Yeah that Dawkins bloke, what the hell does he know? And beauty, entirely social, right up there with religion and art. Has nothing to do with how humans and animals choose a mate..

Average age of a gamer is 30, 45% are women. Stop stereotyping, stop pinning the blame on acceptable targets.

Most importantly, for the love of Logos, please stop pretending that people lose interest in sex and sexiness as they grow up, it kinda tends to work the other way around. Also - just as women don't pass on games because of sexy characters, I doubt men buy them for such a reason. There's media out there a lot better suited for arousal than our interactive entertainment; games have completely different factors crucial to them.

Oh, dude, you have no idea how I hate that guy's nonsense... No idea at all.

That's ridiculous. They're not as harmful to men because men haven't been brainwashed to believe that they're being harmed by them. Women have had these hang ups for centuries, so if it's the media or the games that causes it now, then what was causing it back then?

Maybe if you consider casual browser crap as gaming. People who pay 10 or more dollars to buy a game are probably overwhelmingly men.



BTW, why hasn't this thread died already ?

I mean people who pay the most money to play games, not people who are considered gamers by some wide criteria.

So what if 45% of gamers are women if they only spend a fraction of what men spend on games?

I think multibillion companies know better than you what their target audience (money givers) are. But go ahead, believe that corporations willingly throw away 45% of their possible income because they are sexist pigs.

And if the average age of a gamer is 30yo, why companies like Activision make most of their AAA titles 12+ ? Because the biggest paying audience (and their parents) are way below that average. It would be reasonable to believe older gamers have more money to spend, but well... older gamers have more things to spare money on.

I will not, because I don't believe they are sexist in the first place >_<!

Now that we've concluded evo psych is right up there with astrology, I say we debunk the patriarch friendly myths that Darwin perpetuated, Cisgendered bastard that he was. I mean, really, science shmience.

Because our brains are hard-wired to look at things that might potentially kill us. Not the case here...

Hey, don't accuse whole scientific fields of being bullshit, that there's some assholes abusing them for non-sensical propaganda doesn't mean that there's no brilliant minds working within them who have contributed a lot to society.

I think every science that includes things that can be interpreted either way and is nowhere possible to be categorized to be bogus.

Like economy. Every economist is a wise-guy, AFTER something happens :P

Some? Those aren't even scientific fields. A brilliant astrologer is still just an astrologer; doesn't matter how brilliant they are, the field itself is such a waste of energy.

They fancy themselves scientists, but it's an insult to actual scientists to refer to what they do as science.

That's the thing. Psychology and anthropology could become scientific endeavors, but they aren't presently. Psychology is more science-like than it was previously, but they still ignore the high quality research being done by neurologists, neurophysiologists and such because it would require them to completely rethink the entire discipline.

And, I thought that anthropologists had finally come to grips with the fact that it's not a scientific pursuit and pretty much impossible to turn into one.

Excuse me, you didn't say astrology, you said psychology and anthropology. My cousin studied psychology and is a criminal profiler now, my father worked as an anthropologist and studied the beliefs of minorities in Poland including some beliefs and customs which were not documented before his work, especially not with that amount of detail, and my brother wrote an anthropological thesis about Russia and the Soviet Union which provides the kind of information that say western politicians and their advisers and all those "experts" obviously lack when it comes to relations with Russia. You really dare saying that this kind of work is an insult to "actual scientists"?
I agree that in psychology and anthropology there is a lot of completely absurd theories without a scientific basis but it's ignorant to claim that the whole fields are based on stuff of that kind (and it's worth mentioning that many of those controversial stupid scientists who become famous in popular culture usually are not taken seriously by the majority of their fellow researches, rather laughed at). I also often accuse psychologists of knowing shit about the human mind and I think Freud was one of the biggest nuts in human history but I have great respect for say Zimbardo whose work is not based on mere interpretations and has little in common with Freud's theories which appear almost like occultism next to his stuff. And yes, Zimbardo ridicules many of Freud's theories in his books "despite" working in the same field.

None of those are scientific pursuits. I don't care how many people you know who engage in those studies, they are still not science.

Personally, I think the insinuation that those are scientific pursuits to be both insulting as well as deeply disturbing. While we're at it, why don't we declare economists and tea leaf readers to be scientists? Or perhaps we shouldn't be leaving out the palm readers and tarot card experts.

The fact here is that the scientific method is thoroughly understood and it's a pain in the ass to follow the requirements. There's a reason why they call the hard sciences "hard" sciences it's because they're difficult as well as being focused on concrete reality.

Which is demonstrably not the case with any of those fields. I'm not even sure why anthropologists would feel entitled to use the term scientist when historians don't. In neither case are you ever going to reach a concrete conclusion based upon the scientific method. You're at best going to accurately describe what already exists.

my oh my. I do wonder what paradigm you belong to... So you are saying that natural science are 'real' sciences and social sciences are not? I guess whether you can easily make your results into a graph or not is an important yardstick.

You may likewise say that "at best going to accurately describe what already exists" - also applies to 'hard' science. Creating a working mathematical model of magnetism, or a showing of how electrons changes position in H2O from water to ice, is nothing but doing so.

'Hard' and 'Soft' sciences are both Columbie eggs, though since social sciences are closer to everyday experiences it just seems more so.

This is just a matter of perception, more than anything else. having an understanding of how humans work, I would argue, is just as important as understanding how physics work.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-1.1/soft.htm
[url=http://bama.ua.edu/~sprentic/607%20Diamond%201987.htm]http://bama.ua.edu/~sprentic/607%20Diamond%201987.htm[/url]

edit - to put some light on it - I am educated as a chemist, and I am now doing a doctorate in education, so I have afoot in both 'hard' and 'soft' sciences. Neither is less or more rigours than the other, just different ways of thinking.