BioWare - Christina Norman Leaves Bioware

[Jack]

Sheeeeeeeet, you guys are worse than the loonies at the 'dex. You seem to have quite the issues.

 

[JemyM]

Actually to me it feels not much less dumb than that already, and dumber by the day.

I did read your whole post. After each paragraph I thought "in the next paragraph he will present some facts to support his statements". I was amazed and disappointed at the same time how you could write that much without even attempting to support what they are saying.

 

[holeraw]

You guys do realize that the two proposals:
"I observe that women and men behave differently" and
"Studies show that women and men are more similar that their behavior might signify"
don't exclude each other, right?

 

[DArtagnan]

You guys do realize that the two proposals:
"I observe that women and men behave differently" and
"Studies show that women and men are more similar that their behavior might signify"
don't exclude each other, right?

From the beginning, this wasn't about men and women having to be different, but simply that they are.

Whether or not they are more similar at the core "genetic/biological" level than our "anecdotal" evidence would seem to suggest, is an entirely different concept.

As for the "Big Five" theory that Jemy considers 100% objective proof - based on his articulation - it's laughably simplistic and shortsighted. I mean, you focus on dominating traits when looking at sample men and women - and you find that they're more similar than not? Wow - that's insightful.

You can't - and listen to this again - CAN'T separate genetics from the environment. You may find that if reality wasn't reality - men and women would be more alike, but reality IS reality. As of this moment, we have zero chance of determining when genetics stop and the environment begins. We can but guess and "test" within our pathetically limited understanding.

 

[holeraw]

Whether or not they are more similar at the core "genetic/biological" level than our "anecdotal" evidence would seem to suggest, is an entirely different concept.

I suppose we agree. I told you before: (on this subject) we can't really disagree.

 

[lostforever]

. The younger the generation you get, the more insignificant the old differences get.

There is a college close to where I work and I see the pupils walk pass on my way to work. I have very hard time telling which one is boy and which one is a girl! They all seem to dress and behave alike these days!

 

[DArtagnan]

Old differences fade, new differences enter the picture.

 

[lostforever]

Old differences fade, new differences enter the picture.

One thing I left out was that, the boy and girls behave in, what I consider, very "feminine" way! So I don't see new difference enter the picture, rather all getting bit "girlie"!

 

[DArtagnan]

You're not seeing it, because you're focused on the old societal norm regarding what's "feminine". Boys have been acting like girls since forever, but the difference is that it's no longer discouraged like it used to be.

I should probably state that I don't agree with any "norm" in this primitive and rigid way. I'm more into the patterns of behavior that go beyond these cliché and unprovable concepts.

Again, things like women having trouble setting aside the immediate emotional response, and men having difficulty not focusing on single issues at a time. These are patterns I see every day, that I can't disregard because I'm "biased" by confirmation. I have no desire to see anything but the objective truth - even if I can never have that.

So, when I state that women are less logical, it was a joke like I pointed out. But they CAN have trouble with logic - because they're generally sensitive to the immediate emotional response. I don't know how much of that is genetical or environmental. You can easily argue that men being "hunters" need to be able to shed emotion and focus on the issue at hand, but it's nothing but a convenient theory - as far as I'm concerned.

Our entire societal structure might be based on "confirmation bias" - in that we condition ourselves according to our own misconception of what a man should be and what a woman should be.

We don't really know.

I can entertain these theories all day long, but they remain theories at this stage.

 

[JemyM]

As for the "Big Five" theory that Jemy considers 100% objective proof

I do not understand why the concept of evidence is so hard for you.

It's simple;
A) A theory acknowledge all known evidence and is meaningful by it's power to explain what's going on and even predict future events.
B) Those who are interested in research will often have to juggle multiple theories at the same time.
C) Acknowledging that a theory have merit due to good evidence and alot of research done to it, and that it's definitely stronger than a theory with little evidence despite alot of research, doesn't mean 100% objective proof, a claim to know everything, a claim to be an expert etc.

Get ... it ... in ... your ... head ... you FOOL!

 

[JemyM]

One thing I left out was that, the boy and girls behave in, what I consider, very "feminine" way! So I don't see new difference enter the picture, rather all getting bit "girlie"!

Depends on your definition of feminine. Old gender roles expected a male to quell their emotions. It's easier to be yourself for younger generations.

 

[DArtagnan]

I do not understand why the concept of evidence is so hard for you.

It's simple;
A) A theory acknowledge all known evidence and is meaningful by it's power to explain what's going on and even predict future events.
B) Those who are interested in research will often have to juggle multiple theories at the same time.
C) Acknowledging that a theory have merit due to good evidence and alot of research done to it, and that it's definitely stronger than a theory with little evidence despite alot of research, doesn't mean 100% objective proof, a claim to know everything, a claim to be an expert etc.

Get … it … in … your … head … you FOOL!

Calm down

First, look at how you approach these subjects in the thread. You basically come in claiming that everyone is totally wrong and we ALL suffer due to "confirmation" bias. Just look at it. Then you come up with the Big Five theory as some kind of proof of your claims.

At this LATE stage, you suddenly talk about the theory having "merit". You're simply not accountable for your own words. If you know something, you know something - and that's fair.

But don't be a know-it-all-smartass and react when people call you out on it. You can't revise post history with me.

Look your theory up somewhere, like Wiki.

Look under the criticism it has received. You see? I'm not alone in thinking the theory is simplistic and lacking.

In any case, it's not the "Big Five" theory in itself I have a problem with. It's how you (and I expect others) use it to "prove" that men and women are more or less identical.

It's hogwash cooked up by "academics" without the capacity to go beyond the immediate conclusion.

*EDIT*

Maybe I should clarify this a bit more, though it seems wasted.

Your "evidence" is pointless. The theory tries to categorize the human psyche in incredibly simplistic and rigid "boxes". That's all fine when you're trying to communicate your theory - but the human mind can NOT be categorised plausibly by such simplistic concepts. There are so many vital factors that go into any given personality "trait" and they all flow together inseparably. It's a cute little way of dividing people into convenient "personality" types - and I'm sure it has its uses - but it's VERY far from the complete picture.

This is just my opinion, of course, but the theory is bullshit - and could have been cooked up by anyone sitting on a bench at a trainstation. It doesn't matter how much research went into it, because research can be adapted for any theory. It's the basic problem I have with this kind of approach, that you find to reliable.

 

[JemyM]

Look under the criticism it has received. You see? I'm not alone in thinking the theory is simplistic and lacking.

Let me tell you a few things you might not know about "theories".

Theories always begin somewhere and evolve over time.

People who studied and use the theory know that it contain abnormalities. Even theories with known abnormalities are useful. One good example of this is Newtonian Physics. It's not 100% right, but it's still useful because it is strong enough to predict future events even if it's not 100% true.

Part of science is metatheory in which theories are improved to meet new insights. Theories generate new perspectives, study is done, new insights are made, the theory is adapted to the new insights. The fact that abnormalities have been shown is a good thing because it means we are getting somewhere.

Finally, and this is the important part; a theory with merit is stronger than a theory without merit. Abnormalities in one theory doesn't support another.
For example; "science cannot explain this, thus God did it" or "Big Five doesn't include religiosity, thus women and men think different".

In any case, it's not the "Big Five" theory in itself I have a problem with. It's how you (and I expect others) use it to "prove" that men and women are more or less identical.

You are demanding proof for the negative which is an invalid request.

The proposed theory is that gender have a strong impact on thinking and we can explain human behavior and actions simply by knowing the gender of an individual. That is the positive theory so it's this theory that needs positive evidence.

Up to now little evidence have been put forth to support this theory, so I proposed Big Five as a theory that have better explanatory power if you wish to know more about an individuals personality.

 

[Maylander]

Theoretically, it should be impossible for anything to be "beyond worthless".

This thread proved my theory wrong.

 

[DArtagnan]

Let me tell you a few things you might not know about "theories".

Theories always begin somewhere and evolve over time.

People who studied and use the theory know that it contain abnormalities. Even theories with known abnormalities are useful. One good example of this is Newtonian Physics. It's not 100% right, but it's still useful because it is strong enough to predict future events even if it's not 100% true.

Part of science is metatheory in which theories are improved to meet new insights. Theories generate new perspectives, study is done, new insights are made, the theory is adapted to the new insights. The fact that abnormalities have been shown is a good thing because it means we are getting somewhere.

Finally, and this is the important part; a theory with merit is stronger than a theory without merit. Abnormalities in one theory doesn't support another.
For example; "science cannot explain this, thus God did it" or "Big Five doesn't include religiosity, thus women and men think different".



You are demanding proof for the negative which is an invalid request.

The proposed theory is that gender have a strong impact on thinking and we can explain human behavior and actions simply by knowing the gender of an individual. That is the positive theory so it's this theory that needs positive evidence.

Up to now little evidence have been put forth to support this theory, so I proposed Big Five as a theory that have better explanatory power if you wish to know more about an individuals personality.

You're completely ignoring what I'm saying.

That's what makes it useless to spend time debating with you. You have to be accountable before it's worth our time.

I'm saying theories are fine as long as you acknowledge they're theories. You come into the thread like you actually KNOW these things. I don't mind that, and I'm guilty of such articulations myself sometimes. But I stay accountable. I don't try to revise what I said - and I try my best to answer specific questions or criticisms.

I'm not asking for proof at all. I'm saying if you want to pretend you actually KNOW something, then you need proof to make it convincing.

I don't know who you're used to debating with, but I don't accept things that don't make sense without irrefutable proof. Otherwise, it's just a theory that I'll gladly argue against.

But it's pointless when you don't even read what's being said. You're totally stuck in your preconceptions about what other people think or do. Much like the theories you support.

I never said "gender" in itself has a strong influence on our way of thinking. That's in your head. I said WOMEN have different patterns, but that doesn't mean the patterns are necessarily GENDER based. They could be environmental. I don't really know.

 

[KapitanUnterhosen]

Sheeeeeeeet, you guys are worse than the loonies at the 'dex. You seem to have quite the issues.

It's missing a couple of transsexuals and amateur phrenologists.

 

[JemyM]

I'm saying theories are fine as long as you acknowledge they're theories.

You aren't pulling the "just a theory" card now I hope, because I believe you are smarter than that.

A scientific theory is a framework that sorts and order the available data. Examples of scientific theories are the theory of gravity and the theory of electricity.

What in everyday language is called "theory" is in science called a hypothesis.

Confusing the two displays scientific illiteracy.

You come into the thread like you actually KNOW these things.

I came as someone who had things to say. Like I said above, if you create a standard in which it's wrong to present information in a discussion you have given up reason.

I'm not asking for proof at all. I'm saying if you want to pretend you actually KNOW something, then you need proof to make it convincing.

The only one who posed that are the people who suggested "women and men think differently" and "women aren't as logic as men" and "women have more emotions than men". These statements are the one you should jump at. I challenged these hypothesises.

I never said "gender" in itself has a strong influence on our way of thinking. That's in your head. I said WOMEN have different patterns, but that doesn't mean the patterns are necessarily GENDER based. They could be environmental. I don't really know.

It's still the positive statement here.

 

[DArtagnan]

Jemy, once you manage to be accountable for your own statements, we can continue this debate. Until then, it's not worth our time. Certainly not mine.

 

[skavenhorde]

So does anyone have anything to say about how this will affect Mass Effect 3?

 

[holeraw]

So does anyone have anything to say about how this will affect Mass Effect 3?

It will probably appear to be more logical than #2 due to confirmation bias but otherwise an equal.