|
how can people deny these following facts
1. men are more competitive in nature than women
2. men are better strategic thinkers than women
3. starcraft does infact require "intelligence"
honestly the amount of people stating the opposite is surprising...
the long version
+ Show Spoiler +1. as several people mentioned, this is simple evolutionary biology. men compete, and brag with their victories. men have a natural impulse to compete with eachother, in every imaginable way. boys play soccer, girls play with dolls. that's just the way it has always been. and anyone claiming it's only due to cultural indoctrination is either deluded or not educated enough to understand the concept of evolution.
2. i'm not talking about sports, men's physical superiority is not up for debate (anyone denying this i simply cannot take seriously). i'm talking about the ability to abstract, think efficience-oriented and plan long-term. i used chess as an example in a previous post and its a perfect example. the fact that women can't compete with men in chess proves this point. it's also a fact that the requirements to be an above-average sc player, are similar to the requirements of being an above-average chess player.
3. "you don't need to be bright to be good at starcraft" is just plain bullshit. you definitely DO need to be bright. what are you doing, if not constantly obtaining and processing information? calculating probabilities and possibilities? adapting and making decisions under pressure?
do you know this feeling when you are about to engage in a game-deciding battle, and you KNOW your positioning is very bad, and you KNOW you could retreat with minimal losses and force a fight with way better positioning, but in your mind you are like "meh lets get it over with"? and then you engage the battle, and lose the game. what just happened was... you got lazy. you got lazy because starcraft on a high level is mentally exhausting. it requires mental stamina, just like chess.
|
On November 20 2010 07:00 Sfydjklm 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. 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.
You said that women are less intelligent than men because of natural selection. I said that was backwards, sexist, and patently untrue. I don't think anyone is claiming men and women are the exact same...
|
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. 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 like how you say things with such conviction, it's a good trait to have  The paper you've provided is an interesting piece of work, but the methodology is a bit weird. My big problem with it is that the children are not naïve to this procedure, and it’s plainly stated in the methods but not elaborated on. If they’ve been through these races before and are aware of the faster/slower children, you can’t argue that the effects seen are based on intrinsic motivation or competitiveness. For example, you can argue that there is no motivation for the girl to run faster against another boy or girl in the absence of any offered compensation if they may have known from previous experience that the other kid will always come out ahead.
It is not like it is the only paper about this(google for more I found about 20 saying this easily, the only thing they actually argue about is the nature vs nurture thing), I just picked it because it had some interesting insights apart from confirming my point. But your criticism is kind of empty, because they tested different groups with different gender makeup and if your objection was true, why was this effect not observed on boys.
|
On November 20 2010 07:04 LunaBrightStar wrote:
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.
So what made you playing SC2?
|
On November 20 2010 07:01 Zyphen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2010 06:48 fush wrote: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:[quote] 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 sir.
Fixed that minor typo for you.
On November 20 2010 07:00 Sfydjklm wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2010 06:32 fush wrote: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.
"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 07:01 SCdinner wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2010 06:37 fush wrote: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 cource. 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.
Touche on the IQ tests, I'm sure they're working on it. As is, tests for "intelligence" is outdated. There are too many variables and too many different "intelligences" to be aptly measured by a single - or even dozens of tests.
Don't agree with the rest though, you seem to have at least some understanding in how the brain works but size doesn't matter. You're right about connections but it's not the number of connections at all - rather the appropriate connections need to be made. We have many times more connections and neurons to boot when we're fetuses than we do in adulthood, but that doesn't mean fetuses are more "intelligent". Size is limited by the skull, and the skull can't be too big for obvious anatomical and biomechanical reasons. I've heard of burial sites of neanderthal origin, but that doesn't mean anything about brain size vs "intelligence" other than that they developed emotional and higher level cognitive centers in the brain.
|
On November 20 2010 07:04 LunaBrightStar wrote:
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.
Tim Gunn would beg to differ with the bolded parts.
In general I agree with your assertion, but I think most reasonable adults here came to the conclusion that it wasn't as though girl gamers are less common because they're worse at it. It was, in fact, exactly what you are saying. They just aren't interested in it. I don't think there is a person here who would disagree that women are extremely competitive, if only in social pecking order.
Most of the discussion here, then is why aren't they interested in it? Why are some things interesting to compete at for women, but not others - same question for men? The answer is probably much more subtle than what most people here are proposing.
Edit: and yes, there are people here who were saying that women are inherently worse at gaming and less capable and some other laundry list of things that likely epitomizes their frustration at all that is feminine. But please, do try to ignore them.
|
This thread has way too many stereotypes that can be dis-proven, in actuality it all depends on the person and their dedication towards gaming.
One of the best gamers I know (hafu) happens to be a female, for some reason she's just innately or magically fucking good at anything involving hand-eye coordination.
In essense high level gaming requires 3 abilities - dexterous hand-eye coordination, dedication with higher learning curve, ability to adapt or problem solve. Obviously this equals intelligence and in some cases talent, but I frankly recall that every person has the ability to be good at video games if they have true confidence in themselves.
|
On November 20 2010 07:15 mcc 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. 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 like how you say things with such conviction, it's a good trait to have The paper you've provided is an interesting piece of work, but the methodology is a bit weird. My big problem with it is that the children are not naïve to this procedure, and it’s plainly stated in the methods but not elaborated on. If they’ve been through these races before and are aware of the faster/slower children, you can’t argue that the effects seen are based on intrinsic motivation or competitiveness. For example, you can argue that there is no motivation for the girl to run faster against another boy or girl in the absence of any offered compensation if they may have known from previous experience that the other kid will always come out ahead. It is not like it is the only paper about this(google for more I found about 20 saying this easily, the only thing they actually argue about is the nature vs nurture thing), I just picked it because it had some interesting insights apart from confirming my point. But your criticism is kind of empty, because they tested different groups with different gender makeup and if your objection was true, why was this effect not observed on boys.
Well if my objection is true, it doesn't matter that the effect is not seen in boys, the method is systematically flawed and not designed to accurately measure these differences.
This is the only direct comparison between male and female "competitiveness" in a medical journal... based on questionnaires. Here's the abstract (bolded my point):
+ Show Spoiler +
Br J Soc Psychol. 1998 Jun;37 ( Pt 2):213-29.
Are men more competitive than women?
Cashdan E.
King's College Research Centre, Cambridge, UK.
This study uses competition diaries to see whether women and men differ in (a) what they compete over, (b) whom they compete with, and (c) their competitive tactics, including use of aggression. In Study 1, university students kept diaries of their competitive interactions during the term. Sex differences, few overall, were as follows: (a) men's diaries contained more same-sex competition, (b) women competed more about looking attractive whereas men competed more about sports, and (c) men used physical (but not verbal) aggression more frequently than women. In Study 2 strength of competition was also measured by questionnaire. Women and men felt equally competitive overall, but men felt more competitive about athletics and sexual attention whereas women felt more competitive about looking attractive. In men, but not women, competitiveness for financial success was correlated with various aspects of mating competition. Young men were more competitive than older men in a variety of domains and were also more physically and verbally aggressive, but no age difference in aggression was found for women.
On November 20 2010 07:10 ganjazerg wrote:how can people deny these following facts 1. men are more competitive in nature than women
2. men are better strategic thinkers than women
3. starcraft does infact require "intelligence"honestly the amount of people stating the opposite is surprising... the long version + Show Spoiler +1. as several people mentioned, this is simple evolutionary biology. men compete, and brag with their victories. men have a natural impulse to compete with eachother, in every imaginable way. boys play soccer, girls play with dolls. that's just the way it has always been. and anyone claiming it's only due to cultural indoctrination is either deluded or not educated enough to understand the concept of evolution.
2. i'm not talking about sports, men's physical superiority is not up for debate (anyone denying this i simply cannot take seriously). i'm talking about the ability to abstract, think efficience-oriented and plan long-term. i used chess as an example in a previous post and its a perfect example. the fact that women can't compete with men in chess proves this point. it's also a fact that the requirements to be an above-average sc player, are similar to the requirements of being an above-average chess player.
3. "you don't need to be bright to be good at starcraft" is just plain bullshit. you definitely DO need to be bright. what are you doing, if not constantly obtaining and processing information? calculating probabilities and possibilities? adapting and making decisions under pressure?
do you know this feeling when you are about to engage in a game-deciding battle, and you KNOW your positioning is very bad, and you KNOW you could retreat with minimal losses and force a fight with way better positioning, but in your mind you are like "meh lets get it over with"? and then you engage the battle, and lose the game. what just happened was... you got lazy. you got lazy because starcraft on a high level is mentally exhausting. it requires mental stamina, just like chess.
Wow, you sure are ready to put down people who have obviously given more thought into this than you. There are so many flaws in your long version arguments that I don't know where to begin. I won't even bother unless you feel the need to ask for specifics... but let me get this straight...
1. men are more competitive because of simple evolutionary biology (false), because they play soccer (lol), and females are less competitive because they play with dolls (lol).
2. physical superiority not for debate (okay), ability to think abstract, think efficiently, plan long term... based on sample size of women not competing with men in chess (lol). above average sc player require similar skillset of above average chess player (let's ask how pro tyler, incontrol, idra and the likes are at chess shall we?)
3. with this point, are you implying that because you need to be intelligent to play SC, since there are fewer women in SC, that men are more "intelligent" than women? ouch.
i get it though, you're probably pretty good at chess, kudos.
|
On November 20 2010 06:52 fush wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2010 06:46 mcc wrote: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.
Unlike your statement that IQ is not used in science and considered joke, it is used, and there is no problem with it if it is used knowing limitations it has. So one measure of genius could be high IQ. You could propose other measures, but that does not really matter. Also nice picking some fields and discounting others.
|
Also, I don't think many people posted about this on TL, but there was a very decent female SC2 player at MLG DC. I'm not going to post her name for her privacy because I know she was trying to be anonymous as possible when she was in the tournament, but she had decent APM and was impressive watching her play - edit: she posted in this thread, she's a 2000+ rated player named Shiver.
Good SC2 female players are out there, but in this sexist gaming environment a lot of females wish to stay anonymous or away of the eyes of trolls.
|
On November 20 2010 07:37 trancey wrote:
Also, I don't think many people posted about this on TL, but there was a very decent female SC2 player at MLG DC. I'm not going to post her name for her privacy because I know she was trying to be anonymous as possible when she was in the tournament, but she had decent APM and was impressive watching her play - she was roughly a 1500 rated random player, but I'll leave the details at that.
Good SC2 female players are out there, but in this sexist gaming environment a lot of females wish to stay anonymous or away of the eyes of trolls.
if millies pwns me I'm gonna cry so fucking hard.
and I meant to quote your first post. No idea who the anon fem was at DC.
|
On November 20 2010 07:01 Sfydjklm wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2010 06:41 mcc 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. 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.
Try to learn some written text comprehension lessons, it might help you, since it seems you fail at that. I have not uttered even a word against evolution. I said that it often happens (especially to people that are not biologists) that they use evolutionary explanation that is in fact false or the logic is so full of unfounded assumptions that it cannot be taken seriously.
|
On November 20 2010 07:05 Thunderflesh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2010 06:51 mcc wrote: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.
And my main point was also not that women are worse at SC, I actually don't know, because I don't think anyone knows, I am open to all three possibilities. Main point was that the reasons behind lack of women participation might actually not be societal, therefore here to stay.
|
8748 Posts
On November 20 2010 07:10 ganjazerg wrote:how can people deny these following facts 1. men are more competitive in nature than women
2. men are better strategic thinkers than women
3. starcraft does infact require "intelligence"honestly the amount of people stating the opposite is surprising... the long version + Show Spoiler +1. as several people mentioned, this is simple evolutionary biology. men compete, and brag with their victories. men have a natural impulse to compete with eachother, in every imaginable way. boys play soccer, girls play with dolls. that's just the way it has always been. and anyone claiming it's only due to cultural indoctrination is either deluded or not educated enough to understand the concept of evolution.
2. i'm not talking about sports, men's physical superiority is not up for debate (anyone denying this i simply cannot take seriously). i'm talking about the ability to abstract, think efficience-oriented and plan long-term. i used chess as an example in a previous post and its a perfect example. the fact that women can't compete with men in chess proves this point. it's also a fact that the requirements to be an above-average sc player, are similar to the requirements of being an above-average chess player.
3. "you don't need to be bright to be good at starcraft" is just plain bullshit. you definitely DO need to be bright. what are you doing, if not constantly obtaining and processing information? calculating probabilities and possibilities? adapting and making decisions under pressure?
do you know this feeling when you are about to engage in a game-deciding battle, and you KNOW your positioning is very bad, and you KNOW you could retreat with minimal losses and force a fight with way better positioning, but in your mind you are like "meh lets get it over with"? and then you engage the battle, and lose the game. what just happened was... you got lazy. you got lazy because starcraft on a high level is mentally exhausting. it requires mental stamina, just like chess.
Your only chance for supporting 1 and 2 is arguing by gender, not by sex. Gender meaning "the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex" and sex meaning biologically male or female. There is no significant scientific evidence supporting the claims that men are more competitive than women or men are better "strategic thinkers" than women. If those things are true, it's because of cultural/behavioral/psychological traits -- how we raise boys and how we raise girls.
|
On November 20 2010 07:17 fush wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2010 07:01 Zyphen wrote:On November 20 2010 06:48 fush wrote: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:
[quote]
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 sir. Fixed that minor typo for you. Show nested quote +On November 20 2010 07:00 Sfydjklm wrote:On November 20 2010 06:32 fush wrote: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. "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." Show nested quote +On November 20 2010 07:01 SCdinner wrote:On November 20 2010 06:37 fush wrote: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 cource. 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. Touche on the IQ tests, I'm sure they're working on it. As is, tests for "intelligence" is outdated. There are too many variables and too many different "intelligences" to be aptly measured by a single - or even dozens of tests. Don't agree with the rest though, you seem to have at least some understanding in how the brain works but size doesn't matter. You're right about connections but it's not the number of connections at all - rather the appropriate connections need to be made. We have many times more connections and neurons to boot when we're fetuses than we do in adulthood, but that doesn't mean fetuses are more "intelligent". Size is limited by the skull, and the skull can't be too big for obvious anatomical and biomechanical reasons. I've heard of burial sites of neanderthal origin, but that doesn't mean anything about brain size vs "intelligence" other than that they developed emotional and higher level cognitive centers in the brain.
The more brain cells the higher the potential for intelligence. I'm sure you could fit the same intelligence in a brain half the size if the cells were wired well enough but there is limits. There is no way you could get a human to function at high levels with a brain the size of a rat. I'm not saying there is a direct compairson between brain size and intellect but just the larger the surface area of the brain the higher the potential to encode thought.
|
On November 20 2010 07:37 trancey wrote:
Also, I don't think many people posted about this on TL, but there was a very decent female SC2 player at MLG DC. I'm not going to post her name for her privacy because I know she was trying to be anonymous as possible when she was in the tournament, but she had decent APM and was impressive watching her play - she was roughly a 1500 rated random player, but I'll leave the details at that.
Good SC2 female players are out there, but in this sexist gaming environment a lot of females wish to stay anonymous or away of the eyes of trolls.
Shiver has posted on this subject a few times (and she was 2k+ diamond):
We are not raised the same way you are. When was the last time you saw a 6 year old girl given a chemistry or erector set for her birthday or Christmas? What do you think promotes more healthy brain development? A barbie doll, (which we are then told is how we are supposed to look like), or a K'nex set?
It's my belief that we have just as much *potential* as far as esports go. But as long as society tells us that our looks are our most important asset, or that games are for boys, or that competition isn't "feminine"... then we're obviously not going to perform as well.
You've got to realize that a lot of girls are actively *discouraged* from playing video or computer games.
I feel it's pretty unfair to say that we're somehow inherently worse at certain things, when we are raised to avoid them. Until society changes, you are probably not going to see a lot of competitive female players.
|
I think it's more that gaming in general is less appealing to women => much less women play => much less good, or even decent female players exist. The females that could potentially be amazing at SC choose not to play SC.
|
On November 20 2010 07:10 ganjazerg wrote:how can people deny these following facts 1. men are more competitive in nature than women
2. men are better strategic thinkers than women
3. starcraft does infact require "intelligence"honestly the amount of people stating the opposite is surprising... the long version + Show Spoiler +1. as several people mentioned, this is simple evolutionary biology. men compete, and brag with their victories. men have a natural impulse to compete with eachother, in every imaginable way. boys play soccer, girls play with dolls. that's just the way it has always been. and anyone claiming it's only due to cultural indoctrination is either deluded or not educated enough to understand the concept of evolution.
2. i'm not talking about sports, men's physical superiority is not up for debate (anyone denying this i simply cannot take seriously). i'm talking about the ability to abstract, think efficience-oriented and plan long-term. i used chess as an example in a previous post and its a perfect example. the fact that women can't compete with men in chess proves this point. it's also a fact that the requirements to be an above-average sc player, are similar to the requirements of being an above-average chess player.
3. "you don't need to be bright to be good at starcraft" is just plain bullshit. you definitely DO need to be bright. what are you doing, if not constantly obtaining and processing information? calculating probabilities and possibilities? adapting and making decisions under pressure?
do you know this feeling when you are about to engage in a game-deciding battle, and you KNOW your positioning is very bad, and you KNOW you could retreat with minimal losses and force a fight with way better positioning, but in your mind you are like "meh lets get it over with"? and then you engage the battle, and lose the game. what just happened was... you got lazy. you got lazy because starcraft on a high level is mentally exhausting. it requires mental stamina, just like chess.
Wow then by your standards you must be a girl because you are a dumbfuck.
How many women play chess? Hm? Is it because they cant or just dont want too? Women dont seem to be completive i give you that. That is why they could care less about gaming too, Its simple because there is so few women that give a shit about games and work harder in other things.
Hey? Dont most top end colleges have a majority of women? Your argument is pathetic
|
The real secret is that Girls play Protoss !!! (like Tossgirl, and that girl we saw in artosises video).
And,as we all know, There are almost no Toss players in GSL !
|
On November 20 2010 07:52 Gotmog wrote:
The real secret is that Girls play Protoss !!! (like Tossgirl, and that girl we saw in artosises video).
And,as we all know, There are almost no Toss players in GSL !
prettyprettyprotoss 4eva.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
