Poll: Some simple perspective

[johnnybleu]

I don't know about you guys, but I am encouraged by 25%. I would love it if one day 50% was close to the truth, because I love games and I love my girlfriend. I am always disappointed to explain some new game, or just a concept within a game that I am exited about to her, only to have it shielded from her consciousness by her extreme disinterest. Perhaps the next generation of young men will have a better time playing games with women then I had.

Sure, but there's something slightly unsettling about this "magic" 50% threshold. Isn't it entirely possible that the women folk aren't as interested in those newfangled vidjagames? I love games and I love my wife, and I love playing couch co-op with her in a variety of games. But she has her own tastes and interests, even within the realm of gaming. Now what happens if less that 50% of the players of any given genre or title are female? How is that a bad thing, and why would it need rectifying?

I mean, people like different things! It's ok! The missus keeps badgering me about the new Borderlands, and I'm not really interested. Is that so wrong?

 

[Reasonable Atheist]

I don't know about you guys, but I am encouraged by 25%. I would love it if one day 50% was close to the truth, because I love games and I love my girlfriend. I am always disappointed to explain some new game, or just a concept within a game that I am exited about to her, only to have it shielded from her consciousness by her extreme disinterest. Perhaps the next generation of young men will have a better time playing games with women then I had.

Sure, but there's something slightly unsettling about this "magic" 50% threshold. Isn't it entirely possible that the women folk aren't as interested in those newfangled vidjagames? I love games and I love my wife, and I love playing couch co-op with her in a variety of games. But she has her own tastes and interests, even within the realm of gaming. Now what happens if less that 50% of the players of any given genre or title are female? How is that a bad thing, and why would it need rectifying?

I mean, people like different things! It's ok! The missus keeps badgering me about the new Borderlands, and I'm not really interested. Is that so wrong?

Of course its not wrong, or bad if someone does not like some specific aspect of a for-entertainment industry. That does not stop me from being jelly of my best friend's video game loving girlfriend. Its not wrong for them not to like it, but it sure would be great if they did. Those two things are not mutually exclusive. Don't know about you guys, but I am a red blooded man that likes women, and if I can play video games WHILE enjoying the company of the fairer sex, that would make me happy.

Dude, I would be extatic if my girlfriend was always talking about wanting to play the new borderlands, like.... so psyched.

 

[Reasonable Atheist]

Late 20's male of hispanic descent. Play over 20hours a week on console/handhelds/pc.

I evolved my sleeping habits so that I can game more. Work, gym workouts, and tiredness has got nothing on me.

I feel this sentiment. My room mate calls me a mutant because I exist on about 5 hours of sleep a night. Civilization..... just one more turn.

 

[Elijin]

So, we're gauging how much female perspective needs to be added into gaming culture based on a poll in a gaming community that is overwhelmingly menfolk?

Or am I missing the point of the poll?

Seems like you nailed it.

I voted offended, while Im not actually offended at the question. I just think it has a strong potential to become a 'See, only x% are women, we dont need to cater to them' piece.

 

[Auberon]

...Somewhat basic biology (genealogy) is really that confusing? I really should dial up my cynicism then, even if there are other combinations and SJW chant of "biological sex don't real, here are 50-odd genders".

On the proper topic, relevant gamer girls are probably like Vi/v/ian James and just want to play games without outside politics.

 

[Reasonable Atheist]

This is because xx is female, and xy is male,

Except its not. Besides the fact thats its highly invasive to ask about somebody's genome - a genome that most people don't know about anyways, so its an inaccurate measurement. Not to mention that there's no reason to think that amy part of a person's gonosomes have anything to do with gaming habits. Like I said, the best way to not complicate things is ask people's gender.

but I thought the rarity of it would just complicate the topic.

Acting like there's any evidence that DNA has an influence on gaming habits is what is complicating the topic.

I think I have got some hair stuck to my window sil if you want to split those as well.

 

[Irick]

You're the one who deliberately tried to exclude transgender people from the poll in a manner that was fallacious which got six posters and who knows how many viewers to notice. So, yeah, of course it happened.

They actually just excluded clinically intersexed individuals by referring to genotype. (e.g. Aneuploidy)
The connotation of genotype = sex isn't necessarily true, and they actually avoided this by referring to genotype.

The idea that genotype somehow influences gaming propensity is an interesting hypothesis, but it needs exploration. It doesn't necessarily make it sexist/transphobic. This poll is silly IMO, but still. We can just call it silly rather than saying they are wrong without any scientific backing.

 

[Reasonable Atheist]

You're the one who deliberately tried to exclude transgender people from the poll in a manner that was fallacious which got six posters and who knows how many viewers to notice. So, yeah, of course it happened.

They actually just excluded clinically intersexed individuals by referring to genotype. (e.g. Aneuploidy)
The connotation of genotype = sex isn't necessarily true, and they actually avoided this by referring to genotype.

The idea that genotype somehow influences gaming propensity is an interesting hypothesis, but it needs exploration. It doesn't necessarily make it sexist/transphobic. This poll is silly IMO, but still. We can just call it silly rather than saying they are wrong without any scientific backing.

The point is not to exclude anyone or anything like that! The only reason I asked that way, is it was the most scientific and cool sounding >.> I figure "Everyone has a genotype" and nobody can really disagree with it. I'm already dealing with a super small sample size, its not like im going to submit this to some university or something, The entire goal was to get a general idea. 25% was the general idea I got, if you CONSIDER yourself to be female, feel free to vote xx in combination with your gaming habits information, and vice versa for the reversal, I don't care. If anything more data is better.

 

[Reasonable Atheist]

This is because xx is female, and xy is male,

Except its not. Besides the fact thats its highly invasive to ask about somebody's genome - a genome that most people don't know about anyways, so its an inaccurate measurement. Not to mention that there's no reason to think that amy part of a person's gonosomes have anything to do with gaming habits. Like I said, the best way to not complicate things is ask people's gender.

but I thought the rarity of it would just complicate the topic.

Acting like there's any evidence that DNA has an influence on gaming habits is what is complicating the topic.

I think I have got some hair stuck to my window sil if you want to split those as well.

You're the one who deliberately tried to exclude transgender people from the poll in a manner that was fallacious which got six posters and who knows how many viewers to notice. So, yeah, of course it happened.

As far as I know, trans people still have genotype. The idea is not to exclude people, but to sound scientific and cool to get more people voting. Honestly it seems totally insane to me that you would jump to exclusion of anyone based on this. What would have been acceptable to you? do I need separate voting options for pre-op and post-op trans people of both genders? Or just another "offended by my asking" options with the respective play time quantifiers added for each?

 

[Reasonable Atheist]

So, we're gauging how much female perspective needs to be added into gaming culture based on a poll in a gaming community that is overwhelmingly menfolk?

Or am I missing the point of the poll?

Seems like you nailed it.

I voted offended, while Im not actually offended at the question. I just think it has a strong potential to become a 'See, only x% are women, we dont need to cater to them' piece.

Sorry you feel that way, but Honestly I cannot be bothered to get into such gender battles with people. I just wanted to get a feel for the amount of "real" gamers who were actually women. Mostly I wanted to get a feel for this information to see if it would be you know, a good business decision to market more games to the female demographic over the male demographic. Feelings don't matter, only money matters. I think I have already come to the conclusion that yes, it might indeed be fiscally viable, although still a greater risk so not for the feint of heart or anyone who wants to crank out cheap crappy products.

 

[Reasonable Atheist]

As far as I know, trans people still have genotype. The idea is not to exclude people, but to sound scientific and cool to get more people voting.

Well, thats the thing, its not that accurate. Like I said, few people even actually know their actual genome. Additionally, you're operating under XX is a woman and XY is a man, which excludes transgender people.

What would have been acceptable to you? do I need separate voting options for pre-op and post-op trans people of both genders?

Just ask people their gender. Easy. Works. No drama. You're trying to find out gender, so ask gender. I apologize for seeming dramatic, but, well, its both inaccurate scientifically (which seemed to be the standard you were using) and exclusionary towards transgender and intersex people. You weren't trying to be a jerk, but that is what it implied.

So then riddle me this then. Imaginary individual A, who is biologically male but identifies as female where in the demographics pie chart should they fall? Would a game like Gears of War that traditionally panders to a male audience still be more appealing to them then say the sims? If they identify as female, but are still sexually attracted to females does this fact flip their demographic once again? I still do not believe asking based on genome excludes anyone, in the same way I am sure there are some straight women who are biologically women but still prefer the typical bro out game marketed heavily to males. There is always bound to be some variation in buying habits and preferences among a demographic. See the problem I am having here? I don't know jack about trans people or how they actually behave or what types of things they like, because I have never met one and I refuse to base anything on the media's portrayal of them.

Although there has been "some" small amount of drama here, I have a feeling there still somehow would have been more if I just asked people their gender.

I believe this is starting to get a bit off topic at this point, but I am beginning to become fascinated.

Also, what is "intersex" and how is it differentiated from transgender?

 

[jamail77]

I am a straight white male in his 20s, and I apologise for that.

No one asked you to, I wish people would stop preempting imaginary SJWs. :/

Good luck with that. It is overly convenient for people to strawman than actually have a civil discussion regardless of what "side" they are on in regards to anything. It is not a coincidence that the people most likely to resort to angrily yelling about "SJWs" are among (as in not the only people to do this) the least likely to come up with any well thought out retort. Somebody once responded to me with something along the lines of "Ah, saying I'm strawmanning. That's the go-to thing for liberals when they can't argue back". What? Calling out the fallacious foundation to an argument is common whether you're partisan or not and I'm not even a liberal anyway! That's not to say calling out fallacies is the good way to disprove an argument however.

Anyway, they're no different than people who strawman Gamergaters or Republicans or whoever. Side Note:As someone who refuses to take a side, I sympathize with all sides of the argument. Sorry/not sorry if that bothers anyone. People take their bad personal experiences with the opposition and then go through a phase of heavy selection/confirmation bias to keep their prejudices when faced with something that challenges those prejudices. It's a damn shame too because humans actually have an incredible capacity for logic.

To be perfectly fair, another reason people preempt imaginary enemies also often has to do with a lack of education on the issues, history, and philosophies pertinent to the discussion. So, as much as you may wish otherwise, without good education people are going to keep doing this because they take words like "patriarchy" and think it is an attack on them. They're more concerned with defending themselves from looking bad than empathizing. It's a bit selfish actually, but, then again, we've all done that at one point or another. Again, the same goes for people who preempt, for example, imaginary misogynists. Not saying they don't exist, but it's inappropriate to preempt when a discussion hasn't even happened yet.

 

[Reasonable Atheist]

I am a straight white male in his 20s, and I apologise for that.

No one asked you to, I wish people would stop preempting imaginary SJWs. :/

Good luck with that. It is overly convenient for people to strawman than actually have a civil discussion regardless of what "side" they are on in regards to anything. It is not a coincidence that the people most likely to resort to angrily yelling about "SJWs" are among (as in not the only people to do this) the least likely to come up with any well thought out retort. Somebody once responded to me with something along the lines of "Ah, saying I'm strawmanning. That's the go-to thing for liberals when they can't argue back". What? Calling out the fallacious foundation to an argument is common whether you're partisan or not and I'm not even a liberal anyway! That's not to say calling out fallacies is the good way to disprove an argument however.

Anyway, they're no different than people who strawman Gamergaters or Republicans or whoever. Side Note:As someone who refuses to take a side, I sympathize with all sides of the argument. Sorry/not sorry if that bothers anyone. People take their bad personal experiences with the opposition and then go through a phase of heavy selection/confirmation bias to keep their prejudices when faced with something that challenges those prejudices. It's a damn shame too because humans actually have an incredible capacity for logic.

To be perfectly fair, another reason people preempt imaginary enemies also often has to do with a lack of education on the issues, history, and philosophies pertinent to the discussion. So, as much as you may wish otherwise, without good education people are going to keep doing this because they take words like "patriarchy" and think it is an attack on them. They're more concerned with defending themselves from looking bad than empathizing. It's a bit selfish actually, but, then again, we've all done that at one point or another. Again, the same goes for people who preempt, for example, imaginary misogynists. Not saying they don't exist, but it's inappropriate to preempt when a discussion hasn't even happened yet.

Uh huh, I guess I just imagined having my arguments and opinions callously and repeatedly discarded as "uneducated" because I myself am in the majority all those times, on any number of race/class/sexuality issues. Now its not my fault for being in the majority, but for prefacing that I am in the majority? Give me a break man I am just trying to deal with with some annoying people by calling out the silliness ahead of time, do not even try to tell me the internet is not silly or frustrating.

And straw man? What the hell, that sentence only even applies if you are going to use the "your just privileged" line of reasoning, and at that point its not even a straw man, its just patronizing idiots. Who is against patronizing idiots? The idea is to exclude arguments that are not even arguments, and I am pretty sure that one line did just that for me, but now i got people upset that I feel like i gotta use it? no-win scenario.

captcha: anti-dentite
Who comes up with the captchas? they are always so amusing, is that something other then a reference to a funny Seinfeld bit?

 

[jamail77]

Uh huh, I guess I just imagined having my arguments and opinions callously and repeatedly discarded as "uneducated" because I myself am in the majority all those times, on any number of race/class/sexuality issues. Now its not my fault for being in the majority, but for prefacing that I am in the majority? Give me a break man I am just trying to deal with with some annoying people by calling out the silliness ahead of time, do not even try to tell me the internet is not silly or frustrating.

And straw man? What the hell, that sentence only even applies if you are going to use the "your just privileged" line of reasoning, and at that point its not even a straw man, its just patronizing idiots. Who is against patronizing idiots?

captcha: anti-dentite
Who comes up with the captchas? they are always so amusing, is that something other then a reference to a funny Seinfeld bit?

Whoops. I didn't mean to quote you as well. I should have taken your part out. I only wanted to address Colour Scientist's concerns, not that they were directed towards you. Sorry about that. What the heck though. I'll take a stab at your beefs anyway.

I'm not saying you imagined anything; of course the Internet is silly, frustrating, heck it's damn illogical. I'm just saying that trying to preempt the silliness just comes off as overly defensive as I clarified in my last paragraph. It does not paint you as understanding and makes it seem like you have no control, which is true to an extent in that you do not have control over your environmental circumstances, but you can control your beliefs and actions. It's unnecessary as Colour Scientist said. You are already creating a hostile environment with such a statement when you do not even know if this thread will end up hostile as evidenced by the reactions from me and Coulour Scientist. You've had bad experiences and I get that, but it's like the time travel conundrum of killing somebody who did something wrong in modern times. Is killing that person moral when they did not do anything yet? Nobody has done anything yet. Calling out ahead of time does not help you in the slightest is all I am saying or at least that is my point of view. It just comes off too defensive.

I am a little confused what you mean on this point. I am stating a general phenomena that goes on from both "sides"(there's a reason I keep putting that in quotes, the sides thing is ridiculous). I am not saying you are necessarily strawmanning, but it does come off that way because you took your bad experiences and painted those you disagree with the same brush. So, you're trying to patronize idiots, the "you're privileged" argument people? That doesn't bode well for the discussion then: That's a lot of people to paint as idiotic and does not make you look good. Again, you're going to have to clarify what you mean because that is how I am taking it at the moment.

Somebody comes up with the captchas? I thought those were generated by algorithms and deals with advertisers and things like that.

 

[Reasonable Atheist]

snip

Unfortunately I think you are interpreting me fairly well. I do believe that anyone who uses such a hollow argument, without any substance at all, are idiots. If you need to resort to assailing a person instead of an idea, i will have no respect for you. Unless of course the topic is the person in question, I have no baseline beef with insulting people, as I am sure you have gathered.

On the flip side I would consider myself very receptive to well thought out and presented arguments, I have been known to change my mind when presented with new information. Take this thread for example, my initial thoughts were that there really are not enough women to market big budget games too, however the results of my pole (in my opinion) show otherwise.

 

[jamail77]

Unfortunately I think you are interpreting me fairly well. I do believe that anyone who uses such a hollow argument, without any substance at all, are idiots. If you need to resort to assailing a person instead of an idea, i will have no respect for you. Unless of course the topic is the person in question, I have no baseline beef with insulting people, as I am sure you have gathered.

On the flip side I would consider myself very receptive to well thought out and presented arguments, I have been known to change my mind when presented with new information. Take this thread for example, my initial thoughts were that there really are not enough women to market big budget games too, however the results of my pole (in my opinion) show otherwise.

OK, now I am confused on why it is unfortunate that I am interpreting you fairly well. By the way, with this clarification, I 100% agree with you (Well, except the part about freely insulting people, but that is a difference in opinion): To say such things without substance is stupid and is not a path to civil discussion. The point of "You're privileged" is to highlight how you are cut off from the problems of other groups of people, but if you say that without acknowledging the person you're talking to and their idea/argument outside of that, you're not really arguing anything at all. It's only useful if the person chooses to remain close minded and hence their idea/argument is as well, which is why I highlighted you can control your beliefs and actions despite your circumstances.

It's nice to see that you are open to new information. That does bode well for the discussion. The issue is with the trend and old marketing theories and knowledge that, frankly, are now outdated regardless of changing demographics. There is an "old guard" of economists and executives fighting to keep all of those things in place because they've proven to yield high profit with less risk. They'll work for years to come, but they're outdated versus the updated stuff that the "old guard" understands less. Outside of the casual market, there are plenty of women to market big budget games too. It just scares them, not necessarily out of misogyny, not that some of that doesn't exist either, but because it's unknown.