Why Don't Females Find Games As Interesting As Males Do

[Sparrisen]

This is a question.

I'm taking a dump right now, and I just read oynamaks post, it strikes me that this addictiveness of games doesn't seem to stick to females so much.

Which I thought were absolutely amazing when I thought about it more soberly. I constantly see chicks on FB going! "mmmm! just ate chocolate cake!!"

And in my brain I go "You fat cow. Guys want you for the LOOKS, and you go ahead and stuff yourself with fucking sweets? You gonna be fat, lonely and miserable-and you know it. But you still don't have the willpower to resist."

So generally, chicks are just not as willpowered. They go with that which "feels good". To make a neutral logic statement as "sweets make me fat ugly and disgusting - I just won't do it", doesn't cut it. It tricks her emotional system, rewards her with good emotions, and she keeps doing it.

Which is what games do to guys, but I guess they can't really do it to GIRLS as much, otherwise BOTH genders would play equally.



Personally I think it is the competitiveness of males that gets to us. We want to be best, at SOMETHING, and if we get just a little piece of that, we're hooked (no matter if what we're actually best AT is kinda irrelevant) - but I don't know it that reason is enough

[Oynamak]

maybe games are made to be bought by males? war, death, destruction. I dont say that this does not appear to girls at all, but maybe not before they have REALLY tried it, and, which girl actually really tries it? they dont because maybe something in their brain doesnt want them to try it.

Girls brain: "Okay, my girlies and I meet at 6 o'clock so I've just spend 3 hours on taking a shower, call tiffany, chitchat meanwhile I paint my nails,lips, eyes and another hour to get dressep up - and I'm still to fat : ( .. 'laters with her girlies in the city' ...lets go to the game shop and see what could be cool? nah.. rather "hey look, I could look so much better with this dress, lets first buy new shoes and in 2 hours we go back to buy that dress!"

mans brain: "hey cool the kitchen, lets eat. *whilegoingtothelivingroom* hey the bathroom, lets take a shower and wash my balls... after shower "man I loook asweooome".. 'inthelivingroom' hey someones calling "yo man wsup" "dunno, lets do smth" "alright, im at you in äh 15 minutes. 5 minutes if you have a toilette".. 'somewherewhereyoucouldseeagameshop' hey a gameshop, lets go trough the games and see what could be amazing!"



you know, theres no space in womans brain for smth like this maybe. its kinda, overdone but, I was in write mood lol.

[ReverendLostLamb]

You DO know that it is quite common for women to pass up on sweets simply because they care about their looks?

As for males being interested in gaming; I don't think there's a rational explanation to that. It simply is. Why are males generally attracted to females? Why is there "female colours" and "male colours"? Why do different people like different things at all?
Because we were made that way. We're not supposed to understand.

[Oynamak]

You DO know that it is quite common for women to pass up on sweets simply because they care about their looks?

As for males being interested in gaming; I don't think there's a rational explanation to that. It simply is. Why are males generally attracted to females? Why is there "female colours" and "male colours"? Why do different people like different things at all?
Because we were made that way. We're not supposed to understand.

i doubt that god is the answer sparrisen was looking for, since god is the answer to everything I dont even see how god can satisfy someone when asking a question.

and female/male colours are made by society. "Oh a girl, lets paint the room pink". what do you think will the girl  think when shes 12 or 15? oh my favourite color has always been pink. now when a boy says his fav. colour is pink, all say "omg pink?", when its blue they say "logical", and when its any other colour they dont even connect it with the man/woman role, like, its green. Oh, cool colour.

its obvious that society sets man and woman into a role. we just have to not play these roles.


and if we all wouldnt like different things that would be.. yeah. unbelievable, because, which things would we all like then? a question that that has never made sense and wont ever make sense cuz ofc we are all different, if we were not it would be the question #1 everyone shoudl ask. not where are we from etc. but how high is the chance that 6 milliard people are equal? THATS a miracle then isnt it



and btw. we are not supposed to understand, but to accept. although we should not accept everything OFC.

[Sparrisen]

"i doubt that god is the answer sparrisen was looking for, since god is the answer to everything I dont even see how god can satisfy someone when asking a question. "

[ReverendLostLamb]

Could you guys explain to me in a 'scientific' way why the universe never ends? Because I can't really grasp that sort a thing.

[Nightmare]

Why would God want the universe to end?

[ReverendLostLamb]

I don't see why he would.
I also don't see why single-celled organisms suddenly would decide to turn into multiple-celled organisms. I find no logic behind that action, especially since it is scientifically proven that single-celled organisms only can produce other single-celled organisms, not multiple-celled ones.

[Sparrisen]

That's a really awesome question. That made me think for a while.

Alright, first, we can take an example. This example, we will call humanity. This consists of small, singleminded individuals with an egoistical motivation. Once their basal needs is fullfilled, they just want to have sex. If all their needs would be fullfilled, a large percentage commit suicide. Generally, a human is a selfish asshole, who looks to himself/herself primarily, and to other people mostly for the value they offer him/her.

Now, even despire how unlikely, it might seem, these creatures, have managed, after thousands of years, to form what they refer to as "societies". Despite their selfish perspective, after thousands of years, they UNIFORMLY, across the world, at slightly different times, but never the less, recognized, that if they work together, it even provides benefits for the individual self.

Even MORE surprising, these "Nations" have recognized lately, that what happens to OTHER nations, ALSO affect their OWN, and steps have been taken to assure co-operation, even between nations. "Don't piss in your own swimming pool" - is a saying that vibrates with even the selfish smaller parts of these nations.

________________________________________

Now for HUMANS, who generally opposes change, dislike authority, and tries to get on top of the OTHER man, the benefits of working together have slowly been realized.

In CELLS, They do not HAVE these drives. If something works better, say if one cell gets energy for light, and one cell sucks in water, and they form a connection and SHARE, this will simply mean that when a harsher climate hits, ALL OTHER CELLS WILL DIE.
Simply: "It works better, let's do it." Evolution is simple in that way.

You could also argue that such a union would be hard to accomplish spontaniously, especially to the stage where ONE cell, would differentiate into TWO DIFFERENT cells. However, since bacteria, even today, share their DNA, called "plasmids" between themsleves, since the most feared viruses are COMBINATIONS of already existing ones, the step of genetic cooperation between different cells no longer seem that unfeasible.

Lastly, I think this is viewpoints I think you could have thought about yourself, if you considered all viewpoints equal emotionally, and didn't shy away from those opposing your own view.


Today, there's plenty of beneficial symbiosises between one-cell organisms.

as can be seen, for example here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae#Symbiotic_algae

There's proof of this in our own cells, the mitochondria, the powerplant, of our cells having partly ITS OWN DNA.

Also, there's plenty of other theories here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicellular_organism

[Smiskfisk]

There are no girls in WoW.
But I've heard about a few playing Rift. Them bloody liers!

[Waihirere]

Just to inject some science into this thread:

1. There are plenty of female gamers.

According to a study conducted by the Entertainment Software Association in 2009, 40% of the game playing population is female, and women 18 or older now comprise 34% of all gamers. Also, the percentage of women now playing online has risen to 43%, up 4% from 2004. The same study shows that 48% of game purchasers are female.

And no, not all of them play Facebook games only, either. They might not play the same games you do, but there's a bunch of hardcore female gamers out there.


2. Like Oynamak said, female/male roles are creations of society for the most part.

For example, there is very little physiological difference between female and male brain. Read myth 10 here:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Top-Ten-Myths-About-the-Brain.html

and stop believing in incorrect propaganda such as men being built for spatial reasoning and women for emotional intelligence, or whatever the favorite myth of the month happens to be.

To quote the article:

Though there are some differences (minor and uncorrelated with any particular ability) between male and female brains, the main problem with looking for correlations with behavior is that sex differences in cognition are massively exaggerated.

Most of the differences in thinking between the two genders are a result of our cultural upbringing. Nurture, not nature.

So if there's any difference in willpower or whatever, even that is a result of different upbringing, not something that is there "naturally". And I don't think there is any difference. I've seen plenty of men with low willpower and plenty of women with a lot of willpower. And vice versa. It is a personal trait, not a gender trait.


3. I thought about answering to Mr. Intelligent Design here, but then decided it'd be a waste of my time. He is not going to change his opinion no matter what I say. I'll say this though, just so I can say "at least I tried" 

I also don't see why single-celled organisms suddenly would decide to turn into multiple-celled organisms. I find no logic behind that action, especially since it is scientifically proven that single-celled organisms only can produce other single-celled organisms, not multiple-celled ones.

Mutation.

Evolution is a game of mutation and recombination (reproduction). Recombination is not, strictly speaking, even necessary. It just speeds things up. But mutation is.

As to why the freshly mutated multi-cell organisms would survive, that's pretty easy, right? They have some evolutionary advantage from the mutation.

And as an answer to the typical intelligent design promoter favorite, Irreducible Complexity, see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

Basically, that misconception stems from two things:

1) Lack of understanding of probability theory. (Even highly improbable event has a high chance of happening when tested extremely high number of times. And if you consider the number of living organisms on this planet right now [let alone the number that has been there during the approximately 3.7 billion years there's been life here], that's quite an extreme number of tests right there.)

2) Lack of understanding of embryogeny and development, the how and why of how genes get reused multiple times during the development process of an embryo and why that means even small mutations may cause extremely complex-looking changes in the phenotype. That is, why small changes in genes can cause big and complex changes in how the individual turns out.