Hacker News Reader

Comment by vanderZwan | Hacker News Reader

I love it, although one thing bothers me a bit: this whole concept of "my biggest enemies are other teenagers" doesn't just apply to girls, yet the article kind of makes it sound like it does. This man must either have forgotten large parts of his own childhood, or have had an unusually carefree one. I mean, yes, the "flavour" of nasty, backstabbing social politics is different accross gender roles and cultures, but it's everywhere.

Having said that, it's a worthy subject to build a game around and hope it will tackle the subject in a proper way.

View on HN

Thanks for saying that. These days I have kind of a thin skin for the implication, which seems to be increasingly prevalent, that the interests and struggles of boys/men are not only perfectly understood, but are too simplistic and trivial to be concerned with; just give the fuckers enough Red Bulls and handguns and watch them party their way to social media startups! Just don't forget to throw a rasher of half-cooked bacon onto the cage floor from time to time. And so on.

Apparently most of the males I've met in my life are incredibly, incredibly dysfunctional.

A stereotype of a father with only (or many) daughters is that he will grow "soft" towards them and in turn emphasize with their problems, and in turn perhaps also the problems more specific to women in general.

A stereotype of a father and a son is that they will both suffer through their own problems, individually, in silence.

> A stereotype of a father and a son is that they will both suffer through their own problems, individually, in silence.

The trick for me has been to find things to do with my son. My daughter's will randomly unleash a torrent of emotion to me, but my son only talks when I do things like take him fishing or flying kites.

Yeah, we're really, incredibly dysfunctional. We separate stimulants from depressants, don't like guns too much, and have emotions. Oh, and we only bench-press 2/3 of our body weight (so far... working on it).

May macho-God have mercy on our limp-wristed souls.

As the father of only boys, I just took the article to heart without trying to feel excluded. It's not my exact experience, but nothing is.

Agreed. The article doesn't have to mesh with our own personal experiences in order for us to learn from it.

Guys are less subtle -- we're wired to be more attracted to the binary good/bad aspect of things. The male power dynamic is powerful/weak. Girls sweat the details.

I think any teacher or person who deals with kids around middle school age would tell you that girls have more sophisticated social constructs and very different ways of undermining each other than boys.

Your comment is sexist and pseudoscientific.

Is it incorrect, though?

Yes.

Yep.

Solid argument, especially after throwing around insults instead of discussing (or refuting) the points brought up in the original comment.

It's neither sexist nor pseudoscientific, but rather well supported by evidence. Just because you wish a fact weren't so doesn't make it any less true.

Citation needed. It does not mesh with my experience of life. Though it does seem that boys are socially pressured to act as if it were true, which can make it look from the outside as if it is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_human_psych...

This is not a controversial area of psychology. The burden of proof is on anyone making claims to the contrary (like the person I was replying to).

What are you saying? That there are differences between the sexes, psychologically? That's not what was taken issue with, here. That was the specific proposed difference of men being simpler/more straightforward in some psychological sense.

If you meant to refer to the latter, then linking a whole Wikipedia article on psychological sexual differences seems a bit unspecific.

I'm saying that claiming different sexes interact with the world differently and have different strengths and weaknesses does not make you a sexist. I also claim that there is strong evidence to support this assertion and that the vast majority of psychologists and biologists (and virtually every respected one) believe there are innate psychological differences between the sexes not explained through environment alone. The entire field of evolutionary psychology is based on this idea.

You seem to be arguing against something that nobody debated. What we are debating is the specific claim that "guys are less subtle" and "wired to be more attracted to the binary good/bad aspect of things" and that "the male power dynamic is powerful/weak", while "girls sweat the details". My experience is not that the sexes interact with world identically, but that those specific sorts of claims are hackneyed stereotypes and that in reality both men and women are individuals with the full range of complexity that implies. Furthermore, I think it sucks that largely because of the commonality of those sorts of stereotypes that it can be difficult for both boys and girls to behave differently than they are "supposed to".

There has been a lot of study into sexual dimorphisms. Check wikipedia for a primer[0]. Or grab yourself a basic neuroscience textbook[1].

That being said, the poster above stated, "Guys are less subtle -- we're wired to be more attracted to the binary good/bad aspect of things. The male power dynamic is powerful/weak. Girls sweat the details." These are very vague statements which do not relate to specific cognitive tasks, so no research can tell you about whether or not "Girls sweat the details." Unless a statement like this is restated, it is not testable, and therefore is not supported by current evidence. If something like "Males performed differently on average at a spatial task A, or a cognitive task B," then maybe you could find some scientific literature.

At the very least, unqualified and vague statements like that posted only serve to confuse, and may be considered potentially sexist.

[0]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_human_psycho... [1] http://www.openisbn.com/isbn/9780878936977/

Thanks for posting links to research. I agree that the poster you refer to could have been more clear in his/her thought, but my general point was that merely discussing sex differences shouldn't be grounds to accuse people of sexism. Regardless of whether you're happy about it or not sex differences exist and on average different genders are better at different tasks. This is pretty solid psychology and no reputable psychologist would disagree with this. What it doesn't mean is that every woman is better than every man in certain areas or vice-versa, but it does mean there are patterns of behavior more common in women than in men, etc.

Sex and gender are two different things, and no reputable psychologist would agree with a statement that blithely conflates them.

The arguments you're making perpetuate structural oppression of women. One might as well talk about how race differences exist and on average different ethnicities are better at different tasks. (That is to say, I find the language you're using morally repugnant.)

Noting a physiological difference is not the same as passing a value judgement. Vive la différence.

The comment I replied to talked about psychology, not physiology.

"Simply noting a difference" is never simple when dealing in stereotypes driven by historical prejudice.

So I take it you think the entire field of behavioral genetics should be banned?

I have no problem with research, my problem is with vague innuendo. More than that, most people aren't qualified to interpret such research, and people who talk about differences between the sexes are usually speaking about their personal beliefs while trying to wrap them in a veneer of science. I find it difficult to believe that a scientist who has done a thorough survey of the research would make a flippant remark like the one I replied to.

> sex differences shouldn't be grounds to accuse people of sexism.

I have often seen people hold the assumption that you have a strong opinion on exactly what the mental difference are between male, female, etc with out good research to back it up then it is likely due to sexism.

What percentage of people are jumping to conclusions arbitrarily rather then allowing their conclusions to biased for their own ends. Most seem to assume the latter is more likely.

I'm offering an observation & opinion on a topic of controversy. I'm not a social scientist, and didn't offer this perspective under the guise of scientific authority. I also didn't label or judge anyone -- disagreement with your perspective isn't sexist.

This isn't an unusual observation. I'd offer to you: http://www.m.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/features/toy-guns-do-th...

I don't know why, but girls and boys tend to gravitate towards different types of play. And they do so very young. That's just a fact.

> I also didn't label or judge anyone -- disagreement with your perspective isn't sexist.

> "Guys are less subtle -- we're wired to be more attracted to the binary good/bad aspect of things."

> "Girls sweat the details."

Upon re-reading, you might notice that you did, in fact, both label and judge.

> I don't know why, but girls and boys tend to gravitate towards different types of play. And they do so very young. That's just a fact.

That fact is a very controversial _opinion_ that is on the way out of mainstream thought. Certainly, it isn't a fact in the "tested and proven" sense of the word.

I am amazed by the degree of vitriol that comes out when people observe that there are differing tendencies between boys and girls. I am amazed by the tendency of social scientists to ascribe everything about that to social construction. Observations like these do not mean that a particular human being will be a certain way. They do not mean that one group is better or worse than another.

I think the vitriol arises from the stranglehold progressives have on the use of "science" in public discourse. The only allow "science" to be used is used to demonstrate that women are in some sense more oppressed or less fortunate than men, or that women are more capable or good than men.

There is a double standard when it comes to evidence and argumentation. In one direction, it is ok to use "science" and even "biology". In the other, it is only ok to use sociology or feminist theory.

> That fact is a very controversial _opinion_ that is on the way out of mainstream thought. Certainly, it isn't a fact in the "tested and proven" sense of the word.

Did you read the article he linked? These differences have been demonstrated in independent studies. And contrary to what you might read on Tumblr, the knowledge that there are observable differences between boys and girls is still very much in the mainstream.

With all due respect, I suggest you take a minute and read what I said instead of what you're filtering.

I assume that you're deeming "Girls sweat the details" as a dismissive statement. It is not. Middle school girls demand perfection among peers. I remember vividly the hell my sister went through when she did something with her eyebrows that didn't pass muster. One circle of people she was essentially forced to spend time with basically ostracized her.

Anecdotal? Yes. But that isn't an atypical story.

Your first comment:

> Guys are less subtle -- we're wired to be more attracted to the binary good/bad aspect of things. The male power dynamic is powerful/weak. Girls sweat the details.

You clarify latter you are "offering an observation & opinion on a topic of controversy." but there was no way to tell that from the original comment.

A reasonable number of people would read your first comment as a strong held believe perhaps even nearing towards stated as fact. In some the perceived strength of this statement would help them reaffirm their similar believes through the a bandwagon like effect.

Conscience or otherwise, to counter act this effect many seem to respond with counteracting strong statement.

> I assume that you're deeming "Girls sweat the details" as a dismissive statement.

I would think it is more likely the "wired" part of your statement which many would interrupt as meaning genetically or inherently and elimianting/diminishing the involvement of social/cultural momentum.

I would again say that you can think whatever you want, but don't accuse and label me as something that I am not because I disagree with you.

Again to address that particular issue, there is expert opinion supporting that boys are in fact wired differently:

http://www.pbs.org/parents/raisingboys/aggression.html

From the article:

Jane Katch, author of Under Deadman's Skin: Discovering the Meaning of Children's Violent Play. "And that's a problem for a lot of boys. Some boys in my class need to move a lot. I call them 'high energy boys.' These boys simply can't sit still as long as most of the girls. They don't have the fine motor skills girls do, so many will make big constructions like block towers, while girls will work on smaller, more delicate pictures."

> I would again say that you can think whatever you want, but don't accuse and label me as something that I am not because I disagree with you.

I was not contesting anything along these lines.

In addition nilved was relatively careful by labeling you comment, "Your comment is sexist and pseudoscientific.", not you.

> boys are in fact wired differently

I did not see anyone disagreeing with that.

What I saw people trigger off of was stating what that difference was "we're wired to be more attracted to the binary good/bad aspect of things." without presenting reasonable evidence.

> http://www.pbs.org/parents/raisingboys/aggression.html From the article: ...

You article is not a rigorous study or experiment, it is weak evidence, too weak to substantially sway reasonable opinion by itself.

As someone who works with kids (ages 7-18), I'll comment from my own experience. There isn't a lot of difference. I can't deny there some mild tendency of boys and girls acting differently in the ways described above. BUT, in a "free" environment (which is where I work) that difference is so small that I really can't say whether it's caused by latent external expectations of society and the parts thereof that still haven't caught on to the huge importance of emancipation and compassion, instead of by some intrinsic factor of the biology of the kids themselves.

That said, I can't really scientifically/rationally 100% dismiss it either.

HOWEVER, there is one really important takeaway from this, which is separate from whether it's biological or not. There may be a tendency, but it is vastly overshadowed by differences in character between individuals, which do exist, and it's important to be mindful and aware of those. If left to their own devices without too much external pressure, I see "girly" boys and "boyish" girls (ranging from minor personality traits and interests to wearing different clothes, make-up, hairstyles, jewelry). Everyone is all over the spectrum, really. And that's beautiful.

In my line of work (teaching kids computer and technology stuff), there is a group of (mostly older) women working actively to focus on girls' interest for technology. Which is a noble cause, of course. And they're doing great work ... if it was last century, when this seemed like a good idea in emancipation/feminism. They don't get it if I comment on this, think I am on the wrong side of this battle. But by focusing purely on girls, trying to show them there is also "cool stuff for girls" to do in technology, they are so doin' it wrong .. What about the "girly boys" that would love to take part in activities like this? They got left behind. What about the "boyish girls" that think this stuff is boring and would rather build a action-packed videogame or learn about XSS and SQL-injections ..

So yeah, my point is, biological tendencies or not, they are (in my anecdotal experience) vastly overshadowed by individual personality characteristics.

I'll confirm his opinion anecdotally. I don't think that there's any science on the subject; despite its importance in adult development, it seems that few people actively study the interactions of teenagers.

When I was going through school, people grouped themselves according to activity. The football players all hung out together; so did the baseball players, D&D players, drama kids, band kids, etc. Kids were affiliated with multiple groups according to interest; a kid could be, for example, a football player, a baseball player, a member of the chess club, and an academic decathlete, and his network of friends reflected that. This was independent of being male or female; girls did the exact same thing with their sports, clubs, and activities.

The difference was how hierarchy was determined. With boys, it was either not really thought about, (who is the leader of an electronics hobby group?) or leadership was determined by a default position (football quarterback, team captains, etc). There was relatively little struggle going on.

In contrast, with girls, there was always infighting because there was no default leader and there was a perceived need for one. With no default leader, girls were constantly jostling each other to get a leg up on the competition. It led to the insane results of, "I'm friends with Sharon, but I fucking hate her" and "Oh, we're best friends now, but if I get the chance to ditch you for another group of better-connected friends, you're gone."

Both mindsets were pretty retarded - the guys' mindset often had bad results because of the fact that a great quarterback might be an idiot,[1] and the hierarchy reflects that because all of the high-ranking people are now his dumbshit friends. But it just seems to me like the girls' mindset could never get good results, whereas the boys' mindset could succeed by accident if the stars aligned and made a nice, smart kid really good at throwing a prolate spheroid.

In both cases, the proper thing to tell kids seems to be Paul Graham's advice of "Look around. The world you guys have created is dumb as hell and fake as a Twinkie. You won't be dealing with this idiocy once you have something real to work on. And if you do, you can do better and find a place where people aren't playing high-school games."

[1]http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/a5/6b/57/a56b57600606...

Identifying different behavior in genders doesn't exactly make him sexist. Not in the bad sense anyway. Personally i think the notion that both genders behave identically (on average) is flawed.

No kidding. The implication seems to be that boys play video games with zombies is because the biggest thing boys are afraid of is zombies. Or wild pokemon. Or what have you.

Maybe zombies are a proxy for sociopathic, unfeeling bully automatons.

They aren't, though. Zombies are vastly inferior in all ways (including destructive potential) to their videogame-playing foes. You shoot them down in their thousands.

Perhaps (in line with the opening comment) having a formidable foe that activates real fears and buried pain would no longer be amusing.

Indeed, perhaps it is concealment and forgetting that we long for by playing video games where thousands of zombies are slain.

If you compare one zombie to one bully. But if you think that one bully = all the zombies in the game, then it is not so easy to overcome all the zombies.

I think zombies are a proxy for other teenagers. They travel in packs.

Nothing of the sort. As already said by Liesmith, you shoot them down in the thousands. In the vast majority of personal combat games, a huge amount of enemies come at you, in an endless procession. Zombies are an easy plot point to explain why so many, and there's no moral question about killing lots of them - no-one is seriously going to write an article complaining about zombie feelings in light of such a game. They're implacable foes that just keep coming, and people don't care as much if the AI is very simple. Why would a human foe just come at me without considering cover? Oh, hang on, it's a zombie, no need to ask the question.

Zombie games build self-esteem. Because the zombies are all the other people in the world, who aren't you. It's a judgement on how we look at others.

I'm male and I never was part of any political machinations in high school or college. It's definitely not everywhere. Every behaviour obviously exists in every gender, but playing nasty political machinations at an early age is definitely girls' forte and almost never observed with boys.

Your personal anecdote is not conclusive evidence for the statement in the second sentence, and to inappropiately attempt to counter it with my own: I've been a misfit for the the first two decades of my life, and been on the receiving end of "let's pick on the weirdo to establish dominance and decide our own internal pecking order" far too often to accept that nasty political machinations are "almost never observed with boys" - if anything that just shows you haven't really looked.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com