Not according to science but hey, it's all about the feels. I like Cassandra but she is not an attractive woman by heterosexual male standards.
Not according to science but hey, it's all about the feels. I like Cassandra but she is not an attractive woman by heterosexual male standards.
The heterosexuell male species seems to be rather homogeneous. They surely made you their ambassador to defend their interests and explain their preferences.
I´m sorry. Today is one of the days I quickly run out of sarcasm.
Again, please, speak for yourself. You happen not to find her attractive? That´s fine. No need to back it up with the supposed opinion of others.
Yes, there are.
And scientific studies have proven that people tend to overestimate the number of women in a sample group. If the group is composed of equal numbers of males and females, observers tend to report that the group is almost entirely female. People don't start reporting that the numbers are actually equal until the percentage of females drops to around 10%. So, in a game where the player base is more or less evenly divided between males and females, untrained observers may very well report that most are female.
haha! At least your coworker is concerned about diversity even if they can't count! 
The heterosexuell male species seems to be rather homogeneous. They surely made you their ambassador to defend their interests and explain their preferences.
I´m sorry. Today is one of the days I quickly run out of sarcasm.
Again, please, speak for yourself. You happen not to find her attractive? That´s fine. No need to back it up with the supposed opinion of others.
Heterosexual females are homogeneous as well when it comes to these things.
I have long asked myself why the vast majority of BSNers are social constructivists who do not believe in innate biology as a determiner of many things human. I still do not have the answer.
Heterosexual females are homogeneous as well when it comes to these things.
I have long asked myself why the vast majority of BSNers are social constructivists who do not believe in innate biology as a determiner of many things human. I still do not have the answer.
It's dat agenda.
Heterosexual females are homogeneous as well when it comes to these things.
I have long asked myself why the vast majority of BSNers are social constructivists who do not believe in innate biology as a determiner of many things human. I still do not have the answer.
Pseudo scientific bullshit.
But I think that one of the women would have to be 6 women stacked on top of each other for that to be "close to even".
You have my attention
Is stardusklp related to the "Cassandra is a man" person who kept coming back after getting banned?
I'm a guy but I prefer to create a female character, If I wanted to be me I wouldn't play games. So it's nice to have a choice
Plus Bioware always Hires badass Lady VA's
haha! At least your coworker is concerned about diversity even if they can't count!
Pseudo scientific bullshit.
What exactly is pseudo-scientific about this other than you claiming it is?
Are science of beauty posts a drink as well? I feel they should be.
They are.
Is stardusklp related to the "Cassandra is a man" person who kept coming back after getting banned?
I'm a guy but I prefer to create a female character, If I wanted to be me I wouldn't play games. So it's nice to have a choice
Plus Bioware always Hires badass Lady VA's
No. I am not that person. But I we should be honest as a species about the role of biology in determining many of our traits, including what we find attractive.
The hair pulling in this thread is real yoh. Objective standards of beauty are fine and dandy... until they try telling people you CANNOT find someone attractive or you are objectively wrong. Then it just becomes ludicrous. Beauty lies in a whole lot more than the symmetry of your face and body.
OP:
1. Bioware has a large female fanbase.
2. A large number of men like roleplaying women, for a variety of reasons.
3. Your sources may be skewed, there are a few big producers of DA/Bioware content on youtube, they might prefer always playing the same sex.
4. There's this thing where you notice something 'out of place' more readily than the norm and so assume it's more common than it actually is but I forget the name.
Yeah, diversity is a big concern in tech right now, for a very practical reason - more diverse employees help you target a more diverse customer base. For example, tech workers are overwhelmingly young, so they often forget about supporting things like larger text sizes or larger buttons. They don't have age-related vision impairment, so they forget that other people do.
More diversity helps you capture use cases like that.
On the university where I studied (programming&sht) there were about 600 people in my year-class and only 20 of them were women. During my last year they decided to start 'special programming courses for high-school girls' and make and made quite intense campaign to attract more female students - like there was email asking all girls/women to come to lecture room so they can take a picture of lecture room full of girls. Not sure how much they were successful, but it was interesting to watch.
Heterosexual females are homogeneous as well when it comes to these things.
I have long asked myself why the vast majority of BSNers are social constructivists who do not believe in innate biology as a determiner of many things human. I still do not have the answer.
As someone who had to read about 200 papers, reviews and dissertations to write my own 80-pages-of-b*****t I strongly recomend you not to trust everything you read.
...Oh, you got me there, I´m actually reading the Waist-to-hip-ratio link:
This sentence is amusing:
"Wiggins et al (1968) found that men who prefer large breasts had a tendency to date more, had masculine interests, and had need for heterosexuall contact. [...]"
Poor fellows with a preference for small breasts.
Edit: Read the Discussion part of the first study. It´s entertaining and surprising.
No. I am not that person. But I we should be honest as a species about the role of biology in determining many of our traits, including what we find attractive.
Okay so here's the thing. Science probably has a bunch of interesting things to say about how our biology influences what we find attractive. The problem is that you're not Science. Lots of highly intelligent people spend their lives hypothesizing about this stuff, researching it, arguing about it and getting it wrong. You're just someone sampling a handful of items from that process and misapplying them to tell other people who they should find attractive in a video game. And yet despite all your prancing around with science and hyperlinks, there are still men out there who find Cassandra attractive - so your theories clearly need some work.
I never play with myself.
...
Er... yeah, I always play with a character who looks and in most ways acts different from me. My Hero is a Cousland, and he looks like his parents (made him that way completely on accident, ironically) and he acts like me in many ways, but I think he's somewhat of a better person than I am in some ways. My Hawke is the default female rogue. I think Hawke as a character is better as female. She's more endearing and relatable to other characters. My Inquisitor is in his 40s, he is highly educated (circle mage), and he looks sort of Eastern Indian. All of them are morally aligned, and try to do what's right. But I also have alternate characters who are bad or outright evil. But those are my mains, and they don't look like me. They are their own characters.
Goes for hawke , and origins. I watch the videos on youtube everyone not just DA: I wants to play female it seems.
Something im missing? Figured if you play a game you would imagine that the character was you hence role playing right?
Or maybe im paranoid and missing something.
A role-playing game (RPG and sometimes roleplaying game) is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting. Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting or through a process of structured decision-making or character development. Actions taken within many games succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines.
Typically, that means the player is pretending to be someone else. Really, though my question to you is, why are you so concerned about what other people are doing in a pretend fantasy land?
Dear Lord.
I greatly underestimated the Power of Boobs.
*chuckles*
Care to link this study? I wonder what causes that misconception.
Sadly, I have no idea where I saw it. I'm a chemist, so the job pays for access to a wide variety of professional journals. Most of the ones I read are related to dermatology because that's what I do for a living, but I'm (voluntarily) interested in brain chemistry and the havoc illness visits upon it (especially metabolic disorders), so I follow several psychiatric journals when time permits. I suppose I could do an abstract search if it became a point of honor or something, but if you've ever done one, you know it isn't something one undertakes on a whim. Seriously. Yesterday, I saw an article where the entire text of the abstract was "Methamphetamine upregulates phospholipids." The article itself was a reasonably thorough study of the effects of long-term amphetamine use on brain ceramides, but the abstract itself was vague and misleading.
So yeah, if you have a burning interest in the sociology of gender representation, I could probably look it up, but as a doctor, you probably have the same access I do, and we'd both be starting from scratch. My remark was intended more for entertainment than enlightenment. The power of boobies indeed.
I have long asked myself why the vast majority of BSNers are social constructivists who do not believe in innate biology as a determiner of many things human. I still do not have the answer.
Biology obviously influences many things about human behaviour - but exactly which things and to what degree is pretty much impossible to work out. We can't untangle biology from culture because we don't have a control group and we'll never get one. Other primates - and even much less intelligent critters, like songbirds - learn from their environment and the other individuals around them, and so do we.
The problem with a lot of evolutionary biology is that it amounts to 'just so ' stories where people take some behaviour typically seen in modern Western society and make up an explanation for it based on what they imagine Paeolithic life to have been like when we have no way of knowing if the behaviour is innate or if Paeolithic humans even engaged in it. (I highly recommend Marlene Zuk's Paeleofantasy for a thoughtful and entertaining exploration of what we actually know about early humans, and Cordelia Fine's Delusions of Gender for a dismantling of much of the popular 'science' around gender differences.) Far too many studies have samples that consist entirely of (mostly white) North American college students.
As for attractiveness, some of the things that really do seem to be universal are probably biological preferences in humans . Clear skin, for example, seems to be universally appealing across time and cultures. Other stuff, like ideal body shape, varies a lot depending on when and where you are. Take a look at Sandro Botticelli's Primavera and then ask yourself if any of those ideals of Renaissance beauty would be likely to make it into a magazine centrefold today. The existence of practices like foot binding and neck rings seems to show that culture can elevate some pretty weird things in the name of attractiveness.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
