Let's talk about women in competitive games

[oskar]

There are two things I usually try to avoid on this forum: joining the anti feminism circlejerk and encouraging Jesse. So let's two birds, one stone this bitch.

What makes this so interesting to me is that there are no exceptions. Well, there's one: Sasha Hostyn. Remarkable sc2 player, very nice girl, may or may not still have a penis. Just for the sake of this topic I'll not make her count.

There are a few girls in the top 0.01% of the global ladders. Potter from CLG:Red in CS:GO, Slayer's Eve in SC2. Elya in Dota2. None of them even make the top 500 in these games.
I am familiar with all the arguments. Women don't need to make themselves attractive, we already find them attractive. They have the create-a-life-purpose hole that makes it just too easy to cop out of all earthly competition, the cultural stigma, the way girls are raised. But none of these explain why there are none; No girls at all at the top level of competition. It also doesn't explain why the girls that come close the top level are neither butch nor dykes. They are all remarkably attractive. Please do explain.

[wufwugy]

im inclined to think that it's because of the type of drive testosterone provides. it's aggressive and risk-prone and doesn't admit defeat.

[spoonitnow]

The brains of men and women are remarkably different on some very basic levels. I'll hit the highlights of why this matters in this type of situation (as well as other somewhat similar arenas like chess).

1. A man's brain is typically ~1/10th larger than a woman's brain. This is a relatively minor, though relevant, part of the equation.
2. A man's brain has about 7x more grey matter than a woman's brain. Grey matter focuses primarily on the skills that would be associated with these games.
3. A woman's brain has about 10x more white matter than a man's brain. White matter doesn't lend itself to being as helpful.

The result of these (and a number of other) major structural differences creates a situation where men are much more biologically prepared for these particular types of contests.

Semi-related: For another big difference between the sexes, you can take a look at the distributions of IQs between men and women. While the mean values are really close to each other, the standard deviations are fairly different. In short, the variance for the intelligence of men is much higher. The result is that there are about twice as many men as women in the top two percent. That might sound like an advantage, but it also means there are twice as many men as women in the bottom two percent.

A lot of this comes down to the fact that we're XY instead of XX. It's pretty cool stuff, but I won't write a novel here.

Obligatory feminism-related comment: If men and women were treated completely equal, then there would still be more men in prison (though not to the degree there are now). However, men would still make more money.

If you want to read more about the differences in brain structure, here's a good starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuros...ex_differences

Edit: Was looking for this chart earlier and couldn't find it until now:

[OngBonga]

Steffi Graf was ugly as a boot.

[JKDS]

Somethings I think are at play
- Smaller number of women who are both into esports and good at it
- Social norms are harder on nerdy women than nerdy men
- They have to overcome an uncomfortable/threatening internet environment, with everything from stalking to rape threats
- The greatest number of ranking esports people are from Asia, maybe Asian culture blocks women participation in some way?
- And sure, brain chemistry plays a role too

[a500lbgorilla]

I'll even swing at it from a different angle - sperm are cheap and eggs are expensive. The idea is that females are the genetic bottleneck of any group, the next generation has to come through as many women as possible to support population growth while it would only require a minority of men to accomplish this. While you don't want that minority to be too small, you certainly don't need every man in the baby-making game quite like you do every woman.

It seems to me a rather savvy play by any species to use cheap men as an opportunity to 'gamble' genetically while keeping expensive women relatively close to the median in terms of ability. And our genes are always trying to play the savvy game. So why not saddle that Y-chromosome with some extra dice-rolls that give you a chance at breeding something extraordinary, even if it's at the risk of breeding something undesirable?

http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/...uestions/?_r=0

“I’m certainly not denying that culture has exploited women,” he said. “But rather than seeing culture as patriarchy, which is to say a conspiracy by men to exploit women, I think it’s more accurate to understand culture (e.g., a country, a religion) as an abstract system that competes against rival systems — and that uses both men and women, often in different ways, to advance its cause.

”The “single most underappreciated fact about gender,” he said, is the ratio of our male to female ancestors. While it’s true that about half of all the people who ever lived were men, the typical male was much more likely than the typical woman to die without reproducing. Citing recent DNA research, Dr. Baumeister explained that today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men. Maybe 80 percent of women reproduced, whereas only 40 percent of men did.

[oskar]

Somethings I think are at play
- Smaller number of women who are both into esports and good at it
- Social norms are harder on nerdy women than nerdy men
- They have to overcome an uncomfortable/threatening internet environment, with everything from stalking to rape threats
- The greatest number of ranking esports people are from Asia, maybe Asian culture blocks women participation in some way?
- And sure, brain chemistry plays a role too

Smaller numbers are actively in it, but not so small that it would explain the distribution at the top level, which is 0:1.
Korean sc2 pro teams actively try to recruit girls and put them under contract. Which means full-time practice in team houses and all that, still there were more american teenage boys that flew over to korea and china and made a name for themselves than girls that even made it through the qualifiers of major tournaments.

I only vaguely remember hearing the mutation argument before, but it does sound convincing.

[JKDS]

Some interesting stats.

Chess has similar, tho different, social bias towards men. While there are female grandmasters, they make up only 2% of the 1400.

Nascar requires quick thinking, and is also male dominated, but a list of woman drivers on wiki shows none of them winning a single series.

Billiards is another thing, but instead of a nerdy subculture like chess/esports, its the 'hang out in a bar all day' culture. The game requires lots of precision, practice, and strategy. Still, while some women do compete professionally, there arent nearly as many as men.

Then you got the lower percentage of women in STEM fields, but those that get there have been capable of crushing it.

So idk. It seems more likely to me that women can certainly do these things and be competitive at them, but choose not to. I want to think its mostly social norm kinda stuff, but cant help but think that brain chemitry has some non-negligible effect.

[spoonitnow]

I'll even swing at it from a different angle - sperm are cheap and eggs are expensive. The idea is that females are the genetic bottleneck of any group, the next generation has to come through as many women as possible to support population growth while it would only require a minority of men to accomplish this. While you don't want that minority to be too small, you certainly don't need every man in the baby-making game quite like you do every woman.

It seems to me a rather savvy play by any species to use cheap men as an opportunity to 'gamble' genetically while keeping expensive women relatively close to the median in terms of ability. And our genes are always trying to play the savvy game. So why not saddle that Y-chromosome with some extra dice-rolls that give you a chance at breeding something extraordinary, even if it's at the risk of breeding something undesirable?

http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/...uestions/?_r=0

This is exactly it at the most basic level. You can look this up if you want since it's fairly well-known at this point, but around the time of the agricultural revolution, only about 1 in 17 men reproduced. Everything boils down to hypergamy.

[spoonitnow]

Some interesting stats.

Chess has similar, tho different, social bias towards men. While there are female grandmasters, they make up only 2% of the 1400.

Nascar requires quick thinking, and is also male dominated, but a list of woman drivers on wiki shows none of them winning a single series.

Billiards is another thing, but instead of a nerdy subculture like chess/esports, its the 'hang out in a bar all day' culture. The game requires lots of precision, practice, and strategy. Still, while some women do compete professionally, there arent nearly as many as men.

Then you got the lower percentage of women in STEM fields, but those that get there have been capable of crushing it.

So idk. It seems more likely to me that women can certainly do these things and be competitive at them, but choose not to. I want to think its mostly social norm kinda stuff, but cant help but think that brain chemitry has some non-negligible effect.

@bold, Another way to think about it is that a much smaller percentage of women can do these things on a high level, but the best men will always be better than the best women because there's too big of a handicap for the women to overcome on a biological level imo.

[spoonitnow]

Some interesting stats.

Chess has similar, tho different, social bias towards men. While there are female grandmasters, they make up only 2% of the 1400.

Nascar requires quick thinking, and is also male dominated, but a list of woman drivers on wiki shows none of them winning a single series.

Billiards is another thing, but instead of a nerdy subculture like chess/esports, its the 'hang out in a bar all day' culture. The game requires lots of precision, practice, and strategy. Still, while some women do compete professionally, there arent nearly as many as men.

Then you got the lower percentage of women in STEM fields, but those that get there have been capable of crushing it.

So idk. It seems more likely to me that women can certainly do these things and be competitive at them, but choose not to. I want to think its mostly social norm kinda stuff, but cant help but think that brain chemitry has some non-negligible effect.

I also want to point out that Danica Patrick would not have her job if she was not a woman. She is given better equipment than the majority of the field and consistently places in the bottom 10 percent. Her marketability is the only reason she has her job.

In chess, the only woman to be competitive with the top 100 men in the world was an experiment by her father who home schooled her (and her two sisters) and taught them chess (or rather, hired people to teach her chess) for her entire childhood. Neither of her sisters did anywhere near as well as she did. So even when she was raised in this crazy "train this chick to play chess from birth" environment, only 1 in 3 was able to be competitive with the top 100 men in the world.

[oskar]

I'll just play the white knight here for a second and point out that it also takes obsession to get really good at something. Obsession to the point where you have to put competition first and everything else second. I've done that a couple of times in my life. I can comfortably get to the top 5% of something if I push myself hard for about two years, but after that I feel fatigue. I'm an optimistic nihilist and when it stops being fun, I stop doing it. Maybe that voice in your brain is just more dominant in women. the one that tells you that at the end of the day the sun is going to explode and the universe is going dark, so let's find something else that's fun to do on this planet.

[wufwugy]

where do men get that obsessiveness but from testosterone?

[JKDS]

Lets be real guys, the world class chess players and esports players do not have an excess of testosterone.

[wufwugy]

actually they do. male + young + not ludicrously overweight = buttloads of testosterone.

[oskar]

picture for reference:

[OngBonga]

They should make breast feeding and ironing sports. Then bitches would own it.

[JKDS]

You'e also saying though, that women who are obsessive to the point of greatness had high levels of testosterone. Else, there is something else that accounts for that obsessive behavior.

I dont believe that women authors, scientists, political activists, esports players etc have lots of testosterone.

[spoonitnow]

I'll just play the white knight here for a second and point out that it also takes obsession to get really good at something. Obsession to the point where you have to put competition first and everything else second. I've done that a couple of times in my life. I can comfortably get to the top 5% of something if I push myself hard for about two years, but after that I feel fatigue. I'm an optimistic nihilist and when it stops being fun, I stop doing it. Maybe that voice in your brain is just more dominant in women. the one that tells you that at the end of the day the sun is going to explode and the universe is going dark, so let's find something else that's fun to do on this planet.

The gray/white matter issue largely addresses this fwiw.

[wufwugy]

You'e also saying though, that women who are obsessive to the point of greatness had high levels of testosterone. Else, there is something else that accounts for that obsessive behavior.

I dont believe that women authors, scientists, political activists, esports players etc have lots of testosterone.

well, they just might. testosterone affects women a lot too. iirc theyre much more sensitive to it than men, which can help explain why they have so much less of it without showing linear results of such.

testosterone may not be the key here, but it's worth looking at because it is useful at changing all these things. if you want to strip somebody's drive from them, drop their testosterone significantly (this doesn't work perfectly because nothing in metabolism does). that's just one example of many things testosterone does.

[JKDS]

Found some stats on gamers.

Average game player is 35 years old. A whopping 44% of all 155million US 'gamers' are female. Something to note, the study includes something called "social games", which I can only assume means things like farmville. http://www.theesa.com/wp-content/upl...Facts-2015.pdf

I was kinda hoping it would say something regarding "% gender playing more than 5-6hrs a day" or something, but no-go.

It may be safe to draw the conclusion that women like video games, but then either choose not to go pro or dont have the means to go pro.

[spoonitnow]

Found some stats on gamers.

Average game player is 35 years old. A whopping 44% of all 155million US 'gamers' are female. Something to note, the study includes something called "social games", which I can only assume means things like farmville. http://www.theesa.com/wp-content/upl...Facts-2015.pdf

I was kinda hoping it would say something regarding "% gender playing more than 5-6hrs a day" or something, but no-go.

It may be safe to draw the conclusion that women like video games, but then either choose not to go pro or dont have the means to go pro.

These numbers are overwhelmingly skewed by social games, which nobody really includes in the definition of gamer. They only include those games to make it seem like women care about it more than they really do because lol equality lol anything women can do men can do lol omg gamer girl.

[baudib]

I'll note that I have a female friend who A. was a top billiards player in the state B. earned an advanced degree but decided to become a poker pro instead. C. was a top winner in the biggest mixed games available D. won an OFC tournament the first time she ever played the game E. had a ridiculous run with 3 final tables in different games at WSOP last year despite basically never playing tournaments.

My assumption is she's obviously a natural game-theory genius and outliers can be found in both genders.

That said, yeah I think there is a tendency for women to be biologically suited to be nurturers and to hold societies together as child-raisers, whereas men are programmed to fall into either fodder (you need soldiers and armies to fight wars, you need wars to mix up the gene pool) or leader categories.

[spoonitnow]

I'll note that I have a female friend who A. was a top billiards player in the state B. earned an advanced degree but decided to become a poker pro instead. C. was a top winner in the biggest mixed games available D. won an OFC tournament the first time she ever played the game E. had a ridiculous run with 3 final tables in different games at WSOP last year despite basically never playing tournaments.

My assumption is she's obviously a natural game-theory genius and outliers can be found in both genders.

That said, yeah I think there is a tendency for women to be biologically suited to be nurturers and to hold societies together as child-raisers, whereas men are programmed to fall into either fodder (you need soldiers and armies to fight wars, you need wars to mix up the gene pool) or leader categories.

Super-accurate description in the bold.

[Lukie]

Interesting thread.

A while back I read a little bit into IQ tests and other intelligence testing, what some of the implications were, how effective they were, etc. Some takeaways (that I remember off the top of my head anyway, no guarantees here as to accuracy):

- For as bad of a rap as 'tests' get, average IQ test score is a highly predictive of the success of a group. e.g. countries with high average intelligence scores are usually successful/powerful with high standard of living. Countries with low average intelligence scores would invariably be considered 'third world' countries. Of course there is a feedback loop there which complicates things (high standard of living leads to better education which leads to better scores, and the opposite. However, this does not fully explain the current situation.)

- Men and women score extremely close to each other in IQ testing. In fact, most tests are designed with the idea of equalizing them to begin with. However, when designing the tests, you can't get around the fact that men have the advantage in spatial intelligence, and women have the advantage in reading/communicative intelligence. So you could design the tests in a way to favor one gender, depending on your motivations

That alone explains a lot in the context of gaming. Competitive gaming is highly spacial with hand eye coordination, visualizing the next moves, etc. Add to this that fast reaction time is a crucially important factor in games, and men have a clear advantage there as well.

It's not so bad for women. Reading and speaking well are generally more useful skills in modern society anyway. It just doesn't help much in competitive gaming, sports, or similar.

[aubreymcfate]

Also think about the hours a lot of these guys put into playing these games since they were little. That's thousands upon thousands of hours, comparable to what a professional concert pianist puts in. There must be a much larger pool of guys that have put the kind of hours in needed to be at the top tier level. (There's definitely more adolescent guys playing CoD 24/7 than girls.) So you ask why there are virtually no women in the top percentile: simply because the probability of that is very low. It's the same reason there are so few female grandmaster chess players -- the percentage of men that play chess and have put in the amount of time necessary to be a master is way higher.

I think the most dominant reason for this disparity is culture and societal norms, with the brain chemistry stuff playing a lesser role (however, like JKDS said, non-neglible).

It's certainly possible that men have a natural edge over women when it comes to things like spatial intelligence and reaction time, but that doesn't fully account for why there are zero women in the top field. It's just statistically way less probable.

My little pet theory that comes from literally nothing but the ass I pulled it out of is that a lot of women must have varying degrees of typical "male" brain chemistry, and vica versa (men with more feminine traits), and overall the psychological spectrum of humans contains so many variances, and so things like brain chemistry differences between sexes can never really be the most prominent reason for such inequities because it's just a rough guide. And that's why it's foolish to make any grand or absolute assumptions about someone based on gender, we're just way too complex for that. There are some truly androgynous people out there, inside and out.

So again, I don't find it difficult to believe brain chemistry plays a role in the original question, but also I think it's likely that there are many women who could be top level players that just never fostered their talents the same way their male peers did. Untapped p00ntential.

[baudib]

There's definitely a cultural thing at play. Is it any surprise that the United States has the elite women's soccer and basketball teams? Girls are encouraged to play sports in the U.S. much more frequently than in other countries.

Boys are given a football, toy soldiers, toy monsters. These lead to playing games with them that tend toward strategy, conflict and competition.

Girls are given dolls, playhouses and ballerina shoes.

[OngBonga]

Girls are better at field hockey. And netball. Rounders, too. All the faggoty versions of proper sports, basically.

[JKDS]

Is this brain chemistry argument really just a societal norms thing?

Is it any wonder that boys who spent a decade playing with legos and footballs develop more coordinated skills, while girls who spent a decade playing dress up and tea parties develop better communication skills?

[aubreymcfate]

Is this brain chemistry argument really just a societal norms thing?

Is it any wonder that boys who spent a decade playing with legos and footballs develop more coordinated skills, while girls who spent a decade playing dress up and tea parties develop better communication skills?

lol! Good point.

My communication skills online are pretty good, but my social anxiety can be pretty bad. Growing up on the internet is likely not a coincidence. I have an older brother and looked up to my dad a lot when I was young, which I, as I get older, I can see the effects of more clearly. I feel like I was a very testosterone-fueled child, lol. But I wasn't really a tomboy and I was extremely sensitive, so.. I dunno.

If anyone is interested, polemic feminist that most feminists hate Camille Paglia (and possibly Spoon's sister from another mister) talks about differences between men and women in a context similar enough to this to be relevant, it's about the first 10-15 min of this video entitled "1992 Camille Paglia trashes Gloria Steinem wing of feminism"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIomA2MQNI4

I don't fully agree with her, but nonetheless I find her points super incisive and interesting. Besides, you need thought leaders who say outrageous and divisive things that induce visceral reactions; I really dislike the notion that everyone with a platform has to be fair and moderate.

[baudib]

Can we talk about why "Your Dad" jokes aren't funny?

[aubreymcfate]

Because women don't have a pathological need to defend their fathers as a means of defending and asserting their femininity?

[baudib]

I didn't want a serious answer.

[a500lbgorilla]

Is this brain chemistry argument really just a societal norms thing?

Is it any wonder that boys who spent a decade playing with legos and footballs develop more coordinated skills, while girls who spent a decade playing dress up and tea parties develop better communication skills?

You've got the cause and effect backwards. If given all options, boys will still overwhelmingly gravitate toward legos, and footballs, and guns and girls would gravitate to tea parties and dress up and dolls.

[a500lbgorilla]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIomA2MQNI4

About 35 seconds in and I can already tell she's my girl.

[aubreymcfate]

I didn't want a serious answer.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[JKDS]

You've got the cause and effect backwards. If given all options, boys will still overwhelmingly gravitate toward legos, and footballs, and guns and girls would gravitate to tea parties and dress up and dolls.

I dont think this is the case, but if it is, its due to societal things. There is no gene, brain matter, or chemical that drives one gender to one of those things. So if there is some draw, its due to societal influence like advertising or parental teachings.

[aubreymcfate]

About 35 seconds in and I can already tell she's my girl.

Yeah, I'm really into her. Reason (as in reason.com) did an hour video talk thing with her, it's good shit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88_3AhU0-B0

[a500lbgorilla]

I dont think this is the case, but if it is, its due to societal things. There is no gene, brain matter, or chemical that drives one gender to one of those things. So if there is some draw, its due to societal influence like advertising or parental teachings.

It is the case and it is due to genes, and brain matter, and hormones.

[baudib]

I dont think this is the case, but if it is, its due to societal things. There is no gene, brain matter, or chemical that drives one gender to one of those things. So if there is some draw, its due to societal influence like advertising or parental teachings.

There certainly are gene, brain matter and/or chemicals that drive people to these things.

I assume you will agree that homosexuality is not a choice and likely at least strongly caused by hormonal/chemical factors.

There is no societal thing that drives gay men to like show tunes.

[a500lbgorilla]

There certainly are gene, brain matter and/or chemicals that drive people to these things.

I assume you will agree that homosexuality is not a choice and likely at least strongly caused by hormonal/chemical factors.

There is no societal thing that drives gay men to like show tunes.

nor autism - an overly masculine brain. Nor is transgenderism - a mismatch between the gender of the brain and the gender of the body.

It's easy to see society's influence on people because it is ubiquitous, but you can't turn a blind eye to the underlying nature of gender.

[spoonitnow]

Is this brain chemistry argument really just a societal norms thing?

Is it any wonder that boys who spent a decade playing with legos and footballs develop more coordinated skills, while girls who spent a decade playing dress up and tea parties develop better communication skills?

The brain chemistry is different in the womb.

[spoonitnow]

I dont think this is the case, but if it is, its due to societal things. There is no gene, brain matter, or chemical that drives one gender to one of those things. So if there is some draw, its due to societal influence like advertising or parental teachings.

Wrong. http://www.livescience.com/22677-gir...oy-trucks.html

When offered the choice of playing with either a doll or a toy truck, girls will typically pick the doll and boys will opt for the truck. This isn't just because society encourages girls to be nurturing and boys to be active, as people once thought. In experiments, male adolescent monkeys also prefer to play with wheeled vehicles while the females prefer dolls — and their societies say nothing on the matter.

[a500lbgorilla]

Stumbled on these. Seems like a fair weight of both sides of the argument.

1st video builds up why gender is a construct:

[a500lbgorilla]

2nd video pulls it down:

[aubreymcfate]

"My argument has always been that nature has a master plan pushing every species toward procreation and that it is our right and even obligation as rational human beings to defy nature's fascism."

[aubreymcfate]

And it is, btw, that fascism that is facilitated by well-meaning (although sometimes not) parents who lazily pigeonhole their children's hobbies and interests based on gender and sexists who use it as an excuse for lazy thinking (among other things).

[a500lbgorilla]

As she said, she prefers being a Romantic. I prefer the belief that you never thumb your nose at nature, you learn her rules, and then how to use them to your advantage.

[aubreymcfate]

I am of the belief that I'm the greatest goddamn thing with an inferiority complex to ever grace this planet and bitches, nature included, need to recognize.

That's just me though.

(idk if you were implying this or not but Paglia certainly doesn't thumb her nose at nature, accepting biology and nature is a huge part of her whole schtick)

[aubreymcfate]

Oh wait, I think I see what you're getting at. When she says "defy nature" she doesn't mean "deny nature."

[a500lbgorilla]

I was directing that at you. Planes don't fly on chutzpah and hallowed dreams.

When the tide sucks you out to sea, you don't beat your arms against it in a rage against Poseidon, you swim out of the undertow and slowly back to shore like the sorry ape you are.

[a500lbgorilla]

Oh wait, I think I see what you're getting at. When she says "defy nature" she doesn't mean "deny nature."

Yeah, I'm talking about defying nature. You don't do it. Instead, you trick nature to act in your interests.

[aubreymcfate]

Maybe your idea of tricking nature and her idea of defying nature are more aligned than you think (but I don't really know because I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that).

She's kind of an androgynous, aggressive loudmouth who is not stereotypically feminine in many ways, liked to crossdress when she was younger, wanted to be Napoleon, etc etc. I think this is what she means by defying.. Which isn't to say you act in defiance for the sake of it, but rather that you actualize yourself as an individual rather than slavishly doing what you're told to do because of your gender or whatever else.

I don't think she means something like.. let's see.. a 115 lb girl trying to become a UFC champ in the men's divisions, lol.

[a500lbgorilla]

She's kind of an androgynous, aggressive loudmouth who is not stereotypically feminine in many ways, liked to crossdress when she was younger, wanted to be Napoleon, etc etc.

What worked with Napoleon against other people won't work against Nature itself. It's a different game. You can't change the fundamental workings of nature. Gravity is gravity, genes are genes, and they function according to rules which can be known. And once they're known, once you've got a sense of the causes and their effects, you can start to align causes to create desired effects.

If you think you're doing a disservice to your children by providing them classically gender-appropriate toys, chances are very good that you're not. Those would be the toys they'd likely want anyway.

[JKDS]

It is the case and it is due to genes, and brain matter, and hormones.

There certainly are gene, brain matter and/or chemicals that drive people to these things.

I assume you will agree that homosexuality is not a choice and likely at least strongly caused by hormonal/chemical factors.

There is no societal thing that drives gay men to like show tunes.

The brain chemistry is different in the womb.

Wrong. http://www.livescience.com/22677-gir...oy-trucks.html

All of these things are preposterous. The argument is that men are wired to like legos, thats obviously false. How would you even define such a wiring? "Ah, we've discovered this particular stran, and it says LEGOS BE THE BOMB".

Cmon. Studies showing a preference for toys dont mean that they're 'wired' to like them.

[JKDS]

What I mean to say, is that you're taking a study, and drawing conclusions that arent there. Correlation causation and what not

[a500lbgorilla]

All of these things are preposterous. The argument is that men are wired to like legos, thats obviously false. How would you even define such a wiring? "Ah, we've discovered this particular stran, and it says LEGOS BE THE BOMB".

Cmon. Studies showing a preference for toys dont mean that they're 'wired' to like them.

Why do you think they're preposterous? Do you not think that there are gender-differences in the structure of the brain? Do you disagree with the dictum that, in biology, Structure is Purpose? Do you understand how these differences can be found and why their consequences are supposed?

What I mean to say, is that you're taking a study, and drawing conclusions that arent there. Correlation causation and what not

I am drawing on a lot. But I'll only show cards in due course. You want to brush the statements off the table, I'll keep putting them back on.

[aubreymcfate]

What worked with Napoleon against other people won't work against Nature itself. It's a different game. You can't change the fundamental workings of nature. Gravity is gravity, genes are genes, and they function according to rules which can be known. And once they're known, once you've got a sense of the causes and their effects, you can start to align causes to create desired effects.

If you think you're doing a disservice to your children by providing them classically gender-appropriate toys, chances are very good that you're not. Those would be the toys they'd likely want anyway.

I'm not sure I understand the Napoleon point you're making, all I meant was that she identified with male role models for reasons that are typically masculine - leadership, dominance, etc.

I think it is incumbent upon parents to nurture their children as individuals first and foremost. Walk around the toy store with them. Watch different movies, TV programs. Variety. Don't limit them. But don't try to force them to not be "traditional" either out of some sense of moral righteousness.

I don't disagree about the workings and rules of nature, and honestly, even if you did defy nature, whatever that means at this point, wouldn't that ultimately be nature defying itself? :P

[a500lbgorilla]

I'm not sure I understand the Napoleon point you're making, all I meant was that she identified with male role models for reasons that are typically masculine - leadership, dominance, etc.

I think it is incumbent upon parents to nurture their children as individuals first and foremost. Walk around the toy store with them. Watch different movies, TV programs. Variety. Don't limit them. But don't try to force them to not be "traditional" either out of some sense of moral righteousness.

I don't disagree about the workings and rules of nature, and honestly, even if you did defy nature, whatever that means at this point, wouldn't that ultimately be nature defying itself? :P

I think you're conflating Nature and society/culture.

I think she wasn't and knew she was being foolish when she said she was a Romantic.

But yeah, give your kids all the opportunity to figure out who they are, just don't be surprised when base-rates hold across a population.

[aubreymcfate]

The only reason Paglia thinks you can defy nature at all is because she believes in its fundamental workings in conjunction with the complexity and transcendent quality of the human spirit. (Feminists that disagree with her would argue that it is only society that needs defying.)

I'm not sure what her being a Romantic has to do with anything but I also don't recall the context in which she said that, so whatever, I'll have to rewatch the video again at some point.

Why is it that every time I take something to improve my focus I find myself debating gender on this forum? Jesus fucking christ, lol. I need to slowly bow out of this.

[spoonitnow]

All of these things are preposterous.

Annnnnnd you just lost all credibility on this discussion by saying things that have been proven repeatedly are preposterous and denying that they exist.

[MadMojoMonkey]

All of these things are preposterous. The argument is that men are wired to like legos, thats obviously false. How would you even define such a wiring? "Ah, we've discovered this particular stran, and it says LEGOS BE THE BOMB".

Cmon. Studies showing a preference for toys dont mean that they're 'wired' to like them.

I thought so at first, but I'm on rilla's side of things now.

There is overwhelming evidence that whatever you call it, hard wiring or otherwise, it is kinda there.

If nothing else, there are obvious differences in the rate at which boys and girls go through different stages of physical and emotional growth. At about 2 to 5 years old, the gender differences are starting to become quite clear.

At 2 to 5 years:
Girls are bigger, and role play as observers. They act as purveyors of a story, of which they are on the outside looking in.
Boys are generally smaller, and role play as actors. They become the character in the story they are telling. They enact the behaviors of the super-heroes in the stories they've heard.

Girls focus on the conversations between people. Boys focus on the plot or characters more than the dialogue.

***
All of this is generalities, but just because the set bears randomness, doesn't mean there is nothing to be said about the data.

[a500lbgorilla]

Maybe she didn't think she was being foolish because she possess the vast female brain and I simply have a narrow male one. But, in my narrow view, if it isn't rationalist, it's exposing itself to some human flight-of-fancy and I think this point is implied by the name Romantic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIomA2MQNI4#t=5m

[MadMojoMonkey]

Annnnnnd you just lost all credibility on this discussion by saying things that have been proven repeatedly are preposterous and denying that they exist.

Well, nothing's been proven in this discussion, so I'll hold out on the credibility assessment.

If I was first exposed to this information in this thread, I would not be convinced by you rabble of weirdos, or whatever immediate links you posted.

When you all convince me of something, it's due to my own curiosity driving deeper research in my own time. It's never because of an un-critiqued link I read in a forum.

Besides, it does seem like it's a cultural thing. The fact that it probably isn't is difficult to suss out of all the noise involved with demonstrating anything conclusive about human psychology.

[aubreymcfate]

Maybe she didn't think she was being foolish because she possess the vast female brain and I simply have a narrow male one. But, in my narrow view, if it isn't rationalist, it's exposing itself to some human flight-of-fancy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIomA2MQNI4#t=5m

I see I taught you a thing or two!

I will watch but I'm hesitant to engage in this debate with you (rationalism, romanticism, etc.) because honestly just thinking about it is exhausting me. But if I have a particularly good reply I probably won't be able to help myself. Won't be any time too soon though.

[JKDS]

Why do you think they're preposterous? Do you not think that there are gender-differences in the structure of the brain? Do you disagree with the dictum that, in biology, Structure is Purpose? Do you understand how these differences can be found and why their consequences are supposed?

I am drawing on a lot. But I'll only show cards in due course. You want to brush the statements off the table, I'll keep putting them back on.

The argument is that boys are wired to like legos or football. For that to be the case, there must be something in our bodies that responds to them. But since legos have only been around for less than a century, whatever supposedly makes us hardwired must be a recent thing. We cant be wired, and we cant have evolved, to like something that didnt exist.

If you want to make a different argument, that boys are inclined to like the color red, that boys are inclined to 'put things together', thats reasonable. Idk if its right, and we as a society dont know if its right, but its not a ludicrous idea.

But what do we really know? Boys tend to like trucks more than girls. Ok. Whats tend mean? What conclusion can we possibly draw from that? It seems like the argument, correct me if im wrong, is that there are different correlations between what boys like and what girls like, there are differences in their brain structure, so therefore girls are bad at video games. Sure, that could be the case. But we dont know. The best we have are things like "tends to".

[JKDS]

Annnnnnd you just lost all credibility on this discussion by saying things that have been proven repeatedly are preposterous and denying that they exist.

You dont know what "proven" means.

[JKDS]

I thought so at first, but I'm on rilla's side of things now.

There is overwhelming evidence that whatever you call it, hard wiring or otherwise, it is kinda there.

If nothing else, there are obvious differences in the rate at which boys and girls go through different stages of physical and emotional growth. At about 2 to 5 years old, the gender differences are starting to become quite clear.

At 2 to 5 years:
Girls are bigger, and role play as observers. They act as purveyors of a story, of which they are on the outside looking in.
Boys are generally smaller, and role play as actors. They become the character in the story they are telling. They enact the behaviors of the super-heroes in the stories they've heard.

Girls focus on the conversations between people. Boys focus on the plot or characters more than the dialogue.

***
All of this is generalities, but just because the set bears randomness, doesn't mean there is nothing to be said about the data.

I dont take issue with studies that show things like that. I have issue with attempting to use such studies to prove that the reason is genetic. You take this 2-5 year period, the age where children begin to start interacting with their world, you cant then say that the world didnt cause them to behave this way.

[a500lbgorilla]

The argument is that boys are wired to like legos or football. For that to be the case, there must be something in our bodies that responds to them. But since legos have only been around for less than a century, whatever supposedly makes us hardwired must be a recent thing. We cant be wired, and we cant have evolved, to like something that didnt exist.

If you want to make a different argument, that boys are inclined to like the color red, that boys are inclined to 'put things together', thats reasonable. Idk if its right, and we as a society dont know if its right, but its not a ludicrous idea.

What if legos were just one instance of a larger class, say mechanical objects? Do you think we could have evolved for one gender to prefer things that fall into the camp of mechanical while another gender prefers objects that fall into a more social class?

What do you think came first: A love for toys like legos or legos which created our love of them.

But what do we really know? Boys tend to like trucks more than girls. Ok. Whats tend mean? What conclusion can we possibly draw from that? It seems like the argument, correct me if im wrong, is that there are different correlations between what boys like and what girls like, there are differences in their brain structure, so therefore girls are bad at video games. Sure, that could be the case. But we dont know. The best we have are things like "tends to".

The argument is something more like:

We know that the brain influences behavior.
We know that hormones influence behavior.
We know that prenatal hormones influence brain structure.
We know some things about certain brain structures.
We see that brain structures tend to differ in similar ways between genders.

Cook that all together and what do you get?

[spoonitnow]

You dont know what "proven" means.

1. It's proven that the brain chemistry in boys and girls are different in the womb. They can cut the baby's heads open and measure the shit. How far from proven is that for you?

2. The chimps showed preferences for the different toys with no social conditioning. This disproves the notion that the shit is purely social conditioning like you seem to suggest. How far from proven is that for you?

[a500lbgorilla]

I see I taught you a thing or two!

I will watch but I'm hesitant to engage in this debate with you (rationalism, romanticism, etc.) because honestly just thinking about it is exhausting me. But if I have a particularly good reply I probably won't be able to help myself. Won't be any time too soon though.

I could introduce you to my obscure intellectuals.

[JKDS]

What if legos were just one instance of a larger class, say mechanical objects? Do you think we could have evolved for one gender to prefer things that fall into the camp of mechanical while another gender prefers objects that fall into a more social class?

Sure, thats certainly possible. In fact many small sample studies have shown that boys tend to have better spacial recognition and what not. Whatever that means.

The argument is something more like:

We know that the brain influences behavior.
We know that hormones influence behavior.
We know that prenatal hormones influence brain structure.
We know some things about certain brain structures.
We see that brain structures tend to differ in similar ways between genders.

Cook that all together and what do you get?

That brain structure and hormones may be responsible for gender differences, but more info is required to affirmatively state such as a matter of fact.

[a500lbgorilla]

Don't be such a naysayer. You're already shut down to it being possible that gender differences and not society shape behaviors of fully grown adults and children alike. Certainly society doesn't influence sexual preferences when it comes to homosexuality, right?

[JKDS]

1. It's proven that the brain chemistry in boys and girls are different in the womb. They can cut the baby's heads open and measure the shit. How far from proven is that for you?

2. The chimps showed preferences for the different toys with no social conditioning. This disproves the notion that the shit is purely social conditioning like you seem to suggest. How far from proven is that for you?

Settle down there sparky

1. I agree their brain chemistry looks different. What conclusion drawn from that is proven tho?
2. "No special conditioning", really? How could you possibly rule out social conditioning entirely. How old were the monkeys before being studied? How long were they in captivity before the idea to study this came about? What was the behavior of the handlers who were with them? How many monkeys? Were other factors like color, smell, texture ruled out? What kind of food were they given? Did they sleep well? Were they being studied for anything else at the time which could have influenced the study?

No doubt, its neat that monkeys tended to do this. But you're trying to say that it proves "boys will be boys" by nature, and you'd be hard pressed to prove so

[a500lbgorilla]

There are two other larger points I'd like to make.

That brain structure and hormones may be responsible for gender differences, but more info is required to affirmatively state such as a matter of fact.

We never get matter of fact truths - just not yet shown wrong truths. And in this, we're going to miss that mark by a bit.

And second.

The best we have are things like "tends to".

Right they're called base-rates. Remember Kahnmenn teaches that you always listen to base-rates.

And a bonus point just to soften you up further.

Besides, it does seem like it's a cultural thing. The fact that it probably isn't is difficult to suss out of all the noise involved with demonstrating anything conclusive about human psychology.

Remember, it really seems like the Sun orbits the Earth.

And with that, watch 3 minutes of this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E577jhf25t4#t=22m13s