|
Your continuous donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums » Comments » News Comments » Gamasutra - Male Gaze and Video games

Default Gamasutra - Male Gaze and Video games

July 5th, 2012, 18:27
Originally Posted by Asdraguuhl View Post
But evolution has shaped our sexual desires so that chances of survivability are increased.

Chances are chances. If you do not take them, nothing happens.
ChienAboyeur is offline

ChienAboyeur

SasqWatch

#41

Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,071

Default 

July 5th, 2012, 19:43
Originally Posted by Asdraguuhl View Post
I have female colleagues whom I respect professionally since they deliver good work but that doesn't take away the fact that I wouldn't mind "banging" this particularly hot female employee when I happen to see her walking outside of my window. After all, it is not a rational choice but an instantaneous feeling.
(To any radical extreme feminist reading this: No, I will not justify myself nor apologize)
Amen, brother.
JDR13 is offline

JDR13

JDR13's Avatar
SasqWatch

#42

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida, US
Posts: 17,800

Default 

July 5th, 2012, 21:36
Originally Posted by Asdraguuhl View Post
I don't think "personality" is the topic here. Simple observation within society will tell you, using plain common sense, that there are indeed different generalised behaviours, traits and desires when comparing men and women, regardless of whatever reasons that cause those differences.
Can you say C-O-N-F-I-R-M-A-T-I-O-N B-I-A-S?

Originally Posted by Asdraguuhl View Post
I am a firm believer
I guess you win.


Mere facts wont do here and that's all I have to offer.

Originally Posted by Asdraguuhl View Post
This is just nonsensical. I have female colleagues whom I respect professionally since they deliver good work but that doesn't take away the fact that I wouldn't mind "banging" this particularly hot female employee when I happen to see her walking outside of my window. After all, it is not a rational choice but an instantaneous feeling.
(To any radical extreme feminist reading this: No, I will not justify myself nor apologize)
Ever noted that most heterosexuals have "taste"? That is, just because someone is of the opposite gender doesn't mean they are all interested. Attraction is much more complicated than both gender and sexuality.

Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind. - John F Kennedy
An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind. - Mahatma Gandhi
The world is my country. To do good is my religion. My mind is my own church. This simple creed is all we need to enjoy peace on earth. - Thomas Paine
JemyM is offline

JemyM

JemyM's Avatar
Okay, now roll sanity.

#43

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,028
Send a message via ICQ to JemyM Send a message via MSN to JemyM

Default 

July 5th, 2012, 21:39
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
If it's such a big deal, then why are women so eager to show their bodies?
One thing I found is that most sentences are refuted by thinking about them for two seconds.

Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind. - John F Kennedy
An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind. - Mahatma Gandhi
The world is my country. To do good is my religion. My mind is my own church. This simple creed is all we need to enjoy peace on earth. - Thomas Paine
JemyM is offline

JemyM

JemyM's Avatar
Okay, now roll sanity.

#44

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,028
Send a message via ICQ to JemyM Send a message via MSN to JemyM

Default 

July 5th, 2012, 22:20
Originally Posted by JemyM View Post
Can you say C-O-N-F-I-R-M-A-T-I-O-N B-I-A-S?
Are you implying that all people who claim to observe differences in gender are biased and therefore wrong?

Originally Posted by JemyM View Post
Mere facts wont do here and that's all I have to offer.
You are absolutely right. Social science and psychology are the most exact among the exact sciences so I would be better off treating your words as undisputed fact and absolute truth.

EDIT: Despite my sarcastic remark, I am genuinly sincere if I say that I find certain areas of psychology and social behaviour very interesting. Nevertheless, it is NOT an exact science and certain theories and believes are subject to dispute.

Originally Posted by JemyM View Post
Ever noted that most heterosexuals have "taste"? That is, just because someone is of the opposite gender doesn't mean they are all interested. Attraction is much more complicated than both gender and sexuality.
I am not sure what your point is. It doesn't seem to relate to what I have tried to say.

Originally Posted by JemyM View Post
That is, just because someone is of the opposite gender doesn't mean they are all interested.
Did anyone here state otherwise?


Originally Posted by JemyM View Post
Attraction is much more complicated than both gender and sexuality.
Did anyone here state otherwise?
Asdraguuhl is offline

Asdraguuhl

Asdraguuhl's Avatar
Sentinel

#45

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Madrid, Spain
Posts: 397

Default 

July 5th, 2012, 22:24
Originally Posted by JemyM View Post
One thing I found is that most sentences are refuted by thinking about them for two seconds.
Except your own, right?
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#46

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 14,385

Default 

July 5th, 2012, 22:40
Just like the whole anti-christianity crusade, Jemy has something against the traditional perception of genders. My guess is that there's something very personal causing it.

It seems to blind him to the point of denying the most basic of biological facts, that we're instinctually attracted to the opposite sex - unless we're part of the minority who isn't.

I'm all for questioning our "sciences" - but if we're going to entertain alternative thinking, at least keep it in the realm of the plausible.

Again, men desire women - and women desire men. It's natural and it doesn't have to be a negative. If I like to look at an attractive woman - then it's not a negative. Why would it be?

I'm certainly not the one confusing sexual attraction and responding to my biology with thinking less of the person being attractive. The two don't go hand in hand for people with a brain.
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#47

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 14,385

Default 

July 5th, 2012, 22:45
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
If it's such a big deal, then why are women so eager to show their bodies?
My take on this: this might be due to the lack of confidance that women generally have, so they try to compensate with showing off their bodies so that people can watch, join organizations and groups, try things beyond their capability thinking that this gives them confidance. Please don't get me wrong, this lack of confidance is not all bad at all, on the contrary - it makes you realise your limitations and lead to humility, humblness and chasity, which in my view are positive features.

Men, on the other hand, are ignorant, strong minded, and less sensitive which again, is not all bad since this allows them to be strong to handle the difficulties of life.

So these weaknesses or traits are not bad, but they lead to good if one understand their meaning and look at the bigger picture.
SpoonFULL is offline

SpoonFULL

SpoonFULL's Avatar
Keeper of the Watch

#48

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,346

Default 

July 5th, 2012, 22:51
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
Again, men desire women - and women desire men. It's natural and it doesn't have to be a negative.
Totally true, with control otherwise one is no different than an animal. So the question is then how do we distiguish ourselves from animals who have the same desire.

If I like to look at an attractive woman - then it's not a negative. Why would it be?
Have you thought about the social implication of this? If you were a married man and constantly looking (sorry Gazing) at other women who are more attractive than your wife, how does this make you feel about your wife, or women in general? Do you like someone to look at your wife, daughter, sister, mother in the same way you look at other women?
SpoonFULL is offline

SpoonFULL

SpoonFULL's Avatar
Keeper of the Watch

#49

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,346

Default 

July 5th, 2012, 23:03
Originally Posted by SpoonFULL View Post
Have you thought about the social implication of this? If you were a married man and constantly looking (sorry Gazing) at other women who are more attractive than your wife, how does this make you feel about your wife, or women in general? Do you like someone to look at your wife, daughter, sister, mother in the same way you look at other women?
It's completely natural to look at an attractive person, and most people do it regardless if they're single or married. People often aren't consciously aware of it until they've already looked.

As far as people looking at your own wife, GF, daugher, etc., there would be no sense in getting upset about it under normal circumstances.
JDR13 is offline

JDR13

JDR13's Avatar
SasqWatch

#50

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida, US
Posts: 17,800

Default 

July 5th, 2012, 23:06
My take on this: this might be due to the lack of confidance that women generally have, so they try to compensate with showing off their bodies so that people can watch, join organizations and groups, try things beyond their capability thinking that this gives them confidance. Please don't get me wrong, this lack of confidance is not all bad at all, on the contrary - it makes you realise your limitations and lead to humility, humblness and chasity, which in my view are positive features.
You're underestimating some women, I think.

Naturally, all human beings have their own reasons for doing things - and women showing their bodies are no different.

I'm talking in general terms, and it seems to me that a lot of women enjoy being desired, and they enjoy that they can profit from something as simple as showing themselves.

Then again, I don't see why they shouldn't. I have no problem with them profiting from it - though I would never actually pay for that reason alone.

I think it's key not to get blindsided by a single stereotype or a tiny box real people could never fit in.

Gaming is a largely male-dominated hobby - and it is for obvious reasons. Eventually - it will be split evenly - and then we'll have a lot more things that appeal to women directly.

The reason people are responding so strongly to "sexism" in games right now, is that we're at a point in time when there's a huge popularity surge in gaming - and the female audience is expanding rapidly.

But the industry hasn't caught on yet - and it will take time to adjust to the new audience, but it WILL happen.

So, the problem isn't one of sexism or making women into sexual objects. It's that women aren't being targeted by the games themselves.

Women ARE sexual objects in the minds of most males. Just as men are sexual objects in the minds of most females. But they're much more than that.

If someone has a problem being a sexual object, then it's because they limit themselves to that role - and not because the role in itself is inherently a negative one. It's just one aspect of a human being.

Have you thought about the social implication of this? If you were a married man and constantly looking (sorry Gazing) at other women who are more attractive than your wife, how does this make you feel about your wife, or women in general? Do you like someone to look at your wife, daughter, sister, mother in the same way you look at other women?
I don't give a shit about the social implication of responding to my biology - as long as I don't act on it to hurt the people I care about. I look at attractive women when they enter my area of vision.

I don't "gaze" at strangers regardless of how attractive they are. That's because I have zero interest in staring at a woman I will never interact with. That would only be frustrating - like going to a strip club.

"My woman" should understand that there are other attractive human beings in the world - and that it doesn't make her any less attractive. Se should understand that when I've chosen to be with her - she has absolutely nothing to worry about. I'm not going to pretend that I'm not physically attracted to other women - but I also wouldn't rub it in.

To me, physical attraction is as natural as it is boring. I'm not fascinated by it in the least. I care about love - and that's what I think is worth working for. I could look at a thousand attractive women - and it wouldn't mean anything at all, compared to what love means to me.

As for other people looking at attractive people - regardless of whether it's my woman or my hypothetical daughter - it's no less natural for them. Outright hiding physical attraction seems senseless to me.
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#51

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 14,385

Default 

July 6th, 2012, 01:08
Originally Posted by JemyM View Post
What is "the meaning of genders"?



Psychology student (and I guess "behavioral scientist" at this stage) signing in.

Neurosexism is not only false, completely contradicting the data, it's also an irrational position based on biases and emotions. There is no "male" or "female personality", the variation of personalities are greater within sexes than between. It will be easier for you to find 10 pairs of similar personalities but different genders than finding 10 people within a gender who have the same personality.



But this is even more stupid. We broke with nature 9000 years ago when someone discovered the plow and we haven't followed "genes" since. We invent, we design, we shape the world the way we want it. Every invention ever made is against our nature and it's breaking up with nature that is our core capacity when it comes to survival. We are the most the adaptive animal on this planet because we do not live by nature, we conquer nature. Our brains are extremely complex and dynamic structures that is capable of reprogramming almost everything we got from birth and THATS our legacy.

You may use your glorified caveman as a rolemodel in life. Me, I look up to people who went beyond everything that was done before them. That includes Marie Curie as well as all the brilliant women at my university who dedicated their lives to build upon the collective knowledge of mankind. Why should I listen to what your "genes" have to say?
You may be a psychology student, but I am a biology graduate, with honors. I am not a scientist, but I am eager to listen to true scientists and I hope you are one. But I also hope you are not obsessed with your studies up to the point of ignoring the most fundamental facts, or trying to break free from your genes (that would be a grand achievement, by the way)!
In fact your opinions are so flawed, that I am not going to need biology to prove them wrong.
'Mary Curie' is an excellent example that how puzzled you are. You have naively forgotten that her personality or achievements do not shroud her desires or urges. The genes that dictate her to eat, drink, flee from danger, reproduce, breastfeed her child, etc are all too real and your rudimentary psychology studies can't do anything about it.
It's not 'my genes' that you 'should' listen to, it's 'your genes' that you 'do' listen to, every time you see a hot woman. It's not disrespectful, there's no discrimination in that, it's basic human behavior. It's natural. It's the genes.
You remind me of Sheldon Cooper (another self declared scientist who is obsessed with his studies) in 'The Big Bang Theory'. The part where Sheldon's friends try to torment him by telling him that the fact that Sheldon's grandma had children proves that she had sex, and she liked it.
Mary Curie had two daughters and it has nothing to do with her achievements or her personality. She had sex. She liked it. Big surprise, huh?
blackcanopus is offline

blackcanopus

blackcanopus's Avatar
Dark Sun

#52

Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 277

Default 

July 6th, 2012, 01:18
Originally Posted by Asdraguuhl View Post
Are you implying that all people who claim to observe differences in gender are biased and therefore wrong?
YES.

Please note that the above word is in all caps, bold, increased in size and in red.

Originally Posted by Asdraguuhl View Post
You are absolutely right. Social science and psychology are the most exact among the exact sciences so I would be better off treating your words as undisputed fact and absolute truth.

EDIT: Despite my sarcastic remark, I am genuinly sincere if I say that I find certain areas of psychology and social behaviour very interesting. Nevertheless, it is NOT an exact science and certain theories and believes are subject to dispute.
This would be denial. You see, not only have the research refuted most assumptions about neuropsychologic gender differences, there's also great data on why the assumptions was confused with reality in the first place and why such assumptions persist.

Originally Posted by Asdraguuhl View Post
I am not sure what your point is. It doesn't seem to relate to what I have tried to say.
Did anyone here state otherwise?
Did anyone here state otherwise?
You seem to imply that because you are male you wan't to do a woman and that's essentially the rule.

Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind. - John F Kennedy
An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind. - Mahatma Gandhi
The world is my country. To do good is my religion. My mind is my own church. This simple creed is all we need to enjoy peace on earth. - Thomas Paine
JemyM is offline

JemyM

JemyM's Avatar
Okay, now roll sanity.

#53

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,028
Send a message via ICQ to JemyM Send a message via MSN to JemyM

Default 

July 6th, 2012, 01:39
Originally Posted by blackcanopus View Post
ignoring the most fundamental facts, or trying to break free from your genes (that would be a grand achievement, by the way)!
I do break free from bad interpretations.

Originally Posted by blackcanopus View Post
In fact your opinions are so flawed, that I am not going to need biology to prove them wrong.
I base my statements on biological psychology (neuropsychology), social psychology, personality psychology, identity psychology and cognitive psychology. Each of these are fields that empirically study human behavior and it's not uncommon that empirical data goes against intuition (how we think we act doesn't correspond the data on how we act).

Originally Posted by blackcanopus View Post
'Mary Curie' is an excellent example that how puzzled you are. You have naively forgotten that her personality or achievements do not shroud her desires or urges. The genes that dictate her to eat, drink, flee from danger, reproduce, breastfeed her child, etc are all too real and your rudimentary psychology studies can't do anything about it.
I haven't forgotten. In fact, I can partially explain the biological roots of the traits high intelligence, high openness, high conscientiousness and low agreeableness that creates an individual who not only breaks expectations but persist in doing so, where as each of these traits have a great variation within gender.

The problem is that you are blowing smoke and you may not even be aware of it. What you say is that genes matter, but fail to mention where it matters to the situation at hand. You follow preconceived cultural assumptions about gender and preconceived cultural assumptions that there are gene-driven gender differences, and then you state "genes matter", not noting that you took a huge leap.

Originally Posted by blackcanopus View Post
It's not 'my genes' that you 'should' listen to, it's 'your genes' that you 'do' listen to, every time you see a hot woman. It's not disrespectful, there's no discrimination in that, it's basic human behavior. It's natural. It's the genes.
I haven't stated otherwise. What I did state is that people are attracted by different things even when heterosexual. Two heterosexuals may not have much in common in what they are attracted to and it's not entirely in the genes. The way sexuality changes over time is interesting but it's another topic.

Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind. - John F Kennedy
An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind. - Mahatma Gandhi
The world is my country. To do good is my religion. My mind is my own church. This simple creed is all we need to enjoy peace on earth. - Thomas Paine
JemyM is offline

JemyM

JemyM's Avatar
Okay, now roll sanity.

#54

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,028
Send a message via ICQ to JemyM Send a message via MSN to JemyM

Default 

July 6th, 2012, 02:17
Originally Posted by JemyM View Post
YES.
Thank you for clarifying with such clearness that you cannot be taken seriously.

You remind me of a discussion I had some years ago with a girlfriend of a friend of mine. We were having dinner and I do not remember why it came up but I came with the statement that men are on average physically stronger than women (I was referring to brute muscle strength). She replied literally that that wasn't true and that women were physically equally as strong but just in a different way. I mean, WTF!

Originally Posted by JemyM View Post
This would be denial. You see, not only have the research refuted most assumptions about neuropsychologic gender differences, there's also great data on why the assumptions was confused with reality in the first place and why such assumptions persist.
In other words, if people disagree with you they are in denial.

Besides, research in non-exact sciences can be geared towards desired results. I am by no means implying that everything is bogus but they should not be confused with absolute fact.

Originally Posted by JemyM View Post
You seem to imply that because you are male you wan't to do a woman and that's essentially the rule.
You have misinterpreted me. I meant to state that my sexual desires stem from my "inner primitive me" over which I do not have any rational control but that it doesn't exclude me from appreciating women on completely different levels as well from a rational point of view.
Last edited by Asdraguuhl; July 6th, 2012 at 02:28.
Asdraguuhl is offline

Asdraguuhl

Asdraguuhl's Avatar
Sentinel

#55

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Madrid, Spain
Posts: 397

Default 

July 6th, 2012, 02:47
Originally Posted by Asdraguuhl View Post
Thank you for clarifying with such clearness that you cannot be taken seriously.
Originally Posted by Asdraguuhl View Post
In other words, if people disagree with you they are in denial.
I am very serious. Confirmation Bias is one of the few possible explanations why people persist to deny the actual data and are convinced that they are right. But of course you wish to say it's me you disagree with.

Originally Posted by Asdraguuhl View Post
You remind me of a discussion I had some years ago with a girlfriend of a friend of mine. We were having dinner and I do not remember why it came up but I came with the statement that men are on average physically stronger than women (I was referring to brute muscle strength). She replied literally that that wasn't true and that women were physically equally as strong but just in a different way. I mean, WTF!
Physical features have never been the question.

Originally Posted by Asdraguuhl View Post
Besides, research in non-exact sciences can be geared towards desired results. I am by no means implying that everything is bogus but they should not be confused with absolute fact.
Claiming the science is wrong to preserve ones opinion is the first step towards extremism.

Originally Posted by Asdraguuhl View Post
You have misinterpreted me. I meant to state that my sexual desires stem from my "inner primitive me" over which I do not have any rational control but that it doesn't exclude me from appreciating women on completely different levels as well from a rational point of view.
I haven't argued against that. I just stated that it's not a gender-specific impulse. There's little all-nature or all-nurture in our psyche. Genes are merely what interacts with the environment, they are never standalone.

Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind. - John F Kennedy
An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind. - Mahatma Gandhi
The world is my country. To do good is my religion. My mind is my own church. This simple creed is all we need to enjoy peace on earth. - Thomas Paine
JemyM is offline

JemyM

JemyM's Avatar
Okay, now roll sanity.

#56

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,028
Send a message via ICQ to JemyM Send a message via MSN to JemyM

Default 

July 6th, 2012, 10:19
Originally Posted by JemyM View Post
I am very serious. Confirmation Bias is one of the few possible explanations why people persist to deny the actual data and are convinced that they are right.
This is just surreal.

An interestig example: A women once told me some time ago that she prefers to work with men instead of women. She gave me as an excuse that women tend to be very competitive among each other at work and also tend to be more subtly manipulative among them when needs be.

I thought that this was an interesting and rather surprising comment so I have asked this question to many other women and they have ALL confirmed the same, that they prefer to work with men.

This observation leads me to believe that there are indeed some differences between men and women at the work place, otherwise these women wouldn't have chosen men as their prefered gender to work with.
(Note that I am not stating any conclusions nor trying to find any causes such as e.g. nature vs. nurtures. It is just a pure observation, nothing more.)

Additionally, I have no reason to be biased since it was a simple comment that I once heard and simply wanted to know whether it was an isolated case or a common pattern. I have to say that the results surprised me and didn't expect such unanimity.

Of course, according to your confirmation bias theory, my observations are completely wrong.

Originally Posted by JemyM View Post
Physical features have never been the question.
The physicial features are irrelevant, you are simply missing the point.
Although I think it is more likely that you did get the point but you refuse to acknowedge it.

Originally Posted by JemyM View Post
Claiming the science is wrong to preserve ones opinion is the first step towards extremism.
I am not claiming that the science in question is wrong per se but due to its very nature it shouldn't be treated as undispited fact by default yet you have the tendency to use it as a source for absolute truth which you use to automatically dismiss other people's viewpoints.

I find it ironic that you use the term "extremism", especially after your "yes" in large bold red letters.

Originally Posted by JemyM View Post
I haven't argued against that. I just stated that it's not a gender-specific impulse. There's little all-nature or all-nurture in our psyche. Genes are merely what interacts with the environment, they are never standalone.
If we are talking about different things, then why did you bring it up as a response?
(Btw, don't bother answering, it is more of a comment rather than a real question.)


P.S.

In a few hours, I am going for a few days to Viena on holidays and won't be accessing the internet. So let's just quit and stop here.
Asdraguuhl is offline

Asdraguuhl

Asdraguuhl's Avatar
Sentinel

#57

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Madrid, Spain
Posts: 397

Default 

July 6th, 2012, 11:14
Originally Posted by Asdraguuhl View Post
This is just surreal.

An interestig example: A women once told me some time ago that she prefers to work with men instead of women. She gave me as an excuse that women tend to be very competitive among each other at work and also tend to be more subtly manipulative among them when needs be.

I thought that this was an interesting and rather surprising comment so I have asked this question to many other women and they have ALL confirmed the same, that they prefer to work with men.

This observation leads me to believe that there are indeed some differences between men and women at the work place, otherwise these women wouldn't have chosen men as their prefered gender to work with.
(Note that I am not stating any conclusions nor trying to find any causes such as e.g. nature vs. nurtures. It is just a pure observation, nothing more.)

Additionally, I have no reason to be biased since it was a simple comment that I once heard and simply wanted to know whether it was an isolated case or a common pattern. I have to say that the results surprised me and didn't expect such unanimity.

Of course, according to your confirmation bias theory, my observations are completely wrong.
Yes. And you have every reason in the book to be biased. Note that a bias creates an illusion of reality that appears surreal when broken. Empirical research in psychology sometimes yield counter-intuitive results and there's little so satisfying in psychology as proving "intuition" wrong.

First, you allowed a woman to define womanhood. That in itself is problematic. If I say "real men dare to wear purple regardless what others think" I make a statement about men that are inaccurate since many men clearly do not fit that description. But the mere fact that I am a "man" do not allow me to speak for "men" more than me being "white" allow me to speak for "whites", being "blonde" allow me to speak for "blondes" and wearing glasses allow me to speak for other who wear glasses. The trait may for some be social markers but one should always be careful to not confuse an individuals opinions about a group with the group itself.

Unfortunately people who already have rigid ideas about groups gladly use individual examples to speak about groups, which is a foundation for things like racism; "hey look at this nigger doing a robbery in a liquor store, niggers are robbers I tell you". Visual markers are especially powerful at forming cognitive categories in our heads, which makes racism and sexism intuitive. We simply assume that there's categories of people because they have a strong visual differences. Strong categories automatically form assumptions about differences in things that are not within the visual difference at all. We simply assume that if there are visual differences, there are differences in personality, intelligence and other factors as well.

This is why we as a society have to actively fight racism and sexism in every generation because we intuitively build false assumptions about categories.

If you wish to learn more, there are a lot of studies conducted on the accentuation-effect, which also plays a strong role in social-identity theory (Henri Tajfel).

Second you conducted your own research in a way that sounds like no attempts were made to improve your validity and reliability when doing so. First you do not seem to have used a coherent/rigid model in your research and that's a mess. You need to go great length at avoiding confounding variables. You need a quantified diverse population. You need to be careful about registering every test, otherwise your brain will forget the misses and adjust the data based on your assumptions rather than the other way around. You must also consistently try to falsify your hypothesis rather than conform to it.

Originally Posted by Asdraguuhl View Post
I am not claiming that the science in question is wrong per se but due to its very nature it shouldn't be treated as undispited fact by default yet you have the tendency to use it as a source for absolute truth which you use to automatically dismiss other people's viewpoints.
Peer-reviewed research does have stronger weight than your assumptions, it have stronger weight because such research have gone great length at being valid and reliable and survived attempts to poke hole in it's structure.

Assuming research might be wrong doesn't equal refuting the research. You are free to conduct your own research, get your article peer reviewed and published but when you simply suggest "research might be wrong" you are doing something else.

Some people just want to have opinions but do not have the time or energy to support them in the often rigid, timeconsuming and exhausting practice of doing scientific research. So they make up excuses that their opinions may still be valid and the research is wrong and suddenly they feel as if their opinions are just as valid as the research. Kinda like a sandcastle on the beach is as solid as a skyscraper.

Originally Posted by Asdraguuhl View Post
I find it ironic that you use the term "extremism", especially after your "yes" in large bold red letters.
It was an absolute statement, but not extreme. Sometimes academics gets flack for being too vague and open on topics that are covered with a large quantity of data. It's part of the ethics to be openminded, but our culture doesn't work like that. So sometimes it's better to say "yes" than "it depends…".

I just didn't have the time to write what I now did above. There's no time to go into detail on how precisely cognitive functions about groups are constructed, identity theory, metacontrast and the research to support it within a forum post. You can spend a day on each of these and only scraped the surface, I have spent years and I still learn new stuff.

Originally Posted by Asdraguuhl View Post
In a few hours, I am going for a few days to Viena on holidays and won't be accessing the internet. So let's just quit and stop here.
k.

Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind. - John F Kennedy
An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind. - Mahatma Gandhi
The world is my country. To do good is my religion. My mind is my own church. This simple creed is all we need to enjoy peace on earth. - Thomas Paine
JemyM is offline

JemyM

JemyM's Avatar
Okay, now roll sanity.

#58

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,028
Send a message via ICQ to JemyM Send a message via MSN to JemyM

Default 

July 6th, 2012, 12:02
Didn't read everything through yet, but the current theory of how human mating functions is called "sex-for-food" and assumes that at one point (possibly shaping around the time of Ardipithecus Ramidus) men went away from fighting against other men for the ability or allowance to mate with a woman. Someone some men went over to the idea to present food to the woman, thus giving her "high-fat, high-protein food", and trying this way to get from her the allowance to mate with her. It's a kind of bribing, so to say, if you think it to the end. And since women need high-fat, high-protein food especially for carrying out children, both kind of agreed to this. As a side result, men tended to carry the food with their hands towards women, and thus the bipedial walk evolved, Anthopologists assume. Which also led to a hunter-gatherer life of men rather on the ground meanwhile woen build some kinds of nests in the top of the trees. Which would grand their children at least some kind of safety.

If this is true, then it would explain almost everything in xes related aspects of human nature, including the want of women to "monopolize" men, the men's wish to "prove themselves worthy" and amass wealth, and so on.

I took this theory from the magazine "National Geographic" from July 2010. It impressed me.

Edit : You can read it here, too : http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n…n-fossils.html

Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction. (E.F.Schumacher, Economist, Source)
Alrik Fassbauer is offline

Alrik Fassbauer

Alrik Fassbauer's Avatar
TL;DR

#59

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Old Europe
Posts: 15,966

Default 

July 6th, 2012, 13:38
This topic just reinforces why I hate psychologists. Seems spending years in college to get a degree qualifies them to dictate on how everyone is wrong.

To me the problem with society is there are to many people telling others how to live there life. Remember science is always right and biology is just plain wrong right?

"We must stand strong my fellow watchers against the horde of red trolls."- The Couchpotato
Couchpotato is offline

Couchpotato

Couchpotato's Avatar
LazyGamer
RPGWatch Team

#60

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Potato Land
Posts: 9,454
RPGWatch Forums » Comments » News Comments » Gamasutra - Male Gaze and Video games
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 15:48.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch