Gaming

[–] pixxelkick@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago*

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?

[–] CaptDust@sh.itjust.works 1 point 3 years ago* (6 children)

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.

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] not_that_guy05@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago (5 children)

Had co-workers say they would never marry someone making more than them. Shit is so weird.

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 1 point 3 years ago (4 children)

jfc, being a home-husband is the dream, their fucking loss

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 0 points 3 years ago (3 children)

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. :(

parent

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 3 years ago (2 children)

I like WFH but I hated being a house-husband. WFH gives me something to do more than cleaning and cooking and childcare.

parent

[–] uis@lemmy.world 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

Play some games, contribute to opensource, read academic papers. There are a lot of work to do even if you are not employed.

parent

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago

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.

parent

[–] someguy3@lemmy.ca 1 point 3 years ago (3 children)

Men of quality do not fear equality.

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 0 points 3 years ago (2 children)

I wouldn't call a skilled gamer a man of quality though, not without more informations about him...

parent

[–] Fapp@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

Anyone who can play support all day is a god

parent

[–] uis@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago

Medic mains are gods confirmed.

AFAIR I have most hours as Medic in TF2.

parent

[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 1 point 3 years ago (6 children)

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.

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] gkd@lemmy.ml 1 point 3 years ago

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.

parent

[–] rediot@lemmy.world 0 points 3 years ago (4 children)

Except dev. 😞

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 0 points 3 years ago (3 children)

Rather ironically, I'm actually married to a dev

parent

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 0 points 3 years ago (2 children)

Tell Dev to cut it out.

parent

[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

instructions unclear, husband now caught in ceiling fan ranting about SEO

parent

[–] hoshikarakitaridia@sh.itjust.works 1 point 3 years ago

And that's why they made us learn Murphy's law early on :P

parent

[–] JayDee@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 years ago (10 children)

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!".

hideshow 10 child comments

[–] SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 years ago (8 children)

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.

hideshow 8 child comments

parent

[–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 0 points 3 years ago (7 children)

Show me a prediction it makes

hideshow 7 child comments

parent

[–] SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca 1 point 3 years ago (6 children)

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.

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 0 points 3 years ago (5 children)

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.

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[–] SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca 1 point 3 years ago (4 children)

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.

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 0 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (3 children)

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?

parent

[–] SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca 1 point 3 years ago (2 children)

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.

parent

[–] Natanael@slrpnk.net -1 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child)

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.

parent

[–] SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca 1 point 3 years ago

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.

parent

[–] Chetzemoka@startrek.website -1 points 3 years ago

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.