|
On November 20 2010 05:50 fush wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2010 05:14 Sfydjklm wrote:On November 20 2010 04:21 mcc wrote:On November 20 2010 03:59 fush wrote:On November 20 2010 02:23 mcc wrote:
Ok, I will split my answer.
1) The original poster said it has nothing about competitiveness, to that the answer is men in big majority of societies are more competitive than women. Research for that exists and is pretty conclusive.
2) I made stronger(in mathematical sense of stronger) statement, which said that this competetiveness difference is biological in nature. That statement is not so conclusive, but there are a lot of indirect indices. As far as I know there has been no direct research that points one way or another. The indirect indices are : There is biological component to competetiveness in general, because males raised in equal environments differ in it, so considering all the other biological differences between males and females and considering evolutionary mechanisms for human species it not big stretch to assume that there is in fact some innate difference between men and women.
What I asked for was sources for your statement that men are more competitive than women. You say the research exists and is conclusive. I asked, where? No you asked for sources that prove that men are innately(I hope by that we both mean biologically) more competitive than women. And in point two I agreed with you there is no research that can solve it, so. In lack of direct data, I pointed some arguments for this to be true. If you are asking for sources that men are more competitive than women then for example : http://karlan.yale.edu/fieldexperiments/pdf/Gneezy and Rustichini_Gender and Competition at a Young Age.pdf . There are few societies that do not follow this, but they are so few that we can ignore it. i think natural selection pretty much covers men being biologically more competitive. Yea...no. Sexual selection would seem to go both ways in homo sapiens.
Well first of all what youre thinking is a very modern development. Second of all general consensus is that this development in fact works against natural selection as the less intelligent women tend to become better spouses and produce more offsprings.
|
On November 20 2010 06:01 Ariwa wrote:
but, peanut, I love winning, I love getting better. I love the feeling of awesome nerdage that happens when I win because I macroed harder, or made the correct unit choice because of a scout.
The social aspect for sc2 is far less appealing for me than it was for rpg based games. It's actually more about intellectual choices and understanding, which is weird, because I am not a very intelligent person, (probably why I find winning gratifying.)
I am like that too! I think anyone - male or female - who is here or who is a competitive gamer in any game is like that. The issue is that there aren't as many of us in the female gender as there are in the male gender. But I do believe that there are women out there who could be really great StarCraft players and really great members of the worldwide community if they just knew how great the game is and that they wouldn't automatically be controversial figures for being openly female.
|
For girls, fun stuff (like video games) should be fun all the way through. They do not want to go through boring and unfunny practice/thinking sessions for something that should be just fun in the first place.
Guys on the other hand have no problem going through hours of dull practice as long as they feel it will make them better. They will even enjoy doing it.
Just look around you. Surely you know a lot of girls that enjoy playing games, it's pretty common nowadays. But you will notice that they mostly play games that are fun all the way from the moment they press Start until the moment they turn off whatever they're playing on.
Yesterday, my gf immediately enjoyed playing SF4 on her first try. But if she wants to get good, she'll have to pick a char and stick to it and spend hours practicing the basics over and over again in the training room. And that's where it's gonna hurt. She's probably going to get bored out of her mind and drop it. But me, I love practicing. If I feel that I lack practice, then I'll probably have more fun just practicing for three hours straight and getting that fixed, rather than playing vs people and feeling annoyed because I keep dropping combos that I know I shouldn't.
Girls can have awesome focus and dedication. But it seems they keep it for "serious" stuff like work or studies, and have a very clear line separating it from "fun" stuff like video games. Fun stuff should be just that - fun, and if you have to do boring shit to get good at it, then what's the point?
|
On November 20 2010 06:14 Sfydjklm wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2010 05:50 fush wrote:On November 20 2010 05:14 Sfydjklm wrote:On November 20 2010 04:21 mcc wrote:On November 20 2010 03:59 fush wrote:On November 20 2010 02:23 mcc wrote:
Ok, I will split my answer.
1) The original poster said it has nothing about competitiveness, to that the answer is men in big majority of societies are more competitive than women. Research for that exists and is pretty conclusive.
2) I made stronger(in mathematical sense of stronger) statement, which said that this competetiveness difference is biological in nature. That statement is not so conclusive, but there are a lot of indirect indices. As far as I know there has been no direct research that points one way or another. The indirect indices are : There is biological component to competetiveness in general, because males raised in equal environments differ in it, so considering all the other biological differences between males and females and considering evolutionary mechanisms for human species it not big stretch to assume that there is in fact some innate difference between men and women.
What I asked for was sources for your statement that men are more competitive than women. You say the research exists and is conclusive. I asked, where? No you asked for sources that prove that men are innately(I hope by that we both mean biologically) more competitive than women. And in point two I agreed with you there is no research that can solve it, so. In lack of direct data, I pointed some arguments for this to be true. If you are asking for sources that men are more competitive than women then for example : http://karlan.yale.edu/fieldexperiments/pdf/Gneezy and Rustichini_Gender and Competition at a Young Age.pdf . There are few societies that do not follow this, but they are so few that we can ignore it. i think natural selection pretty much covers men being biologically more competitive. Yea...no. Sexual selection would seem to go both ways in homo sapiens. Well first of all what youre thinking is a very modern development. Second of all general consensus is that this development in fact works against natural selection as the less intelligent women tend to become better spouses and produce more offsprings.
No, there is no general consensus that women are dumb creatures and men are smart creatures due to natural selection. That is literally the dumbest and most vile thing I've read on this forum recently; the comment alone disproves your assertion. Relegate your 1800's mentality to someplace else.
+ Show Spoiler +Do mods find it appropriate to spout overt and unfounded sexism under the guise of science? If not, can he please get a warning.
|
On November 20 2010 06:01 Ariwa wrote:
Plus, most girls can probably click mice faster if they had to. (girlfap reference.)
is it still sexist if I'm a girl?
I lol'ed.
All this "girls just aren't as strategic, etc" crap is just so nonsensical.
It's 2010, for crying out loud. Are people still really saying stuff like this?
Females = equal opportunity to males = equal potential.
The only reason there aren't more girls playing are cultural reasons, things that Peanut pointed out.
More and more females are starting to play competitive, agressive video games across the board - not just SC2. Halo, CoD, etc all have a large female contingent.
You just need to look at Peanut's last "socially awkward" post to see why girls are put off playing. It's just not seen as accepted by the majority of other women as a worthy past-time. But it's getting there.
Some posts in this very thread would put a lot of females off also.
|
On November 20 2010 06:22 _Darwin_ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2010 06:14 Sfydjklm wrote:On November 20 2010 05:50 fush wrote:On November 20 2010 05:14 Sfydjklm wrote:On November 20 2010 04:21 mcc wrote:On November 20 2010 03:59 fush wrote:On November 20 2010 02:23 mcc wrote:
Ok, I will split my answer.
1) The original poster said it has nothing about competitiveness, to that the answer is men in big majority of societies are more competitive than women. Research for that exists and is pretty conclusive.
2) I made stronger(in mathematical sense of stronger) statement, which said that this competetiveness difference is biological in nature. That statement is not so conclusive, but there are a lot of indirect indices. As far as I know there has been no direct research that points one way or another. The indirect indices are : There is biological component to competetiveness in general, because males raised in equal environments differ in it, so considering all the other biological differences between males and females and considering evolutionary mechanisms for human species it not big stretch to assume that there is in fact some innate difference between men and women.
What I asked for was sources for your statement that men are more competitive than women. You say the research exists and is conclusive. I asked, where? No you asked for sources that prove that men are innately(I hope by that we both mean biologically) more competitive than women. And in point two I agreed with you there is no research that can solve it, so. In lack of direct data, I pointed some arguments for this to be true. If you are asking for sources that men are more competitive than women then for example : http://karlan.yale.edu/fieldexperiments/pdf/Gneezy and Rustichini_Gender and Competition at a Young Age.pdf . There are few societies that do not follow this, but they are so few that we can ignore it. i think natural selection pretty much covers men being biologically more competitive. Yea...no. Sexual selection would seem to go both ways in homo sapiens. Well first of all what youre thinking is a very modern development. Second of all general consensus is that this development in fact works against natural selection as the less intelligent women tend to become better spouses and produce more offsprings. No, there is no general consensus that women are dumb creatures and men are smart creatures due to natural selection. That is literally the dumbest and most vile thing I've read on this forum recently; the comment alone disproves your assertion. Relegate your 1800's mentality to someplace else. + Show Spoiler +Do mods find it appropriate to spout overt and unfounded sexism under the guise of science? If not, can he please get a warning.
its kind of funny because your tag is darwin, and you talked about natural selection. just gonna throw that out there.
|
On November 20 2010 06:12 Ariwa wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2010 06:06 Thunderflesh wrote:On November 20 2010 05:43 Zyphen wrote:On November 20 2010 05:25 Thunderflesh wrote:On November 20 2010 05:20 Zyphen wrote:On November 20 2010 05:16 EnderPR wrote:
The answer is FAR simpler than most make it.
You might think of the skill of SC players to follow a Gaussian Curve with the pros being at the top end. If we assume that the Gaussian probability plot looks about the same for female and male (basically, a determined female has the same chance of succeeding as a similar male), then the only variable in changing the number of high level players is the number of players to begin with
As is generally accepted, there are less female gamers so there for there are less female progamers. It is the same deal with why big school sports teams generally are much better than small school teams. Big schools have a larger pool from which to select its best players.
So the question is, how can we get more females interested in SC? You would think so, but WoW doesn't have the problem of severe under-representation in the female player base. Yet, in competitive WoW 3v3 tournaments, there are little to no female participants. That doesn't say anything about skill, it just means that female players aren't playing PvP, they're playing PvE. So, in the pool of players that we're considering, they are severely underrepresented. True. But, wouldn't that mean getting more females interested in Starcraft wouldn't necessarily help all that much? They're more likely to just play campaign or custom. It's not all that simple a problem after all because the numbers game would mean a very diluted pool. I think a better question would be, "how do we get the current female gamers to actually compete in some SC2 tournaments?". They're probably around but just not visible and a chunk of them probably moved on to the next game by now after beating the campaign. Good point, even if the ratio of men:women in SC2 approaches the parity you see in WoW, we might see a similar gap in what gametypes they choose. For both men and women, I think the real difference is that casual players play mostly team games/customs/campaign, and serious players focus on 1v1. Players become more serious when they start finding places like TL and become a real part of the SC community. Therefore, I think making places like TL.net more welcoming towards women will do a lot. It seems like the mods have been really cracking down on sexism lately, which I applaud. Next up is for users to stop making sexist jokes (even if you say "j/k" afterwards, they're still hurtful/unhelpful), and just in general, to stop making a big deal out of the presence of women. We'll know we've made progress when a woman competes at an event like MLG or the GSL and no one mentions her gender or something crass about her appearance. there is no way that is ever going to happen. with the anonymity of the internet and the fact that the SC/SC2 community is mostly male dominated, any female ANYTHING will be instantly sexualized. Take the MLG map vids, I did voiceovers for shits and giggles and the first thing people post is that my voice sounds hot? I could look like a cave troll guys.
i hate to say it but your correct and that's the problem and main reason i think that not very many woman get into pro gaming, this makes me sad because i would love to see more woman in pro gaming.
|
On November 20 2010 06:11 _Darwin_ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2010 06:06 Thunderflesh wrote:On November 20 2010 05:43 Zyphen wrote:On November 20 2010 05:25 Thunderflesh wrote:On November 20 2010 05:20 Zyphen wrote:On November 20 2010 05:16 EnderPR wrote:
The answer is FAR simpler than most make it.
You might think of the skill of SC players to follow a Gaussian Curve with the pros being at the top end. If we assume that the Gaussian probability plot looks about the same for female and male (basically, a determined female has the same chance of succeeding as a similar male), then the only variable in changing the number of high level players is the number of players to begin with
As is generally accepted, there are less female gamers so there for there are less female progamers. It is the same deal with why big school sports teams generally are much better than small school teams. Big schools have a larger pool from which to select its best players.
So the question is, how can we get more females interested in SC? You would think so, but WoW doesn't have the problem of severe under-representation in the female player base. Yet, in competitive WoW 3v3 tournaments, there are little to no female participants. That doesn't say anything about skill, it just means that female players aren't playing PvP, they're playing PvE. So, in the pool of players that we're considering, they are severely underrepresented. True. But, wouldn't that mean getting more females interested in Starcraft wouldn't necessarily help all that much? They're more likely to just play campaign or custom. It's not all that simple a problem after all because the numbers game would mean a very diluted pool. I think a better question would be, "how do we get the current female gamers to actually compete in some SC2 tournaments?". They're probably around but just not visible and a chunk of them probably moved on to the next game by now after beating the campaign. Therefore, I think making places like TL.net more welcoming towards women will do a lot. It seems like the mods have been really cracking down on sexism lately, which I applaud. Not really, the surge of sc2 has made moderators less stringent than they were. Show nested quote +
We'll know we've made progress when a woman competes at an event like MLG or the GSL and no one mentions her gender or something crass about her appearance.
I don't understand how ignoring gender makes progress. I think it warrants notice if a woman performs well at MLG or GSL; it's similar to pointing out foreigners when competing in Korea. But yeah, it really hurts the female community and gaming in general when men are like "hurr iz dat a gurl? omgz!"
Fair enough, I only joined in June 2010, so hard for me to say hehe. I just feel like I've noticed more bans being handed out in the last few weeks due to sexist remarks, but that's just my general impression. Maybe I'm just optimistic!
Perhaps I should rephrase re: mentioning gender. We should respond positively to women making progress in any field, and show our support, definitely.
I just think it is unfortunate when people like Navi or Tossgirl are treated as women first, and players second. I think it devalues their accomplishments. My girlfriend is a composer, and she has experienced this kind of thing. It's a classically male-dominated field (though this is beginning to change), and it is frustrating to both her and me when teachers or other composers think of her as a "female composer" instead of just a "composer."
I.e. I want to see the day where it isn't a big deal for a woman to be a pro-gamer/composer/president or whatever. To get there, we need to show lots of support for the trailblazers, which yes, will involve mentioning their gender. I just want to get to the point where we don't need to do that any longer.
|
On November 20 2010 06:22 _Darwin_ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2010 06:14 Sfydjklm wrote:On November 20 2010 05:50 fush wrote:On November 20 2010 05:14 Sfydjklm wrote:On November 20 2010 04:21 mcc wrote:On November 20 2010 03:59 fush wrote:On November 20 2010 02:23 mcc wrote:
Ok, I will split my answer.
1) The original poster said it has nothing about competitiveness, to that the answer is men in big majority of societies are more competitive than women. Research for that exists and is pretty conclusive.
2) I made stronger(in mathematical sense of stronger) statement, which said that this competetiveness difference is biological in nature. That statement is not so conclusive, but there are a lot of indirect indices. As far as I know there has been no direct research that points one way or another. The indirect indices are : There is biological component to competetiveness in general, because males raised in equal environments differ in it, so considering all the other biological differences between males and females and considering evolutionary mechanisms for human species it not big stretch to assume that there is in fact some innate difference between men and women.
What I asked for was sources for your statement that men are more competitive than women. You say the research exists and is conclusive. I asked, where? No you asked for sources that prove that men are innately(I hope by that we both mean biologically) more competitive than women. And in point two I agreed with you there is no research that can solve it, so. In lack of direct data, I pointed some arguments for this to be true. If you are asking for sources that men are more competitive than women then for example : http://karlan.yale.edu/fieldexperiments/pdf/Gneezy and Rustichini_Gender and Competition at a Young Age.pdf . There are few societies that do not follow this, but they are so few that we can ignore it. i think natural selection pretty much covers men being biologically more competitive. Yea...no. Sexual selection would seem to go both ways in homo sapiens. Well first of all what youre thinking is a very modern development. Second of all general consensus is that this development in fact works against natural selection as the less intelligent women tend to become better spouses and produce more offsprings. No, there is no general consensus that women are dumb creatures and men are smart creatures due to natural selection. That is literally the dumbest and most vile thing I've read on this forum recently; the comment alone disproves your assertion. Relegate your 1800's mentality to someplace else. + Show Spoiler +Do mods find it appropriate to spout overt and unfounded sexism under the guise of science? If not, can he please get a warning.
Yea I've been in science for years and never seemed to have heard of or reached such a conclusion that intelligence is inversely correlated with the ability to produce offspring.
As for the post itself, there are far more far fetched "scientific" facts spouted in these threads than what he's said. Read: "women are less competitive."
|
On November 20 2010 05:28 Shinkugami wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2010 05:04 LolnoobInsanity wrote:
You say that there's no inherent disadvantage "like chess" yet there are male and female chess leagues, and the top male chess player is always better than the top female chess player.
That statement can be backed up pretty heavily by most researches and statistics. By design, males are better are pattern-recognition and logical thinking; Add to that the globally demonstrated statistic that males have an average IQ 9 points higher than females and you get the picture.
I've read studies that show the opposite is true. Please link this study to your comment. From what I've read about that it was based on the fact that there is more men in genius bracket than women. But that doesn't effect the average because there are lots more men it the mentally handicapped catagory. It averages out the same but men have more intelligence in the extremes.
http://www.aboutintelligence.co.uk/who-smarter-men-women.html
|
On November 20 2010 06:29 Nazarid wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2010 06:12 Ariwa wrote:On November 20 2010 06:06 Thunderflesh wrote:On November 20 2010 05:43 Zyphen wrote:On November 20 2010 05:25 Thunderflesh wrote:On November 20 2010 05:20 Zyphen wrote:On November 20 2010 05:16 EnderPR wrote:
The answer is FAR simpler than most make it.
You might think of the skill of SC players to follow a Gaussian Curve with the pros being at the top end. If we assume that the Gaussian probability plot looks about the same for female and male (basically, a determined female has the same chance of succeeding as a similar male), then the only variable in changing the number of high level players is the number of players to begin with
As is generally accepted, there are less female gamers so there for there are less female progamers. It is the same deal with why big school sports teams generally are much better than small school teams. Big schools have a larger pool from which to select its best players.
So the question is, how can we get more females interested in SC? You would think so, but WoW doesn't have the problem of severe under-representation in the female player base. Yet, in competitive WoW 3v3 tournaments, there are little to no female participants. That doesn't say anything about skill, it just means that female players aren't playing PvP, they're playing PvE. So, in the pool of players that we're considering, they are severely underrepresented. True. But, wouldn't that mean getting more females interested in Starcraft wouldn't necessarily help all that much? They're more likely to just play campaign or custom. It's not all that simple a problem after all because the numbers game would mean a very diluted pool. I think a better question would be, "how do we get the current female gamers to actually compete in some SC2 tournaments?". They're probably around but just not visible and a chunk of them probably moved on to the next game by now after beating the campaign. Good point, even if the ratio of men:women in SC2 approaches the parity you see in WoW, we might see a similar gap in what gametypes they choose. For both men and women, I think the real difference is that casual players play mostly team games/customs/campaign, and serious players focus on 1v1. Players become more serious when they start finding places like TL and become a real part of the SC community. Therefore, I think making places like TL.net more welcoming towards women will do a lot. It seems like the mods have been really cracking down on sexism lately, which I applaud. Next up is for users to stop making sexist jokes (even if you say "j/k" afterwards, they're still hurtful/unhelpful), and just in general, to stop making a big deal out of the presence of women. We'll know we've made progress when a woman competes at an event like MLG or the GSL and no one mentions her gender or something crass about her appearance. there is no way that is ever going to happen. with the anonymity of the internet and the fact that the SC/SC2 community is mostly male dominated, any female ANYTHING will be instantly sexualized. Take the MLG map vids, I did voiceovers for shits and giggles and the first thing people post is that my voice sounds hot? I could look like a cave troll guys. i hate to say it but your correct and that's the problem and main reason i think that not very many woman get into pro gaming, this makes me sad because i would love to see more woman in pro gaming.
be it sad but true, I dont entirely see it as something that should put women off from doing nerdy things. Girls who grew up in the 'net generation' (like myself) and are familiar with the disgustingness of the internet should be prepared for this kind of thing.
I haven't got a huge issue with instantly being sexualized as long as the fappers stay in the recesses and cracks of the internet and dont intrude on my daily life or well being.
|
I think women just have better things to do with there time lol.
|
Calgary25963 Posts
On November 20 2010 06:12 Ariwa wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2010 06:06 Thunderflesh wrote:On November 20 2010 05:43 Zyphen wrote:On November 20 2010 05:25 Thunderflesh wrote:On November 20 2010 05:20 Zyphen wrote:On November 20 2010 05:16 EnderPR wrote:
The answer is FAR simpler than most make it.
You might think of the skill of SC players to follow a Gaussian Curve with the pros being at the top end. If we assume that the Gaussian probability plot looks about the same for female and male (basically, a determined female has the same chance of succeeding as a similar male), then the only variable in changing the number of high level players is the number of players to begin with
As is generally accepted, there are less female gamers so there for there are less female progamers. It is the same deal with why big school sports teams generally are much better than small school teams. Big schools have a larger pool from which to select its best players.
So the question is, how can we get more females interested in SC? You would think so, but WoW doesn't have the problem of severe under-representation in the female player base. Yet, in competitive WoW 3v3 tournaments, there are little to no female participants. That doesn't say anything about skill, it just means that female players aren't playing PvP, they're playing PvE. So, in the pool of players that we're considering, they are severely underrepresented. True. But, wouldn't that mean getting more females interested in Starcraft wouldn't necessarily help all that much? They're more likely to just play campaign or custom. It's not all that simple a problem after all because the numbers game would mean a very diluted pool. I think a better question would be, "how do we get the current female gamers to actually compete in some SC2 tournaments?". They're probably around but just not visible and a chunk of them probably moved on to the next game by now after beating the campaign. Good point, even if the ratio of men:women in SC2 approaches the parity you see in WoW, we might see a similar gap in what gametypes they choose. For both men and women, I think the real difference is that casual players play mostly team games/customs/campaign, and serious players focus on 1v1. Players become more serious when they start finding places like TL and become a real part of the SC community. Therefore, I think making places like TL.net more welcoming towards women will do a lot. It seems like the mods have been really cracking down on sexism lately, which I applaud. Next up is for users to stop making sexist jokes (even if you say "j/k" afterwards, they're still hurtful/unhelpful), and just in general, to stop making a big deal out of the presence of women. We'll know we've made progress when a woman competes at an event like MLG or the GSL and no one mentions her gender or something crass about her appearance. there is no way that is ever going to happen. with the anonymity of the internet and the fact that the SC/SC2 community is mostly male dominated, any female ANYTHING will be instantly sexualized. Take the MLG map vids, I did voiceovers for shits and giggles and the first thing people post is that my voice sounds hot? I could look like a cave troll guys.
People say that about tons of commentators, usually male. I think the unique thing is actually not that it happened, but your reaction to it.
|
On November 20 2010 06:32 SCdinner wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2010 05:28 Shinkugami wrote:On November 20 2010 05:04 LolnoobInsanity wrote:
You say that there's no inherent disadvantage "like chess" yet there are male and female chess leagues, and the top male chess player is always better than the top female chess player.
That statement can be backed up pretty heavily by most researches and statistics. By design, males are better are pattern-recognition and logical thinking; Add to that the globally demonstrated statistic that males have an average IQ 9 points higher than females and you get the picture. I've read studies that show the opposite is true. Please link this study to your comment. From what I've read about that it was based on the fact that there is more men in genius bracket than women. But that doesn't effect the average because there are lots more men it the mentally handicapped catagory. It averages out the same but men have more intelligence in the extremes. http://www.aboutintelligence.co.uk/who-smarter-men-women.html
That website has no sources. What (and most importantly WHO - were they male?  ) defines a "genius"? When was this genius count started?
IQ is a joke in the academic field, so let's not talk about that. Brain matter doesn't equal intelligence - neanderthals had larger brains than we did - food for thought.
|
On November 20 2010 05:55 fush wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2010 05:31 Zyphen wrote:On November 20 2010 05:22 fush wrote:On November 20 2010 04:36 Zyphen wrote:On November 20 2010 03:59 fush wrote:On November 20 2010 02:23 mcc wrote:On November 20 2010 01:27 fush wrote:On November 20 2010 01:20 mcc wrote:On November 20 2010 01:14 hmunkey wrote:
It's more socially unacceptable for women to play video games than for men. the same applies to children -- girls don't grow up wanting to play games like boys do.
That's it. It has nothing to do with competitiveness or anything else. And you have anything to prove that other than I said so. There is a lot of research, mechanisms to explain why it is a biological thing, is there anything that really points to it being because it is socially unacceptable ? In many countries in a lot of social groups it is not unacceptable any more, yet girls still do not play games competitively as much as boys. Problem is the rate of emancipation highly exceeds the rate of increase in women's competitiveness. There's research on there being more innate competitiveness in males than females? Please give your sources on these research and mechanisms. I CAN tell you that you're probably 99% wrong regarding biological coding for competition behaviour, but maybe I've missed something  Ok, I will split my answer. 1) The original poster said it has nothing about competitiveness, to that the answer is men in big majority of societies are more competitive than women. Research for that exists and is pretty conclusive. 2) I made stronger(in mathematical sense of stronger) statement, which said that this competetiveness difference is biological in nature. That statement is not so conclusive, but there are a lot of indirect indices. As far as I know there has been no direct research that points one way or another. The indirect indices are : There is biological component to competetiveness in general, because males raised in equal environments differ in it, so considering all the other biological differences between males and females and considering evolutionary mechanisms for human species it not big stretch to assume that there is in fact some innate difference between men and women. What I asked for was sources for your statement that men are more competitive than women. You say the research exists and is conclusive. I asked, where? On November 20 2010 03:25 Zyphen wrote:
You guys talking about nature/nurture are really getting into a tangential debate. Women, as a group, are just less competitive period. That's the reason why there aren't more top female gamers, chess masters, race car drivers, etc (basically anything that doesn't require being physically gifted).
The few women that do make it don't prove anything about the rest. It's called anecdotal evidence. Sure, a woman COULD do it, but that's not the question. The lack of female gamers, as a whole, is because they lack competitiveness in games involving direct confrontation. Whether the few that do well possess an extra chromosome or were raised as tomboys seems superfluous to the argument. Women as a group are less competitive... interesting conclusion based on what? Your examples are all full of crap because they're all fields that have been typically male dominated and not encouraged for women to do in society. I'm not denying there's differences biologically between genders... it's what I study for a living. But the wannabe scientists here saying how females "don't have" testosterone (which they do) probably don't even know its effects in cognition, because guess what... no one does. So how about a suggestion, before you pull out some hair-brained idea of how you think females are less innately "competitive" or whatever, get a clue. Lol. Some reading comprehension please? My entire post was about how I don't CARE whether it's nature or nurture that's the culprit for any behavorial differences. The facts are that they exist. And you're asking me for proof? Really? It's already accepted fact that women are under-represented in starcraft 2 and just about every other competitive event listed in this thread. I think your position is the one that's more indefensible. The burden should lie with you. How about this. Find me a single instance of a direct competitive game/sport where women are equally represented at the top tier as men (i.e. they don't form their own separate league, actually play with and BEAT the boys, you look at a tournament bracket - half are women, half the time they even win it, etc.). It'll take me longer to list all the things men dominate than for you to squeeze out that one exception (which, honestly, I'm dying to know). Lol. Some reading comprehension please? My entire post was about how you simply stated that women were less competitive, not about whether other biological differences exist. If you bothered to read on, it also mentioned that WHILE these biological differences exist, they haven’t been shown to have anything to do with better performance in a game like SC2. Why don’t you look in gender differences in attention, visual/spatial cognition, motor control and see if you can come up with an answer to that. But I can save you some time now and tell you that there is no evidence that would point one way or another. Asking for proof was to the poster I quoted above, he has given me a draft of a paper and I’ll read it when I’m off work. As for your obsession in male superiority over women in competitive sport – which in our society seems to be inherently correlated with physical ability, then of course males outperform females. Why don’t you look less in sport and more in a wider scope of activities? Can you honestly tell me that males are outperforming females in academia? And I've posted twice stating that I don't really give a rat's ass as to the explanation of why females are less competitive. Would it be less offensive to your sensiblities if I instead stated that males are more competitive? How is academia a direct competition? I don't really care about your other arguments with other posters. Stay on point. And I specifically said ANY directly competitive event (as in there's a winner and a loser) with tournaments. Forget sports. The facts are, women are under-represented relative to their population size in virtually all directly competitive events. Sorry the truth offended you. I simply stated it. And then I said the explanation is an entirely separate argument. That might have gotten through your thick head if you didn't jump at my posts like a rabid wolverine. Getting pretty defensive now aren't we? Let's not forget you're the one throwing insults at me, not the other way around. You don't give a crap why females are less competitive, but you simply state it without any proof? Well that's certainly convincing. What I'm implying here about your argument through sarcasm is also a fact. Academia is not direct competition? Lol. Seems like you know nothing about it and you probably won't read my explanation anyways. You also state again that women are under-represented in all competitive events, but yet you challenge me to name them. Hey, I'm not the one stating random "factoids" here, you're the one who needs to back that up with some actual events.
Some cognitive dissonance here? You perceive insult and then find nothing wrong with calling me "full of crap". Then you presume to know anything about me.
Yes, I can see how you would love to broaden my narrow definition of what it means to be competitive in starcraft 2. It would push me neatly into a corner where I would have to accept academia, love, and fashion as things where girls can be competitive. But how is that applicable exactly? It gets into a semantics argument that completely derails from the original intent of the OP.
Since you insist, here are some events similar to Starcraft that females have no physical barrier to entry for: Chess, Weiqi(Go), Poker, Billiards, Archery, Competitive Shooting, Auto racing, Curling, Majong, Croquet, Marbles, Ballooning, Bowling, Motorboat racing, Horse Racing, all other video games w/ tournament scene.
You'll probably ask for a more complete list but you'll have to be satisfied w/ the above since I'm not in the habit of arguing w/ people that obviously aren't going to concede cornerstone points by basically asking:
1)What do I mean by being competitive in the current context?
2)What are all these things that women can't compete in?
Question number 2 seems to be just out of spite since if you weren't aware of such things, you wouldn't even bother saying they're "male dominated" in the first place. Doesn't that in of itself imply under-representation of females?
|
On November 20 2010 05:14 Sfydjklm wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2010 04:21 mcc wrote:On November 20 2010 03:59 fush wrote:On November 20 2010 02:23 mcc wrote:
Ok, I will split my answer.
1) The original poster said it has nothing about competitiveness, to that the answer is men in big majority of societies are more competitive than women. Research for that exists and is pretty conclusive.
2) I made stronger(in mathematical sense of stronger) statement, which said that this competetiveness difference is biological in nature. That statement is not so conclusive, but there are a lot of indirect indices. As far as I know there has been no direct research that points one way or another. The indirect indices are : There is biological component to competetiveness in general, because males raised in equal environments differ in it, so considering all the other biological differences between males and females and considering evolutionary mechanisms for human species it not big stretch to assume that there is in fact some innate difference between men and women.
What I asked for was sources for your statement that men are more competitive than women. You say the research exists and is conclusive. I asked, where? No you asked for sources that prove that men are innately(I hope by that we both mean biologically) more competitive than women. And in point two I agreed with you there is no research that can solve it, so. In lack of direct data, I pointed some arguments for this to be true. If you are asking for sources that men are more competitive than women then for example : http://karlan.yale.edu/fieldexperiments/pdf/Gneezy and Rustichini_Gender and Competition at a Young Age.pdf . There are few societies that do not follow this, but they are so few that we can ignore it. i think natural selection pretty much covers men being biologically more competitive.
Yes it seems so, but the problem is proving it. Oftentimes in evolutionary biology things that seem reasonable are not so easily proven and sometimes the logic behind that reasoning is full of holes and even false. So yes, evolutionary argument is a good one I think in this case, but you need more supporting evidence.
|
On November 20 2010 06:34 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2010 06:12 Ariwa wrote:On November 20 2010 06:06 Thunderflesh wrote:On November 20 2010 05:43 Zyphen wrote:On November 20 2010 05:25 Thunderflesh wrote:On November 20 2010 05:20 Zyphen wrote:On November 20 2010 05:16 EnderPR wrote:
The answer is FAR simpler than most make it.
You might think of the skill of SC players to follow a Gaussian Curve with the pros being at the top end. If we assume that the Gaussian probability plot looks about the same for female and male (basically, a determined female has the same chance of succeeding as a similar male), then the only variable in changing the number of high level players is the number of players to begin with
As is generally accepted, there are less female gamers so there for there are less female progamers. It is the same deal with why big school sports teams generally are much better than small school teams. Big schools have a larger pool from which to select its best players.
So the question is, how can we get more females interested in SC? You would think so, but WoW doesn't have the problem of severe under-representation in the female player base. Yet, in competitive WoW 3v3 tournaments, there are little to no female participants. That doesn't say anything about skill, it just means that female players aren't playing PvP, they're playing PvE. So, in the pool of players that we're considering, they are severely underrepresented. True. But, wouldn't that mean getting more females interested in Starcraft wouldn't necessarily help all that much? They're more likely to just play campaign or custom. It's not all that simple a problem after all because the numbers game would mean a very diluted pool. I think a better question would be, "how do we get the current female gamers to actually compete in some SC2 tournaments?". They're probably around but just not visible and a chunk of them probably moved on to the next game by now after beating the campaign. Good point, even if the ratio of men:women in SC2 approaches the parity you see in WoW, we might see a similar gap in what gametypes they choose. For both men and women, I think the real difference is that casual players play mostly team games/customs/campaign, and serious players focus on 1v1. Players become more serious when they start finding places like TL and become a real part of the SC community. Therefore, I think making places like TL.net more welcoming towards women will do a lot. It seems like the mods have been really cracking down on sexism lately, which I applaud. Next up is for users to stop making sexist jokes (even if you say "j/k" afterwards, they're still hurtful/unhelpful), and just in general, to stop making a big deal out of the presence of women. We'll know we've made progress when a woman competes at an event like MLG or the GSL and no one mentions her gender or something crass about her appearance. there is no way that is ever going to happen. with the anonymity of the internet and the fact that the SC/SC2 community is mostly male dominated, any female ANYTHING will be instantly sexualized. Take the MLG map vids, I did voiceovers for shits and giggles and the first thing people post is that my voice sounds hot? I could look like a cave troll guys. People say that about tons of commentators, usually male. I think the unique thing is actually not that it happened, but your reaction to it.
that I think its silly to think I could be hot from the sound of my voice?
|
On November 20 2010 05:22 fush wrote:
As for your obsession in male superiority over women in competitive sport – which in our society seems to be inherently correlated with physical ability, then of course males outperform females. Why don’t you look less in sport and more in a wider scope of activities? Can you honestly tell me that males are outperforming females in academia?
Depends what you mean outperforming. As far as top scientists and mathematicians go (and I mean hard sciences) yes they are, as someone already pointed out, there are more geniuses among men, but also more morons.
|
On November 20 2010 06:37 Zyphen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2010 05:55 fush wrote:On November 20 2010 05:31 Zyphen wrote:On November 20 2010 05:22 fush wrote:On November 20 2010 04:36 Zyphen wrote:On November 20 2010 03:59 fush wrote:On November 20 2010 02:23 mcc wrote:On November 20 2010 01:27 fush wrote:On November 20 2010 01:20 mcc wrote:On November 20 2010 01:14 hmunkey wrote:
It's more socially unacceptable for women to play video games than for men. the same applies to children -- girls don't grow up wanting to play games like boys do.
That's it. It has nothing to do with competitiveness or anything else. And you have anything to prove that other than I said so. There is a lot of research, mechanisms to explain why it is a biological thing, is there anything that really points to it being because it is socially unacceptable ? In many countries in a lot of social groups it is not unacceptable any more, yet girls still do not play games competitively as much as boys. Problem is the rate of emancipation highly exceeds the rate of increase in women's competitiveness. There's research on there being more innate competitiveness in males than females? Please give your sources on these research and mechanisms. I CAN tell you that you're probably 99% wrong regarding biological coding for competition behaviour, but maybe I've missed something Ok, I will split my answer. 1) The original poster said it has nothing about competitiveness, to that the answer is men in big majority of societies are more competitive than women. Research for that exists and is pretty conclusive. 2) I made stronger(in mathematical sense of stronger) statement, which said that this competetiveness difference is biological in nature. That statement is not so conclusive, but there are a lot of indirect indices. As far as I know there has been no direct research that points one way or another. The indirect indices are : There is biological component to competetiveness in general, because males raised in equal environments differ in it, so considering all the other biological differences between males and females and considering evolutionary mechanisms for human species it not big stretch to assume that there is in fact some innate difference between men and women. What I asked for was sources for your statement that men are more competitive than women. You say the research exists and is conclusive. I asked, where? On November 20 2010 03:25 Zyphen wrote:
You guys talking about nature/nurture are really getting into a tangential debate. Women, as a group, are just less competitive period. That's the reason why there aren't more top female gamers, chess masters, race car drivers, etc (basically anything that doesn't require being physically gifted).
The few women that do make it don't prove anything about the rest. It's called anecdotal evidence. Sure, a woman COULD do it, but that's not the question. The lack of female gamers, as a whole, is because they lack competitiveness in games involving direct confrontation. Whether the few that do well possess an extra chromosome or were raised as tomboys seems superfluous to the argument. Women as a group are less competitive... interesting conclusion based on what? Your examples are all full of crap because they're all fields that have been typically male dominated and not encouraged for women to do in society. I'm not denying there's differences biologically between genders... it's what I study for a living. But the wannabe scientists here saying how females "don't have" testosterone (which they do) probably don't even know its effects in cognition, because guess what... no one does. So how about a suggestion, before you pull out some hair-brained idea of how you think females are less innately "competitive" or whatever, get a clue. Lol. Some reading comprehension please? My entire post was about how I don't CARE whether it's nature or nurture that's the culprit for any behavorial differences. The facts are that they exist. And you're asking me for proof? Really? It's already accepted fact that women are under-represented in starcraft 2 and just about every other competitive event listed in this thread. I think your position is the one that's more indefensible. The burden should lie with you. How about this. Find me a single instance of a direct competitive game/sport where women are equally represented at the top tier as men (i.e. they don't form their own separate league, actually play with and BEAT the boys, you look at a tournament bracket - half are women, half the time they even win it, etc.). It'll take me longer to list all the things men dominate than for you to squeeze out that one exception (which, honestly, I'm dying to know). Lol. Some reading comprehension please? My entire post was about how you simply stated that women were less competitive, not about whether other biological differences exist. If you bothered to read on, it also mentioned that WHILE these biological differences exist, they haven’t been shown to have anything to do with better performance in a game like SC2. Why don’t you look in gender differences in attention, visual/spatial cognition, motor control and see if you can come up with an answer to that. But I can save you some time now and tell you that there is no evidence that would point one way or another. Asking for proof was to the poster I quoted above, he has given me a draft of a paper and I’ll read it when I’m off work. As for your obsession in male superiority over women in competitive sport – which in our society seems to be inherently correlated with physical ability, then of course males outperform females. Why don’t you look less in sport and more in a wider scope of activities? Can you honestly tell me that males are outperforming females in academia? And I've posted twice stating that I don't really give a rat's ass as to the explanation of why females are less competitive. Would it be less offensive to your sensiblities if I instead stated that males are more competitive? How is academia a direct competition? I don't really care about your other arguments with other posters. Stay on point. And I specifically said ANY directly competitive event (as in there's a winner and a loser) with tournaments. Forget sports. The facts are, women are under-represented relative to their population size in virtually all directly competitive events. Sorry the truth offended you. I simply stated it. And then I said the explanation is an entirely separate argument. That might have gotten through your thick head if you didn't jump at my posts like a rabid wolverine. Getting pretty defensive now aren't we? Let's not forget you're the one throwing insults at me, not the other way around. You don't give a crap why females are less competitive, but you simply state it without any proof? Well that's certainly convincing. What I'm implying here about your argument through sarcasm is also a fact. Academia is not direct competition? Lol. Seems like you know nothing about it and you probably won't read my explanation anyways. You also state again that women are under-represented in all competitive events, but yet you challenge me to name them. Hey, I'm not the one stating random "factoids" here, you're the one who needs to back that up with some actual events. Some cognitive dissonance here? You perceive insult and then find nothing wrong with calling me "full of crap". Then you presume to know anything about me. Yes, I can see how you would love to broaden my narrow definition of what it means to be competitive in starcraft 2. It would push me neatly into a corner where I would have to accept academia, love, and fashion as things where girls can be competitive. But how is that applicable exactly? It gets into a semantics argument that completely derails from the original intent of the OP. Since you insist, here are some events similar to Starcraft that females have no physical barrier to entry for: Chess, Weiqi(Go), Poker, Billiards, Archery, Competitive Shooting, Auto racing, Curling, Majong, Croquet, Marbles, Ballooning, Bowling, Motorboat racing, Horse Racing, all other video games w/ tournament scene. You'll probably ask for a more complete list but you'll have to be satisfied w/ the above since I'm not in the habit of arguing w/ people that obviously aren't going to concede cornerstone points by basically asking: 1)What do I mean by being competitive in the current context? 2)What are all these things that women can't compete in? Question number 2 seems to be just out of spite since if you weren't aware of such things, you wouldn't even bother saying they're "male dominated" in the first place. Doesn't that in of itself imply under-representation of females?
But sir, your statement was "Women, as a group, are just less competitive period." All I asked for were facts that back your assertion. You have provided none.
Your definition of "competitive" seems to be performance in something with a winner and a loser - okay. You listed all those things, most having to do with physical exertion - okay. Do you have direct interactions in these events between men and women showing significantly better performance in men? Please show me. Otherwise, you can't say women are "less competitive" based on your definition of the word "competitive". Period.
My definition of competitive if you're talking in an innate sense (which was what my original post was referring to) is not tournaments or winning or losing. It's the motivation to perform better than others. Has anyone in the world offered convincing and definitive results that would prove women have less of this motivation? Don't think so.
Now you can sidestep this all you want, but perhaps you should realize that you are accountable for what you say. And what you said (as I've quoted in my first sentence) was complete garbage.
|
Those of you saying natural selection covers men being more competitive, you've obviously never been a girl in high school.
Or in life.
Ever.
Or ever seen a movie about being a teenage girl in high school.
Girls will crucify other girls over status without blinking.
Funnily, I don't think those are the kind of girls who play SC2. I guess we take our competitiveness out in other ways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
3962
257
107
EPT
