Tendo City

I think I prefer the 20 or so expansive galaxies to the 30 or so smaller worlds in Super Mario Galaxy 2. On the other hand, the change is still welcome, because there's nothing worse than a boring retread. These smaller worlds are a throwback to the Super Mario Bros games before Super Mario 64. I can always go back and place Super Mario Galaxy 1 again.

I'm on World 5 and the game is finally getting tough. Worlds 1-4 were mostly a cakewalk, and I was beginning to get frustrated. Frustrated by the lack of frustration, if you will. Still, the game is a lot of fun and has kept my interest just as much as its predecessor. This is what a sequel should be. Take some elements from the first game and mix it up a bit.

I've fought Bowser twice, I like the battle scheme of jumping on a comet and knocking it in the right direction to bust his ass. It's as much fun as it was swinging Bowser in Mario 64 to throw him face-first into a big fuck-off bomb. It takes a central concept of the game (twirling the analog stick, as was common in Nintendo games for N64, to jumping on small globes with their own gravitational pull in Super Mario Galaxy 1/2) and uses it in an innovative and fun way.

What else? I'm satisfied by the appearances of Yoshi, I'm glad he's not showing up in every other level. I like playing as Luigi, but are there any real advantages? It's not a simple palette swap as I first thought, he does slide a bit, which is a handicap. Still, I find myself playing as him every opportunity I get.

So far, although I think I prefer the first game overall, Super Mario Galaxy 2 is a very worthy successor.

Well that about says it all lazy. Sorry but you lost a lot of respect in my eyes.

Did you ever think maybe the lack of females in certain positions may have more to do with the history of oppression preventing their pursuit of those positions? You could very well make the same argument for the lower percentage of black people in those positions, and it would be just as ill-informed.

I like that he pointed out women's lack of critical thinking skills in the same post that he explained that they're inferior to men in all ways because their subconscious is preoccupied with pregnancy and babies. I mean, really?

Sacred Jellybean Wrote:I like that he pointed out women's lack of critical thinking skills in the same post that he explained that they're inferior to men in all ways because their subconscious is preoccupied with pregnancy and babies. I mean, really?

With any luck he was saying that to be ironic and fully realized it, the whole thing being a joke.

Sadly, DJ, I don't think that's the explanation for why he said those things. :(

A Black Falcon Wrote:Sadly, DJ, I don't think that's the explanation for why he said those things. :(

I gotta say that last relationship of his really messed with his head. It's nothing I haven't seen before. There's a number of web sites out there by bitter exes just going on and on about how much ALL women everywhere are basically harpies. Forget the completely underwhelming "sample size" of that little test, there's also the issue of the sheer emotional bias involved.

Yes, I'm using science at your heartbreaking past. Now hold still while I extract a sample...

:FuckYou:

It has nothing to do with past relationships, it's a short rant with blanket statements that applies generally to the subject matter but I think it goes over everyone's head.

I like how ABF thinks no one cares about the men in pornos and mostly men watch it. I'm sorry ABF but your basement-dwelling view on women would never apply to any actual real life understanding. It made me think of that cross-dressing comedian.

"Are you gay?"

Hell no!

"Well what do you like to see in a porno?"

Hot women!

"Yeah! and you want to see her get fucked with a tiny, flacid, useless penis!"

No, I want to see a big, hard throbbing long cock! .......omg

No, the men are paid less because it is believed that the women are giving up more to be in the porno, they are 'giving themselves' while the men are obviously just 'having fun'. The reality is that neither is true. Everyone who watches (women and men, just as many women watch porn btw) want to see attractive men with huge dicks, the bigger the weener, the more popular the video. The hotter the chick, the more popular the video. Everything in your post ABF screams virgin. Women though will forgo the huge penis if the guy is super sexy. What is super sexy to a woman? There's only two flavors - Ultra macho I can strangle a rhino or cute and boyish. That's it, the rest is summed up by social needs.

Quote:I like that he pointed out women's lack of critical thinking skills in the same post that he explained that they're inferior to men in all ways because their subconscious is preoccupied with pregnancy and babies. I mean, really?

An essential tool of inquiry - purposeful, self-regulatory judgment that results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations upon which that judgment is based. You want to argue my point based on a societal standard to accept everyone as equals when that's infinitely impossible.

Ever met a female detective or investigator? It happens sometimes.

This is why I think it's going over people's heads because you simply didn't read what I said and instead assumed your own opinions possibly because of not understanding the post. We're all preoccupied with pregnancy and babies, we just tell ourselves we're not. When you're horny, lonely, attempting a date, successfully landing a relationship, etc all of it is because your subconscious is driving the simple path of wanting to procreate. We can tell ourselves actively we dont want children, but we still find ourselves doing all the motions of courtship, mating and etc. In what I posted I wasn't saying they're preoccupied with thoughts of babies, you read that because you assumed it. Women are horrible at critical thinking because everything is always played safe and close to the chest - women are the nurturers and protectors who worry first about the surroundings and then their personal well-being - they sacrifice those things in order to nurture until it reaches a point they can no longer keep playing at the proverbial card table.

You will never see a successful female poker player, sure they can lie and be playful with their facial expressions, but they cant play. The only time a woman takes a chance is when they know they've won. They will only make a move when they know it will benefit them. Men take everything in to account, specifically and critically analyzing the chances vs. the ability to sucker the other players. Women love playing pool but are always better at it simply because men will have an easier time imagining their goal and using trick shots and experimenting to get there. A female pool player will only makes moves they know will work. Female chefs only go by the rules, do what the recipes say. Male chefs create new ideas and essences, experimenting with flavors, critically analyzing every tool and idea at their disposal simply because they want to be the creator of something new. A new dish, a new trick shot, a new tactic.

Have you ever met a woman who cant give birth? or women who are afraid of having children? Artists, writers, etc they cant help it but their creativity is always related to relationships, awakenings and/or children. The creativity (pun intended) grows inside them to the point that it has to release. This is how men are from the ground up in everything that we do and i do mean everything.

I cant sit here and attempt to validate points to anyone who doesn't have the experience behind them to even comprehend what i'm saying and instead argue over some societal trumpery and nonsense.

That comedian wasn't Eddie Izzard (he's the cross-dressing one), it was Ron White, the smug alcoholic redneck. :)

If you want to argue us misinterpretting your post, re-read what you said. It's pretty cut-and-dry:

Quote:The best chefs, artists, musicians, painters, directors, writers you name it, are men. This is because men CANNOT GIVE BIRTH and therefore put all their mental strengths towards creativity, even subconsciously. What does this mean? Men will always out-do women - in EVERYTHING and women cannot compete. You can find rare examples here and there but they just dont have the drive.

Your post expounds on that a little more but all of it is still rooted in societal perceptions of women. It's a very nurture vs. nature argument. Most people believed (and still do) that women make horrible mathematicians. This means teachers may sometimes be more willing to cut them slack in classes, along with the girls reminding themselves that perhaps they shouldn't try too hard anyway, I mean after all, women are just naturally bad at math, no point in even pursuing a career in anything math-related.

I work at a small software firm, there are 3 women to 7 men. I imagine the ratio 20-30 years ago would be about 0 women and 10 men. Society has become more progressive in telling women that they can do the job just as well as a man can. My own experience confirms this; there's no difference in the quality of the work between the women and men.

Anecdotal evidence, sure, but I'm sure all your beliefs are either based on the same, or confirmation bias.

Besides, if women are more conservative than men (which is what your post seems to boil down to), why are more women politically liberal? ;) Joking aside, your post is pretty much all speculation. You've explained yourself a bit better and in a more intelligent way, but I still think you formulate these beliefs based on your ideal woman: the care-giver, the security blanket. I understand your post, I simply disagree, and think that discounting women as not even having the same capability and potential as men is a dangerous line of thinking.

Not dangerous for us men, though. S'good to be a man.

lazyfatbum Wrote:You will never see a successful female poker player, sure they can lie and be playful with their facial expressions, but they cant play. The only time a woman takes a chance is when they know they've won. They will only make a move when they know it will benefit them. Men take everything in to account, specifically and critically analyzing the chances vs. the ability to sucker the other players.

Quote:n 1994, at the suggestion of her brother, famed poker player Howard Lederer, Duke tried her hand at the World Series of Poker in Las Vegas. She ended up placing 13th in her first tournament, knocking her brother out of play. After winning 70K in her first month of competition, Duke and her husband made the move to Las Vegas so she could pursue poker professionally.

Over the course of the next decade, Duke established herself as one of the best poker players in the world. In 2004, Duke beat out an assembly of 234 players in the WSOP $2000 buy-in Omaha Hi/Lo Split and won her first WSOP bracelet. In August of the same year, Duke knocked out 8 of the worlds’ greatest poker legends and won $2 million in the No-Limit Texas Hold’em winner-take-all, invitation-only WSOP Tournament of Champions, established by ESPN and Harrah’s Entertainment.

http://www.annieduke.com/bio/

Great Rumbler Wrote:http://www.annieduke.com/bio/

Quote:You can find rare examples here and there

From wikipedia:

Highest ITM Main Event finish:10th, 2000
World Poker Tour Titles: None
Final tables: None
Money finishes: 3

Quote:but they just dont have the drive

Thank you for proving my point.

Your post expounds on that a little more but all of it is still rooted in societal perceptions of women. It's a very nurture vs. nature argument. Most people believed (and still do) that women make horrible mathematicians. This means teachers may sometimes be more willing to cut them slack in classes, along with the girls reminding themselves that perhaps they shouldn't try too hard anyway, I mean after all, women are just naturally bad at math, no point in even pursuing a career in anything math-related.

Quote:I work at a small software firm, there are 3 women to 7 men. I imagine the ratio 20-30 years ago would be about 0 women and 10 men. Society has become more progressive in telling women that they can do the job just as well as a man can. My own experience confirms this; there's no difference in the quality of the work between the women and men.

Anecdotal evidence, sure, but I'm sure all your beliefs are either based on the same, or confirmation bias.

Besides, if women are more conservative than men (which is what your post seems to boil down to), why are more women politically liberal? Joking aside, your post is pretty much all speculation. You've explained yourself a bit better and in a more intelligent way, but I still think you formulate these beliefs based on your ideal woman: the care-giver, the security blanket. I understand your post, I simply disagree, and think that discounting women as not even having the same capability and potential as men is a dangerous line of thinking.

I never heard that women were bad at math, ability at maths has always been something i've seen that happens rarely in individuals, male or female. It's the competitive fun most of the time. Programming as you know is not the usual fair of math, it's boolean phrases and algebras. Now we get in to nerds, bad haircut, usually spits a little bit when they talk and socially inept. Game and/or software programming tho is something that falls under drive - if you weren't experimenting with programming/game creation at a young age you probably wont ever get in to it. I know a ton of women who love software creation but the drive existed from a young age (ie; at 14 they were replacing the doom enemy sprites with sonic the hedgehog) and there's a chance that drive will carry them in to a career of it or get dropped to pursue other things. Always that 50/50 chance.

Female geneticists are really good at what they do because of their high proficiency with organizing complex matters. That by itself would mean that women are already prone to math. But again its the drive, if it wasn't there before, it wont be there in the future.

Ron White, is he the one who ends his stand up with 'Thanks for playin along."?

You're trying so hard to disregard anything I say because you either dont understand or feel like it should be dissected or argued. Like it or not, women are security blankets - why do you think it hurts so much when the relationship doesn't work out? Your security is gone, it works the same for them. Women eat ice cream and write in their journal about their heartbreak. Men drink and wonder aimlessly.

I suppose my last point was awkwardly written; true, logic and math are separate things, maybe I shouldn't have segued from one into the other. The whole point to the shpiel about men and women at my job was more to counter your idea that women are horrible critical thinkers. Obviously, using logic and managing systems and thousands of lines of code takes a lot of critical thinking. When a programmer is either adding or updating code, he has to account for any situation the under which the process might run. Will the update break another seemingly separate process? What's the most efficient way of writing it, as in, if the code needs to be updated in the future (i.e. have its original capabilities extended into other territory or tasks), can it be written in a way that makes it easier to expand?

But I'm rambling and writing vaguely, and have a bad track record when it comes to explaining technical matters, so I'll stop. The point is, if women were bad critical thinkers, my boss would be more reluctant to hire females. I believe we're small enough that we don't qualify for affirmative action, and he's a very no-nonsense kind of guy (the idea that he'd hire someone through altruism or social duty is hilarious).

Quote:I never heard that women were bad at math, ability at maths has always been something i've seen that happens rarely in individuals, male or female. It's the competitive fun most of the time. Programming as you know is not the usual fair of math, it's boolean phrases and algebras. Now we get in to nerds, bad haircut, usually spits a little bit when they talk and socially inept. Game and/or software programming tho is something that falls under drive - if you weren't experimenting with programming/game creation at a young age you probably wont ever get in to it. I know a ton of women who love software creation but the drive existed from a young age (ie; at 14 they were replacing the doom enemy sprites with sonic the hedgehog) and there's a chance that drive will carry them in to a career of it or get dropped to pursue other things. Always that 50/50 chance.

I'm sorry, your point is getting lost on me here. You said before that the drive rarely exists for women excelling (as a man does) at most things. You seem to be amending it here to say that a drive sometimes exists and will manifest at a young age... and that you know tons of women like this. Do I have it right, and if so, how do you reconcile all that?

Quote:Ron White, is he the one who ends his stand up with 'Thanks for playin along."?

I have no idea, but it's this mug right here:



That's how he usually looks on stage, too - sarcastic grin, whiskey in one hand, cigarette in the other. Oh, Ron. *dreamy smile, flutters eyelids*

Quote:You're trying so hard to disregard anything I say because you either dont understand or feel like it should be dissected or argued.

It's more that you have the idea that you're giving great insight, and since you're not convincing me, I must either be ignorant or stubborn. Your analysis makes some sense, but like I said, it's far from absolute or definitive. Just because you can express an idea in an intelligent way does not make the idea true, particularly when it can easily be explained by a chicken vs. egg situation. Do we view women as inferior because they have traditionally been behind the men or do they belong there to begin with?

A counter-argument is "well where did that perception come from?" and my answer to that is that just because women have held the traditional biological role of the child-bearing, raising, nurturing, etc. does not mean that it's all they'll ever be good for, with no hope to even compete with a man. It's absurd. We aren't living in tribes any more, we no longer have to worry about extinction. Shooting out kids isn't directive #1. Society has evolved beyond that, but gender roles evidently haven't caught up.

Grow up as a female, see how most female roles in stories are a simple love-interest or plot device for a male, or a secondary character, or a one-dimensional female role (wife/mother), how toys aimed at you all deal with cooking or beauty, coupled with the fact that men are traditionally more violent/aggressive, like to beat their chests and assert authority, and it's pretty easy to see why we're still so backwards. Whether women stay subservient to men as a result of learned behavior or from simple powerlessness, it's a difficult change to make.

Quote:Like it or not, women are security blankets - why do you think it hurts so much when the relationship doesn't work out? Your security is gone, it works the same for them. Women eat ice cream and write in their journal about their heartbreak. Men drink and wonder aimlessly.

So we agree that men and women are both security blankets for each other and are on equal footing in that sense? I don't know what your point is to the stereotypes/cliches on the 2nd part (it's like you forgot to add a line saying, "Don't you watch TV??")... I've written in an online journal (as you've seen in the past), drank, wandered aimlessly, and probably also have gotten comfort food as a result of feeling depressed (be it heartbreak or anything else). Am I androgynous?

Extremely ;p

You're countering on ideals of perception and then negating them with another argument like you're ABF or something.

The best programmers are men because of the need to create, but that doesn't mean there are no female programmers. Try to broaden your scope a little so you're not only thinking on what was presented at face value but on your own. If I make a blanket statement in sarcastic splendor that all asian women are bad at driving I am not saying that is scientifically proven that 100% of all asians within or outside of the United States are incapable of operating a vehicle. Ringing the same chord, it is well known that asian women cant drive. You're being obtuse to the point that it hurts.

A woman doesnt have as much a creative drive but that doesn't mean they have no creative drive.

A comedian makes a remark attempting to touch on political or social commentary, race wars, gay bashing or whatever, attempting to hit a serious tone before the punchline or the setup. We do that in conversation.

"You know how those speakers at drive thru's sound like krap?"

"yeah!"

"well I was at Arby's and this girl thought I wanted her number and I think her boyfriend spit in my fries but i couldn't tell what was said."

"dude. thats ass."

But you're doing this.

"You know those speakers at drive thru's sound like krap?"

"Come on. Speakers in their most simple form are essentially magnets placed in paper cradles to vibrate which are transcribing sound and the wattage and size of the speaker dictates their output in decibels and dynamic audio range, not to mention the device used for recording and/or transmission of the audio plays a huge role in the quality of the audio. I was at many drive thru's that had a clear sound and the audio range even allowed me to hear the other workers in the establishment, I disagree with your statement vile baffoon and invite in to a tourney of fisticuffs! Now prove your radically untrue statements or I will dismiss your legitimacy!"

"....some dude spit in my fries."

Math and logic are in fact the same thing. Math is a subset of logic. Carry on.

Quote:From wikipedia:

Highest ITM Main Event finish:10th, 2000
World Poker Tour Titles: None
Final tables: None
Money finishes: 3

Oops, looks like you cherry-picked there, lazy.

Quote:World Series of Poker
Bracelet(s) 1
Money finishes 37
Highest ITM Main Event finish 10th, 2001

In 2010 she won the National Heads-Up Poker Championship, earning a cash prize of $500,000 in addition to the title.

But, really, this whole thing is so far beyond my ability even comprehend that it might just be better to delete several pages and go back to talking about Nintendo's best game in two years.

I didn't argue that math isn't logic and Great Rumbler just doesn't get it. I didnt cherry pick anything, I can find 10 men who have better careers at gambling for every female you find. You're simply missing the point of the entire thing. If I said blacks make for better boxers than white, you'd start posting white boxers. But guess what?

I feel like i'm discussing Hemingway at a lesbian bookclub.

See, you throw around words like "never" or "can't", when there's clear evidence to the contrary. That's why people get grouchy when then get into debates with you.

You're retroactively looking at noisy data and assuming your own conclusion is the explanation for it. It's just like talking to that annoying racist on that other forum I visited.

<img src="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2010/07/feminist.jpeg">

Do some actual science, find some actual science, something, just don't look at something as statistically noisy as who's at the top of a gambling ring and assume it means women are inferior at it. What did you do, if anything, to exclude the possibility that there MAY just be some social factors involved?

Yeesh, I'm having the same conversation I had months ago, only I've switched out gender for race.

Quote:Am I androgynous?

Quote:Extremely ;p

Quote:You're countering on ideals of perception and then negating them with another argument like you're ABF or something.

I believe I've understood you well enough to be arguing about anything irrelevant. Every point I've made ties into the discussion. Here's a recap:

"Your argument on women's inferiority isn't uncommon; it's a stereotype, for instance, that women are naturally bad at math, but that's not necessarily so."

"I disagree with the notion that women are worse at critical thinking than men; I've worked directly with women and their critical skills are comparable to the men's, to the point where there's no noticable difference."

"Nuture vs. nature; since disparities do exist (for instance, between women and men in the work place as a whole), it doesn't indicate that women are inherently worse at men at some things. For example, society puts more pressure on women to simply smile and look pretty, toys are geared towards them being motherly, there aren't many good role models in media/entertainment, rant rant rant into how it's a mistake to think that women are mainly only good at having babies, and their natural nurturing tendencies holds them back from doing a man's job just as well"

Oh, and let's not forget the most important one:

"That comedian was this guy not that guy"

Kindly flesh out the gap between my understanding and the point you're putting across and I'll admit it and shut up.

Quote:The best programmers are men because of the need to create, but that doesn't mean there are no female programmers. Try to broaden your scope a little so you're not only thinking on what was presented at face value but on your own. If I make a blanket statement in sarcastic splendor that all asian women are bad at driving I am not saying that is scientifically proven that 100% of all asians within or outside of the United States are incapable of operating a vehicle. Ringing the same chord, it is well known that asian women cant drive. You're being obtuse to the point that it hurts.

You should do better at making a point, though, I still don't understand the drunk/ice cream analogy. Women are probably more prone to comfort food because of the added pressure by society that they must be skinny and beautiful, so when they want to splurge, it obviously manifests itself in a different way.

More men are alcoholics because it's not "lady-like" to get drunk, a lot of humorous drunk-capades you see in movies and TV are done by young men (but it's seemingly happening with female characters more in the past decade). Watch every season of Family Guy and make a tally of the jokes surrounding Peter and his friends getting drunk and doing stupid shit, and Lois/other women getting drunk. Alcohol is not an essential like eating is, so it's easier for a girl to simply not indulge. But I'm 'sperging out again (and "missing the point" as you say), so I'll stop.

Quote:A woman doesnt have as much a creative drive but that doesn't mean they have no creative drive.

A comedian makes a remark attempting to touch on political or social commentary, race wars, gay bashing or whatever, attempting to hit a serious tone before the punchline or the setup. We do that in conversation.

My argument was never "god dammit bum there's not NO WOMEN OUT THERE BEING CREATIVE NNRRRGGH", it was that your assessment is false, you don't want to believe that women are as good as men, either because of creepy, overly-traditional beliefs on gender and sex, or because you're romantically frustrated, or whatever else it may be.

I don't think we're being overly PC on this. I can recognize when you're joking, but like you say, you're trying to put across a serious thought at the same time, and THAT'S what we're arguing with. Your belief in women is incredibly chauvanistic and outdated and it's scary to see such an intelligent and modern person have that kind of outlook.

Quote:dumb drive-thru analogy

I'm not overanalyzing this, though some overanalyzation would probably help if you could get more into the scientific nitty-gritty to prove your point, not just "See guys women HAVE BABIES and that's all they care about LOL". It's like saying that lesbians don't exist, or that homosexual men are just confused and can snap themselves out of it. We're not zombies to biology. We're not insects. Our thoughts aren't preoccupied on survival and continuation of our species to the level that you're suggesting.

Like ABF pointed out, men care a lot about family and children as well. Do women probably care more on the whole? Likely, yes. Does this source spring from biology, social mores, or a mixture of the two? Probably a mixture.

Do women lack a creative drive because they care more about bearing children? I don't see how you can jump to this point, it's just :psyduck: wtf on every level.

Quote:Math and logic are in fact the same thing. Math is a subset of logic. Carry on.

As you say, all math is logic, not all logic is math. I was originally trying to continue on the thread that women are not naturally bad at math by pointing out examples of women I know who are good at logic. Though perhaps it's not a big enough distinction for our purposes.

Quote:If I said blacks make for better boxers than white, you'd start posting white boxers. But guess what?

Skin tone is not exactly relevant, though; muscle mass, coordination, speed, and strategy are. And before you go all "MAN YOU JUST DONT GET IT" again, it pretty much makes your analogy fall apart.

Quote:See, you throw around words like "never" or "can't", when there's clear evidence to the contrary. That's why people get grouchy when then get into debates with you.

My problem isn't that he's throwing out absolutes. I'm not being pedantic by arguing with him, like if someone were to say "Jimi Hendrix was the best guitarist" and I were to reply "Maybe the best guitarist of that generation, don't you know any guitarists of this generation, you know you're basically saying that no one will ever succeed him! etc"

Lazy has completely confused nature and nurture, or genetic versus learned traits, SJ... probably on purpose, to further defend his ridiculous anti-female beliefs. Honestly I don't know how much it's worth arguing with him at the moment, it's obviously not going to go anywhere... but pointing out facts does have merit even if the other person doesn't listen, so there is reason to do it anyway. To a point.


To return to my point though, some things about people are natural to humanity. Other things are learned culturally. The problem is, all people are part of a culture. There is no control group to look at to tell which elements are which. Some things can be done to partially cover this problem, but the problem remains, and is a core part of why the issue is so complex. Indeed, the great complexity of the genetic/biological versus learned issue is why figuring out exactly which elements of sexual difference are natural and which are learned is so incredibly difficult. We know for sure that both elements are involved, but how much of each, and which things are one and which are the other? In order to have a chance of figuring out which is which, you need both scientific studies of the human mind and studies of human cultures as they are. For the latter, comparisons between cultures is obviously key. You can try to find isolated peoples or study data on isolated peoples to try to find things that you can't find by just looking at the major, interconnected societies of the world today, but still it's hard, and fewer and fewer people haven't been greatly affected by foreign cultural influences, in today's world.

I mean, you can't study nature vs. nurture well by looking at people within a culture, because no matter what the efforts of their parents, children are affected by innumerable outside influences, from language (what do words mean, and how are they used?) to clothing, to the attitudes of other people, towards objects intended for each gender, and more. But you also can't ethically do a study of children growing up all on their own, either; ignoring how hard that would be, many studies, and real-life experiences, have shown that the first few years of a child's life are absolutely crucial... children who grew up in extremely impersonal Soviet orphanages, for instance, often ended up emotionally stunted for life. So what can be done? The general answer seems to simply be to guess around the edges and not really know. It's all we can do, really.

Really, we still have a long way to go in figuring out which things are which... we know some things, but there are so many more that we don't that the entire subject is still a very tricky, very difficult one.

Examples? Well, I listed earlier in this thread some definite physical differences between the genders, apart from the obvious (sex organ) ones. I won't repeat the list (go back and look at it), but just add one more I remembered -- women are also a bit more flexible than men. That's the "simple" stuff. It gets so much more complicated when you move to anything involving the brain...

The human brain is an incredibly powerful and versatile thing. People can convince themselves of almost anything with enough time. A great many things that people from a society absolutely believe are essential facts of human nature often aren't, and are actually just socially constructed -- but they don't see it, because that's how things are, right, and so many people are like that... not realizing that one of the main reasons why is because of those very cultural stereotypes, or because of other factors in their society.

For an example of that, in the 19th century particularly, it was believed that women fainted easily at any shock or surprise, or sometimes for no reason. Actually, it is believed that the main reason for this was the tight-laced corsets that were so popular from the 1820s to the 1910s -- with their midsections crushed, women simply couldn't get in as much breath as they needed and it made them pass out sometimes. The tight-laced corsets also damaged the organs they squeezed.

Ironically, however, corsets were marketed and advertised as health-promoting garments, essential garments for women which they could not be without without major health consequences -- they needed all that support, of course! Point being, people within a culture are often blind to its quirks. We are only somewhat different today -- that essential point is still very true.

Or how about something else... there are so many things I could talk about. Um, what about gossip? Of course the stereotype is that women gossip far more than men... but some studies show that both genders actually gossip the same amount, overall, if I remember right. I'm not sure, it's been a while since I read about that... but I think that if there were differences, it wasn't in the amount of time spent gossiping.

Or how about emotions? I think I said this earlier, but it bears repeating -- men and women actually feel the same amounts of emotions. Studies have proven this. The stereotype that women are more emotional comes from the fact that women are better able to understand and show their emotions, while men are more likely to keep them bottled up inside until they explode. Combine that with men's greater testosterone and you have one possible explanation for why men are so much more likely to do things like shoot up their workplaces, I think, maybe at least.

Of course, one major reason why the question is so difficult is that in so many ways people are similar, regardless of gender. Certainly the two are different, but they are also very similar... we have spent the past century particularly slowly breaking down some of the many stereotypes that had built up over the centuries, but it's obviously going to take a lot longer to (hopefully) complete the job. That doesn't mean make both the same, they obviously aren't... but I am sure that the differences are not as significant as our cultural expectations suggest. A lot of sexism I just don't understand, myself... I mean, for instance, I can say the reasons why I think that women didn't get the vote for so long, mostly about how women had been stereotyped as inferior and unable to properly reason and because the people (men) who had the power didn't want to give some of it up, but still, that just doesn't make any sense to me... why in the world would, for instance, people give the vote to poor men many, many decades before rich women, or in the US black men 50+ years before white women... I don't get it, those other things seem like they (social and racial differences) should be bigger barriers to me, somehow... but what it proves is how strong sexism is, I guess. (Of course in much of the South black men were re-disenfranchised from 1877 until the 1960s, after getting the vote after the Civil War, and the first few states, all out West, gave women the vote in the late 1800s... but still, the difference in, say, 1900 between the number of states where black men could vote versus the number where women could vote is massive.)

Etc.

ABF, there's plenty of studies that do exactly this. It's all about double blinded studies with large samples controlling for as many variables as possible. The basic idea is simply to compare two groups where only one variable is different. Reducing down to that is very tricky of course, but not impossible. This is what I meant when I said looking at lists of successful women is too "noisy", there's too many uncontrolled variables because those lists weren't made for the purpose of telling if women are better or worse at gambling. It's done all the time, and the end point is that testing for mental differences in PROPERLY CONTROLLED studies tend towards no genetic tie between gender and mental capacity. Take away the controls, and you can probably derive whatever conclusions you want, but they'd all be invalidated by how noisy the data is.

But my point was, with Western culture particularly so dominant around the world, trying to account for all the variable to really figure out which is which is incredibly difficult, and in some cases perhaps impossible...

I mean, you're right that that's what you have to do, but how useful the results will be will really depend on what kind of question you are asking, I think... the deeper, more complex ones will be the ones much harder to find any kind of answer to. Still though, sure, it's not impossible... but I think the quite unsure nature of our current understanding says something about how hard it, or really anything dealing with the brain and how people think, is.

Quote:It's done all the time, and the end point is that testing for mental differences in PROPERLY CONTROLLED studies tend towards no genetic tie between gender and mental capacity.

Do you mean that men and women are exactly equal in average intelligence? That is what I have always heard, yes. Then it's said that men are more likely to be very smart or very stupid (flatter curve) while women are more bunched in the middle (steeper curve), but I don't know if that is really from nature. Or are you saying that that's wrong too?

Quote:This is what I meant when I said looking at lists of successful women is too "noisy", there's too many uncontrolled variables because those lists weren't made for the purpose of telling if women are better or worse at gambling.

That was my whole point, the cultural (socially learned) elements so overwhelm the natural ones that it's pretty obvious that you can't just look at a list to tell possible intelligence, because the lists are quite biased against women because of our society.

On that note, one very good question would be why men have dominated nearly every political system in almost every culture I know of worldwide... historically pretty much the "better" ones just seem to be the ones that are more equal; fully equal? Fully equal? That seems the realm of legend and "maybe it was"... Recall those hunter-gatherer groups where even though the women provided the majority of the food, the mens' catch was what was celebrated (large animals vs. plants and such).

All that proves, though, is that men seem to take power. It doesn't say anything about actual capability. Also, some of it does seem to be because of historical chance -- for instance, Japan and Korea were much less sexist than they are now before China's influence got so strong... 600s Japan was more equal than 1300s Japan which was more equal than 1800s Japan. And in the West we have all those myths and theories about the Minoans, etc. So while men do always seem to dominate, the exact degree to which they do so can vary greatly. We can see that in the modern world of course, comparing the West to China to the Arab world... big differences there. I don't know, it's interesting stuff to think about.

I love the pictures but lets face it, Michael Jackson is dead. I'm not even going to comment on anything else displayed but I would like you all to save this page so years from now you can realize how horribly fucking stupid you were. But i'll comment on one thing because it just irks me:

Quote:Skin tone is not exactly relevant, though; muscle mass, coordination, speed, and strategy are. And before you go all "MAN YOU JUST DONT GET IT" again, it pretty much makes your analogy fall apart.

So I guess you didn't get the memo, blacks of African descent have, on average, bones which are more dense and greater muscle mass than caucasians, while also being physically larger than caucasians, on average. even their ligaments are capable of more strain, on the average, than caucasians. This is why you never bet on the white guy.

This whole thing doesn't feel like a debate, it feels like I have to sit you all down and educate you.

Thought you'd whip that out (:FuckYou: ) but

Quote:Skin tone is not exactly relevant, though; muscle mass, coordination, speed, and strategy are.

:colbert:

Quote: I'm not even going to comment on anything else displayed but I would like you all to save this page so years from now you can realize how horribly fucking stupid you were.

I was going to suggest the same thing but it'll prolly only take a few months.

By the bye, never wear fishnet stockings and a skirt with boxers underneath that have a tendency to let your genitals loose. I found that out the hard way at that party. :o

Claiming ignorance and an inability to comprehend while announcing yourself as being correct only does one thing: Makes you look exactly like ABF.

I think it's pretty obvious i'm the only educated member around here, not to mention the only one who has had actual relationships with women. I know they're incapable of solid critical thinking because I lived with them, ate with them, etc. What's the best you people have? an episode of Oprah and a lot of white knighting.

Keep posting everyone, it helps build my confidence.

lol

Stop chasing after damaged goods, lazy, so the rest of us don't have to suffer.

God damn it, I saw GR post in this thread and was hoping he was getting it back on track to Super Mario Galaxy 2. Let's give it a try.

Um... I don't have much to say on it, actually. I haven't finished it, and as a matter of fact have put it down for a while. It's nearing the end, and I'm finding myself having to backtrack and get more stars to proceed, meaning I have to do more mischief comet rounds.

I LOVE that they brought back the daredevil rounds. Those were my favorite part of the first. Reminds me of this, actually:

How a Super Mario Galaxy 2 level is born

On the other side of the coin, I despise time-trial comets. Ugh. I can do them, but why would I want to? I can see the appeal, but eh, for me, it just doesn't mesh with the gameplay as well for some reason.

Alright, I beat the final Bowser and unlocked World S. I was excited and played the first level, was about to go to the 2nd and... I have to fucking backtrack for more stars again?? God damn it! Stop living in the past, Super Mario Galaxy 2! I want to look onward and explore new worlds!

Ah well. I was planning on getting all 120 stars anyway, I guess getting them out of the preferred order isn't that bad.

...seriously, is there anyone else even playing this game? Are you all occupied with other games at the moment?

Well I am playing Mario Galaxy 1 sometimes...

How're you liking it? Which level(s) are you playing through?

It's probably a good place to start, I think I enjoyed Galaxy 1 more overall. Galaxy 2 is worth playing through, but Galaxy 1 seemed more polished and fulfilling.

They're both awesome games. Now, I just need to get my Wii started up again and play some more SMG2.