![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
What can't girl game?
- Thread starter coffee33
- Start date
Your ability to generalize the collective human experience in several quick sentences stems from the fact that you took "an intro to psych class and a few philosophy courses"?
Heeey, guess what. You're not the only one who went to college, though you seem to be the only one impressed by that fact. The whole "quantum physics is easier than computers" thing is quite lame as well, as I would suppose you'd have us believing you're quite the renaissance man. Education is useless when coupled with arrogance and ignorance.
Heeey, guess what. You're not the only one who went to college, though you seem to be the only one impressed by that fact. The whole "quantum physics is easier than computers" thing is quite lame as well, as I would suppose you'd have us believing you're quite the renaissance man. Education is useless when coupled with arrogance and ignorance.
jubei said:
No. It's a mix of a few things.
1) You think you're educated.
2) You think you have to settle for someone who "plays games". My fiance and I don't do that to each other.
3) Because of (1) you're going to have a hard time learning from other people.
That's why I feel sorry for you.
fallguy and finalgt have summed up everything else pretty well, so I guess I don't need to say any more.
Eidolon said:What are you talking about? Have you ever even talked to a female member of the species?
I suspect that the women who you know are so good at their mind games that you aren't even aware that they are being played.
Um, Ive been married for 10 years, next May. We dont play games, and get along great. We never fight. Sorry to ruin it for you, not every marriage is like on TV.
Seriously what in the physical or fysological abilities would prevent women to be good in games? Okay that the fastest woman can´t run 100 metres as fast as men do that is because of physic abilities men having more muscle mass.
Now games are generally aimed to please men because they are mostly developed by men who know little what females wants in a game. And the games you like you tend to be good at. Now if we would put 10 newbies girls and boys who never touched a computer before to play CS and all have zero interest in computers I don´t think the boys would be dominating at all.
Also as we have seen in school there is no secret that women learn things faster than men do so they should have an edge really if the experience is similar. But again it´s more about personal talent than sex talent
Now games are generally aimed to please men because they are mostly developed by men who know little what females wants in a game. And the games you like you tend to be good at. Now if we would put 10 newbies girls and boys who never touched a computer before to play CS and all have zero interest in computers I don´t think the boys would be dominating at all.
Also as we have seen in school there is no secret that women learn things faster than men do so they should have an edge really if the experience is similar. But again it´s more about personal talent than sex talent
fallguy said:
Actually, you called me ignorant, which could be interpreted as a "name" or "label". I need to go to an English class? Sounds like great advice coming from somebody who has a very minute grasp of the language. You must be one of those men who would rather live in the cave I guess. It would be quite nice to believe that my women never does anything for her personal gain and would never hold back information or tell a small fib to keep me just a tad ignorant and save my feelings. Maybe my girl's desire to not hurt my feelings about insignificant events is a bad thing...maybe I should find one like yours who NEVER fights with me about anything in 10 years. I'll let you in on a little secret, but don't tell anybody...there is no such thing as a "perfectly happy marriage". There is this thing called "compromise" that is an integral part of marriage, and if you don't have this, you are both automitons. If you do have this, you have at one point given something up you truely desired for the sake of your spouse. If this is the case, you are left unhappy to at least a small degree, which would in turn make it not "perfectly happy". I've been married for close to five years now and me and my wife fight about some things sometimes. It is called "normal". If you don't get out your conflicts, it usually turns into some passive agressive poop that you take out on other things. Now, if we look up the definition of "ignorance", you'd be the one to fit that bill more-so than me, now wouldn't you?
As far as me being arrogant about my college education? Maybe and maybe not. It could be misconstrued by those who believe this because of my statements. Yes, I understand quantum physics to a greater degree than most. Was my statement wrong? Not in the least. I've had an easier time getting people to understand the basics ofquantum mechanics to my wife than computers. I'm sure most people, if given the opportunity, would easily understand the ideas behind wave-particle duality and basic experiments such as "schrodinger's cat". It is those who believe that their knowledge of such things of quantum physics is somehow a greater accomplishment that those who understand history and other such topics who are the arrogant ones.
Lastly, even though your wife might not play games with you, which I highly doubt, what makes you think she doesn't play them with her friends, her co-workers, her family, etc. Are you that audacious to believe she doesn't, and, if you are, who would be the ignorant one there. Also, if you do understand that she does, I guess you are wrong in your original statements as well.
Peace.
jubei said:
'Ignorant' is an adjective, so no its not a name. It means the same as uninformed, and thats not a "name" either. If you interpret it as such, you're wrong.
The rest of your post if not even worth breaking down to reply to. Some people cant accept others have a perfectly happy marriage, because they dont themselves.
Im done with this thread, its obvious you just cant accept some marriages are great.
fallguy said:
Looks like somebody picked up his debating techniques from dub-ya. Uh, I have no factual evidence to support my claims so, you're wrong...
Last I checked you could call somebody lazy and it be concidered a label or name. I also believe lazy is an adjective as well. But you're right, adjectives can't be concidered names because of the fact they are adjectives and not nouns. I'll bow to your obviously superior intelect.
jubei said:
Actually, no. The people who believe their grasp of, "such things of [sic] quantum physics is [sic] somehow a greater accomplishment [sic] that [sic] those who understand history and other such topics" are the ones who have superiority complexes.
People who hold themselves to be capable (in this case, you) of speaking down to everybody else on a particular subject (in this case, a combination of sociology and psychology) based on the following assumptions:
1) That the theories from various psychologists (mostly Freud, judging by your use of the buzzword "egoistic") that they read in their intro to psych class in college are incontrovertibly true and therefore can be applied to every member of the species.
2) That nobody else with whom they are having the discussion is aware of those theories.
are the arrogant ones. The purpose for me breaking it down like that for you is to get you to understand the following:
1) Freud's theories were just theories. It is impossible to come up with a universal law in a science based on variance from person to person.
2) Many of the other members here are college educated, or at least in the process of being so.
But hey, everybody's an expert, right?
jubei said:
I dont need evidence. The fact is we are happily married. If you dont believe me, thats your problem. What do you want to do, move into my basement and observe us for a year?
I guess you also wouldnt believe that my wife after two kids and 30 years old still is the same size (4) as when we got married, because that goes against all normal thinking about women after having kids?
Keep telling yourself these things dont happen. Whatever makes you feel better.
fallguy said:
I never said you weren't happily married. It's not too hard to get along with people, especially the ones you love. But to assume that your wife has never once told you a fib to spare your feelings on one subject or another is just rediculous. And, while holding on to such false images of your wife my help you sleep better at night, it is still wrong to believe such things. As far as your wife still being slim. Good for her,and good for you if it still gets you hard after 10 years. My wife also has not gained any weight from our three kids, but I'm sure that has more to do with her being 25 than anything.
finalgt said:
First off, I wasn't even refering to Freud what-so-ever. This just compounds my reasoning that you argue what you don't understand. Egoism is not a Freudian theory. You may be mistaking it with his theory of the Id, Ego, and Superego, so I wont try to bash you. What I was refering to was the very prevelent theory in philosophy, egoism. Egoism, being the oppositive of altruism, is the philosophical reasoning that one should always lookout for their wellbeing. For example, one smokes a cigarette in a reseraunt to placate their nicotine addiction disregarding those around them who may not like smoke. This is not an end-all-be-all example, so don't try to argue that humans are not egoistic because of my example pointing out that it is just rude and most humans are not this way. It is just the easiest way I can explain it at the moment. I brought this up originally only to point out that babies are extreamly egoistic. They make one's life uncomfortable when they need something (ie. crying when needing attention/food/diaper chainge/etc...). You could try to argue this, but there's no point really.
I commend you on your ability to correct my grammar on an internet forum board and then accuse me of having a superiority complex. Kudos go out to you by thinking for a moment that you are not a hypocrite.
Then you go on to provide us with examples of your psychic powers by listing some assumptions and then speaking as though they are fact (ie. I wasn't refering to Freud, which makes every one of your arguments moot.)
Finally, I'm quite aware tha many of the people here are either in college or have been through college. When dealing with half of the things this forum does, I would only expect this. I do, however, also realize the way college works. For most CS degrees you do not need many, if any, psychology classes to gain your degree. Nor would you need any philosophy courses...unless you are specializing in some area of CS that would require you to deal with people moreso than not. I also brought up taking these classes because those who have taken these classes would understand that it is impossible for any one person to go through life the way fallguy is trying to portray is wife...unless of course they are the type of people who tend to disbelieve anything that gets in the way of their view of the world.
QHalo said:Christ, its RIDICULOUS NOT REDICULOUS.
OMG! It's a spelling error! That must indicate that I'm uneducated! Since I find it very hard to believe that you've never made a spelling or grammatical error in any of your posts, I wont take much offense to this...or to anybody who tries to flame or discredit anybody by lowering themselves to such childish acts.
Good day.
fallguy said:
Jesus, would you just read my posts instead of being so defensive? I conceded that it may be possible for you to have a relationship in which you do not play games, even if it is near impossible. I said that she does, in fact, play games with other people who are NOT you and who are NOT in your relationship. Read, comprehend, reply. Use this and you will be good.
I believe I said we to mean those of us who can read between the lines of those who think they are being covert when insulting somebody's intelligence.
As far as people agreeing with me? I'm not sure to what extent, but there are quite a few that have read/quoted/replied to the same list as me which would imply that they do agree to some extent. If you need to re-read the thread, do so. Only the defensive ones are really disagreeing with that list.
As far as people agreeing with me? I'm not sure to what extent, but there are quite a few that have read/quoted/replied to the same list as me which would imply that they do agree to some extent. If you need to re-read the thread, do so. Only the defensive ones are really disagreeing with that list.
QHalo said:
Yes, it has, and it's unfortunate, so lets get it back on track, eh?
Girls can game, but not noticably as effective as men given many variables, but that does not imply that they can't game or that they couldn't achieve the level that we play at.
]|[ Mar']['in ]|[
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2002
- Messages
- 4,663
Well this was all very entertaining. Thanks for the read
Because it's the very general and stereotypical response you always get. You made a hasty generalization and people called you on it.jubei said:
But anyway, I'm done...I've made my point. Next time if you don't want the flames, don't open yourself up to them. Or grow some thicker skin when people ask you to back up your comments.
to quote fallguy /end
Dig1tal_Pr0be
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2004
- Messages
- 67
Y'all are missing the obvious. For millions of years males went out to frag dinner while females took care of other things. Hence the general structure and purpose of the male brain is *more* suited to the hunt and kill nature of most (male designed admittedly) games. This is somewhat similar to the fact that females can throw underhanded WAY better than males because of bone structure.
QHalo said:
It wasn't a hasty generalization, it was an educated response. Hasty would imply that I have failed to think my opinions through which, in fact, I've cultivated them through years and years of observation, reading, and studying.
Anyway, my points are there if any of you would actually take the proper amount of energy to read and digest them. As far as the flames go, they don't bother me. If they did, I wouldn't be posting right now. I enjoy arguing when people make educated responses, and I think I found a few of them that where thrown into the mix. I backed up my comments quite well, thank you...so don't assume that I can't take it, or I was incapable of explaining my posts.
P.S.
Christ, if you want to quote somebody it would be done as follows...
To quote fallguy:
/end[/quote]
or
"/end"
Dig1tal_Pr0be said:
Yeah, I think this would only be a portion of it though. Yeah, men would have a more innate sense of tactics as far as hunting their prey goes, but I think hand/eye coordination is more important at the low-midrange level of gaming and tactics really doesn't come into play until you reach the upper echelons of FPS games.
Dig1tal_Pr0be said:
You are right on most things but hardly bone structure is the reason women have trouble with the overhanded throws it´s just the same as gaming lack of practise or they would become good at throwing things like boys generally. There is boys that can´t throw for a damn either
. Maybe not in America where everyone is into baseball but that hardly exists in Sweden But we still like to throw things. Also look at the javeline throwers in the olympics. Those ladys can throw spears quite a lot better than I can And throwing javeline is like 100 times harder then throwing a ball if you have ever tried it.
merlin704
The Great Procrastinator
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2001
- Messages
- 12,840
I get along with chicks but only to get the sex. I'm 26 and no where NEAR ready for anything serious. So a bang every other night of the week with a different chick is great for me at this moment.
merlin704 said:I get along with chicks but only to get the sex. I'm 26 and no where NEAR ready for anything serious. So a bang every other night of the week with a different chick is great for me at this moment.
Are you sure you are getting anything? I don´t know the question is not if girls have sex with Merlin so I don´t know how that would be relevant? You are sure you aren´t trying to boost your self esteem?
merlin704
The Great Procrastinator
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2001
- Messages
- 12,840
oqvist said:
You shot my dreams down.
]|[ Mar']['in ]|[
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2002
- Messages
- 4,663
oqvist said:You are right on most things but hardly bone structure is the reason women have trouble with the overhanded throws it´s just the same as gaming lack of practise or they would become good at throwing things like boys generally. There is boys that can´t throw for a damn either
Actually he was right about the reason women through underhanded at least that's what I learned...
.And no need to bring up olympic women. Obviously there are exceptions to the rule....
]|[ Mar']['in ]|[
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2002
- Messages
- 4,663
oqvist said:Why not they share the bone structure of other women
Well it's not that they "can't" it's just that they're better at throwing underhanded. However I have no proof to this, and cannot remember where I learned this
I'll start googling maybe I can uncover something...