bullying
- Sargsyan
- Jaeger
- Posts: 3372
- Joined: Dec 18, 2017
- ESO: lamergamer
- Location: North Macedonia
- Clan: c0ns
Re: bullying
I believe that female brain can operate kinda different considering hormonal differences, but that still doesn't prove the conjecture they're less smart
krichk wrote:For some reason, you want the world to know that you're brave enough to challenge Challenger_Marco
Re: bullying
Imperial Noob wrote:Dolan wrote:@gibson I studied a bit of neuroscience for a couple of years so I could talk about this subject for a few days.
Please do
Well basically the short story is that steroids/hormones play a major role in how men's and women's brains are formed and organised from the foetal stage to adult stage. But it's not just hormones, it's also genes, there are specific genes that code for sexual differences. In science this is called "sexual dimorphism": the fact that the male and female form have distinct features that are different from those of the other sex.
There are two stages during which steroids play a major rule: during foetal stage (when brain structures are formed) and during puberty (when brain structures are "activated" by steroids in different ways for men and women). So it's largely a 2-step process: first the foundations are built on somewhat smaller differences, and then these differences are gradually amplified as both males and females reach puberty and then adult stage.
The brain regions that play the most important role in processing emotions in human brains are: the amygdala and the hypothalamus. The amygdala is typically larger in men and shows different activation patterns when men and women are shown the same stimuli, so not only there are some subtle anatomical differences, but also physiological ones (ie, in how this region works). The hypothalamus also includes some nuclei which are known to be substantially different in men and women (like the specially called sexually dimorphic nucleus of the preoptic area (SDN-POA) or the so-called INAH). It's no wonder that men and women behave differently in a fight-or-flight situation (men tend to try and fight a threat, while women tend to run and seek cover).
There are literally tens of thousands of books written on this subject, I only wrote like a few generic things. (Now you know why my tag used to be Neuron.)
Re: bullying
gibson wrote:I don't understand how this relates to the topic being discussed in this thread, that is are women more sensitive than men. It seems to be talking about more generic differences, so unless I just completely missed something(which is entirely possible as I just skimmed it), its irrelevant. It did talk about chronic stress but that's drastically different than what this discussion is about.Dolan wrote:@gibson Here you can start with this piece which provides a general outline of research on brain sex differences:
https://dept.wofford.edu/neuroscience/n ... cahill.pdf
There are lots of studies (primary literature) linked in the bibliography, if you want to go more in-depth.
Well, you can make the connection. On average, women react to stress differently from men. Men tend to try and fight a threat, while women tend to either run or avoid a threat.
On average, women also have higher rates of mood disorders.
If you connect the dots with the neuro differences, you can see why women would be more sensitive to stress, including online threats.
There are many correlated facts here, like the fact that women also score higher in the empathy trait and that's also why they tend to score higher in verbal abilities tests. All these things are very related.
Re: bullying
I don't really disagree with you but that still doesn't change the fact that 1) the way someone's been raised/ the culture they're in is going to have more of an effect on behavior than someones sex i.e. even though males tend to have more aggressive tendencies than females a man who has been raised as a pacifist is less likely to engage in a violent encounter than a woman who has been raised to physically defend herself, the way men and women behave in relation to each other is going to be drastically different in the United States than in Iran, it makes it hard to determine whether or not differences between males and females are actual products of sexual differences or are they just in how someones been raised. If you raise someone to scream and run whenever they feel threatened of course they are going to have a different startle response than someone whos been raised to engage in conflict and 2) the internet completely changes the way people behave, how and to what extent I'm not completely sure, but it seems as if all people, regardless of sex, are more outgoing and aggressive, so while a tendency may be true face to face it isn't necessarily true on the internet.Dolan wrote:gibson wrote:I don't understand how this relates to the topic being discussed in this thread, that is are women more sensitive than men. It seems to be talking about more generic differences, so unless I just completely missed something(which is entirely possible as I just skimmed it), its irrelevant. It did talk about chronic stress but that's drastically different than what this discussion is about.Dolan wrote:@gibson Here you can start with this piece which provides a general outline of research on brain sex differences:
https://dept.wofford.edu/neuroscience/n ... cahill.pdf
There are lots of studies (primary literature) linked in the bibliography, if you want to go more in-depth.
Well, you can make the connection. On average, women react to stress differently from men. Men tend to try and fight a threat, while women tend to either run or avoid a threat.
On average, women also have higher rates of mood disorders.
If you connect the dots with the neuro differences, you can see why women would be more sensitive to stress, including online threats.
There are many correlated facts here, like the fact that women also score higher in the empathy trait and that's also why they tend to score higher in verbal abilities tests. All these things are very related.
- fightinfrenchman
- Ninja
- Posts: 23505
- Joined: Oct 17, 2015
- Location: Pennsylvania
Re: bullying
I wonder if everyone being in person made them nicer or if the nicer people just decided to go
Dromedary Scone Mix is not Alone Mix
-
- Pro Player
- Posts: 10278
- Joined: Jun 6, 2015
- Location: Paris
- GameRanger ID: 5529322
Re: bullying
Both probably
LoOk_tOm wrote:I have something in particular against Kaisar (GERMANY NOOB mercenary LAMME FOREVER) And the other people (noobs) like suck kaiser ... just this ..
- Riotcoke
- Retired Contributor
- Posts: 4088
- Joined: May 7, 2019
- ESO: Riotcoke
- Location: Dorsetshire
- Clan: UwU
Re: bullying
fightinfrenchman wrote:I wonder if everyone being in person made them nicer or if the nicer people just decided to go
Only nice people went, everyone else who didn't go is the anti-christ.
twitch.tv/stangoesdeepTV
- gamevideo113
- Howdah
- Posts: 1899
- Joined: Apr 26, 2017
- ESO: gamevideo113
Re: bullying
Riotcoke wrote:fightinfrenchman wrote:I wonder if everyone being in person made them nicer or if the nicer people just decided to go
Only nice people went, everyone else who didn't go is the anti-christ.
Can confirm
[Some people aspire to be pr30+, some people aspire to have fun, and some people aspire to play 3v3 Deccan.] - vividlyplain - 2019
Who (nationality) rape ?
stupid logic. noob players can say op?
toxic, Insult, Racism ?
stupid logic. noob players can say op?
toxic, Insult, Racism ?
Re: bullying
I only declined to attend because I'm a horrible person.
- Riotcoke
- Retired Contributor
- Posts: 4088
- Joined: May 7, 2019
- ESO: Riotcoke
- Location: Dorsetshire
- Clan: UwU
Re: bullying
zoom wrote:I only declined to attend because I'm a horrible person.
Yeah you even made callen get arrested when he came to you!
twitch.tv/stangoesdeepTV
Re: bullying
I think 5% of all winnings/donations should be allocated to pay for Garja's therapy sessions to help him deal with the bullying he had to endure.
- The Garja tax
- The Garja tax
Re: bullying
Could be, but the burden of proof is on the one making such extraordinary claims, such as that culture trumps nature and can turn an average female into someone who is more aggressive than an average male. The correlation that males are more aggressive than females pretty much holds in most of the animal kingdom, with maybe a few exceptions. It surely holds in most mammals, which humans are part of.gibson wrote:I don't really disagree with you but that still doesn't change the fact that 1) the way someone's been raised/ the culture they're in is going to have more of an effect on behavior than someones sex i.e. even though males tend to have more aggressive tendencies than females a man who has been raised as a pacifist is less likely to engage in a violent encounter than a woman who has been raised to physically defend herself, the way men and women behave in relation to each other is going to be drastically different in the United States than in Iran, it makes it hard to determine whether or not differences between males and females are actual products of sexual differences or are they just in how someones been raised. If you raise someone to scream and run whenever they feel threatened of course they are going to have a different startle response than someone whos been raised to engage in conflict and 2) the internet completely changes the way people behave, how and to what extent I'm not completely sure, but it seems as if all people, regardless of sex, are more outgoing and aggressive, so while a tendency may be true face to face it isn't necessarily true on the internet.
Sure, culture can add a layer of self-control which can channel behaviours into cultural norms, which may be more pacifist in one country compared to another. But cultural conditioning won't make most average boys want to play with dolls, just because that's what their parents are trying to impose on them. There was a study done on infants that were 36 hours old at most and they still showed a difference in visual interest along sex lines: female infants showed much more interest in looking at human faces, while male infants showed a lot more interest in looking at a composite image made up of parts taken from the same image of a face, except put together to look like a complicated mechanism. Link to study: https://www.math.kth.se/matstat/gru/5b1501/F/sex.pdf
The reason why they picked this method to check for sexual differences in visual interest was because typically women have superior socialising skills, while men perform much worse at socialising and empathising. And this has implications for the type and prevalence of developmental disorders too, like autism. Males are a lot more affected by autism, autism rates are much higher in males compared to females. So researchers hypothesised that the reason why this happens is linked to what differentiates male and female brains. So, in their view, autism is basically just an extreme form of male brain patterns (low sociability, high interest in mechanical objects and systematisation). And their results show that infants as old as 36 hours showed such differences in visual interest, which could not have been shaped by cultural exposure.
Then there's the case of David Reimer, a classic case in this field of research. He was born male but a botched circumcision destroyed his penis. So the doctors, under the influence of "gender theories" from the 60s which claimed that gender differences are "socially constructed", decided to change his sex and instruct his parents to rear him as a female. And that's what they did, they used every textbook method to raise Reimer as a girl, dressing him as a girl, making sure he played only girlish games, used only girlish objects and so on. And yet, he grew more and more suicidal as he reached 14 of age. Eventually they told him the truth, that he was actually born as a boy. So he decided to drop all that "socially constructed" female gender that was imposed on him over the years and identified as male until the day he died. If culture and nurture couldn't turn someone born male into female, how could this work in much less extreme, average cases?
Re: bullying
@kami_ryu Ban yourself, you don't deserve to be a mod.
And I don't mean that you should do that in some self-deprecating, sarcastic way. I mean really. Your reply basically mocks real debate. Your behaviour as a mod is contrary to good discussion. You're mocking people who put effort into writing actual arguments, instead of knee-jerk one-liners, like yourself.
And I don't mean that you should do that in some self-deprecating, sarcastic way. I mean really. Your reply basically mocks real debate. Your behaviour as a mod is contrary to good discussion. You're mocking people who put effort into writing actual arguments, instead of knee-jerk one-liners, like yourself.
- fightinfrenchman
- Ninja
- Posts: 23505
- Joined: Oct 17, 2015
- Location: Pennsylvania
Re: bullying
Dolan wrote:@kami_ryu Ban yourself, you don't deserve to be a mod.
And I don't mean that you should do that in some self-deprecating, sarcastic way. I mean really. Your reply basically mocks real debate. Your behaviour as a mod is contrary to good discussion. You're mocking people who put effort into writing actual arguments, instead of knee-jerk one-liners, like yourself.
I'm really glad you didn't come to the LAN
Dromedary Scone Mix is not Alone Mix
Re: bullying
You should be, or you'd look so weird next to me.
I don't have a Tintin haircut and don't laugh hysterically over random word salads.
I don't have a Tintin haircut and don't laugh hysterically over random word salads.
- vardar
- Lancer
- Posts: 787
- Joined: Jul 3, 2015
- ESO: VardarB98/DemonDeacs
- Location: us of a
Re: bullying
Not sure how you could argue against Dolan on this, pretty straightforward stuff xD
c0ns!
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 13004
- Joined: Apr 28, 2020
Re: bullying
gibson wrote:There's no point in even pointing out they're wrong. The best thing to do is ignore it. You're just gonna be reinforcing his gamer culture/incel beliefs, that people are out to get white straight men and "traditional" values. Same for people like Dolan, who claims that "Its been scientifically proven that men have thicker skin than women" (it hasn't), but he uses big words and talks about things being "proven". You won't change his mind either. He lives in a bubble where he only believes in science that conforms to his beliefs, anything else is "twisted by university liberals". Ultimately, its very rare that you'll ever change someones mind on the internet(although @Goodspeed played a large part in changing my mind), and generally you actually move them farther away.kami_ryu wrote:Show hidden quotes
I'm sorry. I already threw a huge fit about the casual bigotry from pecelot in staff forums, so I wanted to avoid that topic again. Mostly just to avoid stirring the pot more than necessary. I do agree, that just accepting bigotry or downplaying it can be pretty hurtful to us and members of the community.
So I'm with you on this one, friend. Maybe I should be throwing another fit, but maybe just quietly pointing out "hey this post is wrong" is going to get better results. Thank you for standing up against this shit though.
Oh shit, this thread escalated after all.
Ironically, incel site was started by a woman, and it didnt get so toxic until they actually STOPPED moderating all the toxic comments and just "ignored" it,until they could no llnger agree/identify with the majority of the posts and thus posters and left, leaving no voice to counteract the toxity.
You're definitely right about the last part.
As for garja, im sure hes ok, though perhaps someone else wouldnt have been, so the op isn't as misplaced as some people pretend just because they're not on the receiving end of all these "jokes". As with pretty much everything, it's not about the individual joke or act anyway, but about the frequency, quantity and the accumulation of all these little jabs. No one is so sensitive that if you insult them once, they'll have a mental breakdown. But do it a 100.000 times, and we're talking about something else. Everyone has a hreaking point, different for all. And perhaps you only see the one insult and think the person is overreacting but you have no idea what burden they've been carrying around from encounters and experiences you're not aware of.
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 13004
- Joined: Apr 28, 2020
Re: bullying
Dolan wrote:@kami_ryu Ban yourself, you don't deserve to be a mod.
And I don't mean that you should do that in some self-deprecating, sarcastic way. I mean really. Your reply basically mocks real debate. Your behaviour as a mod is contrary to good discussion. You're mocking people who put effort into writing actual arguments, instead of knee-jerk one-liners, like yourself.
He should've put in a meme, l agree. Since that's what quality posters like you and Mrs. Lejenda do.
Bad bad kami. Tsk.
Re: bullying
@Dolan
You missed the point. Im saying you don't know if people act the way they do because of their sex or because of the way they've been raised. You test someone who's 20 years old how do you know the results are based off of whether or not their gonads are producing T or E, or because of 20 years of cultural influence. You're assuming that its because of their sex and saying that I have to prove its not, which makes no sense. Its a huge jump from "Baby girls are more likely to look at faces than baby boys" to really anything.
Don't even bother talking about men and women being different. Everyone knows that men and women are different. The whole point that I was trying to make earlier about pecelot is that you shouldn't take generalizations and apply them to specific people.
Could be, but the burden of proof is on the one making such extraordinary claims, such as that culture trumps nature and can turn an average female into someone who is more aggressive than an average male. The correlation that males are more aggressive than females pretty much holds in most of the animal kingdom, with maybe a few exceptions. It surely holds in most mammals, which humans are part of.
You missed the point. Im saying you don't know if people act the way they do because of their sex or because of the way they've been raised. You test someone who's 20 years old how do you know the results are based off of whether or not their gonads are producing T or E, or because of 20 years of cultural influence. You're assuming that its because of their sex and saying that I have to prove its not, which makes no sense. Its a huge jump from "Baby girls are more likely to look at faces than baby boys" to really anything.
Don't even bother talking about men and women being different. Everyone knows that men and women are different. The whole point that I was trying to make earlier about pecelot is that you shouldn't take generalizations and apply them to specific people.
Again, one example doesn't prove anything, but I'm of the mindset that you shouldn't force a child into any sort of gender role. I'm fairly certain the reason why he was depressed and suicidal and committed suicide wasn't because he was forced to wear dresses and play with dolls, but rather because of the hormone therapy and other terrible things they forced him and his brother to do(which you conveniently left out). For example, " Money forced the twins to rehearse sexual acts involving "thrusting movements", with David playing the bottom role. Reimer said that, as a child, he had to get "down on all fours" with his brother, Brian Reimer, "up behind his butt" with "his crotch against" his "buttocks". Reimer said that Money forced David, in another sexual position, to have his "legs spread" with Brian on top. Reimer said that Money also forced the children to take their "clothes off" and engage in "genital inspections". On "at least one occasion", Reimer said that Money took a photograph of the two children doing these activities. Money's rationale for these various treatments was his belief that "childhood 'sexual rehearsal play'" was important for a "healthy adult gender identity" ". Who knows what other fucked up things they were forced to do. We'll never know for sure, but it seems much more likely that those things as well as potential genetic issues(his brother was a diagnosed schizophrenic) caused him to live a terrible in miserable life rather than the dolls and the dresses, but who know.Then there's the case of David Reimer, a classic case in this field of research. He was born male but a botched circumcision destroyed his penis. So the doctors, under the influence of "gender theories" from the 60s which claimed that gender differences are "socially constructed", decided to change his sex and instruct his parents to rear him as a female. And that's what they did, they used every textbook method to raise Reimer as a girl, dressing him as a girl, making sure he played only girlish games, used only girlish objects and so on. And yet, he grew more and more suicidal as he reached 14 of age. Eventually they told him the truth, that he was actually born as a boy. So he decided to drop all that "socially constructed" female gender that was imposed on him over the years and identified as male until the day he died. If culture and nurture couldn't turn someone born male into female, how could this work in much less extreme, average cases?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests