|
On December 06 2010 19:57 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:Show nested quote +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#BrainAs far as I know, this is contrary to modern neuroscientific understanding. Testosterone is associated with special awareness.
I heard that to. I cant remember the source, but in a project with girls they gave some testosterone and others "fake stuff". The testosterone girls were better, nicer and friendlier in a sport environment. They beat the other girls that did not take testosterone and were less aggressive.
|
On December 06 2010 21:57 LunaBrightStar 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. 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.
Question is, how good is 'quite good'?
Also disappointed at the lack of pictures in this thread 
User was warned for this post
|
theres nothing preventing females from being as good as males at starcraft.
but if like 23085729385720835 men competing and only a couple thousand females the chances of them breaking through to the upper echelons is just not very high
|
On December 06 2010 22:17 TyPsi5 wrote:
theres nothing preventing females from being as good as males at starcraft.
but if like 23085729385720835 men competing and only a couple thousand females the chances of them breaking through to the upper echelons is just not very high
those numbers are way off, and doesn't explain why the current top females (ESL female winners or top korean females) aren't as good as the top males (GSL/MLG/ESL winners).
your numbers only make sense if you assume all players have equal skill level in the game. then pure statistics would be a factor. but it doesn't matter how hundreds of thousands of bronze-platinum league males play the game, because they aren't a factor in the discussion of TOP players.
|
On December 06 2010 22:08 CanucksJC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2010 21:57 LunaBrightStar wrote: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. Question is, how good is 'quite good'? Also disappointed at the lack of pictures in this thread
I am Diamond, beating about 2000-2400 Diamond players.
I'm not even close to be a pro, but I don't think that I am handicaped at this game, just because I'm a girl.
|
On December 06 2010 22:08 CanucksJC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2010 21:57 LunaBrightStar wrote: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. Question is, how good is 'quite good'? Also disappointed at the lack of pictures in this thread
This is what I talked about in my previous post on page 22. The second there is a female posting, saying they are female people spazz out "PICS PLZ!!" and other really dumb statements that brings nothing to a good debate. It's that kind of mindset that scares the female gamers away from the community, and the community is what creates good gamers.
|
any women in the NBA, NHL, MLB?
User was warned for this post
|
It might also have to do with how most women don't really have hobbies, except in a faint attempt to mirror a man's interests
User was warned for this post
|
On December 06 2010 22:22 eggs wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2010 22:17 TyPsi5 wrote:
theres nothing preventing females from being as good as males at starcraft.
but if like 23085729385720835 men competing and only a couple thousand females the chances of them breaking through to the upper echelons is just not very high those numbers are way off, and doesn't explain why the current top females (ESL female winners or top korean females) aren't as good as the top males (GSL/MLG/ESL winners). your numbers only make sense if you assume all players have equal skill level in the game. then pure statistics would be a factor. but it doesn't matter how hundreds of thousands of bronze-platinum league males play the game, because they aren't a factor in the discussion of TOP players.
His numbers were just silly exaggerations, but his point is perfectly valid: the smaller the player pool, the smaller the chance of someone truly exceptional emerging. This is true in any sport. Another way to think about it is to say there probably are women out there with the potential to match the top-level male pros - but they may not even play SC2.
|
On December 06 2010 22:46 Jumbled wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2010 22:22 eggs wrote:On December 06 2010 22:17 TyPsi5 wrote:
theres nothing preventing females from being as good as males at starcraft.
but if like 23085729385720835 men competing and only a couple thousand females the chances of them breaking through to the upper echelons is just not very high those numbers are way off, and doesn't explain why the current top females (ESL female winners or top korean females) aren't as good as the top males (GSL/MLG/ESL winners). your numbers only make sense if you assume all players have equal skill level in the game. then pure statistics would be a factor. but it doesn't matter how hundreds of thousands of bronze-platinum league males play the game, because they aren't a factor in the discussion of TOP players. His numbers were just silly exaggerations, but his point is perfectly valid: the smaller the player pool, the smaller the chance of someone truly exceptional emerging. This is true in any sport. Another way to think about it is to say there probably are women out there with the potential to match the top-level male pros - but they may not even play SC2.
that doesn't mean anything. i have the same potential to match male pros, too. i have the same motor skills and physical and cognitive ability. i simply don't practice or take the game as seriously.
there are females who dedicate their lives to playing basketball competitively. they play in pee-wee leagues as kids then keep playing through to ranked college teams and then play in the WNBA. but they aren't as good as the men. but basketball is a physical sport and is influenced by body structure.
so the question is why are the top starcraft2 females who practice as hard and take the game as seriously not as good as the males? can't blame it on physical limitations like in basketball.
and if you say there aren't any females sc2 pros who practice as hard as male pros, then the question is why don't they?
|
On December 06 2010 22:58 eggs wrote:
that doesn't mean anything. i have the same potential to match male pros, too. i have the same motor skills and physical and cognitive ability. i simply don't practice or take the game as seriously.
how can you know?
|
On December 06 2010 22:35 DoubleRainbow wrote:
any women in the NBA, NHL, MLB?
you're a moron. maybe if you were capable of thinking for about 1 minute before you write, this shit wouldn't be all over this thread.
i do research in neuroscience, in the field of attention but admittedly not doing work with sex hormones or motor control, but i do know my fundamentals and i'm loving some of these "male>female" homers thinking they can conclude anything through a couple of wiki sources. of course i had my say on how wrong some of these kids are earlier in this thread, but it's posts like this that just made me stop caring/bothering.
|
On December 06 2010 22:58 eggs wrote:that doesn't mean anything. i have the same potential to match male pros, too. i have the same motor skills and physical and cognitive ability. i simply don't practice or take the game as seriously. That's not necessarily the case. And even if you can match the motor control of the top pros, when I talk about potential I'm also referring to their determination to succeed, which you've admitted you lack.
|
edit - just nvm. People will always argue for 100 pages about stupid stuff, why try to stop it.
|
On December 06 2010 23:13 fush wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2010 22:35 DoubleRainbow wrote:
any women in the NBA, NHL, MLB? you're a moron. maybe if you were capable of thinking for about 1 minute before you write, this shit wouldn't be all over this thread. i do research in neuroscience, in the field of attention but admittedly not doing work with sex hormones or motor control, but i do know my fundamentals and i'm loving some of these "male>female" homers thinking they can conclude anything through a couple of wiki sources. of course i had my say on how wrong some of these kids are earlier in this thread, but it's posts like this that just made me stop caring/bothering.
actually there have been women in the NBA, and i have a wiki source to prove it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violet_Palmer
wiki sources aren't bad. not telling you how to do your job, but when you research something you check the sources. wiki pages cite sources at the bottom of the page. the internet isn't that hard, it's not neuroscience!
|
|
|
it's because women realize, for the most part anyways, that there's much more important stuff to do in life than play videogames
teenage boys, on the other hand, do not
(I'm a videogame programmer but that doesn't mean I can't be realistic)
|
On December 06 2010 23:28 eggs wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2010 23:13 fush wrote:On December 06 2010 22:35 DoubleRainbow wrote:
any women in the NBA, NHL, MLB? you're a moron. maybe if you were capable of thinking for about 1 minute before you write, this shit wouldn't be all over this thread. i do research in neuroscience, in the field of attention but admittedly not doing work with sex hormones or motor control, but i do know my fundamentals and i'm loving some of these "male>female" homers thinking they can conclude anything through a couple of wiki sources. of course i had my say on how wrong some of these kids are earlier in this thread, but it's posts like this that just made me stop caring/bothering. actually there have been women in the NBA, and i have a wiki source to prove it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violet_Palmerwiki sources aren't bad. not telling you how to do your job, but when you research something you check the sources. wiki pages cite sources at the bottom of the page. the internet isn't that hard, it's not neuroscience!
it's not bad when you are posting on an internet forum to seem smart or you actually have 5 minutes to cram some basic knowledge before an exam (i'm talking exclusively about modern neuroscience, which is a newer field in comparison to a lot of others). sources in wiki for neuroscience are typically literature from random journals or from 20-30 years ago in most cases (from my experience in the field - admitted i don't rely on it too much), and usually not updated for recent developments at all. when people in turn use this to dispute facts that we now know based on more well-reviewed publications or more current research, it kinda hits a chord.
|
United States22883 Posts
On December 06 2010 19:57 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2010 19:23 cydial wrote: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. It's called learned helplessness. It's the primary reason boys hit the extremes on math scores while girls stay in the middle. When boys succeed, they usually believe it's because they're naturally talented at math, and when they do poorly, it's because they didn't try hard. When girls succeed, it's because they believe they worked hard to earn it, and when they do poorly, it's because they simply "can't do math." It's a type of arrogance that the elites of any field usually possess that protects them during failure.
http://www.gladwell.com/1997/1997_05_19_a_sports.htm
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. It was obviously a sexist and offensive post, and cydial's is only slightly better, although equally idiotic. Prove Asians are smarter. Because before 1960, the education system in every E. Asian and SE. Asian country was terrible, and they couldn't manufacture things or conduct scientific research to save their lives. So please, explain how the evolutionary superior brain of an Asian somehow lapsed for the thousands of years that the Japanese lived in the stone age.
Show nested quote +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.
Show nested quote +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.
Women may recover from strokes more easily because they use their entire brain to do those tasks.
Show nested quote +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#BrainAs far as I know, this is contrary to modern neuroscientific understanding. Testosterone is associated with special awareness.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091208132241.htm
Show nested quote +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'.
|
On December 06 2010 22:30 LunaBrightStar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2010 22:08 CanucksJC wrote:On December 06 2010 21:57 LunaBrightStar wrote: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. Question is, how good is 'quite good'? Also disappointed at the lack of pictures in this thread I am Diamond, beating about 2000-2400 Diamond players. I'm not even close to be a pro, but I don't think that I am handicaped at this game, just because I'm a girl.
Thats a lie! Girls cant play starcraft!!!
/sarcasm
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
