hear their thoughts. I doubt many of them wake up each morning with the burden of 'legitimizing female sports' around their neck like one would think by how often they are discussed. It would assuage my own feelings that even the guys who deign to worry themselves over 'legitimate' female esports are looking at them like they are under glass. They probably just want to play.
|
This hypothetical male wouldn't have gotten a team sponsorship, or anywhere near the level of support ...
Is this actually true? Can someone come up with a couple examples of some unknowns who beat some well-known pro gamers in a tournament, and didn't find a team shortly after? This is something that's quite frequently claimed, but I haven't seen anyone include an example, and I don't follow tournaments or pros enough to verify it; I don't even know where to start looking.
On the other hand, every time a female pro gamer joins a team, there is a lot of discussion about whether or not she's good enough or not, or "I haven't seen her play but I bet she's just hired for her looks like all other female pro gamers", and of course, "She's only hired because she is female, [the team] should have hired a more deserving male instead". When a male pro gamer joins a team, the comments are all positive (unless there was some previous drama surrounding him), and no one says that someone better should have been hired instead. Apparently, if you're a girl, even getting to Grandmaster in your region is not good enough, because it's easy to get into Grandmaster in your (non-Korean) region so it doesn't count.
Overall, it feels like the community is unwelcoming towards females who end up in the spotlight.
|
On April 19 2012 21:38 chocopan wrote:
With the "what are these teams doing wrong" aspect, well, they are choosing women they consider "have potential", who also happen to be cute; rather than signing up women who have already demonstrated their skill (the way it works with boys). Stephano is cute as all get out but that wasn't what got him his team.
The problem is that there simply aren't female players performing at the highest level. As a team, you can recruit a cute female gamer who's in masters or you can recruit a non-cute female gamer who's in masters. That is essentially your choice. None of them have performed well in male-inclusive tournaments... Flo (or even Ailuj) may win one or two matches in the MLG open bracket if they draw some scrubs, but both go out to known players. Scarlett is the first female player that I know of who has really beaten some known people... and she immediately got picked up by a team.
Switching back to a more general response, I do agree that it was a mistake for Slayers to pick up Eve. She started off at too low of a level relative to her peers and really hasn't made visible progress. I don't know what sort of training she's getting, but it doesn't seem like she's getting proper training (or else she just can't handle it). I feel like any player on a team like Slayers should be competing in ESVs, KSLs, Playhems, and similar tournaments and I don't think she's competing in those. That's seriously dissapointing. If anything, I think that sort of pickup actually hurts the female scene. It makes females feel like tokens (cheerleaders, mascots, etc), not like players.
However, a cute Aphrodite or a Flo (yes, she's pretty cute) is approximately the top level female gamer. That's the best you get, whether you like it or not. You can accept them as they are (currently weaker than their peers) and recruit them anyways in the hope that the potential turns into legit wins, or you can ignore them and not support female gaming at all. I think your best bet to bring females into the game is to go with it. Get them into the ESVs, KSL, Playhems, and even some open brackets of various major tournaments where they can pick up some wins. Get those replays and have your own in-house crew cast the games where your girls are competitive with the guys. That's the type of thing that can inspire and improve the female scene.
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?
|
On April 19 2012 19:32 Zanno wrote:Show nested quote +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.
And believe me it takes more skill, cold logic (that's a male thinng according to your sexist stuff, no?), and hability to fight nervously and emotionally than any video game. To be chess world number 8 requires more of "manish" qualities than to you would need to be a better Starcraft 2 player than MVP, Marine Kings, FruitDealer and Stephano put together.
Notice that Judit Polgar has always refused to compete in women only events. Her sister was female world champion for years at the end of the 90's though, although she sucks enormously compared to Judit who is a stellar player.
I agree with OP. Female being there because they are hot or glamour (hello Tossgirl btw) is just making the gender issue worse.
|
On April 19 2012 21:36 Linwelin wrote:
Eve is masters now and Aphrodite did beat a few "low-mid tier NA pros" on ladder
Aphrodite GM on NA o:
|
you forgot  Aphrodite of startale i think, she has the best of both worlds: she is really skilled, really good (high masters on KR and GM on NA) and aphrodite is beautiful. Flo is also amazing, she's beautiful too and also really good, high masters on KR and NA. also why the mention of flo's feet?
|
On April 19 2012 21:36 Linwelin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 21:30 Sickkiee wrote:
Pretty sure that ST Aphrodite would be better than Scarlett IMO. Not to mention it took Aphrodite like... 1-2months to get masters in KR, with the help of Rainbow of course.
I'd say if Aphrodite got serious about going to international tournies, which is super hard for her I'd assume, she would beat a lot of the 'top' NA players.
Aphrodite also said the reason why SlayerS hasn't played Eve, is cause shes only low-mid diamond level, and that a Aphrodite vs Eve showmatch would only be a one sided domination in her favour. \
Now, you can say that ST and SlayerS are doing it wrong; but how so? They are supporting female programmers, no matter the skill level - to encourage players like Scarlett and others to come out of the woodwork's, to beat DOWN the stereotype of programmers only making it big are male. Eve is masters now and Aphrodite did beat a few "low-mid tier NA pros" on ladder
I wouldn't call those guys pro's.
|
As much as I don't want it to be, there is still the big question of biology.
You would never expect a female to compete on the same level as a male in a physical sport like football(whichever football you want), baseball, basketball, etc. Men and women are separate for a reason. There can be notable exceptions for this, but generally men dominate competitive environments if the genders are mixed.
For me, personally, the jury is still out on this regarding how it relates to Starcraft or "esports." Not enough women have given it an honest attempt for it to be a fair comparison. We could get into why not enough women have tried, but honestly that will spin ad nausem into societal norms, expectations, and probably back again to biology. Scarlett would seem like a possible execption to this except, crap, biologically speaking, she is a male. That isn't to denegrate Scarlett or anything of that nature (I have no problem accepting her as female in terms of "gender"), but if the discussion is strictly biology, that only seems to reinforce the idea that this is a place were male biology thrives.
I don't care about race or sex or gender with regards to Starcraft, I want to see the best Starcraft possible. Not only do I not care if it is a Korean or any other race/nationality representing the top level of play, I don't care whether it is a male or female. However, this goes both ways. I don't want to watch sub-standard Starcraft, just because a woman is playing it. That isn't for me.
|
On April 19 2012 23:49 StarStruck wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 21:36 Linwelin wrote:On April 19 2012 21:30 Sickkiee wrote:
Pretty sure that ST Aphrodite would be better than Scarlett IMO. Not to mention it took Aphrodite like... 1-2months to get masters in KR, with the help of Rainbow of course.
I'd say if Aphrodite got serious about going to international tournies, which is super hard for her I'd assume, she would beat a lot of the 'top' NA players.
Aphrodite also said the reason why SlayerS hasn't played Eve, is cause shes only low-mid diamond level, and that a Aphrodite vs Eve showmatch would only be a one sided domination in her favour. \
Now, you can say that ST and SlayerS are doing it wrong; but how so? They are supporting female programmers, no matter the skill level - to encourage players like Scarlett and others to come out of the woodwork's, to beat DOWN the stereotype of programmers only making it big are male. Eve is masters now and Aphrodite did beat a few "low-mid tier NA pros" on ladder I wouldn't call those guys pro's.
Destiny? I think people consider him a pro
|
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.
|
I look forward to three things: the day we no longer need the identified "female" in front of "programer"; the day when people can talk about (female) programers without any reference to their appearance or attractiveness*; and the day that Scarlett could be a eSports presenter on stage, in glamorous dress, and not a single person take issue with it.
*Will never happen, because, as much as people continue to deny it, image and aesthetic matters - to male and female programers alike.
|
i think this is more of a "finding hidden talent" not the gender thing. There are a ton of gms/masters that are really good but as u can see they never had a chance to make a name for themselves. scarlett got a chance and now look at her position
|
On April 19 2012 23:00 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On April 19 2012 19:05 Ruscour wrote:
I say similar because it's not quite the same. Female tournaments don't exist to bring in more female gamers, female gamers aren't exactly much of a population. In my eyes, I see it as the best opportunity you're gonna get to drag your girlfriend into SC2 (aside from showing how handsome SaSe is). Girls are intimidated by how male-dominated things are, seeing female competitors is encouraging. The Girls of StarCraft Facebook group and community is great, really doing great things for the female scene, and female-only competition engages not only those already in that community, but helps bring people in as well.
Sure about that? I know plenty of girls who play regardless of who is a poster-child of a competition. My own girlfriend plays because she thinks the game is fun. She would even go to an MLG because I showed her how entertaining the tournaments are.
|
Actually, you could say there is an advantage in being male, I know it won't be taken nicely by women but they just plainly get frustrated easier than men when it comes to grinding games. Grinding games, is an essential part of improving, along with the thought process and being able to view your own replays YOU lost. This imo, is the biggest difference. Dexterity wise, there is no reason a female can't preform 400 actions per minute, yet they just don't have the will power generally to achieve this feat because of what?
So imho, it's not a physical aspect, it's entirely mental. Men are not smarter than women, but they tend to grind out negative things easier than women do.
Also, on the topic of women gaming, this is my true opinion and I hope not to be banned for it, that recently the girls who have been picked up by major teams have simply been mascots for the team. "sponsor, we have female gamers, we are gender neutral pick me pick me" where MANY MANY MANY other players who are FAR superior could qualify to take that persons place. If anything, it's completely against women's equality to place them unfairly at the top.
After that though, Scarlett (boy/girl/transgender) PROVED herself worthy of being a good solid pro player, you don't beat bumblebee (code a) demuslim and take a game off Oz (Code s) lightly. No other "professional" girl gamer has even come close to that, in fact they made a mockery of the last girl gamer I saw playing live, she got decimated 0-2 then 0-2 again in games that looked completely out of place of the scene.
So, here's where it is for me. Place people where they deserve to go, if a female is better than a male, place her in his shoes but don't give them places they haven't come close to earn.
All that being said, go Scarlett!
|
On April 19 2012 21:12 chocopan wrote:
Interesting thread.
Rereading through it I guess one future I most definitely do -not- want for sc2 is one in which teams have 1 or 2 cute girls in a sort of PR function, and then other girls do interviews and stuff.
It's all well and good to say "women can decide for themselves what jobs to take" etc, and obviously that's true; but if the final outcome is that sc2 has the image of a "mans sport", where the women are just there for color, well, that would be a lost opportunity I think. I don't expect to see a 50/50 gender split in gaming any time soon; nor do I think it's appropriate for me to go around criticising women who are lucky enough to be born attractive who manage to get X or Y job on A or B team for whatever reason. My only concern is just about the image this new sport is creating and where that might leave the game in a few years time (and, by extension, gamer culture generally).
(For this reason I am 150% behind Scarlett, as a genuine potential talent.)
50/50 split between female and male exists in almost no competetive sports/games.
if you look at gaming for example the most female gamers are where the most highest degree of casualness exists(WoW)
|
On April 20 2012 01:11 qrs wrote: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.
You're right in that being transgendered adds somewhat unknown variables to the situation and that you can't leap to the conclusion that female pro-gaming is only set back by the lack of participation (though I think it is).
However, it isn't completely dismissible evidence either. As everything in science that has multiple fields who want to claim that they are the cause, transgender research is heavily debated between disciplines (sociology, biology, psychology, etc). Similar to the gay/lesbian "cause" issue, there is no clear answer and it is likely that the truth lies in multiple scientific fields instead of just one. This all said, there is a known connection between pre-natal androgen levels in the uterus and transgender issues.
|
A lot of these women you're dismissing are Masters/GM level on their respective servers. I'm pretty sure that's enough qualification to make them "good". In fact, it makes them better than the majority of the men who play this game. The only reason we don't have really amazing women gamers yet is because we have such a small sample size. Look at it this way, of the thousands(millions maybe?) of men who play sc2 we've managed to find only say...20-30 who are really worth mentioning/watching in tournaments. Even though <1% of the male population is "any good", as you say, at this game, the rest of you still use that 1% as validation for male superiority. You never consider the 99% that is absolutely abhorrent at this game. The 99% that those women you're discounting are better than. The number of women who play sc2 is exponentially smaller so of course we have fewer representative and slimmer pickings when it comes to skilled players.
As far as us being discouraged from playing sc2, I suppose you're right. There are a lot of things here alone that make me want to never play this game again, but none of them are because I see pretty women and feel intimidated. There are many interests most of us have that have scenes full of beautiful women. It's a bit presumptuous of you to write such a long winded mansplain and pretend you have made some sort of revelation about women. You aren't our spokesperson and by writing posts like this you aren't really helping us. I am more turned off by the casual racism, homophobia, transphobia (as seen in Scarlett's case), objectification of women, and overall shitty gaming culture. The SC2 community likes to make itself out to be so much more mature than all of the other gaming scenes, but in reality, it's just as bad. The only difference being that the SC2 community has adopted a very holier than thou attitude to their assholery because they say "gg/gl;hf". There is no winning situation for any woman who tries to be involved in this community. If you're too good looking the majority of the posts about you will be slut shaming, discussions on how bangable you are, or some disgusting combination of the two. If you aren't deemed attractive by the basement dwellers they'll be sure to let you know of it. "Am I the only one who doesn't find her attractive - upboat plissssss".
Us not being taken seriously in the e-sports world is not a product of too many of us being attractive. It's the deep seated misogyny that permeates gamer culture. The kind of thinking that makes you believe you're correct in thinking women programmers are second rate solely on the basis that we have fewer extraordinary people. All while completely ignoring the higher percentage of average/below average programmers that exist in the male community just because you have a few shining stars to redeem your gender.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On April 20 2012 03:39 pedostare wrote:
A lot of these women you're dismissing are Masters/GM level on their respective servers. I'm pretty sure that's enough qualification to make them "good". In fact, it makes them better than the majority of the men who play this game. The only reason we don't have really amazing women gamers yet is because we have such a small sample size. Look at it this way, of the thousands(millions maybe?) of men who play sc2 we've managed to find only say...20-30 who are really worth mentioning/watching in tournaments. Even though <1% of the male population is "any good", as you say, at this game, the rest of you still use that 1% as validation for male superiority. You never consider the 99% that is absolutely abhorrent at this game. The 99% that those women you're discounting are better than. The number of women who play sc2 is exponentially smaller so of course we have fewer representative and slimmer pickings when it comes to skilled players.
As far as us being discouraged from playing sc2, I suppose you're right. There are a lot of things here alone that make me want to never play this game again, but none of them are because I see pretty women and feel intimidated. There are many interests most of us have that have scenes full of beautiful women. It's a bit presumptuous of you to write such a long winded mansplain and pretend you have made some sort of revelation about women. You aren't our spokesperson and by writing posts like this you aren't really helping us. I am more turned off by the casual racism, homophobia, transphobia (as seen in Scarlett's case), objectification of women, and overall shitty gaming culture. The SC2 community likes to make itself out to be so much more mature than all of the other gaming scenes, but in reality, it's just as bad. The only difference being that the SC2 community has adopted a very holier than thou attitude to their assholery because they say "gg/gl;hf". There is no winning situation for any woman who tries to be involved in this community. If you're too good looking the majority of the posts about you will be slut shaming, discussions on how bangable you are, or some disgusting combination of the two. If you aren't deemed attractive by the basement dwellers they'll be sure to let you know of it. "Am I the only one who doesn't find her attractive - upboat plissssss".
Us not being taken seriously in the e-sports world is not a product of too many of us being attractive. It's the deep seated misogyny that permeates gamer culture. The kind of thinking that makes you believe you're correct in thinking women programmers are second rate solely on the basis that we have fewer extraordinary people. All while completely ignoring the higher percentage of average/below average programmers that exist in the male community just because you have a few shining stars to redeem your gender.
A lot of these women you're dismissing are Masters/GM level on their respective servers. I'm pretty sure that's enough qualification to make them "good".
I'm sorry, I didn't know this was a discussion on being good at SC2, my understanding was it was about being a professional player. I'm a high masters player, can I get to play with Startale too? I mean Eve is like diamond right? Seems fair to me, except for the next 2-3 thousand players ahead of me in skill/ranking. But if we had it your way, every women who could play at an average level and meet masters level, should be playing in GSL code S finals.
Secondly, your statistics are so assbackwards that you might as well throw out anything you've stated at the door... So many un backed stats you just decided to add to bolster your position its baffling that you think it helps, the "20/30" male pros are backed by a countless armada of Korean up and comers trying to qualify for Code a (stuck in Code B). Artosis and other noteable figures have said getting into Code A GSL through Code B is much harder than the rest of GSL... AND THESE are just unknown players, and ALL of them better then the mascots parading in ST and SlayerS... So before you rant about made up statistics and your own ignorant perspective maybe look into the situation a little farther.
The kind of thinking that makes you believe you're correct in thinking women programmers are second rate solely on the basis that we have fewer extraordinary people
His stance was not that women pro gamers (not programmers) are second rate based on having few extraordinary people. His position is that ONLY extraordinary people should get into GSL class teams, ONLY the best of the best should be featured on Startale and SlayerS, not show dolls, and if you think that those couple girls could top many of the players I mentioned previously in Code B everyday, then you're even more full of shit than you've previously proven.
If you're too good looking the majority of the posts about you will be slut shaming, discussions on how bangable you are, or some disgusting combination of the two.
The following quote, is purely hypocritical text. You generalize all male gamer's as pigs and idiots while taking the victims stance that male discriminate and generalize women based on looks, and looks alone. Please, stop posting ridiculous assumptions and idiotic beliefs.
I am more turned off by the casual racism, homophobia, transphobia (as seen in Scarlett's case), objectification of women, and overall shitty gaming culture.
-Causal racism. Last month, Orb was fired from EG and the community DEMOLISHED his reputation and almost shut EG's sponsors down over his racial slurs. Very casual of us.
-Homophobia. Teamliquid, the hub of Starcraft 2's community, has an entire thread DEDICATED to homosexual players, an ENTIRE staff of admins who ban homophobic remarks instantly... Perhaps another mistake by you again, generally assuming the stance, and being baseless and ignorant in the attempt.
-Transphobia. Again, even casters applauded the maturity of the community and how well it took to not going on reddit and smashing down the doors of human rights... Scarlett specifically had the MOST additions to her fanpage after IPL4 than ANY OTHER PRO PLAYER, EVER... Including Boxer/MKP/Nestea... Sure seems like the fans are transphobic... Every community has a few bad apples, making ignorant remarks. Those people have been banned from TL, and most gamers have shunned the comments they've made in regard. Again, another mistake on your assumption based ideology...
-objectification of women. The only objectification I've seen is by you, generalizing and assuming the stance of the majority of male gamer's. You, yourself, are the reason women get set back in gaming. There was a Beautiful women thread, and a Beautiful men thread, seems rather equal. Both, I repeat, BOTH were shut down. BECAUSE THEY WERE OBJECTIFYING a certain gender. Seems like TL is on top of that as well, and most of the community is behind them, so this wouldn't happen to be ANOTHER (count that 4) baseless assumption... would it?
-Shitty community. You, the horrible poster who does no research and just speaks with pure ignorance, make communities "shitty" so before you post again, think. That may be hard, for your feminist, over zealous, ignorant, generalizing self to handle but try it. It will make the community a better place.
|
On April 20 2012 03:39 pedostare wrote:
A lot of these women you're dismissing are Masters/GM level on their respective servers. I'm pretty sure that's enough qualification to make them "good". In fact, it makes them better than the majority of the men who play this game. The only reason we don't have really amazing women gamers yet is because we have such a small sample size. Look at it this way, of the thousands(millions maybe?) of men who play sc2 we've managed to find only say...20-30 who are really worth mentioning/watching in tournaments. Even though <1% of the male population is "any good", as you say, at this game, the rest of you still use that 1% as validation for male superiority. You never consider the 99% that is absolutely abhorrent at this game. The 99% that those women you're discounting are better than. The number of women who play sc2 is exponentially smaller so of course we have fewer representative and slimmer pickings when it comes to skilled players.
As far as us being discouraged from playing sc2, I suppose you're right. There are a lot of things here alone that make me want to never play this game again, but none of them are because I see pretty women and feel intimidated. There are many interests most of us have that have scenes full of beautiful women. It's a bit presumptuous of you to write such a long winded mansplain and pretend you have made some sort of revelation about women. You aren't our spokesperson and by writing posts like this you aren't really helping us. I am more turned off by the casual racism, homophobia, transphobia (as seen in Scarlett's case), objectification of women, and overall shitty gaming culture. The SC2 community likes to make itself out to be so much more mature than all of the other gaming scenes, but in reality, it's just as bad. The only difference being that the SC2 community has adopted a very holier than thou attitude to their assholery because they say "gg/gl;hf". There is no winning situation for any woman who tries to be involved in this community. If you're too good looking the majority of the posts about you will be slut shaming, discussions on how bangable you are, or some disgusting combination of the two. If you aren't deemed attractive by the basement dwellers they'll be sure to let you know of it. "Am I the only one who doesn't find her attractive - upboat plissssss".
Us not being taken seriously in the e-sports world is not a product of too many of us being attractive. It's the deep seated misogyny that permeates gamer culture. The kind of thinking that makes you believe you're correct in thinking women programmers are second rate solely on the basis that we have fewer extraordinary people. All while completely ignoring the higher percentage of average/below average programmers that exist in the male community just because you have a few shining stars to redeem your gender.
Did you even read anything besides the OP? It really doesn't sound like you have.
|
On April 20 2012 05:19 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 03:39 pedostare wrote:
A lot of these women you're dismissing are Masters/GM level on their respective servers. I'm pretty sure that's enough qualification to make them "good". In fact, it makes them better than the majority of the men who play this game. The only reason we don't have really amazing women gamers yet is because we have such a small sample size. Look at it this way, of the thousands(millions maybe?) of men who play sc2 we've managed to find only say...20-30 who are really worth mentioning/watching in tournaments. Even though <1% of the male population is "any good", as you say, at this game, the rest of you still use that 1% as validation for male superiority. You never consider the 99% that is absolutely abhorrent at this game. The 99% that those women you're discounting are better than. The number of women who play sc2 is exponentially smaller so of course we have fewer representative and slimmer pickings when it comes to skilled players.
As far as us being discouraged from playing sc2, I suppose you're right. There are a lot of things here alone that make me want to never play this game again, but none of them are because I see pretty women and feel intimidated. There are many interests most of us have that have scenes full of beautiful women. It's a bit presumptuous of you to write such a long winded mansplain and pretend you have made some sort of revelation about women. You aren't our spokesperson and by writing posts like this you aren't really helping us. I am more turned off by the casual racism, homophobia, transphobia (as seen in Scarlett's case), objectification of women, and overall shitty gaming culture. The SC2 community likes to make itself out to be so much more mature than all of the other gaming scenes, but in reality, it's just as bad. The only difference being that the SC2 community has adopted a very holier than thou attitude to their assholery because they say "gg/gl;hf". There is no winning situation for any woman who tries to be involved in this community. If you're too good looking the majority of the posts about you will be slut shaming, discussions on how bangable you are, or some disgusting combination of the two. If you aren't deemed attractive by the basement dwellers they'll be sure to let you know of it. "Am I the only one who doesn't find her attractive - upboat plissssss".
Us not being taken seriously in the e-sports world is not a product of too many of us being attractive. It's the deep seated misogyny that permeates gamer culture. The kind of thinking that makes you believe you're correct in thinking women programmers are second rate solely on the basis that we have fewer extraordinary people. All while completely ignoring the higher percentage of average/below average programmers that exist in the male community just because you have a few shining stars to redeem your gender.
Did you even read anything besides the OP? It really doesn't sound like you have.
unlikely
|
On April 19 2012 21:30 Sickkiee wrote:
Now, you can say that ST and SlayerS are doing it wrong; but how so? They are supporting female programmers, no matter the skill level - to encourage players like Scarlett and others to come out of the woodwork's, to beat DOWN the stereotype of programmers only making it big are male.
its not a stereotype.. no female progamers are making it big. its fact.
|
On April 20 2012 05:19 HardlyNever wrote:
Did you even read anything besides the OP? It really doesn't sound like you have.
Well, since it seems like she's only addressing the OP, it doesn't really matter whether or not she read the others' posts...
On April 20 2012 05:09 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 03:39 pedostare wrote:If you're too good looking the majority of the posts about you will be slut shaming, discussions on how bangable you are, or some disgusting combination of the two. The following quote, is purely hypocritical text. You generalize all male gamer's as pigs and idiots while taking the victims stance that male discriminate and generalize women based on looks, and looks alone. Please, stop posting ridiculous assumptions and idiotic beliefs.
If you look at a topic about a female being recruited to a team, a large part of the posts are about how she looks, or at least mentions it in some way. However, topics about males being recruited to teams have very few posts about how he looks.
Your antagonistic tone isn't helping anything, either -- maybe she's just posting how she feels when she reads some posts in some gaming communities, and you accuse her of making "ridiculous assumptions" and holding "idiotic beliefs", which is maybe your way of saying you disagree, but combined with "stop posting", your words basically mean, "Shut up about your opinions, they're wrong, and I know how you should feel better than you do." And that plays into her point that the gaming culture (notice that she didn't say TL specifically) is shitty. When she posts her opinion, she's basically told "Shut up, you're wrong". So maybe for everyone who doesn't have to experience this, the gaming culture is alright, but for her, it's pretty shitty right now.
|
On April 20 2012 05:09 NeMeSiS3 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 20 2012 03:39 pedostare wrote:
A lot of these women you're dismissing are Masters/GM level on their respective servers. I'm pretty sure that's enough qualification to make them "good". In fact, it makes them better than the majority of the men who play this game. The only reason we don't have really amazing women gamers yet is because we have such a small sample size. Look at it this way, of the thousands(millions maybe?) of men who play sc2 we've managed to find only say...20-30 who are really worth mentioning/watching in tournaments. Even though <1% of the male population is "any good", as you say, at this game, the rest of you still use that 1% as validation for male superiority. You never consider the 99% that is absolutely abhorrent at this game. The 99% that those women you're discounting are better than. The number of women who play sc2 is exponentially smaller so of course we have fewer representative and slimmer pickings when it comes to skilled players.
As far as us being discouraged from playing sc2, I suppose you're right. There are a lot of things here alone that make me want to never play this game again, but none of them are because I see pretty women and feel intimidated. There are many interests most of us have that have scenes full of beautiful women. It's a bit presumptuous of you to write such a long winded mansplain and pretend you have made some sort of revelation about women. You aren't our spokesperson and by writing posts like this you aren't really helping us. I am more turned off by the casual racism, homophobia, transphobia (as seen in Scarlett's case), objectification of women, and overall shitty gaming culture. The SC2 community likes to make itself out to be so much more mature than all of the other gaming scenes, but in reality, it's just as bad. The only difference being that the SC2 community has adopted a very holier than thou attitude to their assholery because they say "gg/gl;hf". There is no winning situation for any woman who tries to be involved in this community. If you're too good looking the majority of the posts about you will be slut shaming, discussions on how bangable you are, or some disgusting combination of the two. If you aren't deemed attractive by the basement dwellers they'll be sure to let you know of it. "Am I the only one who doesn't find her attractive - upboat plissssss".
Us not being taken seriously in the e-sports world is not a product of too many of us being attractive. It's the deep seated misogyny that permeates gamer culture. The kind of thinking that makes you believe you're correct in thinking women programmers are second rate solely on the basis that we have fewer extraordinary people. All while completely ignoring the higher percentage of average/below average programmers that exist in the male community just because you have a few shining stars to redeem your gender.
Show nested quote +A lot of these women you're dismissing are Masters/GM level on their respective servers. I'm pretty sure that's enough qualification to make them "good". I'm sorry, I didn't know this was a discussion on being good at SC2, my understanding was it was about being a professional player. I'm a high masters player, can I get to play with Startale too? I mean Eve is like diamond right? Seems fair to me, except for the next 2-3 thousand players ahead of me in skill/ranking. But if we had it your way, every women who could play at an average level and meet masters level, should be playing in GSL code S finals. Secondly, your statistics are so assbackwards that you might as well throw out anything you've stated at the door... So many un backed stats you just decided to add to bolster your position its baffling that you think it helps, the "20/30" male pros are backed by a countless armada of Korean up and comers trying to qualify for Code a (stuck in Code B). Artosis and other noteable figures have said getting into Code A GSL through Code B is much harder than the rest of GSL... AND THESE are just unknown players, and ALL of them better then the mascots parading in ST and SlayerS... So before you rant about made up statistics and your own ignorant perspective maybe look into the situation a little farther. Show nested quote +The kind of thinking that makes you believe you're correct in thinking women programmers are second rate solely on the basis that we have fewer extraordinary people His stance was not that women pro gamers (not programmers) are second rate based on having few extraordinary people. His position is that ONLY extraordinary people should get into GSL class teams, ONLY the best of the best should be featured on Startale and SlayerS, not show dolls, and if you think that those couple girls could top many of the players I mentioned previously in Code B everyday, then you're even more full of shit than you've previously proven. Show nested quote +If you're too good looking the majority of the posts about you will be slut shaming, discussions on how bangable you are, or some disgusting combination of the two. The following quote, is purely hypocritical text. You generalize all male gamer's as pigs and idiots while taking the victims stance that male discriminate and generalize women based on looks, and looks alone. Please, stop posting ridiculous assumptions and idiotic beliefs. Show nested quote + I am more turned off by the casual racism, homophobia, transphobia (as seen in Scarlett's case), objectification of women, and overall shitty gaming culture. -Causal racism. Last month, Orb was fired from EG and the community DEMOLISHED his reputation and almost shut EG's sponsors down over his racial slurs. Very casual of us. -Homophobia. Teamliquid, the hub of Starcraft 2's community, has an entire thread DEDICATED to homosexual players, an ENTIRE staff of admins who ban homophobic remarks instantly... Perhaps another mistake by you again, generally assuming the stance, and being baseless and ignorant in the attempt. -Transphobia. Again, even casters applauded the maturity of the community and how well it took to not going on reddit and smashing down the doors of human rights... Scarlett specifically had the MOST additions to her fanpage after IPL4 than ANY OTHER PRO PLAYER, EVER... Including Boxer/MKP/Nestea... Sure seems like the fans are transphobic... Every community has a few bad apples, making ignorant remarks. Those people have been banned from TL, and most gamers have shunned the comments they've made in regard. Again, another mistake on your assumption based ideology... -objectification of women. The only objectification I've seen is by you, generalizing and assuming the stance of the majority of male gamer's. You, yourself, are the reason women get set back in gaming. There was a Beautiful women thread, and a Beautiful men thread, seems rather equal. Both, I repeat, BOTH were shut down. BECAUSE THEY WERE OBJECTIFYING a certain gender. Seems like TL is on top of that as well, and most of the community is behind them, so this wouldn't happen to be ANOTHER (count that 4) baseless assumption... would it? -Shitty community. You, the horrible poster who does no research and just speaks with pure ignorance, make communities "shitty" so before you post again, think. That may be hard, for your feminist, over zealous, ignorant, generalizing self to handle but try it. It will make the community a better place.
They(the girls) are the best of what is available at the moment. That's the point. It's a good thing someone like Scarlett was discovered. She's one of the first really good players in awhile, so hopefully more women players will be interested in tournaments in the future, and we'll have more of our extraordinary people. Obviously there's more than 1% of men who are being represented in sc2 media, but it was hyperbole for a reason. Point being there are vastly more men who are not "special" than those who are, and those who complain the most about women being on teams are a part of the "not special.". You can take all the Asian, American, and EU teams combined and it'd still be an insignificant portion of the totality of male players.
What they do with the girls on those teams is a pretty nice thing. Most of the girls are good players training to become better players. They're not on par with the men on their team, but I'd like to think one day they will be. You're looking for us to produce some extra special amazing woman player, but that's easier said than done. As I've said earlier, smaller sampling size ---> less likelihood of getting an amazing talent. If x-factor only auditioned 10 people each season they'd likely never find anyone.
As for the community being terrible, I stand by what I said. You're basing the SC2 community solely off of TL mods and a reddit witch hunt (which by the next week became a meme, and there were tons of people who supported Orb). Have you read BNET forums lately? :/ Stream comments? Youtube comments? r/sc2 comments? Because a lot of them are really..really bad. As much as you'd like to pretend they don't exist, those people are still a part of the community, and there are a lot of them. o_o We'd all like to shrug those people all of as not being a part of our community because that excuses us from doing anything about the problem or even acknowledging that it exists.While TL prides itself in being the #1 go to place for SC2 information it is not the entirety of the population. The only reason TL hasn't devolved into as cruddy of a place is because of heavy moderation and strict rules.
When you venture outside of the moderated sc2 community you won't like what you find (or maybe you will O_O). I have my sc2 people I follow like everyone else, and the comments you find surrounding them are generally less than ideal, especially for the women. I'm not trying to paint anyone with a broad brush, sorry if the post earlier was too forward, but there's an inescapable amount of bad things being said outside of the moderated sc2 community, and that is more discouraging than anything.
Attitudes like the OPs and comments surrounding them are bothersome. It tells me that if I ever get recognized for playing SC and I am too pretty there's a group of angry dissenters who will be more upset with me for getting recognized than happy with me for trying to make it into the scene. It's beyond insulting to call the women who are on those teams and trying to get better cheerleaders. A lot of them are trying their best and trying to become people our little community can look up to. It's unfair to talk about them that way, and that sort of discussion does more to "hurt" the scene than anything I've said.
I'm sure most women are excited when they see women being recognized in the scene, not off-put because the women are "cheer leaders." I wasn't trying to come off as an over zealous lalala w/e it is you called me. I'm only trying to express how many of us feel in the gaming community. I am ecstatic every time I see a woman show up at a tourney, regardless of her looks. And I'm proud that we have so many beautiful ladies to represent us. I don't think "wow, those girls only got recognized because they are pretty"; I think "wow, it's really nice to see women who defy stereotypes by managing to be both talented and beautiful."
|
There is absolutely no advantage gained in StarCraft from being male
Are you kidding me
and
No seriously, are you fricking kidding me
|
On April 20 2012 08:04 hkf wrote: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.
|
On April 20 2012 08:42 Ruscour wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On April 20 2012 07:30 pedostare wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 05:09 NeMeSiS3 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 20 2012 03:39 pedostare wrote:
A lot of these women you're dismissing are Masters/GM level on their respective servers. I'm pretty sure that's enough qualification to make them "good". In fact, it makes them better than the majority of the men who play this game. The only reason we don't have really amazing women gamers yet is because we have such a small sample size. Look at it this way, of the thousands(millions maybe?) of men who play sc2 we've managed to find only say...20-30 who are really worth mentioning/watching in tournaments. Even though <1% of the male population is "any good", as you say, at this game, the rest of you still use that 1% as validation for male superiority. You never consider the 99% that is absolutely abhorrent at this game. The 99% that those women you're discounting are better than. The number of women who play sc2 is exponentially smaller so of course we have fewer representative and slimmer pickings when it comes to skilled players.
As far as us being discouraged from playing sc2, I suppose you're right. There are a lot of things here alone that make me want to never play this game again, but none of them are because I see pretty women and feel intimidated. There are many interests most of us have that have scenes full of beautiful women. It's a bit presumptuous of you to write such a long winded mansplain and pretend you have made some sort of revelation about women. You aren't our spokesperson and by writing posts like this you aren't really helping us. I am more turned off by the casual racism, homophobia, transphobia (as seen in Scarlett's case), objectification of women, and overall shitty gaming culture. The SC2 community likes to make itself out to be so much more mature than all of the other gaming scenes, but in reality, it's just as bad. The only difference being that the SC2 community has adopted a very holier than thou attitude to their assholery because they say "gg/gl;hf". There is no winning situation for any woman who tries to be involved in this community. If you're too good looking the majority of the posts about you will be slut shaming, discussions on how bangable you are, or some disgusting combination of the two. If you aren't deemed attractive by the basement dwellers they'll be sure to let you know of it. "Am I the only one who doesn't find her attractive - upboat plissssss".
Us not being taken seriously in the e-sports world is not a product of too many of us being attractive. It's the deep seated misogyny that permeates gamer culture. The kind of thinking that makes you believe you're correct in thinking women programmers are second rate solely on the basis that we have fewer extraordinary people. All while completely ignoring the higher percentage of average/below average programmers that exist in the male community just because you have a few shining stars to redeem your gender.
A lot of these women you're dismissing are Masters/GM level on their respective servers. I'm pretty sure that's enough qualification to make them "good". I'm sorry, I didn't know this was a discussion on being good at SC2, my understanding was it was about being a professional player. I'm a high masters player, can I get to play with Startale too? I mean Eve is like diamond right? Seems fair to me, except for the next 2-3 thousand players ahead of me in skill/ranking. But if we had it your way, every women who could play at an average level and meet masters level, should be playing in GSL code S finals. Secondly, your statistics are so assbackwards that you might as well throw out anything you've stated at the door... So many un backed stats you just decided to add to bolster your position its baffling that you think it helps, the "20/30" male pros are backed by a countless armada of Korean up and comers trying to qualify for Code a (stuck in Code B). Artosis and other noteable figures have said getting into Code A GSL through Code B is much harder than the rest of GSL... AND THESE are just unknown players, and ALL of them better then the mascots parading in ST and SlayerS... So before you rant about made up statistics and your own ignorant perspective maybe look into the situation a little farther. The kind of thinking that makes you believe you're correct in thinking women programmers are second rate solely on the basis that we have fewer extraordinary people His stance was not that women pro gamers (not programmers) are second rate based on having few extraordinary people. His position is that ONLY extraordinary people should get into GSL class teams, ONLY the best of the best should be featured on Startale and SlayerS, not show dolls, and if you think that those couple girls could top many of the players I mentioned previously in Code B everyday, then you're even more full of shit than you've previously proven. If you're too good looking the majority of the posts about you will be slut shaming, discussions on how bangable you are, or some disgusting combination of the two. The following quote, is purely hypocritical text. You generalize all male gamer's as pigs and idiots while taking the victims stance that male discriminate and generalize women based on looks, and looks alone. Please, stop posting ridiculous assumptions and idiotic beliefs. I am more turned off by the casual racism, homophobia, transphobia (as seen in Scarlett's case), objectification of women, and overall shitty gaming culture. -Causal racism. Last month, Orb was fired from EG and the community DEMOLISHED his reputation and almost shut EG's sponsors down over his racial slurs. Very casual of us. -Homophobia. Teamliquid, the hub of Starcraft 2's community, has an entire thread DEDICATED to homosexual players, an ENTIRE staff of admins who ban homophobic remarks instantly... Perhaps another mistake by you again, generally assuming the stance, and being baseless and ignorant in the attempt. -Transphobia. Again, even casters applauded the maturity of the community and how well it took to not going on reddit and smashing down the doors of human rights... Scarlett specifically had the MOST additions to her fanpage after IPL4 than ANY OTHER PRO PLAYER, EVER... Including Boxer/MKP/Nestea... Sure seems like the fans are transphobic... Every community has a few bad apples, making ignorant remarks. Those people have been banned from TL, and most gamers have shunned the comments they've made in regard. Again, another mistake on your assumption based ideology... -objectification of women. The only objectification I've seen is by you, generalizing and assuming the stance of the majority of male gamer's. You, yourself, are the reason women get set back in gaming. There was a Beautiful women thread, and a Beautiful men thread, seems rather equal. Both, I repeat, BOTH were shut down. BECAUSE THEY WERE OBJECTIFYING a certain gender. Seems like TL is on top of that as well, and most of the community is behind them, so this wouldn't happen to be ANOTHER (count that 4) baseless assumption... would it? -Shitty community. You, the horrible poster who does no research and just speaks with pure ignorance, make communities "shitty" so before you post again, think. That may be hard, for your feminist, over zealous, ignorant, generalizing self to handle but try it. It will make the community a better place. They(the girls) are the best of what is available at the moment. That's the point. It's a good thing someone like Scarlett was discovered. She's one of the first really good players in awhile, so hopefully more women players will be interested in tournaments in the future, and we'll have more of our extraordinary people. Obviously there's more than 1% of men who are being represented in sc2 media, but it was hyperbole for a reason. Point being there are vastly more men who are not "special" than those who are, and those who complain the most about women being on teams are a part of the "not special.". You can take all the Asian, American, and EU teams combined and it'd still be an insignificant portion of the totality of male players. What they do with the girls on those teams is a pretty nice thing. Most of the girls are good players training to become better players. They're not on par with the men on their team, but I'd like to think one day they will be. You're looking for us to produce some extra special amazing woman player, but that's easier said than done. As I've said earlier, smaller sampling size ---> less likelihood of getting an amazing talent. If x-factor only auditioned 10 people each season they'd likely never find anyone. As for the community being terrible, I stand by what I said. You're basing the SC2 community solely off of TL mods and a reddit witch hunt (which by the next week became a meme, and there were tons of people who supported Orb). Have you read BNET forums lately? :/ Stream comments? Youtube comments? r/sc2 comments? Because a lot of them are really..really bad. As much as you'd like to pretend they don't exist, those people are still a part of the community, and there are a lot of them. o_o We'd all like to shrug those people all of as not being a part of our community because that excuses us from doing anything about the problem or even acknowledging that it exists.While TL prides itself in being the #1 go to place for SC2 information it is not the entirety of the population. The only reason TL hasn't devolved into as cruddy of a place is because of heavy moderation and strict rules. When you venture outside of the moderated sc2 community you won't like what you find (or maybe you will O_O). I have my sc2 people I follow like everyone else, and the comments you find surrounding them are generally less than ideal, especially for the women. I'm not trying to paint anyone with a broad brush, sorry if the post earlier was too forward, but there's an inescapable amount of bad things being said outside of the moderated sc2 community, and that is more discouraging than anything. Attitudes like the OPs and comments surrounding them are bothersome. It tells me that if I ever get recognized for playing SC and I am too pretty there's a group of angry dissenters who will be more upset with me for getting recognized than happy with me for trying to make it into the scene. It's beyond insulting to call the women who are on those teams and trying to get better cheerleaders. A lot of them are trying their best and trying to become people our little community can look up to. It's unfair to talk about them that way, and that sort of discussion does more to "hurt" the scene than anything I've said. I'm sure most women are excited when they see women being recognized in the scene, not off-put because the women are "cheer leaders." I wasn't trying to come off as an over zealous lalala w/e it is you called me. I'm only trying to express how many of us feel in the gaming community. I am ecstatic every time I see a woman show up at a tourney, regardless of her looks. And I'm proud that we have so many beautiful ladies to represent us. I don't think "wow, those girls only got recognized because they are pretty"; I think "wow, it's really nice to see women who defy stereotypes by managing to be both talented and beautiful."
They(the girls) are the best of what is available at the moment. That's the point.
No, I believe the point (btw thank you for responding in a fashion that is not extremely pretentious, I do appreciate the civility) is that, who cares? Equality, is in fact equality. Women should get "equal" rights to pro teams as men, not free passes because they have a nice body, or because the team really needs a sponsor to bite... These women, are simply not caliber to be called professional players, definitely not more deserving than many others. That. Is. The. Point. It would be the same if an African American male got a job over a White man (which believe me actually does happen) just so the company looks more racially neutral. Like I said, there is a difference between true equality and then making nice.
So yes, we realize they are girls, and yes it's nice they like to play, but it's pretty obvious (and they've said) that they do not put that much time into the game... Definitely not enough to become even Code B level. So THAT is the issue.
more men who are not "special" than those who are, and those who complain the most about women being on teams are a part of the "not special.". You can take all the Asian, American, and EU teams combined and it'd still be an insignificant portion of the totality of male players.
Yes, like any major sport the point is that it has such a skill ceiling that only a small minority of players can compete at the highest level.. 32 teams in the NHL, 19 players per team usually... That is on average 608 players in professional hockey (disregarding KHL and other leagues)... perhaps millions of people play/have played hockey in the time frame of when these players are playing/were playing and yet there they stand the minority. So you bolstering about this fictional value, like only 1% of the community of all men are pro gamers, so what? I'd go as far as to say much much less are able to support themselves financially, so above all this is the greatest insult to them. iNcontroL on SOTG stated that this new phenomenon of female gamers, is just them parading mascots... I'd have to say he's part of the "special" as you like to put it. So why do they get these positions of security while others much better squabble for twitch tv revenue ... Is that fair?
They're not on par with the men on their team, but I'd like to think one day they will be.
So you agree, they could be filled with more deserving players than? That they are not on par with professional players, and such are just there to do what? Stand as trophies? If anything, this is the greatest insult to women, SlayerS EVE especially should NOT BE on a professional team, and yet there she is, cute as ever. You tell me why she's there, atleast aphrodite has done very little, getting masters on KR like that is something to place your cards down and say, I'm allin she's worth the position. So why do you think women deserve positions that they haven't earned?
As I've said earlier, smaller sampling size ---> less likelihood of getting an amazing talent. If x-factor only auditioned 10 people each season they'd likely never find anyone.
You're completely right, with the small sampling size it's hard. Guess what, that isn't the communities problem or the pro circuits. Equality =/= hand outs to let women feel better. I doubt any self-assured women would love the idea that if she plays SC2 one day she might get to be a trophy for a team, or that they aren't taken seriously by any gamer because they are given position unearned. Scarlett, as you've mentioned, represents the female side as much as the male, as you might guess that's because she's transgender, meaning she can't be lofted into this debate... You can't decide why Dogs are more obedient than cats by throwing a monkey into the mix and say that it can learn sign language from being obedient... This is a completely misplaced. So yes, it would be wonderful to have pro gamers be women, but no having women like Eve represent women is a farce and disgusting when based on equality.
Have you read BNET forums lately? :/ Stream comments? Youtube comments? r/sc2 comments?
Oh really? People can be bad? People can be ignorant? Walk into the Southern States as an African American and have political figures/judges slur racial remarks your way. Go down an alley and hear rude remarks. That's humanity, and generalizing the entire community is as ignorant as generalizing every jew is good with money. We are not all, we are diverse and the majority (like you see on TL) are mature, the issue is that you are so dumbfounded by this (for some apparent reason you've been living in a box and haven't realized the worlds a crude place) that you bunched us all together for the gallows... So perhaps you can, instead of stating our entire communities a shit hole, start looking a bit clearer because your visions distorted, and it is personally insulting to me to have you speak of women getting generalized then generalize male gamer's in this community.
heavy moderation and strict rules.
I'd like to see these strict rules, last time I checked it was basically, don't be a bad and/or stupid person and you will not be banned. I believe "strictly" prohibiting the things they prohibit falls under the "don't be an idiot" slogan.
When you venture outside of the moderated sc2 community you won't like what you find (or maybe you will O_O). I have my sc2 people I follow like everyone else, and the comments you find surrounding them are generally less than ideal, especially for the women. I'm not trying to paint anyone with a broad brush, sorry if the post earlier was too forward, but there's an inescapable amount of bad things being said outside of the moderated sc2 community, and that is more discouraging than anything.
The picture you're painting for women is that you want handouts, so stop it. If I go anywhere on the internet out of this community I'll find pedophiles searching jailbait, people researching conspiracy theories that we didn't land on the moon, and that the WHITE WILL RISE AGAIN. People are people, idiots are idiots no matter where on earth you go that isn't moderated. Stop kidding yourself. The inescapable amount of bad things, like iNcontroL said, is generally a tiny fraction of the internet with the most time on there hands to post the most horrific things because they are, what we call, trolls. Seem's similar to a Jr High School, just because one fat kid with a big mouth yells slut doesn't mean the other 1000 kids are all labeled with him.
It's beyond insulting to call the women who are on those teams and trying to get better cheerleaders. A lot of them are trying their best and trying to become people our little community can look up to. It's unfair to talk about them that way, and that sort of discussion does more to "hurt" the scene than anything I've said.
No, what's beyond insulting is the fact you think they deserve to be on those teams trying to get better within those teams... Sure, those teams have PRACTICE HOUSES, but they don't have charity houses there to give free passes to women who look nice, or not. This op was not directed at the fact they look nice, it was at the fact that there HAS TO BE SOME REASON they are there, and it is SURELY not based on skill (Eve will be my sole example) She is not only below average, she is not even masters, and if she is SHE BARLEY is masters. How dare you decide to come onto this forum and say "oh it's so unfair, men, those pigs, are calling women cheerleaders because they play professional games, fucking men and fucking gaming community are all pigs" No, absolutely not, you're completely out of line. Those women have DONE NOTHING for women, and NOTHING for the community other then bring it down... Sure you're a bit short sighted and see it as a big step, about as big a step as shutting the door on equality completely. Imagine how unfair this is to other people, others who practice 10-12 hours a day, try so hard to get in and are just PLAIN better than these "female pro gamers" and yet they are on the out and these girls are on the in... Imagine that for a second, it's a fucking joke. So before you start crying about the world and how unfair it is, and how they're trying there best. They're best IS NOT good enough yet, it may be good enough later but they have NOT proven themselves and should NOT be recognized as pro gamer's unless they wish to be the teams cheerleader who doesn't participate in teamleagues and doesn't go to tournaments (hey, kinda like a cheerleader, standing at the side lines going "woohoo get them boys") which is disrespectful to women, and to the people trying to make it into the scene.
I am ecstatic every time I see a woman show up at a tourney, regardless of her looks. And I'm proud that we have so many beautiful ladies to represent us. I don't think "wow, those girls only got recognized because they are pretty"; I think "wow, it's really nice to see women who defy stereotypes by managing to be both talented and beautiful
They have yet to defy any stereotypes, so your statements here are false. They actually only are recognized because they are pretty, and that is fact. I have yet to see one of the pro female players represent the team (other then flo) in a matter a pro gamer would. You are ecstatic that women get freebies and get to join because they look pretty, and can kinda play? Then you are again, the reason this community is a little ass backwards sometimes. "talented" and "ok at the game" are two totally different things. Being "masters/gm" does not qualify you to be a pro gamer, seeing as there are many GM's on NA higher than them, I find it strange they haven't been rostered. Combat-ex was GM for a very long time, why wasn't he rostered? No results/rank doesnt matter.
So here it is, stop crying about equality while trying to force the complete opposite on the community. Thank you.
|
On April 20 2012 09:17 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Tossgirl has said in interview(s) that she finds it hard to practice more than four hours a day because she gets frustrated and/or worn out. As a BW pro, 4 hours a day just won't cut it, obviously. Frustration also makes it harder to objectively analyze games that you lost, which slows down the improvement process further. The skill difference between her and male progamers who practice fulltime grows over time, leading to a lower win rate and more frustration. Vicious cycle.
|
On April 20 2012 09:41 Demonhunter04 wrote:Show nested quote +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. Tossgirl has said in interview(s) that she finds it hard to practice more than four hours a day because she gets frustrated and/or worn out. As a BW pro, 4 hours a day just won't cut it, obviously. Frustration also makes it harder to objectively analyze games that you lost, which slows down the improvement process further. The skill difference between her and male progamers who practice fulltime grows over time, leading to a lower win rate and more frustration. Vicious cycle.
I was going to say it was Tossgirl's interview that sparked my attention on that (plus other data I've read/seen) but I didn't wanna just post it and be like fuck I can't bring a cited information bar up and show where I got it. Thanks haha
|
It was almost a polite reply...till you edited it.
|
On April 20 2012 09:17 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Note: these things do not include field-agnostic challenges such as practicing for x hours a day, being able to take losses better, etc. I know plenty of females that succeed in a traditionally male field, and do those (again, field-agnostic) things better than me.
|
On April 20 2012 10:04 hkf wrote:Show nested quote +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
|
On April 20 2012 10:07 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
|
|
On April 20 2012 10:12 hkf wrote:Show nested quote +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....
|
Since when has anything in the entertainment industry been a meritocracy?
|
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.
|
One hundred years of research has established that East Asians and Europeans average higher IQs than do Africans.
omg. Ok this is definitely 100% totally time for you to start your own blog. What u are talking here, does not belong in this thread. You've made your point, such as it is. Time to move on. K?
|
+ Show Spoiler +On April 20 2012 21:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 20:57 Zaqwe wrote: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.
That's not very nice. I consider myself a rational thinker and base my opinions on what evidence is available. I am always prepared to change my opinions if I see new evidence.
And brain/skull size does have something to do with intelligence, as mentioned in my previous post. I am not sure why you ignored that.
It seems you are the irrational one. Your emotional attachment to equality is clouding your judgement, like a fear of death which drives people to faith in heaven.
IQ/g is best single predictor, mental or non-mental.IQ/g usually predicts major life outcomes better than does any other single predictor in broad samples of individuals. For example, whether IQ predicts strongly (educational performance) or weakly (law-abidingness), it predicts better than does social class background. This does not mean that intelligence is the only important influence on people's life chances or that social conditions are unimportant. Rather, it means that any explanation of social and economic inequalities will need to consider the central role that general intelligence level seems to play. Gottfredson, L. S. (2006). Social consequences of group differences in cognitive ability (Consequencias sociais das diferencas de grupo em habilidade cognitiva). In C. E. Flores-Mendoza & R. Colom (Eds.), Introducau a psicologia das diferencas individuais (pp. 433-456). Porto Allegre, Brazil: ArtMed Publishers. http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2004socialconsequences.pdf
Survey of opinions on the primacy of g and social consequences of ability testing: A comparison of expert and non-expert viewsThough some commentaries give the impression of controversy regarding the importance of cognitive abilities and the validity of ability testing, the results of this survey clearly demonstrate that there are areas of resounding consensus among experts. Our results indicate that there is consensus among experts in the science of mental abilities that g is an important, non-trivial determinant (or at least predictor) of important real world outcomes for which there is no substitute, and that tests of g are valid and generally free from racial bias. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2008.03.007
|
On April 20 2012 21:18 Zaqwe wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 20 2012 21:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 20:57 Zaqwe wrote: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. That's not very nice. I consider myself a rational thinker and base my opinions on what evidence is available. I am always prepared to change my opinions if I see new evidence. And brain/skull size does have something to do with intelligence, as mentioned in my previous post. I am not sure why you ignored that. It seems you are the irrational one. Your emotional attachment to equality is clouding your judgement, like a fear of death which drives people to faith in heaven. Show nested quote +IQ/g is best single predictor, mental or non-mental.IQ/g usually predicts major life outcomes better than does any other single predictor in broad samples of individuals. For example, whether IQ predicts strongly (educational performance) or weakly (law-abidingness), it predicts better than does social class background. This does not mean that intelligence is the only important influence on people's life chances or that social conditions are unimportant. Rather, it means that any explanation of social and economic inequalities will need to consider the central role that general intelligence level seems to play. Gottfredson, L. S. (2006). Social consequences of group differences in cognitive ability (Consequencias sociais das diferencas de grupo em habilidade cognitiva). In C. E. Flores-Mendoza & R. Colom (Eds.), Introducau a psicologia das diferencas individuais (pp. 433-456). Porto Allegre, Brazil: ArtMed Publishers. http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2004socialconsequences.pdf Show nested quote +Survey of opinions on the primacy of g and social consequences of ability testing: A comparison of expert and non-expert viewsThough some commentaries give the impression of controversy regarding the importance of cognitive abilities and the validity of ability testing, the results of this survey clearly demonstrate that there are areas of resounding consensus among experts. Our results indicate that there is consensus among experts in the science of mental abilities that g is an important, non-trivial determinant (or at least predictor) of important real world outcomes for which there is no substitute, and that tests of g are valid and generally free from racial bias. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2008.03.007
I'm not trying to be nice or excessively rude.
If you believe that African people are inferior and naturally less intelligent than white people, well, you are a racist, or I don't know what racism is about.
Racism is generally understood as either belief that different racial groups are characterized by intrinsic characteristics or abilities and that some such groups are therefore naturally superior to others (wikipedia)
... as for sexism
Sexism, also known as gender discrimination or sex discrimination, is the belief that a characteristic inherent in one's sex necessarily adversely affects one's ability, even if that characteristic does not have that effect.
I think you wouldn't disagree?
Maybe you have a lot of "evidences" to back up your claim (but who doesn't?), so you are a very rationnal racist, but a racist nonetheless. There are worse things on earth than being a racist I am sure, but that's one of the criterias on which I judge that discussing with someone is useless.
Posting studies that, once again, make a correlation between factors without establishing a causal factor doesn't help. have a nice day.
|
you all really fucked this thread up and spammed it... It's pretty off topic, how about you stop the dick measuring competition and just stay with the topic.
|
On April 20 2012 22:02 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
you all really fucked this thread up and spammed it... It's pretty off topic, how about you stop the dick measuring competition and just stay with the topic.
For my (our?) defense, the question whether or not the absence of women at the top of Stacraft 2 competitive scene is because of an intrinseque lack of necessary qualities to compete with men, or not, had to be raised at some point.
Because according to those ideas, women have nothing to do in competitive starcraft anyway and the whole view on the gender issue in SC is solved.
You can't say we spammed anything whil you write two lines after a lot of very clear long post with well developped arguments.
I'm being sarcastic here, but not so much.
|
On April 19 2012 19:22 eviltomahawk wrote:Speaking of which, whatever happened to JongMi/ maRie on oGs? The last time I saw her was with oGs during the Blizzard Cup finals opening ceremony. I have no clue what she has been doing recently. Otherwise, excellent blog.
she is kind of hot but i think she was more of an older generation BW and OGN game host
|
On April 20 2012 21:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 21:18 Zaqwe wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 20 2012 21:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 20:57 Zaqwe wrote: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. That's not very nice. I consider myself a rational thinker and base my opinions on what evidence is available. I am always prepared to change my opinions if I see new evidence. And brain/skull size does have something to do with intelligence, as mentioned in my previous post. I am not sure why you ignored that. It seems you are the irrational one. Your emotional attachment to equality is clouding your judgement, like a fear of death which drives people to faith in heaven. IQ/g is best single predictor, mental or non-mental.IQ/g usually predicts major life outcomes better than does any other single predictor in broad samples of individuals. For example, whether IQ predicts strongly (educational performance) or weakly (law-abidingness), it predicts better than does social class background. This does not mean that intelligence is the only important influence on people's life chances or that social conditions are unimportant. Rather, it means that any explanation of social and economic inequalities will need to consider the central role that general intelligence level seems to play. Gottfredson, L. S. (2006). Social consequences of group differences in cognitive ability (Consequencias sociais das diferencas de grupo em habilidade cognitiva). In C. E. Flores-Mendoza & R. Colom (Eds.), Introducau a psicologia das diferencas individuais (pp. 433-456). Porto Allegre, Brazil: ArtMed Publishers. http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2004socialconsequences.pdf Survey of opinions on the primacy of g and social consequences of ability testing: A comparison of expert and non-expert viewsThough some commentaries give the impression of controversy regarding the importance of cognitive abilities and the validity of ability testing, the results of this survey clearly demonstrate that there are areas of resounding consensus among experts. Our results indicate that there is consensus among experts in the science of mental abilities that g is an important, non-trivial determinant (or at least predictor) of important real world outcomes for which there is no substitute, and that tests of g are valid and generally free from racial bias. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2008.03.007 I'm not trying to be nice or excessively rude. If you believe that African people are inferior and naturally less intelligent than white people, well, you are a racist, or I don't know what racism is about. Racism is generally understood as either belief that different racial groups are characterized by intrinsic characteristics or abilities and that some such groups are therefore naturally superior to others (wikipedia) ... as for sexism Sexism, also known as gender discrimination or sex discrimination, is the belief that a characteristic inherent in one's sex necessarily adversely affects one's ability, even if that characteristic does not have that effect.I think you wouldn't disagree? Maybe you have a lot of "evidences" to back up your claim (but who doesn't?), so you are a very rationnal racist, but a racist nonetheless. There are worse things on earth than being a racist I am sure, but that's one of the criterias on which I judge that discussing with someone is useless. Posting studies that, once again, make a correlation between factors without establishing a causal factor doesn't help. have a nice day. some call it racial realism.
Also, so if you believe blacks' darker skin protecting them from sun makes them superior in high UV level situations you are racist?
|
On April 20 2012 22:40 storkfan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 21:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2012 21:18 Zaqwe wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 20 2012 21:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 20:57 Zaqwe wrote: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. That's not very nice. I consider myself a rational thinker and base my opinions on what evidence is available. I am always prepared to change my opinions if I see new evidence. And brain/skull size does have something to do with intelligence, as mentioned in my previous post. I am not sure why you ignored that. It seems you are the irrational one. Your emotional attachment to equality is clouding your judgement, like a fear of death which drives people to faith in heaven. IQ/g is best single predictor, mental or non-mental.IQ/g usually predicts major life outcomes better than does any other single predictor in broad samples of individuals. For example, whether IQ predicts strongly (educational performance) or weakly (law-abidingness), it predicts better than does social class background. This does not mean that intelligence is the only important influence on people's life chances or that social conditions are unimportant. Rather, it means that any explanation of social and economic inequalities will need to consider the central role that general intelligence level seems to play. Gottfredson, L. S. (2006). Social consequences of group differences in cognitive ability (Consequencias sociais das diferencas de grupo em habilidade cognitiva). In C. E. Flores-Mendoza & R. Colom (Eds.), Introducau a psicologia das diferencas individuais (pp. 433-456). Porto Allegre, Brazil: ArtMed Publishers. http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2004socialconsequences.pdf Survey of opinions on the primacy of g and social consequences of ability testing: A comparison of expert and non-expert viewsThough some commentaries give the impression of controversy regarding the importance of cognitive abilities and the validity of ability testing, the results of this survey clearly demonstrate that there are areas of resounding consensus among experts. Our results indicate that there is consensus among experts in the science of mental abilities that g is an important, non-trivial determinant (or at least predictor) of important real world outcomes for which there is no substitute, and that tests of g are valid and generally free from racial bias. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2008.03.007 I'm not trying to be nice or excessively rude. If you believe that African people are inferior and naturally less intelligent than white people, well, you are a racist, or I don't know what racism is about. Racism is generally understood as either belief that different racial groups are characterized by intrinsic characteristics or abilities and that some such groups are therefore naturally superior to others (wikipedia) ... as for sexism Sexism, also known as gender discrimination or sex discrimination, is the belief that a characteristic inherent in one's sex necessarily adversely affects one's ability, even if that characteristic does not have that effect.I think you wouldn't disagree? Maybe you have a lot of "evidences" to back up your claim (but who doesn't?), so you are a very rationnal racist, but a racist nonetheless. There are worse things on earth than being a racist I am sure, but that's one of the criterias on which I judge that discussing with someone is useless. Posting studies that, once again, make a correlation between factors without establishing a causal factor doesn't help. have a nice day. some call it racial realism. Also, so if you believe blacks' darker skin protecting them from sun makes them superior in high UV level situations you are racist?
"Racial realism", interesting. I am sure Hitler did think he was a "racial realist".
As for the color of the skin, of course it is proven that if you have more melanin, your skin is darker, and you have a better protection against the sun. It's a bit different than saying that Africans are less intelligent or more brutal or whatever, which is at most backed up by pseudo scientific datas usually misinterpreted.
|
On April 20 2012 22:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 22:40 storkfan wrote:On April 20 2012 21:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2012 21:18 Zaqwe wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 20 2012 21:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 20:57 Zaqwe wrote: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. That's not very nice. I consider myself a rational thinker and base my opinions on what evidence is available. I am always prepared to change my opinions if I see new evidence. And brain/skull size does have something to do with intelligence, as mentioned in my previous post. I am not sure why you ignored that. It seems you are the irrational one. Your emotional attachment to equality is clouding your judgement, like a fear of death which drives people to faith in heaven. IQ/g is best single predictor, mental or non-mental.IQ/g usually predicts major life outcomes better than does any other single predictor in broad samples of individuals. For example, whether IQ predicts strongly (educational performance) or weakly (law-abidingness), it predicts better than does social class background. This does not mean that intelligence is the only important influence on people's life chances or that social conditions are unimportant. Rather, it means that any explanation of social and economic inequalities will need to consider the central role that general intelligence level seems to play. Gottfredson, L. S. (2006). Social consequences of group differences in cognitive ability (Consequencias sociais das diferencas de grupo em habilidade cognitiva). In C. E. Flores-Mendoza & R. Colom (Eds.), Introducau a psicologia das diferencas individuais (pp. 433-456). Porto Allegre, Brazil: ArtMed Publishers. http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2004socialconsequences.pdf Survey of opinions on the primacy of g and social consequences of ability testing: A comparison of expert and non-expert viewsThough some commentaries give the impression of controversy regarding the importance of cognitive abilities and the validity of ability testing, the results of this survey clearly demonstrate that there are areas of resounding consensus among experts. Our results indicate that there is consensus among experts in the science of mental abilities that g is an important, non-trivial determinant (or at least predictor) of important real world outcomes for which there is no substitute, and that tests of g are valid and generally free from racial bias. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2008.03.007 I'm not trying to be nice or excessively rude. If you believe that African people are inferior and naturally less intelligent than white people, well, you are a racist, or I don't know what racism is about. Racism is generally understood as either belief that different racial groups are characterized by intrinsic characteristics or abilities and that some such groups are therefore naturally superior to others (wikipedia) ... as for sexism Sexism, also known as gender discrimination or sex discrimination, is the belief that a characteristic inherent in one's sex necessarily adversely affects one's ability, even if that characteristic does not have that effect.I think you wouldn't disagree? Maybe you have a lot of "evidences" to back up your claim (but who doesn't?), so you are a very rationnal racist, but a racist nonetheless. There are worse things on earth than being a racist I am sure, but that's one of the criterias on which I judge that discussing with someone is useless. Posting studies that, once again, make a correlation between factors without establishing a causal factor doesn't help. have a nice day. some call it racial realism. Also, so if you believe blacks' darker skin protecting them from sun makes them superior in high UV level situations you are racist? "Racial realism", interesting. I am sure Hitler did think he was a "racial realist". As for the color of the skin, of course it is proven that if you have more melanin, your skin is darker, and you have a better protection against the sun. It's a bit different than saying that Africans are less intelligent or more brutal or whatever, which is at most backed up by pseudo scientific datas usually misinterpreted.
Skin color is related to race. So you can say the black race is superior to white race in the UV example, which would constitute an example of racism. Blacks have an intrinsic capability to better withstand such situations. So how is it not racist, how does it not meet the definition of racism?..
|
This is a different thread. Please move your discussion there. Thank you.
|
On April 20 2012 22:52 storkfan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 22:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2012 22:40 storkfan wrote:On April 20 2012 21:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2012 21:18 Zaqwe wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 20 2012 21:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 20:57 Zaqwe wrote: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. That's not very nice. I consider myself a rational thinker and base my opinions on what evidence is available. I am always prepared to change my opinions if I see new evidence. And brain/skull size does have something to do with intelligence, as mentioned in my previous post. I am not sure why you ignored that. It seems you are the irrational one. Your emotional attachment to equality is clouding your judgement, like a fear of death which drives people to faith in heaven. IQ/g is best single predictor, mental or non-mental.IQ/g usually predicts major life outcomes better than does any other single predictor in broad samples of individuals. For example, whether IQ predicts strongly (educational performance) or weakly (law-abidingness), it predicts better than does social class background. This does not mean that intelligence is the only important influence on people's life chances or that social conditions are unimportant. Rather, it means that any explanation of social and economic inequalities will need to consider the central role that general intelligence level seems to play. Gottfredson, L. S. (2006). Social consequences of group differences in cognitive ability (Consequencias sociais das diferencas de grupo em habilidade cognitiva). In C. E. Flores-Mendoza & R. Colom (Eds.), Introducau a psicologia das diferencas individuais (pp. 433-456). Porto Allegre, Brazil: ArtMed Publishers. http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2004socialconsequences.pdf Survey of opinions on the primacy of g and social consequences of ability testing: A comparison of expert and non-expert viewsThough some commentaries give the impression of controversy regarding the importance of cognitive abilities and the validity of ability testing, the results of this survey clearly demonstrate that there are areas of resounding consensus among experts. Our results indicate that there is consensus among experts in the science of mental abilities that g is an important, non-trivial determinant (or at least predictor) of important real world outcomes for which there is no substitute, and that tests of g are valid and generally free from racial bias. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2008.03.007 I'm not trying to be nice or excessively rude. If you believe that African people are inferior and naturally less intelligent than white people, well, you are a racist, or I don't know what racism is about. Racism is generally understood as either belief that different racial groups are characterized by intrinsic characteristics or abilities and that some such groups are therefore naturally superior to others (wikipedia) ... as for sexism Sexism, also known as gender discrimination or sex discrimination, is the belief that a characteristic inherent in one's sex necessarily adversely affects one's ability, even if that characteristic does not have that effect.I think you wouldn't disagree? Maybe you have a lot of "evidences" to back up your claim (but who doesn't?), so you are a very rationnal racist, but a racist nonetheless. There are worse things on earth than being a racist I am sure, but that's one of the criterias on which I judge that discussing with someone is useless. Posting studies that, once again, make a correlation between factors without establishing a causal factor doesn't help. have a nice day. some call it racial realism. Also, so if you believe blacks' darker skin protecting them from sun makes them superior in high UV level situations you are racist? "Racial realism", interesting. I am sure Hitler did think he was a "racial realist". As for the color of the skin, of course it is proven that if you have more melanin, your skin is darker, and you have a better protection against the sun. It's a bit different than saying that Africans are less intelligent or more brutal or whatever, which is at most backed up by pseudo scientific datas usually misinterpreted. Skin color is related to race. So you can say the black race is superior to white race in the UV example, which would constitute an example of racism. Blacks have an intrinsic capability to better withstand such situations. So how is it not racist, how does it not meet the definition of racism?..
Because race is a loosy concept that has nothing to do with skin colour.
"We caution against making the naive leap to a genetic explanation for group differences in complex traits, especially for human behavioral traits such as IQ scores"
"Pure races, in the sense of genetically homogeneous populations, do not exist in the human species today, nor is there any evidence that they have ever existed in the past.-p.714"
source: The ethics of characterizing difference: guiding principles on using racial categories in human genetics
http://genomebiology.com/2008/9/7/404
While biologists sometimes use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits, others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race is often used in a naive or simplistic way. Among humans, race has no taxonomic significance; all living humans belong to the same hominid subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens. Social conceptions and groupings of races vary over time, involving folk taxonomies that define essential types of individuals based on perceived traits. Scientists consider biological essentialism obsolete, and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits (wikipedia)
If you have black skin, you are better protected against the sun. If you have big ears you also may hear better. Skin colour doesn't make a race, as much as size of the ear doesn't make a race either.
There is one race, which is the human race, and each of us has billion of genes that can be combined in any way possible, including genes that determines our melanin rate and therefore our skin colour.
You want to establish an equivalence between skin colour and intelligence. Don't try to use science in order to back up your racist ideas.
On April 20 2012 23:03 chocopan wrote:
This is a different thread. Please move your discussion there. Thank you.
Sorry, saw that after posting
|
On April 20 2012 23:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 22:52 storkfan wrote:On April 20 2012 22:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2012 22:40 storkfan wrote:On April 20 2012 21:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2012 21:18 Zaqwe wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 20 2012 21:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 20:57 Zaqwe wrote: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. That's not very nice. I consider myself a rational thinker and base my opinions on what evidence is available. I am always prepared to change my opinions if I see new evidence. And brain/skull size does have something to do with intelligence, as mentioned in my previous post. I am not sure why you ignored that. It seems you are the irrational one. Your emotional attachment to equality is clouding your judgement, like a fear of death which drives people to faith in heaven. IQ/g is best single predictor, mental or non-mental.IQ/g usually predicts major life outcomes better than does any other single predictor in broad samples of individuals. For example, whether IQ predicts strongly (educational performance) or weakly (law-abidingness), it predicts better than does social class background. This does not mean that intelligence is the only important influence on people's life chances or that social conditions are unimportant. Rather, it means that any explanation of social and economic inequalities will need to consider the central role that general intelligence level seems to play. Gottfredson, L. S. (2006). Social consequences of group differences in cognitive ability (Consequencias sociais das diferencas de grupo em habilidade cognitiva). In C. E. Flores-Mendoza & R. Colom (Eds.), Introducau a psicologia das diferencas individuais (pp. 433-456). Porto Allegre, Brazil: ArtMed Publishers. http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2004socialconsequences.pdf Survey of opinions on the primacy of g and social consequences of ability testing: A comparison of expert and non-expert viewsThough some commentaries give the impression of controversy regarding the importance of cognitive abilities and the validity of ability testing, the results of this survey clearly demonstrate that there are areas of resounding consensus among experts. Our results indicate that there is consensus among experts in the science of mental abilities that g is an important, non-trivial determinant (or at least predictor) of important real world outcomes for which there is no substitute, and that tests of g are valid and generally free from racial bias. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2008.03.007 I'm not trying to be nice or excessively rude. If you believe that African people are inferior and naturally less intelligent than white people, well, you are a racist, or I don't know what racism is about. Racism is generally understood as either belief that different racial groups are characterized by intrinsic characteristics or abilities and that some such groups are therefore naturally superior to others (wikipedia) ... as for sexism Sexism, also known as gender discrimination or sex discrimination, is the belief that a characteristic inherent in one's sex necessarily adversely affects one's ability, even if that characteristic does not have that effect.I think you wouldn't disagree? Maybe you have a lot of "evidences" to back up your claim (but who doesn't?), so you are a very rationnal racist, but a racist nonetheless. There are worse things on earth than being a racist I am sure, but that's one of the criterias on which I judge that discussing with someone is useless. Posting studies that, once again, make a correlation between factors without establishing a causal factor doesn't help. have a nice day. some call it racial realism. Also, so if you believe blacks' darker skin protecting them from sun makes them superior in high UV level situations you are racist? "Racial realism", interesting. I am sure Hitler did think he was a "racial realist". As for the color of the skin, of course it is proven that if you have more melanin, your skin is darker, and you have a better protection against the sun. It's a bit different than saying that Africans are less intelligent or more brutal or whatever, which is at most backed up by pseudo scientific datas usually misinterpreted. Skin color is related to race. So you can say the black race is superior to white race in the UV example, which would constitute an example of racism. Blacks have an intrinsic capability to better withstand such situations. So how is it not racist, how does it not meet the definition of racism?.. Because race is a loosy concept that has nothing to do with skin colour. "We caution against making the naive leap to a genetic explanation for group differences in complex traits, especially for human behavioral traits such as IQ scores" "Pure races, in the sense of genetically homogeneous populations, do not exist in the human species today, nor is there any evidence that they have ever existed in the past.-p.714" source: The ethics of characterizing difference: guiding principles on using racial categories in human genetics http://genomebiology.com/2008/9/7/404While biologists sometimes use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits, others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race is often used in a naive or simplistic way. Among humans, race has no taxonomic significance; all living humans belong to the same hominid subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens. Social conceptions and groupings of races vary over time, involving folk taxonomies that define essential types of individuals based on perceived traits. Scientists consider biological essentialism obsolete, and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits (wikipedia) If you have black skin, you are better protected against the sun. If you have big ears you also may hear better. Skin colour doesn't make a race, as much as size of the ear doesn't make a race either. There is one race, which is the human race, and each of us has billion of genes that can be combined in any way possible, including genes that determines our melanin rate and therefore our skin colour. You want to establish an equivalence between skin colour and intelligence. Don't try to use science in order to back up your racist ideas. Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 23:03 chocopan wrote:
This is a different thread. Please move your discussion there. Thank you. Sorry, saw that after posting
So you deny race when it comes to skin color but it exists when it comes to racism. If you deny existance of races, racism cant even exist in the first place, making it a non argument.
Or in another way, its just twisting of definitions, linguistic tricks. The bottom line is, african people have dark skin. Europeans have light skin. So Africans are superior to Europeans in UV tolerance(whether you call them races or not). Yes , its racist but that is reality no matter how you fiddle around with your race definitions.
|
No, you are a definitely racist. You are once again comparing physical traits with mental traits, and those are two entirely different cans of worms.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On April 20 2012 23:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 22:52 storkfan wrote:On April 20 2012 22:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2012 22:40 storkfan wrote:On April 20 2012 21:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2012 21:18 Zaqwe wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 20 2012 21:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 20:57 Zaqwe wrote: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. That's not very nice. I consider myself a rational thinker and base my opinions on what evidence is available. I am always prepared to change my opinions if I see new evidence. And brain/skull size does have something to do with intelligence, as mentioned in my previous post. I am not sure why you ignored that. It seems you are the irrational one. Your emotional attachment to equality is clouding your judgement, like a fear of death which drives people to faith in heaven. IQ/g is best single predictor, mental or non-mental.IQ/g usually predicts major life outcomes better than does any other single predictor in broad samples of individuals. For example, whether IQ predicts strongly (educational performance) or weakly (law-abidingness), it predicts better than does social class background. This does not mean that intelligence is the only important influence on people's life chances or that social conditions are unimportant. Rather, it means that any explanation of social and economic inequalities will need to consider the central role that general intelligence level seems to play. Gottfredson, L. S. (2006). Social consequences of group differences in cognitive ability (Consequencias sociais das diferencas de grupo em habilidade cognitiva). In C. E. Flores-Mendoza & R. Colom (Eds.), Introducau a psicologia das diferencas individuais (pp. 433-456). Porto Allegre, Brazil: ArtMed Publishers. http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2004socialconsequences.pdf Survey of opinions on the primacy of g and social consequences of ability testing: A comparison of expert and non-expert viewsThough some commentaries give the impression of controversy regarding the importance of cognitive abilities and the validity of ability testing, the results of this survey clearly demonstrate that there are areas of resounding consensus among experts. Our results indicate that there is consensus among experts in the science of mental abilities that g is an important, non-trivial determinant (or at least predictor) of important real world outcomes for which there is no substitute, and that tests of g are valid and generally free from racial bias. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2008.03.007 I'm not trying to be nice or excessively rude. If you believe that African people are inferior and naturally less intelligent than white people, well, you are a racist, or I don't know what racism is about. Racism is generally understood as either belief that different racial groups are characterized by intrinsic characteristics or abilities and that some such groups are therefore naturally superior to others (wikipedia) ... as for sexism Sexism, also known as gender discrimination or sex discrimination, is the belief that a characteristic inherent in one's sex necessarily adversely affects one's ability, even if that characteristic does not have that effect.I think you wouldn't disagree? Maybe you have a lot of "evidences" to back up your claim (but who doesn't?), so you are a very rationnal racist, but a racist nonetheless. There are worse things on earth than being a racist I am sure, but that's one of the criterias on which I judge that discussing with someone is useless. Posting studies that, once again, make a correlation between factors without establishing a causal factor doesn't help. have a nice day. some call it racial realism. Also, so if you believe blacks' darker skin protecting them from sun makes them superior in high UV level situations you are racist? "Racial realism", interesting. I am sure Hitler did think he was a "racial realist". As for the color of the skin, of course it is proven that if you have more melanin, your skin is darker, and you have a better protection against the sun. It's a bit different than saying that Africans are less intelligent or more brutal or whatever, which is at most backed up by pseudo scientific datas usually misinterpreted. Skin color is related to race. So you can say the black race is superior to white race in the UV example, which would constitute an example of racism. Blacks have an intrinsic capability to better withstand such situations. So how is it not racist, how does it not meet the definition of racism?.. Because race is a loosy concept that has nothing to do with skin colour. "We caution against making the naive leap to a genetic explanation for group differences in complex traits, especially for human behavioral traits such as IQ scores" "Pure races, in the sense of genetically homogeneous populations, do not exist in the human species today, nor is there any evidence that they have ever existed in the past.-p.714" source: The ethics of characterizing difference: guiding principles on using racial categories in human genetics http://genomebiology.com/2008/9/7/404While biologists sometimes use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits, others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race is often used in a naive or simplistic way. Among humans, race has no taxonomic significance; all living humans belong to the same hominid subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens. Social conceptions and groupings of races vary over time, involving folk taxonomies that define essential types of individuals based on perceived traits. Scientists consider biological essentialism obsolete, and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits (wikipedia) If you have black skin, you are better protected against the sun. If you have big ears you also may hear better. Skin colour doesn't make a race, as much as size of the ear doesn't make a race either. There is one race, which is the human race, and each of us has billion of genes that can be combined in any way possible, including genes that determines our melanin rate and therefore our skin colour. You want to establish an equivalence between skin colour and intelligence. Don't try to use science in order to back up your racist ideas. Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 23:03 chocopan wrote:
This is a different thread. Please move your discussion there. Thank you. Sorry, saw that after posting
Q: Which human populations qualify as major races?The topology of human trees (Figs. 4, 5) is remarkably consistent regardless of which class of loci are considered, and principal component analysis of genetic data also produces predictable clustering (Fig. 6). Either method gives a good visual overview of the general relatedness of the world’s populations. By analysis of classical markers, Nei & Roychoudhury (1993) identified five major human clades: sub-Saharan Africans, Caucasians, Greater Asians, Australopapuans and Amerindians. Evolutionary trees constructed with autosomal RFLPs,[105] microsatellites[106] and Alu insertions[107] show similar topology. Frequently, Amerindians are grouped together with Asians, indicating four major clades, and it has been suggested that this should be a minimum.[108] Obviously, additional structure exists within each of these groups, but as we’ve seen, it’s generally weak compared to the differentiation among the ones listed here. For this reason alone, the term ‘race’ applies well to these major groupings. ![[image loading]](http://www.goodrumj.com/Tree-1.jpg) http://www.goodrumj.com/RFaqHTML.html
Racial Groupings Match Genetic Profiles, Stanford Study FindsWithout knowing how the participants had identified themselves, Risch and his team ran the results through a computer program that grouped individuals according to patterns of the 326 signposts. This analysis could have resulted in any number of different clusters, but only four clear groups turned up. And in each case the individuals within those clusters all fell within the same self-identified racial group. "This shows that people's self-identified race/ethnicity is a nearly perfect indicator of their genetic background," Risch said. http://med.stanford.edu/news_releases/2005/january/racial-data.htm
|
On April 20 2012 23:49 storkfan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 23:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2012 22:52 storkfan wrote:On April 20 2012 22:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2012 22:40 storkfan wrote:On April 20 2012 21:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2012 21:18 Zaqwe wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 20 2012 21:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 20:57 Zaqwe wrote: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. That's not very nice. I consider myself a rational thinker and base my opinions on what evidence is available. I am always prepared to change my opinions if I see new evidence. And brain/skull size does have something to do with intelligence, as mentioned in my previous post. I am not sure why you ignored that. It seems you are the irrational one. Your emotional attachment to equality is clouding your judgement, like a fear of death which drives people to faith in heaven. IQ/g is best single predictor, mental or non-mental.IQ/g usually predicts major life outcomes better than does any other single predictor in broad samples of individuals. For example, whether IQ predicts strongly (educational performance) or weakly (law-abidingness), it predicts better than does social class background. This does not mean that intelligence is the only important influence on people's life chances or that social conditions are unimportant. Rather, it means that any explanation of social and economic inequalities will need to consider the central role that general intelligence level seems to play. Gottfredson, L. S. (2006). Social consequences of group differences in cognitive ability (Consequencias sociais das diferencas de grupo em habilidade cognitiva). In C. E. Flores-Mendoza & R. Colom (Eds.), Introducau a psicologia das diferencas individuais (pp. 433-456). Porto Allegre, Brazil: ArtMed Publishers. http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2004socialconsequences.pdf Survey of opinions on the primacy of g and social consequences of ability testing: A comparison of expert and non-expert viewsThough some commentaries give the impression of controversy regarding the importance of cognitive abilities and the validity of ability testing, the results of this survey clearly demonstrate that there are areas of resounding consensus among experts. Our results indicate that there is consensus among experts in the science of mental abilities that g is an important, non-trivial determinant (or at least predictor) of important real world outcomes for which there is no substitute, and that tests of g are valid and generally free from racial bias. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2008.03.007 I'm not trying to be nice or excessively rude. If you believe that African people are inferior and naturally less intelligent than white people, well, you are a racist, or I don't know what racism is about. Racism is generally understood as either belief that different racial groups are characterized by intrinsic characteristics or abilities and that some such groups are therefore naturally superior to others (wikipedia) ... as for sexism Sexism, also known as gender discrimination or sex discrimination, is the belief that a characteristic inherent in one's sex necessarily adversely affects one's ability, even if that characteristic does not have that effect.I think you wouldn't disagree? Maybe you have a lot of "evidences" to back up your claim (but who doesn't?), so you are a very rationnal racist, but a racist nonetheless. There are worse things on earth than being a racist I am sure, but that's one of the criterias on which I judge that discussing with someone is useless. Posting studies that, once again, make a correlation between factors without establishing a causal factor doesn't help. have a nice day. some call it racial realism. Also, so if you believe blacks' darker skin protecting them from sun makes them superior in high UV level situations you are racist? "Racial realism", interesting. I am sure Hitler did think he was a "racial realist". As for the color of the skin, of course it is proven that if you have more melanin, your skin is darker, and you have a better protection against the sun. It's a bit different than saying that Africans are less intelligent or more brutal or whatever, which is at most backed up by pseudo scientific datas usually misinterpreted. Skin color is related to race. So you can say the black race is superior to white race in the UV example, which would constitute an example of racism. Blacks have an intrinsic capability to better withstand such situations. So how is it not racist, how does it not meet the definition of racism?.. Because race is a loosy concept that has nothing to do with skin colour. "We caution against making the naive leap to a genetic explanation for group differences in complex traits, especially for human behavioral traits such as IQ scores" "Pure races, in the sense of genetically homogeneous populations, do not exist in the human species today, nor is there any evidence that they have ever existed in the past.-p.714" source: The ethics of characterizing difference: guiding principles on using racial categories in human genetics http://genomebiology.com/2008/9/7/404While biologists sometimes use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits, others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race is often used in a naive or simplistic way. Among humans, race has no taxonomic significance; all living humans belong to the same hominid subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens. Social conceptions and groupings of races vary over time, involving folk taxonomies that define essential types of individuals based on perceived traits. Scientists consider biological essentialism obsolete, and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits (wikipedia) If you have black skin, you are better protected against the sun. If you have big ears you also may hear better. Skin colour doesn't make a race, as much as size of the ear doesn't make a race either. There is one race, which is the human race, and each of us has billion of genes that can be combined in any way possible, including genes that determines our melanin rate and therefore our skin colour. You want to establish an equivalence between skin colour and intelligence. Don't try to use science in order to back up your racist ideas. On April 20 2012 23:03 chocopan wrote:
This is a different thread. Please move your discussion there. Thank you. Sorry, saw that after posting So you deny race when it comes to skin color but it exists when it comes to racism. If you deny existance of races, racism cant even exist in the first place, making it a non argument. Or in another way, its just twisting of definitions, linguistic tricks. The bottom line is, african people have dark skin. Europeans have light skin. So Africans are superior to Europeans in UV tolerance(whether you call them races or not). Yes , its racist but that is reality no matter how you fiddle around with your race definitions.
You don't get it, I give up.
|
On April 21 2012 00:04 Zaqwe wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 20 2012 23:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 22:52 storkfan wrote:On April 20 2012 22:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2012 22:40 storkfan wrote:On April 20 2012 21:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2012 21:18 Zaqwe wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 20 2012 21:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 20:57 Zaqwe wrote: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. That's not very nice. I consider myself a rational thinker and base my opinions on what evidence is available. I am always prepared to change my opinions if I see new evidence. And brain/skull size does have something to do with intelligence, as mentioned in my previous post. I am not sure why you ignored that. It seems you are the irrational one. Your emotional attachment to equality is clouding your judgement, like a fear of death which drives people to faith in heaven. IQ/g is best single predictor, mental or non-mental.IQ/g usually predicts major life outcomes better than does any other single predictor in broad samples of individuals. For example, whether IQ predicts strongly (educational performance) or weakly (law-abidingness), it predicts better than does social class background. This does not mean that intelligence is the only important influence on people's life chances or that social conditions are unimportant. Rather, it means that any explanation of social and economic inequalities will need to consider the central role that general intelligence level seems to play. Gottfredson, L. S. (2006). Social consequences of group differences in cognitive ability (Consequencias sociais das diferencas de grupo em habilidade cognitiva). In C. E. Flores-Mendoza & R. Colom (Eds.), Introducau a psicologia das diferencas individuais (pp. 433-456). Porto Allegre, Brazil: ArtMed Publishers. http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2004socialconsequences.pdf Survey of opinions on the primacy of g and social consequences of ability testing: A comparison of expert and non-expert viewsThough some commentaries give the impression of controversy regarding the importance of cognitive abilities and the validity of ability testing, the results of this survey clearly demonstrate that there are areas of resounding consensus among experts. Our results indicate that there is consensus among experts in the science of mental abilities that g is an important, non-trivial determinant (or at least predictor) of important real world outcomes for which there is no substitute, and that tests of g are valid and generally free from racial bias. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2008.03.007 I'm not trying to be nice or excessively rude. If you believe that African people are inferior and naturally less intelligent than white people, well, you are a racist, or I don't know what racism is about. Racism is generally understood as either belief that different racial groups are characterized by intrinsic characteristics or abilities and that some such groups are therefore naturally superior to others (wikipedia) ... as for sexism Sexism, also known as gender discrimination or sex discrimination, is the belief that a characteristic inherent in one's sex necessarily adversely affects one's ability, even if that characteristic does not have that effect.I think you wouldn't disagree? Maybe you have a lot of "evidences" to back up your claim (but who doesn't?), so you are a very rationnal racist, but a racist nonetheless. There are worse things on earth than being a racist I am sure, but that's one of the criterias on which I judge that discussing with someone is useless. Posting studies that, once again, make a correlation between factors without establishing a causal factor doesn't help. have a nice day. some call it racial realism. Also, so if you believe blacks' darker skin protecting them from sun makes them superior in high UV level situations you are racist? "Racial realism", interesting. I am sure Hitler did think he was a "racial realist". As for the color of the skin, of course it is proven that if you have more melanin, your skin is darker, and you have a better protection against the sun. It's a bit different than saying that Africans are less intelligent or more brutal or whatever, which is at most backed up by pseudo scientific datas usually misinterpreted. Skin color is related to race. So you can say the black race is superior to white race in the UV example, which would constitute an example of racism. Blacks have an intrinsic capability to better withstand such situations. So how is it not racist, how does it not meet the definition of racism?.. Because race is a loosy concept that has nothing to do with skin colour. "We caution against making the naive leap to a genetic explanation for group differences in complex traits, especially for human behavioral traits such as IQ scores" "Pure races, in the sense of genetically homogeneous populations, do not exist in the human species today, nor is there any evidence that they have ever existed in the past.-p.714" source: The ethics of characterizing difference: guiding principles on using racial categories in human genetics http://genomebiology.com/2008/9/7/404While biologists sometimes use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits, others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race is often used in a naive or simplistic way. Among humans, race has no taxonomic significance; all living humans belong to the same hominid subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens. Social conceptions and groupings of races vary over time, involving folk taxonomies that define essential types of individuals based on perceived traits. Scientists consider biological essentialism obsolete, and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits (wikipedia) If you have black skin, you are better protected against the sun. If you have big ears you also may hear better. Skin colour doesn't make a race, as much as size of the ear doesn't make a race either. There is one race, which is the human race, and each of us has billion of genes that can be combined in any way possible, including genes that determines our melanin rate and therefore our skin colour. You want to establish an equivalence between skin colour and intelligence. Don't try to use science in order to back up your racist ideas. Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 23:03 chocopan wrote:
This is a different thread. Please move your discussion there. Thank you. Sorry, saw that after posting Show nested quote +Q: Which human populations qualify as major races?The topology of human trees (Figs. 4, 5) is remarkably consistent regardless of which class of loci are considered, and principal component analysis of genetic data also produces predictable clustering (Fig. 6). Either method gives a good visual overview of the general relatedness of the world’s populations. By analysis of classical markers, Nei & Roychoudhury (1993) identified five major human clades: sub-Saharan Africans, Caucasians, Greater Asians, Australopapuans and Amerindians. Evolutionary trees constructed with autosomal RFLPs,[105] microsatellites[106] and Alu insertions[107] show similar topology. Frequently, Amerindians are grouped together with Asians, indicating four major clades, and it has been suggested that this should be a minimum.[108] Obviously, additional structure exists within each of these groups, but as we’ve seen, it’s generally weak compared to the differentiation among the ones listed here. For this reason alone, the term ‘race’ applies well to these major groupings. http://www.goodrumj.com/RFaqHTML.html Show nested quote +Racial Groupings Match Genetic Profiles, Stanford Study FindsWithout knowing how the participants had identified themselves, Risch and his team ran the results through a computer program that grouped individuals according to patterns of the 326 signposts. This analysis could have resulted in any number of different clusters, but only four clear groups turned up. And in each case the individuals within those clusters all fell within the same self-identified racial group. "This shows that people's self-identified race/ethnicity is a nearly perfect indicator of their genetic background," Risch said. http://med.stanford.edu/news_releases/2005/january/racial-data.htm
Shit I am from 6 different races. I wonder what IQ I am supposed to have. Hahaha
While biologists sometimes use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits, others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race is often used in a naive or simplistic way.
Already quoted but I guess you didn't read.
|
On April 20 2012 23:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 22:52 storkfan wrote:On April 20 2012 22:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2012 22:40 storkfan wrote:On April 20 2012 21:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2012 21:18 Zaqwe wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 20 2012 21:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 20:57 Zaqwe wrote: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. That's not very nice. I consider myself a rational thinker and base my opinions on what evidence is available. I am always prepared to change my opinions if I see new evidence. And brain/skull size does have something to do with intelligence, as mentioned in my previous post. I am not sure why you ignored that. It seems you are the irrational one. Your emotional attachment to equality is clouding your judgement, like a fear of death which drives people to faith in heaven. IQ/g is best single predictor, mental or non-mental.IQ/g usually predicts major life outcomes better than does any other single predictor in broad samples of individuals. For example, whether IQ predicts strongly (educational performance) or weakly (law-abidingness), it predicts better than does social class background. This does not mean that intelligence is the only important influence on people's life chances or that social conditions are unimportant. Rather, it means that any explanation of social and economic inequalities will need to consider the central role that general intelligence level seems to play. Gottfredson, L. S. (2006). Social consequences of group differences in cognitive ability (Consequencias sociais das diferencas de grupo em habilidade cognitiva). In C. E. Flores-Mendoza & R. Colom (Eds.), Introducau a psicologia das diferencas individuais (pp. 433-456). Porto Allegre, Brazil: ArtMed Publishers. http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2004socialconsequences.pdf Survey of opinions on the primacy of g and social consequences of ability testing: A comparison of expert and non-expert viewsThough some commentaries give the impression of controversy regarding the importance of cognitive abilities and the validity of ability testing, the results of this survey clearly demonstrate that there are areas of resounding consensus among experts. Our results indicate that there is consensus among experts in the science of mental abilities that g is an important, non-trivial determinant (or at least predictor) of important real world outcomes for which there is no substitute, and that tests of g are valid and generally free from racial bias. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2008.03.007 I'm not trying to be nice or excessively rude. If you believe that African people are inferior and naturally less intelligent than white people, well, you are a racist, or I don't know what racism is about. Racism is generally understood as either belief that different racial groups are characterized by intrinsic characteristics or abilities and that some such groups are therefore naturally superior to others (wikipedia) ... as for sexism Sexism, also known as gender discrimination or sex discrimination, is the belief that a characteristic inherent in one's sex necessarily adversely affects one's ability, even if that characteristic does not have that effect.I think you wouldn't disagree? Maybe you have a lot of "evidences" to back up your claim (but who doesn't?), so you are a very rationnal racist, but a racist nonetheless. There are worse things on earth than being a racist I am sure, but that's one of the criterias on which I judge that discussing with someone is useless. Posting studies that, once again, make a correlation between factors without establishing a causal factor doesn't help. have a nice day. some call it racial realism. Also, so if you believe blacks' darker skin protecting them from sun makes them superior in high UV level situations you are racist? "Racial realism", interesting. I am sure Hitler did think he was a "racial realist". As for the color of the skin, of course it is proven that if you have more melanin, your skin is darker, and you have a better protection against the sun. It's a bit different than saying that Africans are less intelligent or more brutal or whatever, which is at most backed up by pseudo scientific datas usually misinterpreted. Skin color is related to race. So you can say the black race is superior to white race in the UV example, which would constitute an example of racism. Blacks have an intrinsic capability to better withstand such situations. So how is it not racist, how does it not meet the definition of racism?.. Because race is a loosy concept that has nothing to do with skin colour. "We caution against making the naive leap to a genetic explanation for group differences in complex traits, especially for human behavioral traits such as IQ scores" "Pure races, in the sense of genetically homogeneous populations, do not exist in the human species today, nor is there any evidence that they have ever existed in the past.-p.714" source: The ethics of characterizing difference: guiding principles on using racial categories in human genetics http://genomebiology.com/2008/9/7/404While biologists sometimes use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits, others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race is often used in a naive or simplistic way. Among humans, race has no taxonomic significance; all living humans belong to the same hominid subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens. Social conceptions and groupings of races vary over time, involving folk taxonomies that define essential types of individuals based on perceived traits. Scientists consider biological essentialism obsolete, and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits (wikipedia)
If you have black skin, you are better protected against the sun. If you have big ears you also may hear better. Skin colour doesn't make a race, as much as size of the ear doesn't make a race either.There is one race, which is the human race, and each of us has billion of genes that can be combined in any way possible, including genes that determines our melanin rate and therefore our skin colour. You want to establish an equivalence between skin colour and intelligence. Don't try to use science in order to back up your racist ideas. Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 23:03 chocopan wrote:
This is a different thread. Please move your discussion there. Thank you. Sorry, saw that after posting
Here you claim that i am using inductive reasoning, aka dark skin -> african race. Im not doing this. My argument is PURELY deductive, no induction used.
It is african race -> dark skin; european race -> light skin; dark skin superior to white skin -> african race superior to european race
Again, replace "race" for ethnicity or native or whatever you prefer if you dont like it, it doesnt change the validity of the argument.
|
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 make fair points, Biff, but I think that the inferences you're making are quite speculative. The Polgar sisters were a very intriguing experiment, but does it prove that the huge gap between women and men among top chess players is entirely due to culture? I'm not convinced. It's true that it's incredibly rare for a woman to be given an environment like the Polgars' from their youngest age, but isn't it equally rare for men? (Laszlo Polgar wanted to adopt three boys and repeat his experiment with them, you know, but it never happened.)
At any rate, I'm not trying to assert anything about why men currently dominate the upper levels of chess and of Starcraft. You'll notice that my post that you responded to mentioned "biological and cultural things". In my opinion, all we can definitely say is that the difference exists. When I see someone say, "This is the reason for the difference", I mentally translate that into, "This is what I want to be the reason for the difference." It's hard to prove these statements one way or the other.
|
On April 21 2012 00:17 storkfan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 23:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2012 22:52 storkfan wrote:On April 20 2012 22:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2012 22:40 storkfan wrote:On April 20 2012 21:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2012 21:18 Zaqwe wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 20 2012 21:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 20:57 Zaqwe wrote: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. That's not very nice. I consider myself a rational thinker and base my opinions on what evidence is available. I am always prepared to change my opinions if I see new evidence. And brain/skull size does have something to do with intelligence, as mentioned in my previous post. I am not sure why you ignored that. It seems you are the irrational one. Your emotional attachment to equality is clouding your judgement, like a fear of death which drives people to faith in heaven. IQ/g is best single predictor, mental or non-mental.IQ/g usually predicts major life outcomes better than does any other single predictor in broad samples of individuals. For example, whether IQ predicts strongly (educational performance) or weakly (law-abidingness), it predicts better than does social class background. This does not mean that intelligence is the only important influence on people's life chances or that social conditions are unimportant. Rather, it means that any explanation of social and economic inequalities will need to consider the central role that general intelligence level seems to play. Gottfredson, L. S. (2006). Social consequences of group differences in cognitive ability (Consequencias sociais das diferencas de grupo em habilidade cognitiva). In C. E. Flores-Mendoza & R. Colom (Eds.), Introducau a psicologia das diferencas individuais (pp. 433-456). Porto Allegre, Brazil: ArtMed Publishers. http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2004socialconsequences.pdf Survey of opinions on the primacy of g and social consequences of ability testing: A comparison of expert and non-expert viewsThough some commentaries give the impression of controversy regarding the importance of cognitive abilities and the validity of ability testing, the results of this survey clearly demonstrate that there are areas of resounding consensus among experts. Our results indicate that there is consensus among experts in the science of mental abilities that g is an important, non-trivial determinant (or at least predictor) of important real world outcomes for which there is no substitute, and that tests of g are valid and generally free from racial bias. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2008.03.007 I'm not trying to be nice or excessively rude. If you believe that African people are inferior and naturally less intelligent than white people, well, you are a racist, or I don't know what racism is about. Racism is generally understood as either belief that different racial groups are characterized by intrinsic characteristics or abilities and that some such groups are therefore naturally superior to others (wikipedia) ... as for sexism Sexism, also known as gender discrimination or sex discrimination, is the belief that a characteristic inherent in one's sex necessarily adversely affects one's ability, even if that characteristic does not have that effect.I think you wouldn't disagree? Maybe you have a lot of "evidences" to back up your claim (but who doesn't?), so you are a very rationnal racist, but a racist nonetheless. There are worse things on earth than being a racist I am sure, but that's one of the criterias on which I judge that discussing with someone is useless. Posting studies that, once again, make a correlation between factors without establishing a causal factor doesn't help. have a nice day. some call it racial realism. Also, so if you believe blacks' darker skin protecting them from sun makes them superior in high UV level situations you are racist? "Racial realism", interesting. I am sure Hitler did think he was a "racial realist". As for the color of the skin, of course it is proven that if you have more melanin, your skin is darker, and you have a better protection against the sun. It's a bit different than saying that Africans are less intelligent or more brutal or whatever, which is at most backed up by pseudo scientific datas usually misinterpreted. Skin color is related to race. So you can say the black race is superior to white race in the UV example, which would constitute an example of racism. Blacks have an intrinsic capability to better withstand such situations. So how is it not racist, how does it not meet the definition of racism?.. Because race is a loosy concept that has nothing to do with skin colour. "We caution against making the naive leap to a genetic explanation for group differences in complex traits, especially for human behavioral traits such as IQ scores" "Pure races, in the sense of genetically homogeneous populations, do not exist in the human species today, nor is there any evidence that they have ever existed in the past.-p.714" source: The ethics of characterizing difference: guiding principles on using racial categories in human genetics http://genomebiology.com/2008/9/7/404While biologists sometimes use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits, others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race is often used in a naive or simplistic way. Among humans, race has no taxonomic significance; all living humans belong to the same hominid subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens. Social conceptions and groupings of races vary over time, involving folk taxonomies that define essential types of individuals based on perceived traits. Scientists consider biological essentialism obsolete, and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits (wikipedia)
If you have black skin, you are better protected against the sun. If you have big ears you also may hear better. Skin colour doesn't make a race, as much as size of the ear doesn't make a race either.There is one race, which is the human race, and each of us has billion of genes that can be combined in any way possible, including genes that determines our melanin rate and therefore our skin colour. You want to establish an equivalence between skin colour and intelligence. Don't try to use science in order to back up your racist ideas. On April 20 2012 23:03 chocopan wrote:
This is a different thread. Please move your discussion there. Thank you. Sorry, saw that after posting Here you claim that i am using inductive reasoning, aka dark skin -> african race. Im not doing this. My argument is PURELY deductive, no induction used. It is african race -> dark skin; european race -> light skin; dark skin superior to white skin -> african race superior to european race Again, replace "race" for ethnicity or native or whatever you prefer if you dont like it, it doesnt change the validity of the argument.
At risk of derailing this thread further: the point is, that both the concepts of "race" and "superior" are arbitrary cultural constructions that have no natural value. So you could get away with saying that with people with dark skin are more resistant to melanoma, but when you start applying cultural values to that statement in the form of race and judgement, you are making a racist comment.
|
On April 21 2012 01:16 qrs 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 make fair points, Biff, but I think that the inferences you're making are quite speculative. The Polgar sisters were a very intriguing experiment, but does it prove that the huge gap between women and men among top chess players is entirely due to culture? I'm not convinced. It's true that it's incredibly rare for a woman to be given an environment like the Polgars' from their youngest age, but isn't it equally rare for men? (Laszlo Polgar wanted to adopt three boys and repeat his experiment with them, you know, but it never happened.) At any rate, I'm not trying to assert anything about why men currently dominate the upper levels of chess and of Starcraft. You'll notice that my post that you responded to mentioned "biological and cultural things". In my opinion, all we can definitely say is that the difference exists. When I see someone say, "This is the reason for the difference", I mentally translate that into, "This is what I want to be the reason for the difference." It's hard to prove these statements one way or the other.
For the Polgar sister, my answer is no, it is not rare for young boys to be given an environment to become a star chess player. It is even fairly common, and absolutely exceptionnal for a girl. People such as Kasparov or Karpov were put at chess like any young boys in Soviet Union, proved to be very promising and got redirected to Bovinnik school for young chess talent. Had they been girls, they wouldn't have even started chess in the first time, and had they shown any talent, they wouldn't have been encouraged to develop it to its greatest potential. You needed very special parents for the Polgar sister to happen.
I have to say however that I agree with you for most of what you said.
If you look at the discussion I just had on racism, you will also see sceintific evidence given to prove one and the other claim. Science (different field of science) used with the same scientific rigor can prove one view, or its opposite.
The premise of this discussion are not scientific, they are philosphical. From this philosophical and ideologic point of view, you build up a scientific research, or a certain type of reasoning. People often mistake science for the absolute truth, without remembering that science has little to do with the truth at all, and that scientific disagree with each other, and that science becomes often obsolete.
For me women and men have equal intellectual capacities; for me black men are in nothing inferior to white men, and certainly not less intelligent, for me people were not born the way they are, that our choices, our education and our life determines what and who we are rather than our "race" whatever that mean, or our biological sex. See, it's something much more deeply rooted than what I just believe. My whole being screams and bleed at the idea that women are intelectually inferior to men. I find the idea obscene.
Push it a little bit further, in political area, and it gives you a good definition of right wing and left wing. For a right winger, social order is always right, and inequalities are just the reflect of people intrinseque qualities. If you deserve to be rich you will be, if you are poor, you were born stupid or lazy. For a leftist, social conditionning, experience and education makes us what we are, which means that the game is rigged from the beginning, and needs to be compensated by a certain social justice. That also explain you why generally - but not always - the furthest you go to the right the more racist and sexist you will find people.
|
On April 21 2012 01:18 khaydarin9 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2012 00:17 storkfan wrote:On April 20 2012 23:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2012 22:52 storkfan wrote:On April 20 2012 22:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2012 22:40 storkfan wrote:On April 20 2012 21:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2012 21:18 Zaqwe wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 20 2012 21:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 20:57 Zaqwe wrote: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. That's not very nice. I consider myself a rational thinker and base my opinions on what evidence is available. I am always prepared to change my opinions if I see new evidence. And brain/skull size does have something to do with intelligence, as mentioned in my previous post. I am not sure why you ignored that. It seems you are the irrational one. Your emotional attachment to equality is clouding your judgement, like a fear of death which drives people to faith in heaven. IQ/g is best single predictor, mental or non-mental.IQ/g usually predicts major life outcomes better than does any other single predictor in broad samples of individuals. For example, whether IQ predicts strongly (educational performance) or weakly (law-abidingness), it predicts better than does social class background. This does not mean that intelligence is the only important influence on people's life chances or that social conditions are unimportant. Rather, it means that any explanation of social and economic inequalities will need to consider the central role that general intelligence level seems to play. Gottfredson, L. S. (2006). Social consequences of group differences in cognitive ability (Consequencias sociais das diferencas de grupo em habilidade cognitiva). In C. E. Flores-Mendoza & R. Colom (Eds.), Introducau a psicologia das diferencas individuais (pp. 433-456). Porto Allegre, Brazil: ArtMed Publishers. http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2004socialconsequences.pdf Survey of opinions on the primacy of g and social consequences of ability testing: A comparison of expert and non-expert viewsThough some commentaries give the impression of controversy regarding the importance of cognitive abilities and the validity of ability testing, the results of this survey clearly demonstrate that there are areas of resounding consensus among experts. Our results indicate that there is consensus among experts in the science of mental abilities that g is an important, non-trivial determinant (or at least predictor) of important real world outcomes for which there is no substitute, and that tests of g are valid and generally free from racial bias. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2008.03.007 I'm not trying to be nice or excessively rude. If you believe that African people are inferior and naturally less intelligent than white people, well, you are a racist, or I don't know what racism is about. Racism is generally understood as either belief that different racial groups are characterized by intrinsic characteristics or abilities and that some such groups are therefore naturally superior to others (wikipedia) ... as for sexism Sexism, also known as gender discrimination or sex discrimination, is the belief that a characteristic inherent in one's sex necessarily adversely affects one's ability, even if that characteristic does not have that effect.I think you wouldn't disagree? Maybe you have a lot of "evidences" to back up your claim (but who doesn't?), so you are a very rationnal racist, but a racist nonetheless. There are worse things on earth than being a racist I am sure, but that's one of the criterias on which I judge that discussing with someone is useless. Posting studies that, once again, make a correlation between factors without establishing a causal factor doesn't help. have a nice day. some call it racial realism. Also, so if you believe blacks' darker skin protecting them from sun makes them superior in high UV level situations you are racist? "Racial realism", interesting. I am sure Hitler did think he was a "racial realist". As for the color of the skin, of course it is proven that if you have more melanin, your skin is darker, and you have a better protection against the sun. It's a bit different than saying that Africans are less intelligent or more brutal or whatever, which is at most backed up by pseudo scientific datas usually misinterpreted. Skin color is related to race. So you can say the black race is superior to white race in the UV example, which would constitute an example of racism. Blacks have an intrinsic capability to better withstand such situations. So how is it not racist, how does it not meet the definition of racism?.. Because race is a loosy concept that has nothing to do with skin colour. "We caution against making the naive leap to a genetic explanation for group differences in complex traits, especially for human behavioral traits such as IQ scores" "Pure races, in the sense of genetically homogeneous populations, do not exist in the human species today, nor is there any evidence that they have ever existed in the past.-p.714" source: The ethics of characterizing difference: guiding principles on using racial categories in human genetics http://genomebiology.com/2008/9/7/404While biologists sometimes use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits, others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race is often used in a naive or simplistic way. Among humans, race has no taxonomic significance; all living humans belong to the same hominid subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens. Social conceptions and groupings of races vary over time, involving folk taxonomies that define essential types of individuals based on perceived traits. Scientists consider biological essentialism obsolete, and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits (wikipedia)
If you have black skin, you are better protected against the sun. If you have big ears you also may hear better. Skin colour doesn't make a race, as much as size of the ear doesn't make a race either.There is one race, which is the human race, and each of us has billion of genes that can be combined in any way possible, including genes that determines our melanin rate and therefore our skin colour. You want to establish an equivalence between skin colour and intelligence. Don't try to use science in order to back up your racist ideas. On April 20 2012 23:03 chocopan wrote:
This is a different thread. Please move your discussion there. Thank you. Sorry, saw that after posting Here you claim that i am using inductive reasoning, aka dark skin -> african race. Im not doing this. My argument is PURELY deductive, no induction used. It is african race -> dark skin; european race -> light skin; dark skin superior to white skin -> african race superior to european race Again, replace "race" for ethnicity or native or whatever you prefer if you dont like it, it doesnt change the validity of the argument. At risk of derailing this thread further: the point is, that both the concepts of "race" and "superior" are arbitrary cultural constructions that have no natural value. So you could get away with saying that with people with dark skin are more resistant to melanoma, but when you start applying cultural values to that statement in the form of race and judgement, you are making a racist comment. That would be a problem if the value of those judgements were questionable, but it isnt. It is not questionable whether dark skin performs better under high UV level conditions. It is measurable, and its ability to less easily get burned fits the concept of general superior welfare.
And race isnt arbitrary. Or well, any more arbitrary than any definition of anything, as all definitions are arbitrary if you want to be an asshole about this and not actually debate in substance but beating around the bush in circles with stealthy redefinitions, denialism and appeal to emotion as the common tools of the leftists are on "slippery" subjects where science is not on their side.
It is measurable, a common set of variables. Skull shape, muscle and bone structure, skin color etc. You can easily determine it. And more importantly, the claim that "racism exists" by itself assumes the existance of commonly agreed upon criterion of races, as otherwise we would not understand who racist words apply to.
It is absurd to claim at the same time that racism exists, and to deny races, because race is a necessary prerequisite of racism.
|
On April 21 2012 03:41 storkfan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2012 01:18 khaydarin9 wrote:On April 21 2012 00:17 storkfan wrote:On April 20 2012 23:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2012 22:52 storkfan wrote:On April 20 2012 22:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2012 22:40 storkfan wrote:On April 20 2012 21:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2012 21:18 Zaqwe wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 20 2012 21:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 20:57 Zaqwe wrote: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. That's not very nice. I consider myself a rational thinker and base my opinions on what evidence is available. I am always prepared to change my opinions if I see new evidence. And brain/skull size does have something to do with intelligence, as mentioned in my previous post. I am not sure why you ignored that. It seems you are the irrational one. Your emotional attachment to equality is clouding your judgement, like a fear of death which drives people to faith in heaven. IQ/g is best single predictor, mental or non-mental.IQ/g usually predicts major life outcomes better than does any other single predictor in broad samples of individuals. For example, whether IQ predicts strongly (educational performance) or weakly (law-abidingness), it predicts better than does social class background. This does not mean that intelligence is the only important influence on people's life chances or that social conditions are unimportant. Rather, it means that any explanation of social and economic inequalities will need to consider the central role that general intelligence level seems to play. Gottfredson, L. S. (2006). Social consequences of group differences in cognitive ability (Consequencias sociais das diferencas de grupo em habilidade cognitiva). In C. E. Flores-Mendoza & R. Colom (Eds.), Introducau a psicologia das diferencas individuais (pp. 433-456). Porto Allegre, Brazil: ArtMed Publishers. http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2004socialconsequences.pdf Survey of opinions on the primacy of g and social consequences of ability testing: A comparison of expert and non-expert viewsThough some commentaries give the impression of controversy regarding the importance of cognitive abilities and the validity of ability testing, the results of this survey clearly demonstrate that there are areas of resounding consensus among experts. Our results indicate that there is consensus among experts in the science of mental abilities that g is an important, non-trivial determinant (or at least predictor) of important real world outcomes for which there is no substitute, and that tests of g are valid and generally free from racial bias. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2008.03.007 I'm not trying to be nice or excessively rude. If you believe that African people are inferior and naturally less intelligent than white people, well, you are a racist, or I don't know what racism is about. Racism is generally understood as either belief that different racial groups are characterized by intrinsic characteristics or abilities and that some such groups are therefore naturally superior to others (wikipedia) ... as for sexism Sexism, also known as gender discrimination or sex discrimination, is the belief that a characteristic inherent in one's sex necessarily adversely affects one's ability, even if that characteristic does not have that effect.I think you wouldn't disagree? Maybe you have a lot of "evidences" to back up your claim (but who doesn't?), so you are a very rationnal racist, but a racist nonetheless. There are worse things on earth than being a racist I am sure, but that's one of the criterias on which I judge that discussing with someone is useless. Posting studies that, once again, make a correlation between factors without establishing a causal factor doesn't help. have a nice day. some call it racial realism. Also, so if you believe blacks' darker skin protecting them from sun makes them superior in high UV level situations you are racist? "Racial realism", interesting. I am sure Hitler did think he was a "racial realist". As for the color of the skin, of course it is proven that if you have more melanin, your skin is darker, and you have a better protection against the sun. It's a bit different than saying that Africans are less intelligent or more brutal or whatever, which is at most backed up by pseudo scientific datas usually misinterpreted. Skin color is related to race. So you can say the black race is superior to white race in the UV example, which would constitute an example of racism. Blacks have an intrinsic capability to better withstand such situations. So how is it not racist, how does it not meet the definition of racism?.. Because race is a loosy concept that has nothing to do with skin colour. "We caution against making the naive leap to a genetic explanation for group differences in complex traits, especially for human behavioral traits such as IQ scores" "Pure races, in the sense of genetically homogeneous populations, do not exist in the human species today, nor is there any evidence that they have ever existed in the past.-p.714" source: The ethics of characterizing difference: guiding principles on using racial categories in human genetics http://genomebiology.com/2008/9/7/404While biologists sometimes use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits, others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race is often used in a naive or simplistic way. Among humans, race has no taxonomic significance; all living humans belong to the same hominid subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens. Social conceptions and groupings of races vary over time, involving folk taxonomies that define essential types of individuals based on perceived traits. Scientists consider biological essentialism obsolete, and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits (wikipedia)
If you have black skin, you are better protected against the sun. If you have big ears you also may hear better. Skin colour doesn't make a race, as much as size of the ear doesn't make a race either.There is one race, which is the human race, and each of us has billion of genes that can be combined in any way possible, including genes that determines our melanin rate and therefore our skin colour. You want to establish an equivalence between skin colour and intelligence. Don't try to use science in order to back up your racist ideas. On April 20 2012 23:03 chocopan wrote:
This is a different thread. Please move your discussion there. Thank you. Sorry, saw that after posting Here you claim that i am using inductive reasoning, aka dark skin -> african race. Im not doing this. My argument is PURELY deductive, no induction used. It is african race -> dark skin; european race -> light skin; dark skin superior to white skin -> african race superior to european race Again, replace "race" for ethnicity or native or whatever you prefer if you dont like it, it doesnt change the validity of the argument. At risk of derailing this thread further: the point is, that both the concepts of "race" and "superior" are arbitrary cultural constructions that have no natural value. So you could get away with saying that with people with dark skin are more resistant to melanoma, but when you start applying cultural values to that statement in the form of race and judgement, you are making a racist comment. That would be a problem if the value of those judgements were questionable, but it isnt. It is not questionable whether dark skin performs better under high UV level conditions. It is measurable, and its ability to less easily get burned fits the concept of general superior welfare. And race isnt arbitrary. Or well, any more arbitrary than any definition of anything, as all definitions are arbitrary if you want to be an asshole about this and not actually debate in substance but beating around the bush in circles with stealthy redefinitions, denialism and appeal to emotion as the common tools of the leftists are on "slippery" subjects where science is not on their side. It is measurable, a common set of variables. Skull shape, muscle and bone structure, skin color etc. You can easily determine it. And more importantly, the claim that "racism exists" by itself assumes the existance of commonly agreed upon criterion of races, as otherwise we would not understand who racist words apply to. It is absurd to claim at the same time that racism exists, and to deny races, because race is a necessary prerequisite of racism.
No, the idea of race is entirely arbitrary, just like everything else constructed by language. The most concise and overused example of this is colour, and how the Inuit cultures have a bunch of different words for "white", while English just has one. Their culture allows for different nuances of knowledge to ours - which is to say, they inevitably construct their world differently. Keyword is "differently". If you start making judgements, like, "better" or "worse", you're starting to become problematic. The statement "people with dark skin are superior to people with light skin in terms of UV resistance" is not universally true - it is contingent on the idea of "superior". Hypothetically, in a scenario where having a melanoma is a positive thing, then white people would be "superior" to people with dark skin.
There may be genetic differences between people, but as soon as you start classifying them in language, you're no longer dealing with the "real" world, you're dealing with signs and representation, which is cultural. I am not saying that the idea of race doesn't exist - on the contrary, culture is really all we have with which to perceive the world. People just need to be more careful how they apply it.
Also, jumping the gun and calling people with a different academic and/or political background to you "assholes" is kind of ironic, given you consider "appealing to emotion" invalid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
