|
If girls played starcraft
1) they would be extremley bm during their period 2)they would lose because they are watching grey's anatomy at the same time 3)who would do the dishes? 4)we would have to abolish chat in order for them to become effective
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On November 21 2010 01:20 Fa1nT wrote: Why is this still open? Just on this last page alone is so many stupid arguments based on opinion...
I don't think several studies done on how men and girls are different and why they have different hobbies is an opinion.
|
I believe the most important factor here is social, not biological. Yes, biologically boys are more inclined to play certain games and girls different girls, but this is an average of sorts, not an absolute. In the measure that it becomes socially acceptable, those girls that are outside the "average" in terms of games they like to play (say, 15%-20% of women), will start doing so without any problem whatsoever. Nowadays it is socially acceptable for a woman to do almost any sport without being looked down upon, but this is not yet true for gaming, hopefully some day it will be, it would be a lot of fun to have more girl gamers imo.
If they can be just as good as men? I'd dare say that with enough practice they can definitely make it, although, just as there will always be a fewer proportion of females in gaming, there will be a lesser proportion of females in pro-gaming. There's no reason for it to be any different.
|
On November 21 2010 01:24 mordk wrote: I believe the most important factor here is social, not biological. Yes, biologically boys are more inclined to play certain games and girls different girls, but this is an average of sorts, not an absolute. In the measure that it becomes socially acceptable, those girls that are outside the "average" in terms of games they like to play (say, 15%-20% of women), will start doing so without any problem whatsoever. Nowadays it is socially acceptable for a woman to do almost any sport without being looked down upon, but this is not yet true for gaming, hopefully some day it will be, it would be a lot of fun to have more girl gamers imo.
If they can be just as good as men? I'd dare say that with enough practice they can definitely make it, although, just as there will always be a fewer proportion of females in gaming, there will be a lesser proportion of females in pro-gaming. There's no reason for it to be any different.
The social factor is also huge, id say probably teh biggest, alot of teh girls that play games in my observations are "boys-girls" that spend alot of time with boys and have alot of male friends, even as young
|
On November 21 2010 01:22 ETHANOL wrote: If girls played starcraft
1) they would be extremley bm during their period 2)they would lose because they are watching grey's anatomy at the same time 3)who would do the dishes? 4)we would have to abolish chat in order for them to become effective
hurr hurr ima so funny herba derp
|
On November 21 2010 01:30 SmoKim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2010 01:22 ETHANOL wrote: If girls played starcraft
1) they would be extremley bm during their period 2)they would lose because they are watching grey's anatomy at the same time 3)who would do the dishes? 4)we would have to abolish chat in order for them to become effective hurr hurr ima so funny herba derp This is the kind of reason that I can't be playing games with a Kate or Ashley.
I for one would love to see some more diversity, it wouldn't harm anyone at all.
|
But The Sims is so much better.
|
On November 21 2010 00:33 Ropid wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2010 23:50 Bidouleroux wrote:+ Show Spoiler +The Polgar sisters are a great example of why more women don't do well in competitive games. Of course one of the reason is that women don't have the same competitive "spirit" as men, but that simply means there are less potential women gamers, not that there can't be. In the case of the Polgar sisters, their father decided to develop a way to bring up genius, quite literally. His approach to teaching Chess was based on pattern recognition (recognizing "good" and "bad" positions on parts of the board of various sizes) instead of series of sequential moves and general strategies. Of course, you need to know opening moves and endgame sequences, but these are more rote memory and experience, areas in which women are not inferior to men. But in pattern recognition, women are actually better in general. So the Polgar sisters did great. The oldest though maybe lacked the competitive spirit of the youngest and as such she stopped competing after being the first female to achieve the title of grandmaster. Now, one may look at this and think, if women can do great in Chess with the right education, why not in other games? Let's take Go for example. Go is also heavily dependent on pattern recognition, but is much more complex than Chess. Opening sequences cannot be memorized as easily and the end game is pure mathematical heuristics (i.e. lots of calculation). Maybe, if someone could devise for Go a teaching system like Lazlo Polgar did for Chess (not going to happen anytime soon by the way), some women could get really strong at Go ; but I doubt it considering the end game that is pure calculation, for women are generally weaker than men in this regard as much as they are better at pattern recognition. So this takes us to Starcraft. What are the defining characteristics of RTS games that make them different than Chess and Go? First, like the name says they take place in real time. Second, you do not have perfect information. Third, you need to manage both a static base and a moving army (divide time between macro and micro if you like). Base management should be no problem for women and with TossGirl we see that if it's not Flash like at least it isn't a problem. Micro shouldn't be a problem either on it's own. Women are known to be great at detailed work. After all, they've had thousands of years of experience sewing us men clothes. But we will see later how juggling the two can be very bad for women gamers. So all right, before taking on the real-time aspects, let's get this information conundrum out the way first. This is where I think women really get the evolutionary short end of the proverbial stick. Who hunts food? Men. Who contends with dangerous situations day-to-day? Men. Who doesn't know when or where his next kill will to be or even if he'll come back in one piece? Men. Men have lots of experience with unknown situations and pressure situations. In general they will secrete lots of adrenaline at the dimmest hint of danger. They have evolved to cope with unknowns. This is why men can orient themselves better than women without a map. With a map, the playing field is leveled (as long as you know how to use it properly, which is a pitfall many women encounter simply because they never had an opportunity to learn). It is no wonder either that men are better at advanced math (real math, not simple equation solving which has more to do with pattern recognition). You could say the difference here is that women like to match known quantities together, whereas men extrapolate better (or simply more readily) based on incomplete information, while also having the added advantage that they aren't as uncomfortable with unknown situations as women are in general. Hence men take more risks. How many successful female VCs or traders have you seen lately? It's not like women are not trying to make a quick buck too. But like Virgil said, "fortune favors the bold". Next, RTS games are real-time, another area where women must give the evolutionary edge to men, albeit not as much as with coping with imperfect information. Many mistakenly believe that real-time means multitasking, but that is false. What it means, in an RTS game, is task-switching (in fact, I am not sure you could design a competitive RTS game designed around multitasking playable only with mouse and keyboard. Maybe some form of management game like The Sims, but not an RTS and neither an FPS for that matter. No wonder both recreate situations of war). So, in RTS games in general and in Starcraft in particular you have to switch between macro mode and micro mode and do it fast. Men are good at that. For example, here's the daily routine of the primitive man : stalk the prey, get caught, now switch to run-for-your-life mode pronto ; and don't forget to yell and warn others on your way out! Or, switch to kill mode if you have the opportunity: load the bow, don't lose the tail, watch where your clan mates are, check for possible obstacles, plan retreat route just in case, make dinner plans, shoot the arrow, miss, pursue while reloading, hop over a fallen tree and wham! right in the thing you were hunting. Good. Now take it back to camp with you 10 miles somewhere in that general direction while the sun is setting down. Don't forget wood for the fire and a flower for the missus on your way. Alright, now you can play Starcraft and win some games for once! Now, ask a women to play WoW and talk to you at the same time. She will be glad to gossip and recount her whole day while organizing a raid and crafting things and watching auctions, etc. She may even be able to do all that while playing Starcraft, but then don't be surprised when she loses. I just can't believe that whatever biological factor there may be won't be washed away through practice. If you find someone who won't run away from a Kespa BW slave house and will diligently practice each day for years, this training will make the brain do whatever it needs to do for Starcraft. There will of course be a difference between players in the end, but my gut feeling is, the percentage of impressive players would be comparable between genders. That gut feeling comes from... in discussing science stuff in work groups at university, I occasionally find someone that makes me think, "crap... what he/she just now said was genius... I need to make sure to not miss anything of his/her ideas in the future." I don't see a significant difference between men and women in finding someone to latch onto for inspiration at work. Looking at a persons character is most important, imho. Imagine if the thread title would instead be "Discussing the lack of top black starcraft gamers". What would you write then? What would be your explanation?
What do blacks have to do with the topic at hand? That's a pretty inflammatory remark if you ask me.
Anyway, you do realize that human females do not have a Y chromosome right? That's pretty biological. Nothing I saw in any research shows that this changes things much in the higher cerebral functions, but the whole hormonal balance is different in males vs. females and this is bound to have pretty drastic consequences in the way the lower-brain functions develop and react to external and even internal stimuli. Research supports the fact that some behavioral differences are biological. To what extent these differences can be suppressed by education is still debated today, but I would think most of it would be pretty firm without some neural remodeling (especially things like adrenaline response to fear/pressure). Again this does not apply to everything, like language for example: even though men and women use language differently their ability to learn/use it does not differ as far as we know. These differences can also be more or less pronounced depending on the individual, hence why you see many more homosexual women in the army than heterosexual women: they simply have a different hormonal balance than heterosexual women and thus their brain develop differently.
Trying to overlook the obvious in your quest to be politically correct (that's how it looks, especially since you seem to want to equate sex - or "gender"? - with "race") seems to me like intellectual hypocrisy at worst and ideological blindness at best.
|
On November 21 2010 02:43 Bidouleroux wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2010 00:33 Ropid wrote:On November 20 2010 23:50 Bidouleroux wrote:+ Show Spoiler +The Polgar sisters are a great example of why more women don't do well in competitive games. Of course one of the reason is that women don't have the same competitive "spirit" as men, but that simply means there are less potential women gamers, not that there can't be. In the case of the Polgar sisters, their father decided to develop a way to bring up genius, quite literally. His approach to teaching Chess was based on pattern recognition (recognizing "good" and "bad" positions on parts of the board of various sizes) instead of series of sequential moves and general strategies. Of course, you need to know opening moves and endgame sequences, but these are more rote memory and experience, areas in which women are not inferior to men. But in pattern recognition, women are actually better in general. So the Polgar sisters did great. The oldest though maybe lacked the competitive spirit of the youngest and as such she stopped competing after being the first female to achieve the title of grandmaster. Now, one may look at this and think, if women can do great in Chess with the right education, why not in other games? Let's take Go for example. Go is also heavily dependent on pattern recognition, but is much more complex than Chess. Opening sequences cannot be memorized as easily and the end game is pure mathematical heuristics (i.e. lots of calculation). Maybe, if someone could devise for Go a teaching system like Lazlo Polgar did for Chess (not going to happen anytime soon by the way), some women could get really strong at Go ; but I doubt it considering the end game that is pure calculation, for women are generally weaker than men in this regard as much as they are better at pattern recognition. So this takes us to Starcraft. What are the defining characteristics of RTS games that make them different than Chess and Go? First, like the name says they take place in real time. Second, you do not have perfect information. Third, you need to manage both a static base and a moving army (divide time between macro and micro if you like). Base management should be no problem for women and with TossGirl we see that if it's not Flash like at least it isn't a problem. Micro shouldn't be a problem either on it's own. Women are known to be great at detailed work. After all, they've had thousands of years of experience sewing us men clothes. But we will see later how juggling the two can be very bad for women gamers. So all right, before taking on the real-time aspects, let's get this information conundrum out the way first. This is where I think women really get the evolutionary short end of the proverbial stick. Who hunts food? Men. Who contends with dangerous situations day-to-day? Men. Who doesn't know when or where his next kill will to be or even if he'll come back in one piece? Men. Men have lots of experience with unknown situations and pressure situations. In general they will secrete lots of adrenaline at the dimmest hint of danger. They have evolved to cope with unknowns. This is why men can orient themselves better than women without a map. With a map, the playing field is leveled (as long as you know how to use it properly, which is a pitfall many women encounter simply because they never had an opportunity to learn). It is no wonder either that men are better at advanced math (real math, not simple equation solving which has more to do with pattern recognition). You could say the difference here is that women like to match known quantities together, whereas men extrapolate better (or simply more readily) based on incomplete information, while also having the added advantage that they aren't as uncomfortable with unknown situations as women are in general. Hence men take more risks. How many successful female VCs or traders have you seen lately? It's not like women are not trying to make a quick buck too. But like Virgil said, "fortune favors the bold". Next, RTS games are real-time, another area where women must give the evolutionary edge to men, albeit not as much as with coping with imperfect information. Many mistakenly believe that real-time means multitasking, but that is false. What it means, in an RTS game, is task-switching (in fact, I am not sure you could design a competitive RTS game designed around multitasking playable only with mouse and keyboard. Maybe some form of management game like The Sims, but not an RTS and neither an FPS for that matter. No wonder both recreate situations of war). So, in RTS games in general and in Starcraft in particular you have to switch between macro mode and micro mode and do it fast. Men are good at that. For example, here's the daily routine of the primitive man : stalk the prey, get caught, now switch to run-for-your-life mode pronto ; and don't forget to yell and warn others on your way out! Or, switch to kill mode if you have the opportunity: load the bow, don't lose the tail, watch where your clan mates are, check for possible obstacles, plan retreat route just in case, make dinner plans, shoot the arrow, miss, pursue while reloading, hop over a fallen tree and wham! right in the thing you were hunting. Good. Now take it back to camp with you 10 miles somewhere in that general direction while the sun is setting down. Don't forget wood for the fire and a flower for the missus on your way. Alright, now you can play Starcraft and win some games for once! Now, ask a women to play WoW and talk to you at the same time. She will be glad to gossip and recount her whole day while organizing a raid and crafting things and watching auctions, etc. She may even be able to do all that while playing Starcraft, but then don't be surprised when she loses. I just can't believe that whatever biological factor there may be won't be washed away through practice. If you find someone who won't run away from a Kespa BW slave house and will diligently practice each day for years, this training will make the brain do whatever it needs to do for Starcraft. There will of course be a difference between players in the end, but my gut feeling is, the percentage of impressive players would be comparable between genders. That gut feeling comes from... in discussing science stuff in work groups at university, I occasionally find someone that makes me think, "crap... what he/she just now said was genius... I need to make sure to not miss anything of his/her ideas in the future." I don't see a significant difference between men and women in finding someone to latch onto for inspiration at work. Looking at a persons character is most important, imho. Imagine if the thread title would instead be "Discussing the lack of top black starcraft gamers". What would you write then? What would be your explanation? What do blacks have to do with the topic at hand? That's a pretty inflammatory remark if you ask me. Anyway, you do realize that human females do not have a Y chromosome right? That's pretty biological. Nothing I saw in any research shows that this changes things much in the higher cerebral functions, but the whole hormonal balance is different in males vs. females and this is bound to have pretty drastic consequences in the way the lower-brain functions develop and react to external and even internal stimuli. Research supports the fact that some behavioral differences are biological. To what extent these differences can be suppressed by education is still debated today, but I would think most of it would be pretty firm without some neural remodeling (especially things like adrenaline response to fear/pressure). Again this does not apply to everything, like language for example: even though men and women use language differently their ability to learn/use it does not differ as far as we know. These differences can also be more or less pronounced depending on the individual, hence why you see many more homosexual women in the army than heterosexual women: they simply have a different hormonal balance than heterosexual women and thus their brain develop differently. Trying to overlook the obvious in your quest to be politically correct (that's how it looks, especially since you seem to want to equate sex - or "gender"? - with "race") seems to me like intellectual hypocrisy at worst and ideological blindness at best.
I tried thinking about if I'm only trying to be politically correct, and if I'm only being stupid and influenced by the media or what-have-you, and I seem to be able to convince myself, that this is not the case. data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/44632/446320620b2797481b98f0248bf47d03f83e2600" alt=""
I'm a big fan of trying to mix people from as many different backgrounds as possible in the workplace (with the needed qualifications for the job of course). I find the work environment more interesting for me, and I have the feeling, the chance to find the best possible solution for a problem seems to be better, because the team comes up with a wider range of proposals. I'm afraid I'm missing out on some great revelations, if I approach people with prejudice and don't listen to what they are saying. I'm not trying to be a saint: the bastard part of me agrees because it smells profit.
Also, in my experience, if people don't believe that you respect them, they seem to be holding back with the best possible stuff they could bring to the table. And this is my opinion of what's happening. The best possible Starcraft player is probably not playing because of how society judges gaming. I believe there is a good enough chance that this player is female, and we will never know it.
+ Show Spoiler +What you're saying about the Y chromosome: I don't feel confident in the biology stuff I remember from school, but does the Y chromosome even do anything? I only remember that females have an increased chance to not suffer from diseases stemming from some broken part in the X chromosome because they have a second different copy from their father. Also, from the last world championships with the doping tests of that South African runner, there were some pop-science articles in the papers about how there can be males with XX chromosomes and females with XY chromosome pairs, when there is something off with the hormonal balance.
|
|
Of course men are more competitive, it's genetic (anyone who doesn't believe this is a fool).
In practically EVERY species (mammals at least). There are always males trying to be the dominant "alpha" male and females following whoever is in charge. Males are way more aggressive, females are way more passive, it's a fact of life that has evolved over millions of years. This has been true in humanity for THOUSANDS of years, it's just how it is. Granted now with more enlightened people there are tons of women who try to fight their natural tendencies and cross the lines (some with great success, the majority not so much).
That's just how it is, no sexism, just facts. Of course there are always exceptions to every rule, but for the majority this holds true. Not to mention that most girls do not like video games beyond farmville, the sims, and nintendogs, further skewing things.
|
One thing that may deter women from gaming: I don't know how many of you have played something like MW2 on Xbox Live, but if a female says anything into a mic, the amount of crap she will get back is unbelievable, which I would think would deter them from playing. This does not mean they receive the same kind of treatment in a game like SC2, but in general, I think it has an impact.
|
On November 21 2010 01:22 Snowfield wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2010 01:20 Fa1nT wrote: Why is this still open? Just on this last page alone is so many stupid arguments based on opinion... I don't think several studies done on how men and girls are different and why they have different hobbies is an opinion. Then what more is to discuss if you got this all figured out?
|
On November 21 2010 03:51 Ropid wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2010 02:43 Bidouleroux wrote:On November 21 2010 00:33 Ropid wrote:On November 20 2010 23:50 Bidouleroux wrote:+ Show Spoiler +The Polgar sisters are a great example of why more women don't do well in competitive games. Of course one of the reason is that women don't have the same competitive "spirit" as men, but that simply means there are less potential women gamers, not that there can't be. In the case of the Polgar sisters, their father decided to develop a way to bring up genius, quite literally. His approach to teaching Chess was based on pattern recognition (recognizing "good" and "bad" positions on parts of the board of various sizes) instead of series of sequential moves and general strategies. Of course, you need to know opening moves and endgame sequences, but these are more rote memory and experience, areas in which women are not inferior to men. But in pattern recognition, women are actually better in general. So the Polgar sisters did great. The oldest though maybe lacked the competitive spirit of the youngest and as such she stopped competing after being the first female to achieve the title of grandmaster. Now, one may look at this and think, if women can do great in Chess with the right education, why not in other games? Let's take Go for example. Go is also heavily dependent on pattern recognition, but is much more complex than Chess. Opening sequences cannot be memorized as easily and the end game is pure mathematical heuristics (i.e. lots of calculation). Maybe, if someone could devise for Go a teaching system like Lazlo Polgar did for Chess (not going to happen anytime soon by the way), some women could get really strong at Go ; but I doubt it considering the end game that is pure calculation, for women are generally weaker than men in this regard as much as they are better at pattern recognition. So this takes us to Starcraft. What are the defining characteristics of RTS games that make them different than Chess and Go? First, like the name says they take place in real time. Second, you do not have perfect information. Third, you need to manage both a static base and a moving army (divide time between macro and micro if you like). Base management should be no problem for women and with TossGirl we see that if it's not Flash like at least it isn't a problem. Micro shouldn't be a problem either on it's own. Women are known to be great at detailed work. After all, they've had thousands of years of experience sewing us men clothes. But we will see later how juggling the two can be very bad for women gamers. So all right, before taking on the real-time aspects, let's get this information conundrum out the way first. This is where I think women really get the evolutionary short end of the proverbial stick. Who hunts food? Men. Who contends with dangerous situations day-to-day? Men. Who doesn't know when or where his next kill will to be or even if he'll come back in one piece? Men. Men have lots of experience with unknown situations and pressure situations. In general they will secrete lots of adrenaline at the dimmest hint of danger. They have evolved to cope with unknowns. This is why men can orient themselves better than women without a map. With a map, the playing field is leveled (as long as you know how to use it properly, which is a pitfall many women encounter simply because they never had an opportunity to learn). It is no wonder either that men are better at advanced math (real math, not simple equation solving which has more to do with pattern recognition). You could say the difference here is that women like to match known quantities together, whereas men extrapolate better (or simply more readily) based on incomplete information, while also having the added advantage that they aren't as uncomfortable with unknown situations as women are in general. Hence men take more risks. How many successful female VCs or traders have you seen lately? It's not like women are not trying to make a quick buck too. But like Virgil said, "fortune favors the bold". Next, RTS games are real-time, another area where women must give the evolutionary edge to men, albeit not as much as with coping with imperfect information. Many mistakenly believe that real-time means multitasking, but that is false. What it means, in an RTS game, is task-switching (in fact, I am not sure you could design a competitive RTS game designed around multitasking playable only with mouse and keyboard. Maybe some form of management game like The Sims, but not an RTS and neither an FPS for that matter. No wonder both recreate situations of war). So, in RTS games in general and in Starcraft in particular you have to switch between macro mode and micro mode and do it fast. Men are good at that. For example, here's the daily routine of the primitive man : stalk the prey, get caught, now switch to run-for-your-life mode pronto ; and don't forget to yell and warn others on your way out! Or, switch to kill mode if you have the opportunity: load the bow, don't lose the tail, watch where your clan mates are, check for possible obstacles, plan retreat route just in case, make dinner plans, shoot the arrow, miss, pursue while reloading, hop over a fallen tree and wham! right in the thing you were hunting. Good. Now take it back to camp with you 10 miles somewhere in that general direction while the sun is setting down. Don't forget wood for the fire and a flower for the missus on your way. Alright, now you can play Starcraft and win some games for once! Now, ask a women to play WoW and talk to you at the same time. She will be glad to gossip and recount her whole day while organizing a raid and crafting things and watching auctions, etc. She may even be able to do all that while playing Starcraft, but then don't be surprised when she loses. I just can't believe that whatever biological factor there may be won't be washed away through practice. If you find someone who won't run away from a Kespa BW slave house and will diligently practice each day for years, this training will make the brain do whatever it needs to do for Starcraft. There will of course be a difference between players in the end, but my gut feeling is, the percentage of impressive players would be comparable between genders. That gut feeling comes from... in discussing science stuff in work groups at university, I occasionally find someone that makes me think, "crap... what he/she just now said was genius... I need to make sure to not miss anything of his/her ideas in the future." I don't see a significant difference between men and women in finding someone to latch onto for inspiration at work. Looking at a persons character is most important, imho. Imagine if the thread title would instead be "Discussing the lack of top black starcraft gamers". What would you write then? What would be your explanation? What do blacks have to do with the topic at hand? That's a pretty inflammatory remark if you ask me. Anyway, you do realize that human females do not have a Y chromosome right? That's pretty biological. Nothing I saw in any research shows that this changes things much in the higher cerebral functions, but the whole hormonal balance is different in males vs. females and this is bound to have pretty drastic consequences in the way the lower-brain functions develop and react to external and even internal stimuli. Research supports the fact that some behavioral differences are biological. To what extent these differences can be suppressed by education is still debated today, but I would think most of it would be pretty firm without some neural remodeling (especially things like adrenaline response to fear/pressure). Again this does not apply to everything, like language for example: even though men and women use language differently their ability to learn/use it does not differ as far as we know. These differences can also be more or less pronounced depending on the individual, hence why you see many more homosexual women in the army than heterosexual women: they simply have a different hormonal balance than heterosexual women and thus their brain develop differently. Trying to overlook the obvious in your quest to be politically correct (that's how it looks, especially since you seem to want to equate sex - or "gender"? - with "race") seems to me like intellectual hypocrisy at worst and ideological blindness at best. I tried thinking about if I'm only trying to be politically correct, and if I'm only being stupid and influenced by the media or what-have-you, and I seem to be able to convince myself, that this is not the case. data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/44632/446320620b2797481b98f0248bf47d03f83e2600" alt="" I'm a big fan of trying to mix people from as many different backgrounds as possible in the workplace (with the needed qualifications for the job of course). I find the work environment more interesting for me, and I have the feeling, the chance to find the best possible solution for a problem seems to be better, because the team comes up with a wider range of proposals. I'm afraid I'm missing out on some great revelations, if I approach people with prejudice and don't listen to what they are saying. I'm not trying to be a saint: the bastard part of me agrees because it smells profit. Also, in my experience, if people don't believe that you respect them, they seem to be holding back with the best possible stuff they could bring to the table. And this is my opinion of what's happening. The best possible Starcraft player is probably not playing because of how society judges gaming. I believe there is a good enough chance that this player is female, and we will never know it. + Show Spoiler +What you're saying about the Y chromosome: I don't feel confident in the biology stuff I remember from school, but does the Y chromosome even do anything? I only remember that females have an increased chance to not suffer from diseases stemming from some broken part in the X chromosome because they have a second different copy from their father. Also, from the last world championships with the doping tests of that South African runner, there were some pop-science articles in the papers about how there can be males with XX chromosomes and females with XY chromosome pairs, when there is something off with the hormonal balance.
Regarding the Y chromosome, yes it does something, but it does small, very specific things (in the grand scheme of all things chromosomal). It replaces one X chromosome and supersedes many functions related to men anatomy. But it also doesn't code for some important things, hence why it is shorter and takes the shape of a Y instead of an X. For example, the defective gene for color blindness in an affected X chromosome cannot be compensated by a healthy Y chromosome because the Y chromosome does not contain the genetic code for color vision: this is why men are affected more often by color blindness that women. There are cases of females with XY chromosomes and hermaphrodites, etc. with XXY and XXX and such, but they are fairly rare and the arithmetic of the sexual chromosomes are not fully understood yet so we can only look at the macro-somatic effects of XY vs XX, etc. in relation to the individual genes they contain and which genes they activate or deactivate in specific cases while trying to build a statistical, more general model of interactions/interferences (although when a Y chromosome is involved it almost always results in a male). Also, XX males are females with one X chromosome having accidentally copied the SRY (Sex-determining Region Y, makes your testis grow) gene from a Y chromosome during meiosis. It is an accident, not something intended to endure and be passed on (these "men" are infertile). In XY females, the SRY gene is damaged.
Anyway, what we are interested in are general tendencies, not individual cases. Also, I am discussing the possibilities of the average prototypical female being as good at RTS games than the average prototypical male, all social opportunities being otherwise equal. You might say this is a far-fetched premise. Of course it is. What I am proposing is a thought experiment, not a real-world case study. Also, what I am saying is that thinking like you do, that it is simply society that do not give everyone an equal chance to do what they want because of peer pressure, education, etc. is quite puerile, idealistic and utopian. It is based much more on your own prejudiced education (i.e. skewed towards the "gender" equality ideology) than on science and hard facts. I am male and therefore cannot have babies. On the other hand, my body is flowing with testosterone, giving me the ability to naturally put on muscle much more easily than 98% of females. To think that such broad differences have no repercussion in the brain is, again, puerile, idealistic and utopian, since it ignores many years of psychological and neurological research. Like I said earlier, we can debate how these differences influence the relative abilities of the two sexes in different types of games. What we cannot debate is the fact that there are differences.
But of course, if you want to be puerile, idealistic and utopian - and stay that way - well, good for you I guess.
|
Guys are d-bags when it comes to competitive games. Many people, including myself, are completely turned off by the online banter (shit-talking) that happens.
Saying that girls are just not good enough, that games are not "socially accepted" for females is completely ignoring how we, the guys, behave in game.
No fucking wonder why The Sims or Farmville are so popular with women. They are not zero-sum games. There's no chat feature, no "fuck you noob"s.
|
On November 21 2010 03:56 phant wrote: Of course men are more competitive, it's genetic (anyone who doesn't believe this is a fool).
In practically EVERY species (mammals at least). There are always males trying to be the dominant "alpha" male and females following whoever is in charge. Males are way more aggressive, females are way more passive, it's a fact of life that has evolved over millions of years. This has been true in humanity for THOUSANDS of years, it's just how it is. Granted now with more enlightened people there are tons of women who try to fight their natural tendencies and cross the lines (some with great success, the majority not so much).
That's just how it is, no sexism, just facts. Of course there are always exceptions to every rule, but for the majority this holds true. Not to mention that most girls do not like video games beyond farmville, the sims, and nintendogs, further skewing things.
This is absolutely ridiculous. The typical "alpha males" I see are those I see who date rape and roofie women at college parties.
Going along with your logic, if I was a guy and I wasn't competitive, does that mean I'm not a "real man". That's fucking stupid. Stop using evolution as a way to justify modern social behavior. If you've taken any real discussion courses, you would know that these arguments are just stupid. We are not cavemen.
There is no gender binary. Men are not all competitive. Women don't just follow whoever is in charge because it's in their biological. Get a grip.
|
On November 21 2010 14:02 denzelz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2010 03:56 phant wrote: Of course men are more competitive, it's genetic (anyone who doesn't believe this is a fool).
In practically EVERY species (mammals at least). There are always males trying to be the dominant "alpha" male and females following whoever is in charge. Males are way more aggressive, females are way more passive, it's a fact of life that has evolved over millions of years. This has been true in humanity for THOUSANDS of years, it's just how it is. Granted now with more enlightened people there are tons of women who try to fight their natural tendencies and cross the lines (some with great success, the majority not so much).
That's just how it is, no sexism, just facts. Of course there are always exceptions to every rule, but for the majority this holds true. Not to mention that most girls do not like video games beyond farmville, the sims, and nintendogs, further skewing things. This is absolutely ridiculous. The typical "alpha males" I see are those I see who date rape and roofie women at college parties. Going along with your logic, if I was a guy and I wasn't competitive, does that mean I'm not a "real man". That's fucking stupid. Stop using evolution as a way to justify modern social behavior. If you've taken any real discussion courses, you would know that these arguments are just stupid. We are not cavemen. There is no gender binary. Men are not all competitive. Women don't just follow whoever is in charge because it's in their biological. Get a grip. perfectly said. i honestly hate how people try and use biology and social darwinism to try and shoehorn humans and human behavior into black or white. life is full of greys there is very little universal truths that apply cross culturally across all human societies. some people need to open their eyes and see that life is pretty confusing and there is no real answer other then that people are truly capable of doing ANYTHING that they put their mind to regardless of sex, gender, and race.
and btw sexuality and human behaviors within society are social constructs meaning that they are created by people for people. there is no natural law or god that dictates this to us. we have created our own laws, acceptable behaviors, sexuality, etc.
|
Best way to explain that :
Girls DONT play RTS because their female friends DONT play them. Even if there is a girl who plays it because she has male friend that play SC2, she won't play it AS MUCH, and takes it AS SERIOUS, because it's a GAME.
Jenny - "Hey Sarah ! I've managed to get first of my division playing non stop starcraft 2 for 20 weeks ! During that time, I did no cleaning, and not a lot of cooking, eating a lot of pizza, or always in the same plate I don't wash" Sarah - "are you retarded Jenny?"
As some of you said : few girl gamers, extremely rare hardcore gamers, and insanely rare skilled hardcore gamers.
Now, there are some really skilled guys, like blur, who are not that famous, and who are still less skilled than the GSL players. Even if a girl could reach that level, she would still not appear in the GSL or win a Major tournament. she will be like the top 0,001% best player, but you have to be the 0,000001% best player to be really famous at starcraft.
So it would take a miracle to have a girl that (by order) : 1) Plays RTS 2) Bought Starcraft 1 or frozen throne 3) Played hardcore on it, wanting to improve 4) bought starcraft 2 5) played hardcore on it, wanting to improve 6) succeed becoming very skilled 7) succeed becoming a "class A" player 8) succeed becoming a "class S" player.
% by order to illustrate (of course false, but supposed stats) : 1) 0,1% ? 2) half of them : 0,05% 3) 1% of them : 0,0005% 4) 80% of them : 0,0004% 5) 50% of them : 0,0002% 6) 0,1% of them : 0,0000002% 7) 1% of them : 0,0000002% -> 2 for 100 billions girls (so 1 for 100 billions people, as there is one guy for 1 girl) 8) 1% of them : 1 for 1000 billions human born.
For male gamers it would be more like : 1) 25% 2) 80% of them : 20% 3) 50% of them : 10% 4) 80% of them : 8% 5) 80% of them : 6,4% 6) 0,16% of them : 1% 7) 1% of them : 0,01% 8) 1% of them : 0,001%
of course it's not that, we would have much more class A players, but the idea is here ^^
Now you have the answer. "Not enough pool".
|
On November 21 2010 14:25 Tonyoh wrote: Best way to explain that :
Girls DONT play RTS because their female friends DONT play them. Even if there is a girl who plays it because she has male friend that play SC2, she won't play it AS MUCH, and takes it AS SERIOUS, because it's a GAME.
Now you have the answer. Not enough pool.
umm, my female relatives living in korea and their friends were all better than me at SC:BW. your argument doesn't explain why even the korean females who got progamer contracts couldn't compete with the male progamers.
|
On November 21 2010 14:28 eggs wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2010 14:25 Tonyoh wrote: Best way to explain that :
Girls DONT play RTS because their female friends DONT play them. Even if there is a girl who plays it because she has male friend that play SC2, she won't play it AS MUCH, and takes it AS SERIOUS, because it's a GAME.
Now you have the answer. Not enough pool. umm, my female relatives living in korea and their friends were all better than me at SC:BW. your argument doesn't explain why even the korean females who got progamer contracts couldn't compete with the male progamers. Much more korean girls who play starcraft (in % of Korea) that americanwomen (in% of America)
|
|
|
|