|
On November 20 2010 05:24 Thunderflesh 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. Throwing around those features of the chess world as "proof" of inherent disadvantage is faulty reasoning. This is because of differences in participation. Let's say the ratio of serious male chess players to serious female chess players is about 10:1. As for how you define a "serious chess player," let's say, very roughly, it is someone who spends most, or a significant amount, of their free time practicing or studying chess, with the goal of competing in tournaments. If both male and female populations of serious chess players have a standard distribution of skill, they can have the same average skill level--i.e. suggesting no inherent disadvantage--and you'll still see WAY more men at the top level. To even compete with nationally-known players, you probably have to be in the top 0.1%, and just statistically speaking, if there are ten times as many men than women in the category of "serious chess players," then this difference will be EVEN MORE pronounced in the top 0.1%. TL;DRBased on their relative levels of participation in chess/SC2, we would expect to see about as many top female players as we currently do, if we assume identical inherent ability/potential. A lack of top female SC2 or chess players would only argue in favor of some gap in innate ability if the levels of participation were close to even, and they're not at all. *Why* participation levels differ is a separate issue; I think Peanut addressed this question very well in her post.
Actually there is deficiency of women at the absolute top even if we consider participation. And it actually is so in many activities.
|
On November 20 2010 06:46 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I'll ask the same questions.
What is a genius? Number of publications? Impact on current knowledge and theory?
Who designates that someone is a genius? Men? Women?
What fields are they "geniuses" in? Physics and Mathematics are hard sciences, but there are other natural sciences that are larger fields and more balanced.
When did this genius count begin? Are we looking at Newtonian times? Darwinian times? Or more modern times? I believe the ratio may be more even the closer to the present we look.
|
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.
Well, let's not ignore context here; jokingly saying "oh wow, you're really turning me on" to a male friend is very different from jokingly saying it to a female friend, for example.
|
As many posters above have said, it's a numbers thing. Less girls playing = less of a chance there's a girl bonjwa.
|
Males generally have much better hand eye coordination than females (not sure if this is environmental or innate) and I think that might be an important factor with Starcraft. However, even at games like Chess that have no physical dexterity required, the top players have always been male with only a few notable females. So, I'm sure there are other social factors involved as others have mentioned.
|
Men and women's brains are very different. I'm not using this for this argument specifically, but I would be shocked if men and women weren't vastly superior to each other in different roles.
In fact, I claim for this game, one sex would have to have an innate advantage, unfortunately there aren't nearly enough women, especially those who are serious about getting good to be able to even have an idea which one has the advantage. That's why for example tossgirl isn't a good argument, there are tons of serious korean sc gamers who never reached her skill level, we don't know that she is actually the best possible sc player in korea, potential female jaedongs could have pursed a different career entirely and we'll never know.
|
On November 20 2010 06:53 Thunderflesh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2010 06:34 Chill wrote: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. Well, let's not ignore context here; jokingly saying "oh wow, you're really turning me on" to a male friend is very different from jokingly saying it to a female friend, for example.
I dont see how I reacted funnily, I just think finding my voice appealing is fine, equating my voice to how I look is stupid.
|
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.
i already addressed your sexism bullshit in one of the previous posts.
Women and men are different and i am able to appreciate both alike even with all their differences.
Trying to say that everyone is the same even though its obvious that theyre not is just a modern and unfortunately widely accepted form of discrimination.
|
On November 20 2010 06:32 fush wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2010 06:22 _Darwin_ wrote: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.
I dont see how that relates to any of my posts.
|
Or you know, they might of been talking about how your VOICE sounds hot.
|
On November 20 2010 06:48 fush wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2010 06:37 Zyphen wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
Yes, I see you're the type of person that will ask me to prove 1+1=2 before I can go on to 2+1=3. It's fair, it's fair. But I have neither the time nor inclination to write a proper research paper with proper headings and sources and wait for your critique of my methodology.
This is a message board. I offered my OPINION backed up by what I thought were commonly accepted "factoids" (as you call them). But since you don't accept any of them, then I suppose it's up to me to dig and try to convince you otherwise. But here's the rub: I don't really care to. Yes, I realize I've committed the horrible crime of offering an assertion without proper annotated evidence but my original intent wasn't to get into a drawn out debate but simply offer my thoughts.
So, I'll concede to you. I haven't proven anything and I probably won't even try. Good day to you madam.
|
On November 20 2010 06:37 fush wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2010 06:32 SCdinner wrote: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.
That website is the source. A genius is a individual with an IQ above 150. It was probibly started around the 1940s when the phycological feild became very serious about empirical evidence.
IQ (a percent compaired to the average human's intelligence) is constantly evolving and the scientific community has been constantly trying to mesure it better. Its not perfect now but its much better then its historically. So although IQ test results might not matter that much the concept is still very importiant. Brain matter is also very importiant for intelligence as there has to be a critical mass of it for intelligence to exist. What is more importiant is how the neurons are connected aka how dence the axons between the brain cells are. Neanderthals might have had 10% bigger brains and have gone extinct 100 000s of years ago but more food for thought is there is evidence that they were a much more civilized and peaceful culture than the humans of the time. Mended bones that could only result from others taking care of the sick have been found in much older neanderthal bones than homo sepien ones.
|
On November 20 2010 06:41 mcc 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. 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.
Why not disregard evolution as a whole then.
lets go with creationalism.
|
I'm female, I love to play Starcraft, and I'm not bad at it.
But the answer why there are not many female gamers is very simple. Most of them just don't like to play games. That's it.
It's the same with cheerleading, dancing, design & fashion. It's not like men aren't good in those things, they just aren't interested in those things too much.
It has nothing to do with lack of talent or competitive spirit, the reason why girls don't do as good as men is simpley because there are less female gamers, it's the same in chess.
|
On November 20 2010 07:00 Phonics wrote:
Or you know, they might of been talking about how your VOICE sounds hot.
which is fine.
I dont entirely understand how a noise can sound hot, unless its moaning, but I catch your drift.
|
On November 20 2010 06:57 Ariwa wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2010 06:53 Thunderflesh wrote:On November 20 2010 06:34 Chill wrote: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. Well, let's not ignore context here; jokingly saying "oh wow, you're really turning me on" to a male friend is very different from jokingly saying it to a female friend, for example. I dont see how I reacted funnily, I just think finding my voice appealing is fine, equating my voice to how I look is stupid.
I didn't follow the drama but did they equate your voice to your looks? Because if they just said your voice sounds sexy it's perfectly fine. A voice can sound sexy on its own.
|
On November 20 2010 06:51 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2010 05:24 Thunderflesh 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. Throwing around those features of the chess world as "proof" of inherent disadvantage is faulty reasoning. This is because of differences in participation. Let's say the ratio of serious male chess players to serious female chess players is about 10:1. As for how you define a "serious chess player," let's say, very roughly, it is someone who spends most, or a significant amount, of their free time practicing or studying chess, with the goal of competing in tournaments. If both male and female populations of serious chess players have a standard distribution of skill, they can have the same average skill level--i.e. suggesting no inherent disadvantage--and you'll still see WAY more men at the top level. To even compete with nationally-known players, you probably have to be in the top 0.1%, and just statistically speaking, if there are ten times as many men than women in the category of "serious chess players," then this difference will be EVEN MORE pronounced in the top 0.1%. TL;DRBased on their relative levels of participation in chess/SC2, we would expect to see about as many top female players as we currently do, if we assume identical inherent ability/potential. A lack of top female SC2 or chess players would only argue in favor of some gap in innate ability if the levels of participation were close to even, and they're not at all. *Why* participation levels differ is a separate issue; I think Peanut addressed this question very well in her post. Actually there is deficiency of women at the absolute top even if we consider participation. And it actually is so in many activities.
I'm not saying that if participation was 50-50, we'd definitely have just as many female pro-gamers as male pro-gamers. No one could possibly know if this would be true. But I think it's reasonable to assume that we'd see a whole hell of a lot more.
The main point I was trying to make is that given current participation levels, the relative lack of female pro-gamers (or top chess players) really doesn't indicate anything, one way or another.
|
although I 90% agree with "women = men" and I completely agree with treating people fairly, it's not a secret that men and women are not created completely equal. Obviously the most noticeable differences are physical (which is why there are both mens/womens sports teams,) there's also mental differences. I'm not saying one is smarter than the other but it's proven that men and women do not think completely alike. How much of that transfers over to Starcraft, I have no idea.
In the end though, those little differences in a strategy game can't make a HUGE difference and I think I'm going to fall in the "less girls = less chances to be a top player" category. My girlfriend is quite good at FPS games, she's been on a number of pretty good competitive counter strike teams (NOT AS GOOD AS MINE, I MIGHT ADD *flex*) I've been trying to get her into starcraft. She saw me playing it the first few days I had it and asked me to buy it for her so of course I did right away but so far she just "wants to build stuff" and if I try to help her really improve and point things out to her and she ends up losing that game, she gets pissed and won't play it again for days. Although she does love watching day 9 with me but I think that's more because she just likes day 9 oO Maybe I should play terran for a while so she'll be more interested in watching / learning from me.
Also - anyone saying girls aren't as competitive hasn't met enough girls.
|
On November 20 2010 05:49 Thrill wrote:
Wow, reading this thread is like listening to army grunts discussing avant garde fashion...
Maybe you should pay attention in a non-science/maths based class before you voice your opinion on gender issues.. or just.. be friends with normal people who realize Disney movies aren't exactly politically correct and listen to what they have to say.
Just because you're booksmart doesn't mean you know sh*t about life and peoples potential.
Edit: to make this abundantly clear: the people who argue "men are born better at chess" are the same retards who are gonna raise their daughters to be little princesses and thus ensure the survival of these [nonsense] ideas for another generation.
Frankly I could care less about most of what is called gender issues as it is mostly nonsense. Not many people are actually voicing opinion on "gender issues", we are talking about biology/psychology. You may not understand it, but it is possible to think that men and women are better/worse in different things (as supported by real sciences) and still be for gender equality in everything. Because gender equality is about same opportunities, same political representation, same education,.... and not about proving that both genders differ in nothing else than physical appearance. Yes there are some sexist posts in this thread, but most are just arguing about biology.
Your edit comment is actually the most offensive statement in this thread. Seems you cannot separate neutral factual statement (like "men are born better at chess"), and valuation statements (like "women are good only for cooking and making babies"). First statement is about the nature of reality and says nothing about value of any person, second is ignorant immoral statement that is defintely sexist. Try not to mix those two.
|
On November 20 2010 07:05 Matoo- wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2010 06:57 Ariwa wrote:On November 20 2010 06:53 Thunderflesh wrote:On November 20 2010 06:34 Chill wrote: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. Well, let's not ignore context here; jokingly saying "oh wow, you're really turning me on" to a male friend is very different from jokingly saying it to a female friend, for example. I dont see how I reacted funnily, I just think finding my voice appealing is fine, equating my voice to how I look is stupid. I didn't follow the drama but did they equate your voice to your looks? Because if they just said your voice sounds sexy it's perfectly fine. A voice can sound sexy on its own.
oh there wasnt much posted drama anyway. i think some were about physical correlations between voice and face, which is what I think is silly. but most were about 'soothing voice' ect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
