21
Get gud
(lemmy.zip)
Men of quality do not fear equality.
This is in my top ten favorite quotes.
I wouldn't call a skilled gamer a man of quality though, not without more informations about him...
Anyone who can play support all day is a god
Medic mains are gods confirmed.
AFAIR I have most hours as Medic in TF2.
misogyny is a skill issue
Always has been, weak men can't stand women outpacing them, this is not limited to gaming but basically anything and everything.
Had co-workers say they would never marry someone making more than them. Shit is so weird.
jfc, being a home-husband is the dream, their fucking loss
Been there, done that, it sucked.
It was great at first! But after 6-months I was depressed. Guess I'm the sort that requires the structure a regular job provides. Kinda been the same for WFH. :(
I like WFH but I hated being a house-husband. WFH gives me something to do more than cleaning and cooking and childcare.
Play some games, contribute to opensource, read academic papers. There are a lot of work to do even if you are not employed.
Believe it or not, cooking, cleaning and childcare full time doesn't really leave you with much energy to play games, let alone contribute to open source or read academic papers.
Hahahha most of our relationship i made more than his lordship. Now he makes more than me and he hates it. He wants to be a kept man, dammit
My genuine theory is that many (if not most) people are emotionally stunted or emotionally immature. You don't get this kind of mentality from someone who is balanced.
Now expand that to every facet of life and you get the world we live in.
It shows how stupid and against your own best interests this kind of thinking can be.
I am the full time worker in my family, and happy to be the provider for them. However, I would be a stay at home dad / house-husband so damn fast if my wife got some random job mom making a lot more than me. I do have my priorities in order, after all.
I'd do housework and care for the kids in a heartbeat if my wife made enough.
Maybe because it is not in realm of possible instead of something they don't want?
There are wealthy women out there, so it is entirely in the range of possibility. My mom's first husband left her when she started making more money as a lawyer than him. It's an ego thing.
It would be interesting to see if it's really because of how they are as individuals or more about the response to social status thing. Like if they did an experiment where high performers were deceived into thinking they were actually performing poorly, and vice-versa, would the attitudes towards women be reversed or not? The conclusions in OP seem to imply the researchers think they would be.
My hypothesis is men with low self esteem would be more misogynistic vs men with high self esteem.
My hypothesis is that if you're a piece of shit, that will extend to all walks of life(misogny, sucking at video games) whereas if you are not, the same rules apply(equality, excelling at video games)
By being a piece of human garbage you effectively hamstring yourself in every field.
The reverse is not true unfortunately. Skilled men are often mysoginistic assholes too.
The issue with this is it’s too simplistic.
What it’s actually saying is “it’s easy to not be misogynistic as long as you’re significantly better than all the women”.
It does not imply that you won’t be misogynistic as soon as you are threatened.
Ie when status quo is maintained (patriarchy is intact for you) it’s easy to support women.
Ain't just gaming. I dropped a note on a home tech forum while being visibly female and very rapidly realised i'd forgotten how fucking neckbeardy rank amateurs are
I've been a network/systems engineer for 25 years, my fellow pros would never be so gauche.
Except dev.
It’s weird with devs. Most of us are fine but there’s definitely a sizable number of “tech bros” that absolutely are misogynistic. And it’s probably worse than I realize not being the target of it.
Except dev. 😞
Rather ironically, I'm actually married to a dev
Tell Dev to cut it out.
instructions unclear, husband now caught in ceiling fan ranting about SEO
Also, a disturbing number of misogynistic people in web design/web dev needing help from technical support. It was rather shocking and educational for me, as a cis male, to work as a support supervisor. I never anticipated the level of sexism and harassment that my female techs faced on a daily basis.
Everything from asking of they want to do porn to "can I talk to a man". I had several techs that had to change the names that they used for customer communications to male or neutral ones due to the severity on the unending sexism despite regular warnings to the customers that this behavior would not be tolerated.
Working sysadmin gets you four times more abuse because it's the crux of 'mean person won't let my idiot arse run rampant on a system because they're mean and i hate them' and 'fuck youse wimmen don't tell me what to fucking do'
Hasn't evolutionary psychology been heavily debunked at this point?
I think it's much easier to say that dudes have it hammered into their heads that girls are bad at games, so when they underperform and a girl is on their team, they feel emasculated. This isn't too far off from when dudes end up losing their 'bread winner' status in their relationship. They were told they had explicit traits to exhibit and they failed to do so, so it hits them in their self esteem. Classic fragile masculinity.
Patriarchal conditioning makes way more sense than "caveman brain HATE competing with woman!".
Hasn't evolutionary psychology been heavily debunked at this point?
It's not without a good heap of criticism, that's for damn sure.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_evolutionary_psychology
I tend to think the social angle is more credible Because the behavior of being a dick to female-sounding voices in games is not a universal behavior. Those who aren't misogynists don't act that way. How strange.
The entire field of evolutionary psychology debunked? Do you mean the idea that our brains are subject to evolutionary forces like every other part of our anatomy? No, not debunked.
This is conflating specific methodological problems with theoretical claims. Yes, many have criticized the game theoretical methodology typical of evolutionary psychology. There are a lot of highly speculative junk claims out there. It’s also true that some (not all or even most!) cognitive scientists think that we cannot take the perspective that psychology evolved at all. But it is certainly untrue that there is some consensus that evolutionary psychology has been “debunked”.
This criticism is also a bit ironic given the highly speculative nature of the claims you put forward. Your guess sounds plausible I suppose, but I see no reason to think it’s any more methodologically rigorous.
Show me a prediction it makes
That’s not how science works. I understand that you’re trying to criticize the field, but lack of predictions, even reliable ones, is not itself a problem it has. For one thing, even false theories can make reliable predictions, like Levoisier’s defunct theory of caloric in the 18th century which has now been replaced by modern thermodynamics. The caloric theory can be used to make mathematically accurate predictions, but the underlying theory is still wrong.
Similarly, evo psych can make a lot of reliable predictions without saying anything true. On the contrary, one criticism of the field is that it’s unfalsifiable because an evolutionary theory can always (allegedly) be proposed to fit the data. Which is to say, you’re barking up the wrong tree.
One example: it is proposed that the fusiform face area of the brain is a domain specific module evolved for face detection. It’s present in other animals that recognize conspecifics by their face. In humans, damage to the area leads to face specific agnosia. The theory makes accurate predictions, but is it true? It’s still being debated.
Without predictions and without tangible models you don't have falsifiability. You unintentionally acknowledged my point without understanding it. The field isn't a science, just philosophy trying to explain the results from actual sciences, but didn't itself have any kind of proof of validity.
Your example is much more closely related to neurology and neuropsychology.
If you actually take a graduate level course on scientific methodology or on the philosophy of science, you will learn that “falsifiability” is no longer a viable standard for scientific validity. This is because, logically, no claim is falsifiable: one can always adjust background beliefs to evade a logical contradiction. See the Duheim-Quine thesis.
Moreover, if your argument were correct, we would have to reject evolutionary inferences altogether! What you say about the cognitive system is true for, e.g. the immune system or the endocrine system. But that’s ridiculous. Evolutionary claims are part of the bedrock of the so-called Modern Synthesis in the biological sciences of the last hundred years. Yours is similar to bad arguments made by creationists.
Your “No True Scotsman” response is just deeply confused about what evolutionary psychology even is. What a mess.
Well duh, curve fitting isn't new, that's why we try to make predictions before we know the result and try to keep the hypothesis simple. Of course falsifiability isn't enough alone, but it certainly hasn't lost its place.
Your comparisons are ridiculous because you're comparing things which are testable (genetic variances, etc) with hypothetical differences between ancient brains we don't know the structure of. We still don't even know enough to make deep comparisons between brains of related animals. Until you can both synthesize and simulate the brain of ancient genomes you have absolutely no idea if you're on the right track, you can't know at all. There's so many different ways a brain can implement the same behavior with so many different unpredictable side effects that you can't say more than "they behaved in a way that kept them alive long enough" with any reasonable certainty. Do you know at what rate brains have changed biologically? No?
Ugh, your comments are everything I hate about the internet. Both of us know that only one us does research on cognitive science, and it's not you. Yet, because it's the internet, you think you can get by with bluster and false confidence.
Of the many mistakes you make: No cognitive neuroscientist would say, without huge caveats, that we can't make deep comparisons between animal and human brains — not after all the groundbreaking work finding deep functional similarities between bird brains and human brains in the last 10 years. These are groundbreaking findings in comparative neurology, and it's pretty obvious you know nothing about them. You go on to propose a standard of evidence which require that we can predict protein synthesis based on genetic variances, which is laughable. You also seem to be completely unaware of phylogenetic analysis, which is actually the standard way we make many of our evolutionary inferences.
Look, I'm not even an evolutionary psychologist. I have no skin in that game. But I do hate bullshit artists on the internet.
Why are you spending your time defending the least useful parts of your field? You're just making it sound more and more like people taking findings from neuropsychology (a science) and making historical guesswork around it (trying to guess what caused changes with zero evidence of how animals behaved in past environments). I'm aware of phylogenetics, but it seems to lose it's usefulness when most genes have such a weak correlation to behavior and when you can't actually observe historical behavior. Brains have too high plasticity to predict why a certain region would exist if you don't know the environment the animal lives in.
You seem to be confused. My claim is not that there are no challenges or criticisms to evolutionary psychology, or that the topic isn’t very hard to study. It’s that these are live debates in a live field because that’s how science works. It is misunderstanding and arrogance like yours that spreads misinformation online.
Your argument is akin to saying “something is hard to study so it doesn’t exist”. We can’t get evidence for how psychology evolved, so psychology didn’t evolve. This was the mistake of radical behaviourists like B.F. Skinner, who thought internal cognitive states were impossible to measure, so cognition must not exist. That is obviously an error in inference, but also a lack of imagination.
Idk man. I am shoving respect into my son's head at all times, I show respect and love to my wife/his mom all the time, and he is misogynistic AF. I don't get it. I am trying so hard to raise him to be respectful towards women and he just doesn't accept it.
He's 7, ADHD, Autistic, etc. But I really don't know if that even has anything to do with it because I am, too.
I wouldn't say it's been debunked. Probably improbable, but in no way debunked
Yeah, the problem is it slips too easily into essentialism. "Oh we evolved this way, nothing we can do about it I guess ¯\_(ツ)_/¯"
Especially for questions like this, which could pretty easily be explained by cultural influences, no need to bring evolution into it.
Nobody fears competition more than the mediocre who only get by on the weight of their privilege.
Can someone please find the article they are referencing?
Edit: found it https://www.psypost.org/2015/07/study-low-status-men-who-bad-video-games-likely-bully-women-online-35901
There's further discussion in the second link where the original authors stand by their claim.
The two use different statistical methods to try to demonstrate the conclusion, and that's where the difference lies.
I'm not a big stats person, but I'm coming away feeling like the original claim is valid since a) it was shown in two different models the original author used and b) it makes intuitive sense to me.
Talk about being the change you want to see in the world. Thanks for the link, I appreciate it
What I would be really interested in, is how does it play out in reversed scenarios.
How do inexperienced women react to a singular man commenting in a competitive area that is female dominated, do you see the sane sorr of vitriol from lower performing women, vs welcoming behavior from better performing women?
this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2023
21 points (95.7% liked)
Gaming
4639 readers
182 users here now
The Lemmy.zip Gaming Community
For news, discussions and memes!
Community Rules
This community follows the Lemmy.zip Instance rules, with the inclusion of the following rule:
- No NSFW content
You can see Lemmy.zip's rules by going to our Code of Conduct.
What to Expect in Our Code of Conduct:
- Respectful Communication: We strive for positive, constructive dialogue and encourage all members to engage with one another in a courteous and understanding manner.
- Inclusivity: Embracing diversity is at the core of our community. We welcome members from all walks of life and expect interactions to be conducted without discrimination.
- Privacy: Your privacy is paramount. Please respect the privacy of others just as you expect yours to be treated. Personal information should never be shared without consent.
- Integrity: We believe in the integrity of speech and action. As such, honesty is expected, and deceptive practices are strictly prohibited.
- Collaboration: Whether you're here to learn, teach, or simply engage in discussion, collaboration is key. Support your fellow members and contribute positively to shared learning and growth.
If you enjoy reading legal stuff, you can check it all out at legal.lemmy.zip.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS