[fractallyte]

The Bartle questionnaire really highlights the one-sidedness of game design!

In her book, You Just Don't Understand, Deborah Tannen highlights the differences between women and men: their inter-communication, and how they perceive the world.

"Women are also concerned with achieving status and avoiding failure, but these are not the goals they are focused on all the time, and they tend to pursue them in the guise of connection. And men are also concerned with achieving involvement and avoiding isolation, but they are not focused on these goals, and they tend to pursue them in the guise of opposition."

"If women speak and hear a language of connection and intimacy, while men speak and hear a language of status and independence, then communication between men and women can be like cross-cultural communication, prey to a clash of conversational styles. Instead of different dialects, it has been said they speak different genderlects."

And Ursula Le Guin also wrote about the vast gulf in reasoning and perception between men and women: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ursula-k-le-guin-the...

All I can say is, we need more women game designers... Balance!

[harry8]

I must be a terrible person because all that "women are like this, whereas men are like that" stuff strikes me as epically sexist and extremely shallow. The precise kind of reasoning that comes out in support of "women can't x" and "men are useless at y"

I've enjoyed Le Guin's stories. So maybe i shouldn't be so put off.

[read_if_gay_]

Usually what's meant is not that all men/women always are X, but there's a general tendency towards X. Disregarding such observations merely because they appear sexist is living in denial.

[harry8]

No way I agree with that at all.

s/sex/race/g see how you go with that.

s/sex/sexual preference/g likewise.

Those aren't arguments by any stretch they just highlight where too look.

There has always been really crappy, nasty arguments that people with characteristic X have a tendency to Y therefore we should/can/will be under-considered for being able to Z. To ignore that and the utterly false, pseudo-scientific garbage used in support really is living in denial. To go the other way and say the characteristics exist for a specific case/characteristic requires hard evidence that stands up to vigorous verification, for mine. I don't see that. I see pseudo-scientific garbage. Does that make me from Mars or Venus?

[read_if_gay_]

I agree we need to be careful with concluding “therefore we should/can/will be under-considered for being able to Z” because it’s easy to become ham fisted there.

But that doesn’t mean we should disregard a sound observation in itself. Yes, it may be politically incorrect, but it’s still real. For example:

s/sex/race/g Black people tend to commit crimes more often.

s/sex/sexual preference/g Transsexuals tend to commit suicide more often.

Both of these are statistically true. What matters is what you conclude. Should we just get rid of blacks and transsexuals? Or is there a root to these issues that we can work on?

[harry8]

Please Google "confounding factors."

I have no further wish to continue this conversation at all in any way. I have a general tendency that way.

[read_if_gay_]

> Please Google "confounding factors."

sigh That's exactly what I was saying in my last sentence.

You should take a minute to actually understand the post you're replying to. Especially if, as you almost figured out yourself, you have a general tendency to strawman and be snide about it.