The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
"Shock! Scientists say video games feed male need to dominate" AKA "games aren't art&
Sol Invictus
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Source: http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10129243-71.htmlI always thought video games were a modern day artform.
But Professor Allan Reiss of the Center for Interdisciplinary Brain Sciences Research at Stanford University has proved such an elevated idea to be mere liberal tripe.
His research shows that video games stimulate the parts of men that so many other activities just cannot reach: the need to conquer, stomp on, dominate, crush, destroy, maim, annihilate, and turn to ashes and dust.
Women, apparently, understand video games, but their neurology doesn't house the same desire to conquer, stomp on, etc., etc.
"These gender differences may help explain why males are more attracted to, and more likely to become 'hooked' on video games than females," Reiss was quoted in the Daily Telegraph. "I think it's fair to say that males tend to be more intrinsically territorial. It doesn't take a genius to figure out who historically are the conquerors and tyrants of our species--they're the males."
You mean Cleopatra just sat back, played with her asps, and refused to conquer? How sad.
For those of you who are more scientifically inclined, the area of the brain that was put to the test in this research is called the mesocorticolimbic center. And in the case of the men, their mesocorticolimbic center resembled a particularly powerful volcano the minute a simple console was placed before them.
"Most of the computer games that are really popular with males are territory and aggression-type games," explained Reiss.
It is so heartwarming when science confirms what so many secretly feared.
Uh, yeah.
So I'm curious about how many women actually took part in this experiment or whether they just half-assed that portion of the research with "conventional wisdom" based on what they found out with the experiment's male subjects.
And assuming that there were any women, were any of them gamers inclined to play FPS or RTS games or did they simply pick from a pool of female non-gamers (or casual gamers) to participate in the research?
Also, I wonder about male gamers who build maps in LBP, rollercoasters and shipping routes in Rollercoaster Tycoon and Transport Tycoon and cities in SimCity 2000: how do these games fulfill their need to dominate?
It's pretty hilarious (and by hilarious I mean really stupid) how the article seems to conclude that because games stimulate a part of the brain that tends to be more active in men, games therefore can't be artistic. I wonder why it is we're not all playing Postal and Manhunt.
Sol Invictus on
0
Posts
What would actually be interesting is for the scientist to compare the effects of Peggle and God of War.
Then my wife comes in the room and I hit the TV/AUX button and so as to seem that I was watching Sesame Street with our son.
Steam | Twitter
Sorry Shakespeare!
The idea that men like games for some sort of primordial australopithecine reason - that they somehow feel it deep down in their dongs - is absurd. It's almost as stupid as the 'theory' I heard a few years ago on why women don't visibly display they're ovulating like most other animals (they insidiously evolved this way so men would knock them up and, thus, be obligated to support them).
The reason women don't play games as much as men is because they weren't expected to when they were growing up. Kind of like how it's much more common for guys to play basketball or football as a hobby. Up until the last 10 years or so - when most of us were growing up - video games was just something boys did, just like contact sports.
About the time I graduated high school I noticed this had started to even out. Video games were ubiquitous among any kids that could afford them, regardless of gender. Cheerleaders were as likely to have some kind of game boy as the nerdy boys. They might not have had as many games, or took them as seriously, but they still played and enjoyed them. Ten years from now, when this disparity has evened out entirely, this study is going to look even more ridiculous.
I thought Stanford was supposed to be a good school. Shouldn't they be hiring people who are actually making contributions to their field?
To be fair, the article is almost guaranteed to be sarcastic. Though I'm pretty sure the scientist wasn't, sadly.
This is the best part of this whole thing.
I mean, this guy somehow managed to hit "bad research", "faulty reasoning", "gender stereotypes" and "video games are bad" all in one go. That's gotta count as some sort of skill.
Sweet.
I don't know where the sarcasm starts and the truth begins. I suspect the author does not know where to stand on this, either. That makes him both a bad writer and a dishonest thinker.
It's probably some sort of news-troll to get people on games forums to pshaw and cluck. Somehow, somewhere, someone is making money off of this.
I can't help but admire quality trolling.
It's nice to know fishing for controversy has a long and storied heritage. Makes me feel like the internet community has traditions older then the medium iself.
This is especially true when you're dealing with finding a biological (or evolutionary) basis for the behavior of a given gender.
No, it just means you're a closet-dominatrix.
If you're talking about the person discussing this bogus experiment that was carried out he is quite clearly addressing it in a sarcastic manner.
*I'm not gonna bother to check if this statement is technically valid.
Quite weak, if so. Where is the genuine thought? Where are the solutions or alternatives?
Anyone can be Captain Sarcastic and not hold any real opinion of anything.
According to the article, a woman's "neurology doesn't house the same desire to conquer, stomp on, etc." So, either you're not a woman or you're some sort of freakish mutation better abandoned in the sewers at infancy.
Well, yeah, that's why he's a blogger and not a paid writer :P
He's a pro-blogger. Trust me, he gets paid.
Also, I believe the definition I'm looking for, to describe him, is "sophist".
I hate this idea.
No shit?
Well fuck
I always wondered why they were so damn popular. I thought people just used the hole in the CD to masturbate.
I vote for mutation! Maybe I'll get superpowers.
Either way, the scientist is a troll. :P
The implication that the mesocorticolimbic center is a region dedicated to raping and pillaging and looting is pretty facepalm-worthy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
It's a lot less inflammatory and mentions reward and addiction center.
I also can't find the report, anywhere. I'm looking for it now.
NEWSFLASH newspapers make valid research look like shit for their own bigoted ends, more at 11.
That means your gay.
Sorry man, but at least your sure to get some anal now.
shit like this is both Reason #1 why I didn't go into research, and Reason #1 why I'm not impressed by anyone who did. There's all kids of fucking idiots getting published out there.
"you're", and also, conflating same-sex attraction with with feminisation is pretty retarded.
I want to see the brain scans. I want to know sample size, distributions, standard deviations.
I guess the point of art now is not to stir certain emotions in people.