Should Pillars add in beauty or renown stats for dialogue options or events?

[ThacoBell]

No way. There are already enough (maybe a little too much) different skill checks as it is.

[smokeBomb]

@Initates

 

Yes, the cultural differences you talk about are significant and real. Europe is full of cultural differences that influence social behaviours and accepted norms – even counties in Ireland can have wildly different social norms.

 

That wasn’t the topic of my argument, however. It was male versus female behaviours, which no matter the country, continent or cultural norms, male versus female behaviours have a distinctive consistency in the areas I described, no matter where you look.

 

My gf is French – she couldn’t be more different to me culturally. Any time I visit France, I’m amazed at their attitudes to certain things. But you’ll still find the majority of women in one job and men in another because of how we’re preconfigured to ‘tick’. Most obviously, however, you’ll find men and women behave exactly as I described in relation to the flirting game.

 

Culturally constructed differences have little to no impact on how that all plays out.

 

'In my personal experiences with women they've tended to have more variety in their behaviors and opinions regarding sex (as well as everything else) then the homogeneity you describe.'

 

I invite you to go back and read over my post, starting from ‘Women have an elaborate criteria of items that need to be met before they sleep with a man…’ I’ve argued for the exact opposite of what you’ve just stated here.

 

@gkathellar

 

it's not possible to make meaningful generalizations about the significance of of proportions of grey and white matter across male and female brains

 

You don’t follow up on why you believe this is so. If men and women were supposed to think in an identical fashion, then the architecture of the most complex unit in the body would be more or less identical. It’s vastly different on multiple levels, beyond even white and grey matter. For me – and maybe it’s just me here – ‘vastly different’ tends to lend itself to the assumption that there’s a ‘significant’ reason for the difference.

 

I’m aware the topic is intensely controversial, but referring to me as ‘baiting’ doesn’t help your case. I don’t regard you as a ‘baiting’ because you can’t agree with me.

 

Social norms condition us to accept what we’re told without question. The sheep mentality is not to question – the knee-jerk response is to vilify those who do. I’d like to invite you to think back over mankind’s history, to all the people that questioned what they were told to believe – and were vilified by the majority for answers and creations that went against social conditioning of 'right' and 'wrong': merely constructs of the times. These people included the greatest scientists, philosophers and artists in history – many were vilified until well after death.

 

Just because it’s 2018 doesn’t mean we’ve figured everything out. I like to question, I like to give answers – it’s not done to offend or rock the boat.  

 

Nobody was designed to excel at anything. People are, and they are for reasons, but that's a brute fact the only significance of which is itself.

 

Your opinion – I disagree. You don’t provide any evidence, scientific or otherwise, to back this up. But we agree to disagree, right? Because that’s what normal people do all the time.

 

The problem being that it's not clear which traits those are, aside from, say, slight predispositions towards spatial versus verbal ability

 

You’ve selectively quoted one article from the new scientist, of all places. I could selectively back up my findings with 100s of sources, to include the NCBI which contradicts your source in multiple different articles. Again, you’ve google: I’m not going to spend all day copying and pasting links. Search words: 'differences in grey matter and white matter in male and female brains'. 100s of articles backing up what I wrote.

 

Empathic and sensory intelligence in women versus mechanical/mathematical logic in men is the biggest difference I’ve encountered, but I’m loathe to open up another proverbial can of worms on yet another ‘hot’ topic.

 

I work in app development. Sure, I’ve worked with women in the industry. They’re as good as men. But research has also shown that some males and females share what are still traditionally labelled as ‘feminine’ and ‘masculine’ intelligences, but in general there are distinctive masculine and feminine architectures. I’m going to say the tech industry is 90% men, and someone, I feel, is going to explode and say that’s because of our culture in tech.

 

So ok, let’s not get into another debate or we’ll be here all year – I really believe there’s a big difference in our brains. I have my reasons, and I’m not trying to convert you or anyone else to believe in them. They’re my ‘musings’ if you will.

 

Do you see me writing that ‘you’re wrong’? I’m interested in your opinion, and I just happen to disagree with it. Can you not just write out your own argument with calling someone ‘wrong’?

 

Human intelligence and human animal instinct are not clearly distinguishable terms

 

Can you give your theory on why this is so? I’m all for you disagreeing with me – I’ve no issue with that. But you seem to just be constantly saying ‘you’re wrong’. Which isn’t very open minded, is it?

 

Intelligence – for me – is conscious calculation. Animal instinct is subconscious calculation. I paint as a hobby, and the end result is all subconsciously derived – at no point do I know what I’m doing, or why I’m doing it until I’m done. I just ‘go with the moment’.

 

That same animal instinct is what makes you ‘go with the moment’ with the girl you find attractive, even if conscious thought – your intelligence – says you’re taking a risk, buddy. But you’re not in control anymore. Sex is the same thing. If you’re telling me consciously think about everything you do during sex, well ok then. For me, it’s pure animal instinct – completely distinct from intelligent conscious thought.

 

The very fact that animal instinct is so powerful it can make same sex relations impossible to resist for some, and so utterly unthinkable for others, surely proves there’s a big difference in how our brains work.

 

I'm sure you'll disagree with that reading, but I honestly find your whole argument to be ill-informed at best and intellectually dishonest at worst   

 

All right, mate, seriously. Your differing opinion is totally fine with me, and I’m not slinging this kind of thing back at you, am I? I’d rather just read your theories – I will read them. And you might see me write a counter theory – but I’ll never write anything like this.

 

---------------------

 

Just so there's no confusion regarding my previous post – I think the OP has good points, and his suggestion for a 'beauty' check is valid IMO. But what I've been arguing for is a recognition of 'beauty's' influence in the writing itself, not necessarily in the game mechanics. I don't believe it's important to have a mechanic designed around it.

 

 

 

[Katarack21]

 

 

Even if it’s a realistic way, it’s difficult to do in a CRPG with so many fight situations. It’s a concession of gameplay and it’s fine.

 

The best way to do it by far is in a game with an advantages/disadvantages system, as a perk that triggers certain dialogue options or a small bonus on certain checks, while keeping it totally separate from the core mechanics. Beauty should generally be placed along things like "oh, I have photographic memory," or "oh, I know ALL THE TRIVIA," or, "oh, I'm familiar with military stuff" - miscellaneous character traits that can be independent of combat attributes.

 

 

I'm agree with you but apparently a fighting penalties for a beautifull woman is a heresy for some.

When it's *exclusive to female characters*, yes. When *female characters and only female characters* have a "pretty" stat and inherent penelties to combat...yeah, that's ****ed. It's *really* ****ed.

 

And no, I don't have to tip-toe around it. I don't have to be gentle and conciliatory. I don't have to be diplomatic and concerned about their emotional reaction. I don't have to bend over backwards to make sure I don't offend their delicate sensibilities.

 

If it's a ****ed-off misogynistic **** idea, I'll say so.

[Katarack21]

Science has already proven there are vast differences between the quantity of grey and white matter between the male and female human brain – and also its dispersal and density in certain regions. And that’s only the tip of the iceberg regarding this thing that’s solely responsible for how you think and behave. There are, in other words, multiple intelligences, some of which women were designed to excel in over men – and vice versa. 'Intelligence' itself is a rather meaningless word in that sense, since there is no one all-governing intelligence. But what it does mean is that it's safe to say there are 'feminine' traits and 'masculine' traits. If you can't be convinced by experience, then by all means tell science its wrong.

 

There is also social research galore that has already investigated the influence attractiveness has on the human perception of competition and intelligence. Attractive people tend to be viewed as more competent – that’s not my conclusion, it’s the conclusion of the research. It’s been shown to have significant implications for hiring and promotion within the workforce. As such, it’s a kind of cheap charisma that just works out of the box, so to speak.

 

Research aside, we’re all entitled to our opinions regardless. If they don’t confirm with yours, and you have to resort to name-calling over counter opinion, then that says everything I need to know.

 

That said, if you feel men and women should be treated identically in fantasy, I say that’s fine – you’re entitled to your opinion. There’s nothing wrong with it, but I’ll still challenge it, which isn’t the same as shooting it down.

 

I don’t need science to tell me women and men aren’t remotely the same – I just need to have lived a life. Human intelligence is subordinate to human animal instinct, by which I mean nature has intentions for you as an animal to ensure the survival of the species. It doesn’t care about concepts like political correctness – and it has designed the brain to guarantee nature will always have the upper hand. It’s my personal preference is to see the implications of that in all fiction. That’s not me saying ‘this is how it should be’, it’s me saying ‘this how I want it to be’.

 

Regarding the comment that I’m a ‘troll’, of all things, why get so angry and upset if my opinions aren’t the same as your opinions? Do you need me to be thinking exactly like you do about life in order to feel content? Because I won’t.

 

Men rate physical attractiveness in potential mates higher than women do. I can speak from experience when I write that, and there’s no shame for me there – it’s just human nature.

I’m no expert in female psychology, but I can still have opinions on my observations of women. I’ve also asked women direct questions on the subject that have backed up all of what I believe. For women, the attraction business is far more complex. They don’t have the same lust for sex based solely on appearance – a man might see a beautiful woman, discover she has a personality that would curdle milk, and still have sex with her if the chance arose.

 

Women in general won’t do that if a man is attractive. They have an elaborate criteria of items that need to be met before they sleep with a man: his confidence levels, his emotional stability, his sense of humour, his social skills, to name but a few.

 

Women also play a subtler flirting game. It’s more psychological, more creative and more indirect than the game men play. They also have more opportunity to use their bodies and, yes, beauty to seem more alluring – this doesn’t mean acting like a ****, or taking her clothes off.

 

The topic of female flirtation is so complicated I have to cut it off there. In short, I’ve experienced both men and women flirting with me. I don’t care how people perceive my sexuality, even though I’m straight – but I can say the experience has taught me men and women couldn’t be more different in how they think. Men have directly hit on me, even if they know nothing about my personality. They’ve often been aggressive in doing so, and occasionally stalker-ish – ‘no’ won’t be taken for an answer, and the process can go on almost indefinitely for as long as you work in the same building as them.

 

Women are far more cautious and probing. They’ll never directly let you know they find you attractive in the way men will. They’ll always do so indirectly, in a way that leaves you constantly guessing – am I right in how I read her body language, and the innuendo in her conversation? But it’ll always be up to me, as a man, to make the move. They have never engaged in staker-ish behaviour with me, and I've never had to repeatedly make it clear that the answer is a 'no', as happens to have been the case with not one but several different men – in the same building. I've had to actually ask my manager to move me to a different floor at one stage, because one of these men was in no way as harmless as the others in his persistence.

 

None of these behaviours are reflected in Deadfire, which was only one small part of the problem I had with the narrative. Having lived a life, I simply reject any fiction that doesn’t look or sound like reality. That’s just me.

 

As regards ‘that thread’ that I started, I’ll likely never look at it or read the comments. That’s it’s been locked already says everything I need to know. It has provoked debate, therefore it has done its job. Past experience on forums thought me you’re better off not getting involved beyond that point, because life’s too short.

 

Besides, no matter how rational you may be, no matter much evidence you provide, there’ll always be some twit who’s out for your throat, no matter what. For these people, there is no debate – they call you names, they curse your words, but they never counter with an opinion of their own with a level head.

 

I don’t deal with such people in online forums. If they don’t like me and my opinions in such a personal way, they’re welcome to come meet me face to face. I won’t turn down anyone on that offer.

1) It's *REALLY* important to note that there is *no hard line* about male vs female brains; there is nothing in the brain, no pattern of grey matter, no size of a region, *nothing* that you can look at and say "that's exclusively female" or "that's exclusively male". Neural sexual dimorphisms in humans exists only as *averages*, with significant overlap in individual variability, and it is unknown how much of that is due to environmental or social changes, even in adulthood. Forensic scientists generally refuse to make a statement about gender if all they have to go on is a brain, because they simply *can't be sure*.

 

2) The same is true of "feminine traits" and "masculine traits". There is no trait that is exclusive to one or the other, nor that exists in one to such an extent with a corresponding dearth in the other that is clearly and decisively "feminine" or "masculine". There are things that are slightly more common on one side or the other, but again with averages, individual variability, and significant overlap. Actual scientists do not treat human brains or behaviors as "inherently feminine" nor "inherently masculine" unless they are discussing hormone levels, etc--and even then it's averages not specifics (a significant minority of women, for example, have testosterone levels at a "male" level, producing things like facial hair and a thickened jaw, thanks to very common disorders such as PCOS).

 

3) Your statement about the social research of attractiveness is accurate if immaterial to the subject at hand.

 

4) You're use of hard delineators like "men won't", "women never", etc is simply wrong and severely undermines you case. In all these instances, there is *significant* individual variability and variability between cultures and times to such an extent that it simply *does not qualify* for the scientific definition of inherent or intrinsic behavior and the implication of a hard dichotomy is not appropriate.

Edited May 28, 2018 by Katarack21

[M4xw0lf]

If studies reliably find one thing, it's that variation within the sexes is way higher than between them. I.e., personalities differ way more by universal character traits than by inherently male or female aspects.

[wih]

 

 

 

Even if it’s a realistic way, it’s difficult to do in a CRPG with so many fight situations. It’s a concession of gameplay and it’s fine.

 

The best way to do it by far is in a game with an advantages/disadvantages system, as a perk that triggers certain dialogue options or a small bonus on certain checks, while keeping it totally separate from the core mechanics. Beauty should generally be placed along things like "oh, I have photographic memory," or "oh, I know ALL THE TRIVIA," or, "oh, I'm familiar with military stuff" - miscellaneous character traits that can be independent of combat attributes.

 

 

I'm agree with you but apparently a fighting penalties for a beautifull woman is a heresy for some.

When it's *exclusive to female characters*, yes. When *female characters and only female characters* have a "pretty" stat and inherent penelties to combat...yeah, that's ****ed. It's *really* ****ed.

 

And no, I don't have to tip-toe around it. I don't have to be gentle and conciliatory. I don't have to be diplomatic and concerned about their emotional reaction. I don't have to bend over backwards to make sure I don't offend their delicate sensibilities.

 

If it's a ****ed-off misogynistic **** idea, I'll say so.

 

 

It is a bad game design. But why it is misogynistic? Honest question.

*Edit*

Oh, you explained it earlier. It is about stereotypes.

 

So what is so bad about reacting calmly to this and just saying that the idea isn't good? Without implying that someone is troll? I'm starting to think there aren't as much trolls as people think. But there are wildly differing opinions and people are quick to judge and ready to attack. Small things are blown out of proportion, like the post that started this storm.

Edited May 28, 2018 by wih

[JerekKruger]

If studies reliably find one thing, it's that variation within the sexes is way higher than between them. I.e., personalities differ way more by universal character traits than by inherently male or female aspects.

 

Indeed, and that's what should really matter. Treat people as individuals rather than ascribe traits to them that might be more prevalent in whatever group they happen to belong to.

 

 

Meh, I like the more abstract attributes of pillars. No need to turn this into F.A.T.A.L. the cRPG.

 

Roll for Anal Circumference.

 

 

Is it bad that this was one of the first things I thought about when reading this thread...

[JerekKruger]

My gf is French – she couldn’t be more different to me culturally.

 

[Katarack21]

 

 

 

 

Even if it’s a realistic way, it’s difficult to do in a CRPG with so many fight situations. It’s a concession of gameplay and it’s fine.

 

The best way to do it by far is in a game with an advantages/disadvantages system, as a perk that triggers certain dialogue options or a small bonus on certain checks, while keeping it totally separate from the core mechanics. Beauty should generally be placed along things like "oh, I have photographic memory," or "oh, I know ALL THE TRIVIA," or, "oh, I'm familiar with military stuff" - miscellaneous character traits that can be independent of combat attributes.

 

 

I'm agree with you but apparently a fighting penalties for a beautifull woman is a heresy for some.

When it's *exclusive to female characters*, yes. When *female characters and only female characters* have a "pretty" stat and inherent penelties to combat...yeah, that's ****ed. It's *really* ****ed.

 

And no, I don't have to tip-toe around it. I don't have to be gentle and conciliatory. I don't have to be diplomatic and concerned about their emotional reaction. I don't have to bend over backwards to make sure I don't offend their delicate sensibilities.

 

If it's a ****ed-off misogynistic **** idea, I'll say so.

 

 

It is a bad game design. But why it is misogynistic? Honest question.

 

The basic idea is that the PC is often, and especially among casuals, a reflection of the people playing it within the setting at hand. This idea, if implemented, creates a setting where female's are pretty but weak and males are ugly but strong. Within this theoretical setting, women and men are delineated into specific roles based on inherent differences between the sexes which the person making the character has no ability to alter--and these differences create a world where female characters are pretty and thus are delineated into roles based on their sexual attractiveness while men are strong and thus delineated into roles based on physical might.

 

At first this seems seems sexist, but not focused on one or the other, but that's only on the surface. This idea leaves male characters *the same as they've always been*. They receive no bonus and no penalty. There are no changes to male characters with this idea; you make a male character and go on with your day. You don't get the "bonus" with the social interactions and what not, but you don't receive the penalties. Men are left neutral jacks-of-all-trade; not as good as female characters at social interactions but not penalized, with no alterations to their physical capabilities.

 

Women, on the other hand, have their entire interaction with the system altered in a way that defines their genders interaction with the game world. They are inherently good at this but bad at this; they get special options here but special limitations their. And this whole, special, female-defining trait is....physical attractiveness.

 

That's why it's misogynistic instead of simply sexist. In this setting men are the same as men always are in every game, but female characters are uniquely defined by how pretty they are, and penalized in interactions that depend on other stats.

Edited May 28, 2018 by Katarack21

[wih]

 

 

 

 

 

Even if it’s a realistic way, it’s difficult to do in a CRPG with so many fight situations. It’s a concession of gameplay and it’s fine.

 

The best way to do it by far is in a game with an advantages/disadvantages system, as a perk that triggers certain dialogue options or a small bonus on certain checks, while keeping it totally separate from the core mechanics. Beauty should generally be placed along things like "oh, I have photographic memory," or "oh, I know ALL THE TRIVIA," or, "oh, I'm familiar with military stuff" - miscellaneous character traits that can be independent of combat attributes.

 

 

I'm agree with you but apparently a fighting penalties for a beautifull woman is a heresy for some.

When it's *exclusive to female characters*, yes. When *female characters and only female characters* have a "pretty" stat and inherent penelties to combat...yeah, that's ****ed. It's *really* ****ed.

 

And no, I don't have to tip-toe around it. I don't have to be gentle and conciliatory. I don't have to be diplomatic and concerned about their emotional reaction. I don't have to bend over backwards to make sure I don't offend their delicate sensibilities.

 

If it's a ****ed-off misogynistic **** idea, I'll say so.

 

 

It is a bad game design. But why it is misogynistic? Honest question.

 

The basic idea is that the PC is often, and especially among casuals, a reflection of the people playing it within the setting at hand. This idea, if implemented, creates a setting where female's are pretty but weak and males are ugly but strong. Within this theoretical setting, women and men are delineated into specific roles based on inherent differences between the sexes which the person making the character has no ability to alter--and these differences create a world where female characters are pretty and thus are delineated into roles based on their sexual attractiveness while men are strong and thus delineated into roles based on physical might.

 

At first this seems seems sexist, but not focused on one or the other, but that's only on the surface. This idea leaves male characters *the same as they've always been*. They receive no bonus and no penalty. There are no changes to male characters with this idea; you make a male character and go on with your day. You don't get the "bonus" with the social interactions and what not, but you don't receive the penalties. Men are left neutral jacks-of-all-trade; not as good as female characters at social interactions but not penalized, with no alterations to their physical capabilities.

 

Women, on the other hand, have their entire interaction with the system altered in a way that defines their genders interaction with the game world. They are inherently good at this but bad at this; they get special options here but special limitations their. And this whole, special, female-defining trait is....physical attractiveness.

 

That's why it's misogynistic instead of simply sexist. In this setting men are the same as men always are in every game, but female characters are uniquely defined by how pretty they are, and penalized in interactions that depend on other stats.

 

 

Nice explanation, thank you.

[illathid]

 

 

 

Meh, I like the more abstract attributes of pillars. No need to turn this into F.A.T.A.L. the cRPG.

 

Roll for Anal Circumference.

 

 

Is it bad that this was one of the first things I thought about when reading this thread...

 

 

Well if it is bad, then we're in the same boat. It's the first thing that comes to mind anytime detailed appearance stats get brought up. Granted, I love reading about all the really horrible tabletop systems that exist in the world, like F.A.T.A.L. and Witch Girls Adventures.

Edited May 28, 2018 by illathid

[smokeBomb]

1) It's *REALLY* important to note that there is *no hard line* about male vs female brains

 

This is your opinion and I have my mine that says I disagree. This is just vapid preaching: verbal fumes - weightless, insubstantial without any explanation/personal theory backed up from reality or otherwise.

 

2) The same is true of "feminine traits" and "masculine traits". There is no trait that is exclusive to one or the other

 

Sweeping statements, no evidence from reality or otherwise once again. I’ve given my evidence from reality, and I stand by it. Weak sauce preaching again – anyone can do that. Examples of how there are no masculine and feminine traits?

 

3) Your statement about the social research of attractiveness is accurate if immaterial to the subject at hand

 

The subject of the post is ‘beauty’ and my research regarding attractiveness is immaterial to that subject. Eh... Do you want to put ‘attractiveness’ into a MS Word editor there, chief. There’s a little button under the ‘review’ tab called ‘thesaurus’. It’ll tell you alternative meanings for attractiveness, one of which – hang in there now – is…drum roll…beauty!

 

Imagine that.

 

4) You're use of hard delineators like "men won't", "women never", etc is simply wrong and severely undermines you case

 

Whenever you try and backup your preaching with an explanation you really do shoot yourself in the foot. That’s certainly not helping your case for preaching without an explanation in exhibits 1 and 2.

 

I never used the expression ‘men won’t’, for starters. And I only used ‘women won’t’ to describe one circumstance: flirting. I’ll say it again, simply – women won’t flirt like men do. In any country. In any culture. From now, all the way back through time. Because of how their brains are different.

 

Men are direct. Women are indirect. They won’t approach men and look for sex. Men will.

 

I went into the details of the subtleties of this already. They are vast and complex, and the same across all cultures. This can’t be coincidence. The level of analysis women give to a decision over a prospective mate is far, far beyond the simplistic viewpoint of a man.

 

Once again, I’ve backed up my evidence from reality. I’ve been hit on by men and women, with men taking the direct approach (plain as daylight) and women taking the indirect approach (all kinds of shades). To be blunt, I was harassed, basically, in one office to the extent I nearly lost my job for having a go at this lad that wouldn't back down. There were a lot of gay men on this floor for whatever reason. Hiring their own to help out? Whatever the reason, if it wasn't for what I'm calling the 'benevolent gays' who snitched this guy out to upper management, I would have been screwed over a 1000 times as homophobic for standing up for myself. 

 

A homosexual man is the same as a heterosexual man in how he blandly evaluates physical appearance.

 

A woman will give infinite weight to factors so innumerable I don’t even know where to begin.

 

---------------

 

On a separate note, I found the ‘misogynistic’ call out hysterical. And your interpretation of the OP’s intention simplistic.

 

We’ve established attractiveness as a significant influencer among humans. No one ever said it’s a woman’s defining trait – where did you get that from? Physical appearance is more powerful for them, because men place it on such a high pedestal. It’s not important for a man IMO – as I’ve found, if you’re unfortunate enough to look a certain way, all it attracts is the wrong kind of attention. The kind of attention that, if it isn’t dropped, can easily lead to violence – injuries, possibly even fatal, loss of job, disgrace, imprisonment: they’re all significantly dramatic life events, just because you were trying to mind your own business but a some clown can’t mind his own business, solely based on the way you look. 

[Big-Ben]

Renown would be interesting and so would Beauty. The thing about beauty is that it would be subjective. You might not be able to bypass a troll by showing some leg if you see what I mean.

 

Or maybe you could and the troll has good taste.

[Katarack21]

 

1) It's *REALLY* important to note that there is *no hard line* about male vs female brains

 

This is your opinion and I have my mine that says I disagree. This is just vapid preaching: verbal fumes - weightless, insubstantial without any explanation/personal theory backed up from reality or otherwise.

 

No, this is scientific fact.

 

"There are differences between men and women when you look in large groups, and these are important for diagnosis and treatment, but there are always more differences within genders. We always need to look at culture, environment, education and a person’s role in society."

 

“There are not two types of brain."

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28582-scans-prove-theres-no-such-thing-as-a-male-or-female-brain/

 

"In the popular media, the idea of clearly separate male and female brains is often advocated. However, in reality the issue of gender differences in the brain is more complicated."

 

"There is clear evidence for average gender differences in the brain, ranging from overall size to differences in specific brain regions. However, it is equally clear that the notion of distinct male and female brains, as sometimes suggested in the popular press, is not supported. In the end, gender differences in the brain are not large enough to categorize males and females."

 

"Factors in the social and cultural environments are able to shape the development of both structural and functional aspects of the brain and may even trigger epigenetic changes (e.g. McGowan et al., 2009). This way, the social environment may influence long-term abilities and preferences. For example, if boys spend more time playing ball sports or playing with construction toys (such as building blocks) this may cause the development of their brain areas for spatial reasoning."

 

http://genderandset.open.ac.uk/index.php/genderandset/article/view/305/524

 

"Here we show that, although there are sex/gender differences in brain and behavior, humans and human brains are comprised of unique “mosaics” of features, some more common in females compared with males, some more common in males compared with females, and some common in both females and males. Our results demonstrate that regardless of the cause of observed sex/gender differences in brain and behavior (nature or nurture), human brains cannot be categorized into two distinct classes: male brain/female brain."

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/50/15468

 

 

 

I’ll say it again, simply – women won’t flirt like men do. In any country. In any culture. From now, all the way back through time. Because of how their brains are different.

Totally, completely, and *UNEQUIVOCALLY* wrong. Wrong in every way. Wrong in every word *and* in it's totality. This is a reflection of your own selection bias, not of anything related to science...at all....period.

 

 

 

Men are direct. Women are indirect. They won’t approach men and look for sex. Men will.

They have. They do. Women sometimes walk up to men who are total strangers that they just met two seconds ago and go "Hey, you're hot, wanna ****?" You're just wrong. You're entirely, totally, and completely wrong.

Edited May 29, 2018 by Katarack21

[Syntheori]

I never used the expression ‘men won’t’, for starters. And I only used ‘women won’t’ to describe one circumstance: flirting. I’ll say it again, simply – women won’t flirt like men do. In any country. In any culture. From now, all the way back through time. Because of how their brains are different.

 

Men are direct. Women are indirect. They won’t approach men and look for sex. Men will.

 

I am shy as hell. Almost every relationship I've been in was one where the girl has approached me, and iff anything, I'm the indirect one. Now, of course this means my experiences are biased more towards women who are direct in their flirtations, but it also means that they... you know... exist (assuming I'm not typing this from a psyche ward, which--god help me--I feel like I will be soon).

 

As for directly propositioning sex--I've absolutely known women who do that too. The reason I hesitate to give specific examples is not because I don't have any, but because the stigmatization of women 'who are forward about sex and sleep around' as "sluts" is a very sensitive subject for a few of the girls I have dated, and a number of my female friends. Women are often shamed for openly desiring sex and actively seeking it outside of a committed relationship.

 

I still remember--within the first two weeks of college--rumors circulating about which girls were "easy" (among other things), and they were not being spoken of favorably. Not everyone was like that, of course, but it was definitely more prevalent than I expected, and I can absolutely understand why a lot of women would want to avoid that kind of attention. I imagine it probably gets worse the further up in the generations you go. 

 

Now, I am not saying your experiences don't exist just because mine have been different. I certainly know women who act similar to the way you have described. My disagreement is with you baselessly correlating this to differences in biology without citing a single source that shows evidence of relationship between the two. You have yet adequately justify this being a result of nature over nurture. 

 

It is perfectly fine to just admit that you don't have enough information or understanding of the subjects required to say for certain one way or another, or which factors influence what. Can you even explain to me how grey brain matter and white brain matter work? Could you really describe to me, intricately, how flirting works in China, or Russia, or Africa (good luck because they're not monolithic cultures)?

 

Did you know that feminism in Japan is completely different than feminism here because of their different conceptualization of gender roles (www.jstor.org/stable/4022632)? That Japanese women tend to be more sexually and romantically forward then Japanese men (I know I read that somewhere... probably the same place you got your information on male and female brain matter.)? Have you heard of the Mosuo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosuo)? Have you ever read extensively about anyone's perspective other then your own? 

 

When you make generalizations like "In any country. In any culture." while only trumpeting as evidence your own observations of reality, it suggests to me that you haven't. It suggests to me that your understanding of other countries, and other cultures is incredibly surface level. Maybe you read some snippet from an article once and now you take that as fact, but you have clearly not done any extensive or honest research.

 

Now, I'm not an expert on the entire world either, nor really the fields required to have this discussion without spending seventy-hundred-thousand hours in a library or on JSTOR, but I'm also not the one claiming to know for certain all the answers. Contrary to what it may seem, I'm not trying to convince you that this is all just culture, and that biology has never played any factors in anything. I just want you to see that the subject (and the world) isn't so black and white simple, and that maybe you should be a bit less certain of your beliefs, and a bit more skeptical of the completeness of your observations. 

[wih]

Guys, you are not trying to reach any common ground here.

 

Instead of looking for things you can agree with - you are looking for things you can refute. Instead of trying to eliminate variables - you are multiplying them.

 

It has become about proving your point and winning the fight instead of communicating ideas and learning to understand each other.

 

I am sad watching this because I can see that everybody has something valuable to say or some perspective that has right to exist. Nobody can be absolutely wrong on each and every point.

Sure, there can be some core issues on which you'll have to agree to disagree. But we should at least try to understand what are those.

 

This is all going to end in a frustration and the moderators will have to close the thread, because we are not getting anywhere.

Until the next thread when all will start anew.

We are caught in a endless cycle.

 

[Boeroer]

Please don't be naive. As if anybody who engages in such a discussion really wants to reach any common ground. 

 

So far the discussion is rel. civilized. As long as you don't insult other posters, attack them personally or post hetz the thread will not get closed.  

[Katarack21]

It has become about proving your point and winning the fight instead of communicating ideas and learning to understand each other.

I think everybody has communicated their ideas rather well, and everybody seems to have a solid understanding about where everybody else is coming from. Just because somebody else is blatantly wrong about some basic scientific facts and I try to refute them doesn't mean I don't understand them or they haven't communicated their ideas.

 

These things aren't opinions. There is no room for compromise on *facts*. You either accept that they are facts, or you spout some bull****. There are no other options when it comes to facts.

[wih]

Please don't be naive. As if anybody who engages in such a discussion really wants to reach any common ground. 

 

It is not universally bad to be naive. Sometimes changing established things involves someone being naive and then getting lucky. That last part happens rarely though

 

Also, most of people here are reasonable, I think.

[smokeBomb]

 

Totally, completely, and *UNEQUIVOCALLY* wrong. Wrong in every way. Wrong in every word *and* in it's totality. This is a reflection of your own selection bias, not of anything related to science...at all....period.

 

 

They never do this. Never meaning the majority not the less than 1% that do.

 

 

 

I think everybody has communicated their ideas rather well, and everybody seems to have a solid understanding about where everybody else is coming from. Just because somebody else is blatantly wrong about some basic scientific facts and I try to refute them doesn't mean I don't understand them or they haven't communicated their ideas.

 

These things aren't opinions. There is no room for compromise on *facts*. You either accept that they are facts, or you spout some bull****. There are no other options when it comes to facts.

 

 

We’ve already proved nobody believes any scientific facts around this, only their own scientific facts. So unless you're actually a researcher on this topic and produce scientific evidence from your own research, you have no evidence whatsoever to back this up. We can all google for links that contradict everything you just said.

 

So I said – give me examples from your own experiences with women. I've already given mine, and I'm giving no more. I have a hundred things in reality that are backing up because I'm stuck in this echo chamber.

 

I’m being preached to about women by a guy who’s written the above, and also wheels out ‘scientific facts’ about how women play the game. Come back to me when you’ve actually played the game, and let me know – from reality – how that played out.

 

 

I am shy as hell. Almost every relationship I've been in was one where the girl has approached me, and iff anything, I'm the indirect one.

 

 

 

I’m talking about the majority.

 

 

I am shy as hell. Almost every relationship I've been in was one where the girl has approached me, and iff anything, I'm the indirect one.

 

 

I’m talking about the majority.

 

Echo. Echo. Echo.

 

There are exceptions. But I'm not even going to elaborate on this further, because holy Christ...

 

 

Instead of looking for things you can agree with - you are looking for things you can refute. Instead of trying to eliminate variables - you are multiplying them.

 

It has become about proving your point and winning the fight instead of communicating ideas and learning to understand each other.

 

This is the only person talking any sense.

 

I'm like a broken record saying everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

 

What's happening is a tiny minority just cannot accept the above concept. And instead of offering their own opinion, they just preach without evidence from lived experience or tell me 'you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong'. Or they haven't read that I'm talking about majorities. Or whatever else it happens to be. These people are so insecure about their own reasoning they absolutely must have me writing their opinions in my words for them to feel ok.

 

I'm not going to do that! Just write your own opinions and leave it that. You write your opinions, and I'll never say you're wrong. I might offer a counter argument, or elaborate on why I believe you misunderstood me – that's healthy debate.

 

I’m going to ask that one of the moderators lock this topic down – if it's even possible to contact them. I don’t think you can even delete your account in this place, and I very badly want to escape back to reality. Apologies to the original poster – please do start your thread again. I’m not gonna comment or read another post on this forum.

 

95% of the posts I read on other topics – again, the MAJORITY – are reasonable and relevant. But the people that equate reality with a video game or a googled article are driving me up the wall. If we were in a room full of normal people having this debate, no one would agree that women and men are identical – it’s just daft on every level.

 

Please release me from this...

Edited May 29, 2018 by Amentep
removed Personal attacks

[Katarack21]

 

Totally, completely, and *UNEQUIVOCALLY* wrong. Wrong in every way. Wrong in every word *and* in it's totality. This is a reflection of your own selection bias, not of anything related to science...at all....period.

 

 

I read everything you write in the voice of the Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons – that’s you’re intention, right? I mean, this has to be a parody account. Someone tell me this is a parody account?

 

Totally, completely, and *UNEQUIVOCALLY* wrong. Wrong in every way. Wrong in every word *and* in it's totality. This is a reflection of your own selection bias, not of anything related to science...at all....period.

 

 

They never do this. Never meaning the majority not the less than 1% that do.

I think everybody has communicated their ideas rather well, and everybody seems to have a solid understanding about where everybody else is coming from. Just because somebody else is blatantly wrong about some basic scientific facts and I try to refute them doesn't mean I don't understand them or they haven't communicated their ideas.

 

These things aren't opinions. There is no room for compromise on *facts*. You either accept that they are facts, or you spout some bull****. There are no other options when it comes to facts.

 

 

We’ve already proved nobody believes any scientific facts around this, only their own scientific facts. So unless you're actually a researcher on this topic and produce scientific evidence from your own research, you have no evidence whatsoever to back this up. We can all google for links that contradict everything you just said.

 

So I said – give me examples from your own experiences with women. I've already given mine, and I'm giving no more. I have a hundred things in reality that are backing up because I'm stuck in this echo chamber

So let me get this straight: You'll believe *ANECDOTES* before you believe researched, peer-reviewed ****ing science?!

 

 

Edited May 29, 2018 by Amentep
Don't use images to get around the word filter.

[smokeBomb]

 So let me get this straight: You'll believe *ANECDOTES* before you believe researched, peer-reviewed ****ing science?!

 

You need scientific research to talk to me about women, mate. Think about that for a second.

 

But here you go:

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3110817/

 

larger overall brain sizes in men and larger global gray matter (GM) proportions as well as regional GM volumes and concentrations in women (Schlaepfer et al., 1995; Gur et al., 1999; Nopoulos et al., 2000; Good et al., 2001; Luders et al., 2005; Leonard et al., 2008). Similarly, larger measurements in women compared to men have been reported with respect to cortical thickness (Narr et al., 2005; Im et al., 2006; Luders et al., 2006a), cortical convolution (Luders et al., 2004; Luders et al., 2006b), and the dimensions of pre-defined regions

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050121100142.htm

 

In general, men have approximately 6.5 times the amount of gray matter related to general intelligence than women, and women have nearly 10 times the amount of white matter related to intelligence than men. Gray matter represents information processing centers in the brain, and white matter represents the networking of – or connections between – these processing centers.

 

This, according to Rex Jung, a UNM neuropsychologist and co-author of the study, may help to explain why men tend to excel in tasks requiring more local processing (like mathematics), while women tend to excel at integrating and assimilating information from distributed gray-matter regions in the brain, such as required for language facility. These two very different neurological pathways and activity centers, however, result in equivalent overall performance on broad measures of cognitive ability, such as those found on intelligence tests.

 

The study also identified regional differences with intelligence. For example, 84 percent of gray-matter regions and 86 percent of white-matter regions involved with intellectual performance in women were found in the brain’s frontal lobes, compared to 45 percent and zero percent for males, respectively. The gray matter driving male intellectual performance is distributed throughout more of the brain.

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hope-relationships/201402/brain-differences-between-genders

 

It’s no secret that boys and girls are different—very different. The differences between genders, however, extend beyond what the eye can see. Research reveals major distinguishers between male and female brains.

 

Scientists generally study four primary areas of difference in male and female brains: processing, chemistry, structure, and activity.

[Amentep]

Knock off the personal attacks.  Don't use images to get around the spam filter.

[gkathellar]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3110817/

 

Ooh, you linked some literature! Let's take a a look at it.

 

This is from the abstract (incidentally, right after your quotation, which is missing actual quotes or any other indicator of citation, cuts off):

 

 

While we revealed significant main effects of sex, there were no significant effects of brain size (and no significant interactions between sex and brain size).

 

Huh. That doesn't seem to mesh with what you're saying. But it gets better.

 

 

When conducting post hoc tests, we revealed a number of regions where women had larger GM volumes compared to men. Importantly, these sex effects remained evident when comparing men and women with the same brain size. Altogether, our findings suggest that the observed increased regional GM volumes in female brains constitute sex-dependent redistributions of tissue volume, rather than individual adjustments attributable to brain size.

 

Golly. That's specifically important because it establishes that you cannot characterize gray matter as masculine or white matter as feminine - the two have different configurations and connotations in ways that both are and are not sex-dependent.

 

Now of course, that on its own speaks to the statistical differences between men's brains and women's brains, so I'll link this again: while the grey-to-white matter ratios differ observably between the sexes, the actual significance of those differences is not well established, as women with less grey matter perform equivalently to men with more grey matter on identical tests. But of course, even if you didn't take a look at the article in question, you should already know about its contents, because this ...

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050121100142.htm

 

... is actually about the article I just linked. It's a pretty good summary! Here's the handy tidbits you didn't include in your post.

 

 

The study shows women having more white matter and men more gray matter related to intellectual skill, revealing that no single neuroanatomical structure determines general intelligence and that different types of brain designs are capable of producing equivalent intellectual performance.

 

“These findings suggest that human evolution has created two different types of brains designed for equally intelligent behavior,” said Richard Haier, professor of psychology in the Department of Pediatrics and longtime human intelligence researcher, who led the study with colleagues at UCI and the University of New Mexico. “In addition, by pinpointing these gender-based intelligence areas, the study has the potential to aid research on dementia and other cognitive-impairment diseases in the brain.”

 

 

The study also identified regional differences with intelligence. For example, 84 percent of gray-matter regions and 86 percent of white-matter regions involved with intellectual performance in women were found in the brain’s frontal lobes, compared to 45 percent and zero percent for males, respectively. The gray matter driving male intellectual performance is distributed throughout more of the brain.

 

According to the researchers, this more centralized intelligence processing in women is consistent with clinical findings that frontal brain injuries can be more detrimental to cognitive performance in women than men. Studies such as these, Haier and Jung add, someday may help lead to earlier diagnoses of brain disorders in males and females, as well as more effective and precise treatment protocols to address damage to particular regions in the brain.

 

Interesting stuff! The article's full text can be found here. But, as we'll see, this is greatly recontextualized by later research.

 

See, the studies we've looked at so far are methodologically sound but also older and limited in scope - the Ludders study (from 2011) looked at a sample size of 96 brains, while the Haier article looked at 48 volunteers. These are actually pretty large samples as far as neuroscience goes, and I wouldn't want to imply that these small samples indicate unreliability. But what they definitively establish is that the brain does diverge, statistically, along rough male and female lines.

 

This seems like a good place for me to relink this study, from 2015, which looks at a sample size of 1,400 brains (you can't see me, but I'm fanning myself and feeling faint now), and builds on the Haier and Ludders work towards the conclusion that - rather than earlier notions of male brains vs female brains, or of brains appearing on a linear male-to-female continuum - the average person's brain is a "mosaic" of features, some of which are more common in men, some of which are more common in women, and some of which have no statistical correlation with sex. They also did a psychological study of 5,500 individuals (holy logistics, Batman!), with convergent results. But it gets even weirder, as reality tends to do!

 

 

... more recent evidence that masculinization and feminization are independent processes and that sexual differentiation progresses independently in different brain tissues (10), predicts poor internal consistency [of masculinization or feminization in the brain] (4, 5). Poor internal consistency is further predicted by evidence that the effects of sex may be different and even opposite under different environmental conditions and that these sex-by-environment interactions may be different for different brain features (4, 5).

 

Emphasis mine.

 

(I'm really enthusiastic about that bit in particular because it's totally new to me - I learned it while researching my post yesterday, and I wish I could have fit it in. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to!)

 

So, let me see if I can sum this all up. A handy-dandy list may be useful.

• Per a 2005 article by RJ Haier, based on a sample size of 48, different distributions and ratios of white-to-grey matter are recognizable between male and female volunteers, but appear to produce equivalent general intelligence results.
• Per a 20011 article by E Ludder, based on a sample size of 96, sex differences between brains are structural, not linear, and cannot be explained away with "men sometimes have larger brains," or "men have more grey matter."
• Per a 2015 article by D Joel, based on a sample size of 1,400 MRIs, the appearance of masculine and feminine features of the brain is not linear and only predictable in the broadest statistical terms: any given person's brain is a totally unpredictable sampling of features that are typically masculine, typically feminine, or typically unassociated with sex. It also appears that environmental factors can sometimes reverse what is statistically masculine or feminine.

[Katarack21]

 

 So let me get this straight: You'll believe *ANECDOTES* before you believe researched, peer-reviewed ****ing science?!

 

You need scientific research to talk to me about women, mate. Think about that for a second.

 

But here you go:

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3110817/

 

larger overall brain sizes in men and larger global gray matter (GM) proportions as well as regional GM volumes and concentrations in women (Schlaepfer et al., 1995; Gur et al., 1999; Nopoulos et al., 2000; Good et al., 2001; Luders et al., 2005; Leonard et al., 2008). Similarly, larger measurements in women compared to men have been reported with respect to cortical thickness (Narr et al., 2005; Im et al., 2006; Luders et al., 2006a), cortical convolution (Luders et al., 2004; Luders et al., 2006b), and the dimensions of pre-defined regions

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050121100142.htm

 

In general, men have approximately 6.5 times the amount of gray matter related to general intelligence than women, and women have nearly 10 times the amount of white matter related to intelligence than men. Gray matter represents information processing centers in the brain, and white matter represents the networking of – or connections between – these processing centers.

 

This, according to Rex Jung, a UNM neuropsychologist and co-author of the study, may help to explain why men tend to excel in tasks requiring more local processing (like mathematics), while women tend to excel at integrating and assimilating information from distributed gray-matter regions in the brain, such as required for language facility. These two very different neurological pathways and activity centers, however, result in equivalent overall performance on broad measures of cognitive ability, such as those found on intelligence tests.

 

The study also identified regional differences with intelligence. For example, 84 percent of gray-matter regions and 86 percent of white-matter regions involved with intellectual performance in women were found in the brain’s frontal lobes, compared to 45 percent and zero percent for males, respectively. The gray matter driving male intellectual performance is distributed throughout more of the brain.

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hope-relationships/201402/brain-differences-between-genders

 

It’s no secret that boys and girls are different—very different. The differences between genders, however, extend beyond what the eye can see. Research reveals major distinguishers between male and female brains.

 

Scientists generally study four primary areas of difference in male and female brains: processing, chemistry, structure, and activity.

 

1) That first study is from 2009, and has been superseded and disproved by more recent research, like that I linked.

 

2) The second study is *very* careful to use phrases like "in general" and "on average".

 

3) The third is an article, not a study of any sort.

 

4) I use scientific studies to discuss science, like brain size comparisons and grey matter volumes. As far as "women" is concerned, anecdotes don't prove *anything*. They're literally *just things you've seen*. They don't reflect the wider world, and there's no way to tell if they're actually things you've seen or just things you've made up. Theirs no peer review, no testing, no *evidence*. It's just *your* claimed experiences, not anybody elses. I can just as easily tell you about all the various times I've personally seen women walk up to men they've never met before and go "Hey, let's ****."--but it would be equally meaningless.

 

5) You've made hard statements about how women "NEVER, EVER, IN ANY CULTURE, IN ANY TIME" do certain things, and that's *EASILY* disproved by five seconds of time in the real world, or five minutes of research on Google. The idea that it's biologically impossible for women to instigate sexual encounters just doesn't reflect reality. It's not "1%", it's literally a fact of existence. Whether women instigate sexual encounters with men purely for sexual enjoyment comes down to the individual woman, with a great deal of influence from their culture. There are cultures where women *exclusively* instigate sexual encounters, often for purely physical enjoyment, sometimes with men they barely know, and even in *our* culture it's common enough to have it's own slang term--"setting a **** appointment".

 

6) I apologize for the meme, I honestly didn't realize it had a curse word in it.