|
On November 21 2010 15:48 Rickilicious wrote:
Plain and simple women are just not as good.
Perfect example, playing pool. Requires absolutely no physical strength and you dont get a bonus for having a dick. Women are just not as good. Same goes for bowling, women are not as good.
worlds strongest man competition.. er nvm.. hell even guys are better at gymnastics, it's just 10,000 years of evolution are large family breeding.
edit: no sexist part here, just a simple fact. Now if we were to go into cooking or doing laundry..
User was temp banned for this post.
This is really sad that you were temp banned for this post for stating the truth.
Now hear me out please before I get the same, if you actually looked at it objectively there are SEPERATE leagues for men and women in
Chess, Sports (Even in gymnastics and tennis ffs), Army (women are not allowed to be in the infantry or any combat related MOS),
This isn't to say that there aren't women that are very good at their respective fields, but at the highest tier men win out.
Ya we try to be, "Above" all that and say we are all equal, which is fine and dandy when you're being formal and stuff but I'am taking a stand by answering the OP's question when I say
Men > Women
|
Girls have better shit to do than play games.
D'uh.
|
in general, men are more competitive when it comes to games
|
On December 06 2010 19:23 cydial wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2010 15:48 Rickilicious wrote:
Plain and simple women are just not as good.
Perfect example, playing pool. Requires absolutely no physical strength and you dont get a bonus for having a dick. Women are just not as good. Same goes for bowling, women are not as good.
worlds strongest man competition.. er nvm.. hell even guys are better at gymnastics, it's just 10,000 years of evolution are large family breeding.
edit: no sexist part here, just a simple fact. Now if we were to go into cooking or doing laundry..
User was temp banned for this post. This is really sad that you were temp banned for this post for stating the truth. Now hear me out please before I get the same, if you actually looked at it objectively there are SEPERATE leagues for men and women in Chess, Sports (Even in gymnastics and tennis ffs), Army (women are not allowed to be in the infantry or any combat related MOS), This isn't to say that there aren't women that are very good at their respective fields, but at the highest tier men win out. Ya we try to be, "Above" all that and say we are all equal, which is fine and dandy when you're being formal and stuff but I'am taking a stand by answering the OP's question when I say Men > Women Well, yes and no.
At least, what I read was that as far as mind sports going, women dwell more along the middle, while men feature more extremes. Men feature more brilliant scientists, but also more psychopathic killers, women are more 'stable', perhaps some trick of natural selection so that when the best man gets the girl, he's really the best? It seems to go like that with a lot of mammals that females are all some-what 'average', and men feature more extremes from extremely strong to extremely weak.
That the user was banned for that post I agree is ridiculous, it's a reasonable position, science is not, and should never answer to the quills of political correctness, reality isn't a politically correct dream. Asians are smarter on average, and Nigerians have superior stamina, and there's nothing you can do about it. It would be evolutionary inexplicable if races and sexes did not have differing properties, they evolved in a different climate and evolved to fulfil different roles so naturally they adapt some-what towards that.
On December 06 2010 18:49 Jibba wrote:
This is completely uninformed nonsense. This is like a 30 year old understanding of how the brain works. There's cultures and animals where the females do the hunting Such as?
As far as I know, there are currently very few cultures out there were anyone does 'hunting', the few I know where it does still happen, males tend to do the hunting associated with brute force more.
Talking about other animals is nonsensical in perspective to human beings.
and modern neuroscience has found that women use more parts of their brains when doing hand-eye motor tasks. Can you cite me that research? I'm quite sceptical of any modern neuroscience existing which would claim anything about 'using more parts of the brain', neuroscientists typically avoid such phrasing because you use your entire brain for every single task you do, and what defines a 'part' is quite vague.
How high the activity lits up is another story of course.
Also, just to drop a bit more SCIENCE on people, testosterone does not cause aggression and may actually do the opposite in complex human social structures. The only thing found to cause aggression is the stigma around it. It's entirely a placebo effect based on social understandings. I would like to see where you got that from.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testosterone#Brain
As far as I know, this is contrary to modern neuroscientific understanding. Testosterone is associated with special awareness.
Things like decreased spatial awareness or motor controls are more likely due to socialization, more than any genetic differences. Maybe they are, maybe they're not. But neither of these is 'more likely', at this point this question is completely open and unresolved as ar as I know.
Might want to keep politics a bit more out of science here, in any case, most researches and claims you will find in humanties and so called 'soft sciences' are not conclusive. The researches themselves correctly are very liberal with their use of words like 'suggests' n lieu of a hard scientists's 'demonstrates' or 'proves'.
|
Here's the one reason. Women don't have the same dedication as men. They've got an easier time being mediocre at lots of things while men focus all of their energy on one or a few things.
No I am not sexist it's just how it is.
|
In general, the idea of winning and dominating is probably not as appealing to females as it is to males, especially within the context of a competitive RTS.
That is all.
You know, all of the comments in this thread may be scientific and shit, but they're also pretty borderline sexist because they assume so many things without stressing that these observations are all general trends.
Blanket statements are the bane of intelligent thought.
|
On December 06 2010 20:12 simme123 wrote:
Here's the one reason. Women don't have the same dedication as men. They've got an easier time being mediocre at lots of things while men focus all of their energy on one or a few things.
No I am not sexist it's just how it is.
Actually, that is sexist.
A less sexist way of wording the same sentiment would be that women are generally seeking balance or success in multiple areas of their life, while men tend to strive to become experts at one or two things to the detriment of others.
|
I thought I should also mention, that anyone that points to the lack of female pro-gamers as some indicator of gender inferiority is a knucklehead.
Women don't play games professionally for the same reason that 99% of men don't play games professionally -- it's an extremely difficult goal which requires in insane investment of time with little or no benefit. There are probably 10 million-plus people that have bought Starcraft and about 100 people in the world that can make a living off of it.
The only thing that the lack of female professional gamers proves is that all women are less dumb than the people that frequent this board, myself included.
|
On December 06 2010 20:21 LunarC wrote:
You know, all of the comments in this thread may be scientific and shit, but they're also pretty borderline sexist because they assume so many things without stressing that these observations are all general trends. Every observation is a general trend, when a biology book says that dogs have four legs, do they really need to mention that it's a general trend and cases of dogs born with three or even two legs are documented?
Typically it works in reverse, in the absence of words like 'all', it can be assumed to be merely a general trend, because general trends are far more common than absolutes.
Political correctness and people confusing what is reasonably true with what they want to be true is the bane of intelligent thought no doubt. I'm a woman myself and vote socialist. But people who claim that testosterone is not associated with spatial orientation or are unwilling to acknowledge the plausibility of men and women having different attributes to suit a different evolutionary role in my opinion ignore scientific evidence because it scares them, and are thus no better than people unwilling to believe that the earth is more than 6 000 years old despite formidable evidence because it scares them.
Also, science is pretty sexist I fear, human beings are a sexually dimorphic species, women are less tall, have a different bone structure, don't grow facial hair as much, are better at multitasking, worse at spatial orientation, have a better memory but a slower reaction time. Humans are no exception, I'm not saying the differences are absolute, but I'm saying it's a significant correlation and more often than not a plausible evolutionary explanation to why this might have evolved. Truth is seldom how we like it to be, and indeed, human beings are most likely evolved to deny truth when it displeases them, for that, see the hypothesis of pessimistic realism.
On December 06 2010 20:35 Defacer wrote:
The only thing that the lack of female professional gamers proves is that all women are less dumb than the people that frequent this board, myself included. And this is not only sexist, it's also not backed up by anything at all.
Which displays an interesting phenomenon, of how this works in reverse, I'm sure we all remember Moore's book 'stupid white men', think someone could pull it off naming a book 'stupid black men'?
As a further disclaimer, apart from being a woman, I'm also not white, so yeah.
|
Females in general aren't as strategic aligned when it comes to games like Starcraft 2 and others.
Furthermore, they aren't interested in the same gaming compassion that guys are, and they are simply outnumbered by the guy:girl ratio
All of this boils down to the fact that I believe, men are more competitively oriented, and more aggressive than woman.
We pursue something competitively, we want an answer, a solution, we have harder times trying to "negotiate" or accept unsolvable solutions or hard times..
We want to win. And we get aggressive and focused getting there.
Just the same reason as why it's mostly men who start and fight in wars.
We want to win over the other guy and kill him, because we fear his dick might be bigger than ours.
|
All of this boils down to the fact that I believe, men are more competitively oriented, and more aggressive than woman.
We pursue something competitively, we want an answer, a solution, we have harder times trying to "negotiate" or accept unsolvable solutions or hard times..
Probably, men are more aggressive, also, men as a trend tend to 'shoot before asking questions', women have a tendency to do the latter first.
I mean, how often do you read about a woman murdering someone out of a fit of rage?
Or murder in general? Has very little to do with physical strength, murder nowadays is committed with firearms, not with brute strength.
|
On December 06 2010 20:46 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:Show nested quote +
All of this boils down to the fact that I believe, men are more competitively oriented, and more aggressive than woman.
We pursue something competitively, we want an answer, a solution, we have harder times trying to "negotiate" or accept unsolvable solutions or hard times..
Probably, men are more aggressive, also, men as a trend tend to 'shoot before asking questions', women have a tendency to do the latter first. I mean, how often do you read about a woman murdering someone out of a fit of rage? Or murder in general? Has very little to do with physical strength, murder nowadays is committed with firearms, not with brute strength.
Well you're probaly right. With the help of our good friend, Testosterone, men will keep losing their head from time to time, but also channeling that focus, rage and instinct into winning at most forefronts of life.
|
women are less intelligent and couldn't even remotely compete with top tier sc2 players.
(i know i am a bad person)
User was warned for this post
|
On December 06 2010 20:52 ganjazerg wrote:
women are less intelligent and couldn't even remotely compete with top tier sc2 players.
(i know i am a bad person)
I sense a ban coming up  Enjoy, Sir.
What is intelligence? How do you define that?
Theorists believe that there are up to and possible more than 7 different intelligences of the human mind.
You might bad a something, and really good at another. Great at all, great at few.. it's all very individual and does not relate to this debate
|
My theory is it's a number of factors:
A) Sheer numbers. Less women play Starcraft 2 than men. According to the law of averages, men are more likely to be at the top.
B) Less desire to compete. This has been said many, many times in this thread, so I won't go over it any further.
C) The community. If the community in up-and-coming SC2 players is near-exclusively male, it's less likely that women will join it in the first place. I know this from experience, being a male going into childcare, an overwhelmingly female dominated field (There are over 50 childcare centres in my districts, and I can count the number of male workers there on one hand)
D) Perception. Because few women have the potential to go pro, for the above reasons, they're more likely to be dissuaded from it, or less likely to be picked up by progaming teams.
I'll admit, I have no evidence for D, that's merely my opinion, but A, B, and C are all solid reasons, and this is, after all, a discussion thread.
|
first of all 40% of SC2 gamers are not female. Females tend to play less violent games so dont go thinking that 40% of starcraft players are female.
Secondly "The Gap" you are talking about its not Because they are female, it is the gap between High level player and pro gamer, this is not an easy step, no matter what sex you are.
|
This is a fun topic for me.
I have been running a hardcore WoW raiding guild for 5 years, and we have had plenty of female players amongst us. Players equally and in many cases more skilled than the next person. In our guild however we have had a strict policy of not discriminating on gender. We don't expect anything less or more from our female players. And they delivered on par with males because they were treated like they could. Almost 99% of the time a person will respond in the way you expect them to respond, or to put it differently: People become what you expect of them.
In the end it comes down to the community. And a lot of times when people learn it's a girl sitting on the other end of the copper wire they spazz out and say "omgz girlz....boooobs!!!!". Of course this kind of behaivor won't attract girls. Have you ever been at a bar and gone when a girl walks in and said that? If you did, I am sure she didn't talk to you the rest of the night.
In addition I think the reason why there is so few girls now is because there hasn't been that many girls before. When there is a girl that is good she is looked at from so many people that it must be pretty nerve wracking experience. Hence she might choose to withdraw because of all the attention.
Day9 said in his 100th episode that the pro-gamers became good because they played and talked to each other. So I do wonder who the women practice with, and who they talk too. For me that is a big part because you don't become a pro without playing against other pros. When I think about that I think about the days when I was training Taekwondo pretty hardcore. Our club had a lot of women in it, and on combat practice we practiced against each other. And my god you could get your ass kicked from the women there. But in physical sports men do have an advantage because our body is build differently. But that only comes in play at the higher levels. I bet no one here could even dream of beating one of the world champions in Taekwondo in a match unless you are a at that stage yourself. And I don't think this limitation comes into play in "mind-games". I think it falls back on the number of women playing, hence statistics take care of the rest.
|
On December 06 2010 20:54 MasterFischer wrote:
What is intelligence? How do you define that? A formidable and currently unresolved question. One of the reasons why I cannot call humanities sciences in the same way I call physics or chemistry a science.
Theorists believe that there are up to and possible more than 7 different intelligences of the human mind. Theorists also believe no man has ever landed on the moon, or once that people subconsciously fantasize about their dad. And what is 'subconscious' anyway?
You might bad a something, and really good at another. Great at all, great at few.. it's all very individual and does not relate to this debate Define 'good at something' really?
The real point is that this elusive 'intelligence' most likely does not exist, and certainly not as something you can just put a metre on. But hey, soft scientists eh, they have a hard time accepting that naïve realism doesn't always hold and categories and objects which may exist colloquially, prima facie, to a human observer may in fact not exist in a mereologically scientific perspective.
Maybe you should read a bit on mereological nihilism, quite fascinating stuff.
|
On November 21 2010 15:48 Rickilicious wrote:
Plain and simple women are just not as good.
Perfect example, playing pool. Requires absolutely no physical strength and you dont get a bonus for having a dick. Women are just not as good. Same goes for bowling, women are not as good.
worlds strongest man competition.. er nvm.. hell even guys are better at gymnastics, it's just 10,000 years of evolution are large family breeding.
edit: no sexist part here, just a simple fact. Now if we were to go into cooking or doing laundry..
User was temp banned for this post.
That is so stupid.
I am a female gamer, and I am quite good at Starcraft 2. It's all just a matter of statistics.
|
Theorists also believe no man has ever landed on the moon, or once that people subconsciously fantasize about their dad. And what is 'subconscious' anyway?
If by "subconscious" you mean "unconscious," then a Psych 101 class might be helpful. Suffice it to say that most processes of your everyday life, from regulation of your heartbeat to emotional impulses to gestures, are unconscious.
And comparing Howard Gardner and other theorists of multiple intelligences to moon hoaxers is beyond absurd, as it confuses the scientific definition of a theory for its colloquial understanding. You might as well compare Feynman or Einstein--among other famous theorists--to believers in phlogiston.
If you want to attack the underpinnings of any academic field without being dismissed out of hand, you're going to need to begin with a firm foundation in that discipline's fundamentals. Like all branches of natural philosophy, Psych is a legitimate target of criticism. The issue is that you have to possess a basic education in scientific terms and philosophical training before you launch your first salvo.
As for the larger question of gender abilities, I'd imagine it has more to do with populations. If 1 in every 10,000 players ends up a progamer and males outnumber females 200:1 among competitive players, it shouldn't surprise us that there are very few top-level female progamers. Factor in social considerations and it becomes even more overwhelming.
It's like asking why there are so few award-winning male cheerleaders on high school squads. Self-selecting populations and social factors can account for a lot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
