|
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 !
Tossgirl played terran. The hardest race in sc1
|
On November 20 2010 07:45 SCdinner wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2010 07:17 fush wrote: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:
[quote]
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?
[quote]
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: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:
[quote]
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: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.
Okay, I really don't know about this "potential". Maybe it's possible, but it will take tens of thousands of years before any of this potential is realized in our phenotype, so we won't have to worry about that for now 
On November 20 2010 07:43 Liquid`Tyler wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Thank you (and many others) for a refreshing dose of sanity.
|
On November 20 2010 07:32 fush wrote: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.
I said that your objection is in fact not true, and even if it was then if the boys don't display this effect they are in fact more competitive, because they are not deterred even by this knowledge that deters girl from competing.
Also you are questioning methodology of that study while presenting this one As I said google is your friend (of course you need some critical judgement to filter things google throws at you) and if you really do not want to I will post you links, but it's no like this is some obscure controversial finding. What is unsure is how nature vs society works in this.
On November 20 2010 07:32 fush wrote:Show nested quote +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.
yes, that 3rd is really interesting, what is he trying to say by stating it.
The 2. is pretty stupid assertion, and trying to use "common sense" evolutionary biology as ultimate proof of 1, grr, how I hate when some people are saying the same thing as me, but use bad arguments
|
I have a daughter that freaking loves halo, all the games, all the books you name it. But I can't get her to even watch 15 seconds of SC gameplay.
|
On November 20 2010 07:43 Liquid`Tyler wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Why ? I don't agree with him on 2,3, and even on his "proof" of 1. But there is no evidence that competitiveness is determined purely by social factors. Actually there is pretty strong evidence that reasonable part of it is determined by biology, the contention is mostly how big of a part.
|
On November 20 2010 07:11 _Darwin_ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2010 07:00 Sfydjklm 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. 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...
i never said that.
|
On November 20 2010 08:01 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2010 07:32 fush wrote: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.
I said that your objection is in fact not true, and even if it was then if the boys don't display this effect they are in fact more competitive, because they are not deterred even by this knowledge that deters girl from competing. Also you are questioning methodology of that study while presenting this one As I said google is your friend (of course you need some critical judgement to filter things google throws at you) and if you really do not want to I will post you links, but it's no like this is some obscure controversial finding. What is unsure is how nature vs society works in this.
Well you said they tested different groups with different gender makeups. How does that validate the flaw in the methodology? My problem is that they mentioned the children were familiar with the procedure. Basic of any behavioural test where you're trying to get at intrinsic activity is to have the subjects be naive to the performance task. These children were not. Having them run races simply is not a good measure of competition when they knew who they were competing against and how well the others were going to perform from previous history. Besides, this paper was published in an economics journal... hardly convincing when trying to tackle this problem.
I haven't looked at others in google... only a simple pubmed search. You can link me others if you'd like.
|
On November 20 2010 07:17 fush wrote:[ 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."
you're misunderstanding what i said.
|
On November 20 2010 07:39 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2010 07:01 Sfydjklm wrote: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.
no it seems you fail at that. If you disregard generally accepted scientific theories you might as well disregard evolution.
|
On November 20 2010 08:12 Sfydjklm wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2010 07:17 fush wrote:[ 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:
[quote]
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." you're misunderstanding what i said.
No explanation? I don't see how else to take that sentence.
|
Abit too many opinions without facts or research to back it up, but an interesting thread nontheless(And your OP post was good Peanut).
Why are men more competetive? Because it has been(and still is but not to the same extent) crucial to spread your genes.
This has its roots in evolution. Our bodies are coded to survive and pass on our genes.
Let's think about the passing on genes aspect.
How often can a woman create a child versus how often can a man create a child?
A woman that gets impregnated must carry the baby for 9 months, and she has no ability whatsoever to create more babies with her genes during this time.
A man can create a new baby every 5~ min.
Robert Pattinson(The twilight guy) could make babies with every fan he has.
Jessica Alba could never get anywhere close at all to having babies with all her fans.
Who has the most fanatic fans?
Just in general, the whole creating a baby process is alot more expensive for a women. And therefor they are going to be alot more picky when it comes to mating than males that in our early days could just leave an impregnated women and go hunt for a new lay.
Now one can object and say "Hey man, look, that may have worked a hundred thousand years ago but today we have obligatory shared parenting(mostly) and birth control which makes most sex not an act of mating anymore." Yes this is true, but we are still very locked in the mating mentality when it comes to sex with or without mating as a cause.
And the conclusion of this, is evolution has encouraged men to be competetive and strive to be the best because then they can spread their genes alot more. And if they don't they often get left with nothing at all.
Women can't get babies more than every 9 month -> competetiveness in your genes doesn't work as good as in males when it comes to passing on your genes optimally -> other traits are more likely to be passed on at an equal or more often rate in women.
This makes really competetive females less common but they could definitely pop up.
And when they do that's great!
I'm too tired to make sure this post has 100% perfect sentences, but if you really want to get an insight in what I'm talking about(and by a really good teacher at that) I advice you to watch the lecture What motivates us:Sex on youtube from a yale pscyhology class.
|
On November 19 2010 23:54 Stuv wrote:
Girls dont play RTS like boys dont play with ponies.
Its really as simple as that, I dont think you need to look for complicated reasons.
It's really just this. Nobody expects girls to play SC2 seriously, so they don't do it. People go crazy over the ones that do find marginal success, and in a way, that also discourages them by insisting it's abnormal.
|
This thread is ridiculous for the sole reason that nearly no one in this thread has any knowledge of any competitive female players besides Tossgirl. Hafu won a MLG with fnatic (WoW). Vanessa won a WCG Pan-America, taking out Master in the finals (DoA). SK Gaming (CS 1.6) has won multiple ESWC's and female CS has been going on for a long time now. Succubus and Killcreek led the way for female Quake players 10 years ago.
There are several legitimate arguments against female gamers at the very top of the competitive circuit (which I have mentioned on Lo3), but none of them have displayed here. Many of you need history lessons and fact-checking.
|
On November 20 2010 06:00 fush wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2010 05:35 dreamsmasher wrote:On November 20 2010 05:22 fush wrote:On November 20 2010 04:36 Zyphen wrote:On November 20 2010 03:59 fush wrote:On November 20 2010 02:23 mcc wrote:On November 20 2010 01:27 fush wrote:On November 20 2010 01:20 mcc wrote:On November 20 2010 01:14 hmunkey wrote:
It's more socially unacceptable for women to play video games than for men. the same applies to children -- girls don't grow up wanting to play games like boys do.
That's it. It has nothing to do with competitiveness or anything else. And you have anything to prove that other than I said so. There is a lot of research, mechanisms to explain why it is a biological thing, is there anything that really points to it being because it is socially unacceptable ? In many countries in a lot of social groups it is not unacceptable any more, yet girls still do not play games competitively as much as boys. Problem is the rate of emancipation highly exceeds the rate of increase in women's competitiveness. There's research on there being more innate competitiveness in males than females? Please give your sources on these research and mechanisms. I CAN tell you that you're probably 99% wrong regarding biological coding for competition behaviour, but maybe I've missed something Ok, I will split my answer. 1) The original poster said it has nothing about competitiveness, to that the answer is men in big majority of societies are more competitive than women. Research for that exists and is pretty conclusive. 2) I made stronger(in mathematical sense of stronger) statement, which said that this competetiveness difference is biological in nature. That statement is not so conclusive, but there are a lot of indirect indices. As far as I know there has been no direct research that points one way or another. The indirect indices are : There is biological component to competetiveness in general, because males raised in equal environments differ in it, so considering all the other biological differences between males and females and considering evolutionary mechanisms for human species it not big stretch to assume that there is in fact some innate difference between men and women. What I asked for was sources for your statement that men are more competitive than women. You say the research exists and is conclusive. I asked, where? On November 20 2010 03:25 Zyphen wrote:
You guys talking about nature/nurture are really getting into a tangential debate. Women, as a group, are just less competitive period. That's the reason why there aren't more top female gamers, chess masters, race car drivers, etc (basically anything that doesn't require being physically gifted).
The few women that do make it don't prove anything about the rest. It's called anecdotal evidence. Sure, a woman COULD do it, but that's not the question. The lack of female gamers, as a whole, is because they lack competitiveness in games involving direct confrontation. Whether the few that do well possess an extra chromosome or were raised as tomboys seems superfluous to the argument. Women as a group are less competitive... interesting conclusion based on what? Your examples are all full of crap because they're all fields that have been typically male dominated and not encouraged for women to do in society. I'm not denying there's differences biologically between genders... it's what I study for a living. But the wannabe scientists here saying how females "don't have" testosterone (which they do) probably don't even know its effects in cognition, because guess what... no one does. So how about a suggestion, before you pull out some hair-brained idea of how you think females are less innately "competitive" or whatever, get a clue. Lol. Some reading comprehension please? My entire post was about how I don't CARE whether it's nature or nurture that's the culprit for any behavorial differences. The facts are that they exist. And you're asking me for proof? Really? It's already accepted fact that women are under-represented in starcraft 2 and just about every other competitive event listed in this thread. I think your position is the one that's more indefensible. The burden should lie with you. How about this. Find me a single instance of a direct competitive game/sport where women are equally represented at the top tier as men (i.e. they don't form their own separate league, actually play with and BEAT the boys, you look at a tournament bracket - half are women, half the time they even win it, etc.). It'll take me longer to list all the things men dominate than for you to squeeze out that one exception (which, honestly, I'm dying to know). Lol. Some reading comprehension please? My entire post was about how you simply stated that women were less competitive, not about whether other biological differences exist. If you bothered to read on, it also mentioned that WHILE these biological differences exist, they haven’t been shown to have anything to do with better performance in a game like SC2. Why don’t you look in gender differences in attention, visual/spatial cognition, motor control and see if you can come up with an answer to that. But I can save you some time now and tell you that there is no evidence that would point one way or another. Asking for proof was to the poster I quoted above, he has given me a draft of a paper and I’ll read it when I’m off work. As for your obsession in male superiority over women in competitive sport – which in our society seems to be inherently correlated with physical ability, then of course males outperform females. Why don’t you look less in sport and more in a wider scope of activities? Can you honestly tell me that males are outperforming females in academia? while females college graduation rates are far higher than males and females are now a majority of law degree recipients and women have made big strides in equality over the last 20 years, men still dominate the top of almost every field. especially when you look at the more 'nerdy' professions that involve a lot of analysis etc... you'll see that's true. males are the overwhelming recipients of tech degrees and anything related to math & science. females perform better on average, but males have a much wider range and perform on average better in the top %. most games (competitive ones anyways) involve fast reaction time/thinking etc... (mostly war type games), which men are naturally better at. Oh yea, let's forget that enrollment in these programs is predominantly male. Which goes back to some original argument that there's a mostly social aspect in this rather than it being biological. Games like SC involve reaction time, focused attention, multi-tasking ability, motor control, visual feedback, spacial/visual cognition, and a whole slew of other things. Can you say for certain that men are better at those? Don't hold your breath.
Yes, except for multitasking ability, he can say for certain that men are better at those things. It's scientific fact that men have better a) reaction time, b) motor control, c) visual feedback, d) spacial/visual cognition. (You can find 5 studies for each of those in 10 minutes or less if you'd like.)
The only thing I on that list that women have been shown to be better at is 'multi-tasking ability'. However, as someone previously explained, multitasking isn't what we're doing when playing SC. What we're doing is focusing attention on one thing (the game) in which we execute steps of actions.
This is exactly what Day9 talks about when he talks about his viewing triangle, moving back and forth between checking minimap and supply and stuff. It's the same for me, I have the same mental checklist, except I also have another one "larva .. creep .. upgrades".
On a more sexist sounding note, however, Dreamsmasher is right about men dominating the top of every field. This includes not only the nerdy and 'male' professions/intellectual endeavors, but gender neutral/female ones as well. Not only are the top people in art, cooking, etc. men, but also the best designers/hairdressers/pageant coaches/etc. are gay men. In literature, I'd say men have the edge but you can argue it's for historical reasons or whatever, so we'll leave that a toss-up.
(To be fair, though, men also dominate the 'worst' in a lot of those categories. We're overrepresented at the extremes.)
|
On November 19 2010 23:35 Roffles wrote:
They're just not that good. TossGirl destroyed the Female league, but couldn't hang with B teamers after the Female league was abolished.
There's really no sense of sexism that goes around, it's just plain and simple that they're just not as good. If along came a female gamer that was insanely good, then they'd be more than welcomed into the community.
This times a million. There's not some male conspiracy of keeping women down in video games. I'm sure 99% of guys who play games you ask would not mind more girls playing games competitively.
What bothers me is that people who are not sociologists or scientists or experts in any field related to the matter feel the need to explain 'why' women don't perform as well in games. None of you know, so unless you have some sort of research or citation to back up your claims, stop making baseless arguments.
|
United States313 Posts
On November 20 2010 07:43 Liquid`Tyler wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2010 07:10 ganjazerg wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16807524
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15358443
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21075538
I don't necessarily expect you to read more than the abstracts, or entirely understand the articles, i just wanted to point out that men are in fact not only statistically more aggressive than women, but they have also evolved to be that way, thus the different sexual responses to testosterone and other hormones, not to mention a large amount of neuroscience evidence I'll spare you.
Now i'm not saying one way or another, certainly not using science to try and justify something that isn't completely understood. But at least the science should be straight set as far as what we know thus far.
|
On November 20 2010 08:27 Jzerg wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2010 06:00 fush wrote:On November 20 2010 05:35 dreamsmasher wrote:On November 20 2010 05:22 fush wrote:On November 20 2010 04:36 Zyphen wrote:On November 20 2010 03:59 fush wrote:On November 20 2010 02:23 mcc wrote:On November 20 2010 01:27 fush wrote:On November 20 2010 01:20 mcc wrote:On November 20 2010 01:14 hmunkey wrote:
It's more socially unacceptable for women to play video games than for men. the same applies to children -- girls don't grow up wanting to play games like boys do.
That's it. It has nothing to do with competitiveness or anything else. And you have anything to prove that other than I said so. There is a lot of research, mechanisms to explain why it is a biological thing, is there anything that really points to it being because it is socially unacceptable ? In many countries in a lot of social groups it is not unacceptable any more, yet girls still do not play games competitively as much as boys. Problem is the rate of emancipation highly exceeds the rate of increase in women's competitiveness. There's research on there being more innate competitiveness in males than females? Please give your sources on these research and mechanisms. I CAN tell you that you're probably 99% wrong regarding biological coding for competition behaviour, but maybe I've missed something Ok, I will split my answer. 1) The original poster said it has nothing about competitiveness, to that the answer is men in big majority of societies are more competitive than women. Research for that exists and is pretty conclusive. 2) I made stronger(in mathematical sense of stronger) statement, which said that this competetiveness difference is biological in nature. That statement is not so conclusive, but there are a lot of indirect indices. As far as I know there has been no direct research that points one way or another. The indirect indices are : There is biological component to competetiveness in general, because males raised in equal environments differ in it, so considering all the other biological differences between males and females and considering evolutionary mechanisms for human species it not big stretch to assume that there is in fact some innate difference between men and women. What I asked for was sources for your statement that men are more competitive than women. You say the research exists and is conclusive. I asked, where? On November 20 2010 03:25 Zyphen wrote:
You guys talking about nature/nurture are really getting into a tangential debate. Women, as a group, are just less competitive period. That's the reason why there aren't more top female gamers, chess masters, race car drivers, etc (basically anything that doesn't require being physically gifted).
The few women that do make it don't prove anything about the rest. It's called anecdotal evidence. Sure, a woman COULD do it, but that's not the question. The lack of female gamers, as a whole, is because they lack competitiveness in games involving direct confrontation. Whether the few that do well possess an extra chromosome or were raised as tomboys seems superfluous to the argument. Women as a group are less competitive... interesting conclusion based on what? Your examples are all full of crap because they're all fields that have been typically male dominated and not encouraged for women to do in society. I'm not denying there's differences biologically between genders... it's what I study for a living. But the wannabe scientists here saying how females "don't have" testosterone (which they do) probably don't even know its effects in cognition, because guess what... no one does. So how about a suggestion, before you pull out some hair-brained idea of how you think females are less innately "competitive" or whatever, get a clue. Lol. Some reading comprehension please? My entire post was about how I don't CARE whether it's nature or nurture that's the culprit for any behavorial differences. The facts are that they exist. And you're asking me for proof? Really? It's already accepted fact that women are under-represented in starcraft 2 and just about every other competitive event listed in this thread. I think your position is the one that's more indefensible. The burden should lie with you. How about this. Find me a single instance of a direct competitive game/sport where women are equally represented at the top tier as men (i.e. they don't form their own separate league, actually play with and BEAT the boys, you look at a tournament bracket - half are women, half the time they even win it, etc.). It'll take me longer to list all the things men dominate than for you to squeeze out that one exception (which, honestly, I'm dying to know). Lol. Some reading comprehension please? My entire post was about how you simply stated that women were less competitive, not about whether other biological differences exist. If you bothered to read on, it also mentioned that WHILE these biological differences exist, they haven’t been shown to have anything to do with better performance in a game like SC2. Why don’t you look in gender differences in attention, visual/spatial cognition, motor control and see if you can come up with an answer to that. But I can save you some time now and tell you that there is no evidence that would point one way or another. Asking for proof was to the poster I quoted above, he has given me a draft of a paper and I’ll read it when I’m off work. As for your obsession in male superiority over women in competitive sport – which in our society seems to be inherently correlated with physical ability, then of course males outperform females. Why don’t you look less in sport and more in a wider scope of activities? Can you honestly tell me that males are outperforming females in academia? while females college graduation rates are far higher than males and females are now a majority of law degree recipients and women have made big strides in equality over the last 20 years, men still dominate the top of almost every field. especially when you look at the more 'nerdy' professions that involve a lot of analysis etc... you'll see that's true. males are the overwhelming recipients of tech degrees and anything related to math & science. females perform better on average, but males have a much wider range and perform on average better in the top %. most games (competitive ones anyways) involve fast reaction time/thinking etc... (mostly war type games), which men are naturally better at. Oh yea, let's forget that enrollment in these programs is predominantly male. Which goes back to some original argument that there's a mostly social aspect in this rather than it being biological. Games like SC involve reaction time, focused attention, multi-tasking ability, motor control, visual feedback, spacial/visual cognition, and a whole slew of other things. Can you say for certain that men are better at those? Don't hold your breath. Yes, except for multitasking ability, he can say for certain that men are better at those things. It's scientific fact that men have better a) reaction time, b) motor control, c) visual feedback, d) spacial/visual cognition. (You can find 5 studies for each of those in 10 minutes or less if you'd like.)
The only thing I on that list that women have been shown to be better at is 'multi-tasking ability'. However, as someone previously explained, multitasking isn't what we're doing when playing SC. What we're doing is focusing attention on one thing (the game) in which we execute steps of actions.
This is exactly what Day9 talks about when he talks about his viewing triangle, moving back and forth between checking minimap and supply and stuff. It's the same for me, I have the same mental checklist, except I also have another one "larva .. creep .. upgrades". On a more sexist sounding note, however, Dreamsmasher is right about men dominating the top of every field. This includes not only the nerdy and 'male' professions/intellectual endeavors, but gender neutral/female ones as well. Not only are the top people in art, cooking, etc. men, but also the best designers/hairdressers/pageant coaches/etc. are gay men. In literature, I'd say men have the edge but you can argue it's for historical reasons or whatever, so we'll leave that a toss-up. (To be fair, though, men also dominate the 'worst' in a lot of those categories. We're overrepresented at the extremes.)
True to an extent. To be honest I listed those things on purpose to bait the original poster but he never took it. Females have actually been shown to be better performing in focused attention tasks as you've mentioned. But my overall point was: Despite knowing these differences in individual tests, can you say that starcraft (or any other activity for that fact) is 10% visual cognition, 20% motor control, 20% attention... etc? No. Hence, this is all just speculative and we really have no proof whatsoever for males being able to perform better at stuff like SC2 or chess or whatever based on biological factors.
|
On November 20 2010 08:38 TrueRedemption wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2010 07:43 Liquid`Tyler wrote:On November 20 2010 07:10 ganjazerg wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16807524http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15358443http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21075538I don't necessarily expect you to read more than the abstracts, or entirely understand the articles, i just wanted to point out that men are in fact not only statistically more aggressive than women, but they have also evolved to be that way, thus the different sexual responses to testosterone and other hormones, not to mention a large amount of neuroscience evidence I'll spare you. Now i'm not saying one way or another, certainly not using science to try and justify something that isn't completely understood. But at least the science should be straight set as far as what we know thus far.
The second article you posted concludes with this: Inter-individual differences in testosterone and cortisol were rarely associated with dominance or competitiveness.
I don't necessarily expect you to read the entire article, but if you are posting something in favor of your position then you could at least read the abstract.
|
I'm not sure what we're particularly focusing on in this discussion. The original post seemed to specifically be referring to top level progamers (like those in the proleague, or GSL Ro64). It seems the discussion, though, is largely about high level female players and the skill of female players in general.
As for the discussion on the general skill of female players, I'm questioning whether there is any statistical basis for why we seem to be assuming there is a significant trend of high level players being male. I think it'd be premature to have a discussion on why females are less successful in competing in Starcraft in general before we know that is even the case.
|
On November 20 2010 08:43 Befree wrote:
As for the discussion on the general skill of female players, I'm questioning whether there is any statistical basis for why we seem to be assuming there is a significant trend of high level players being male. I think it'd be premature to have a discussion on why females are less successful in competing in Starcraft in general before we know that is even the case.
The statistical basis is that 100% every major competition in the history of broodwar and starcraft 2 was won by a man. Let me know if this was not your question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2268
723
398
EPT
