[MUD-Dev] Girl appeal (was: Boys and Girls)

[Caliban Tiresias Darklock]

From: "Sasha Hart" <Sasha.Hart at directory.reed.edu>
> [Caliban]

>> In other words, when fifty different people see fifty different
>> groups of gamers do the same thing, that's significant. When you
>> see your girlfriend do something else, that's not.

> This sounds "scientific" to me.- at least, in that it entails
> seeing it many times, rather than just having seen it once.

For suitable values of scientific. While the data may be interesting
and valid, it's still coming from a series of anecdotes, and that's
just "anecdotal evidence". But there's a point beyond which you
transcend "anecdotal" and enter the realm of "statistical".

The quote marks are there primarily because I'm pointing out a
particular thought pattern/process that is used to argue this issue,
and not something I personally believe. People do argue that
statistics aren't scientific, and that anecdotal evidence isn't
scientific, and those people are in many cases wrong. There is, for
example, no *definitive* scientific proof that everyone dies and no
one is immortal -- but as any physicist knows, there's no definitive
proof of ANYTHING; just sufficiently overwhelming degrees of
probability. We can't *prove* the sun will come up tomorrow, but
based on past experience and the body of evidence and the
preponderance of currently accepted theory, there's a vast and
overwhelming probability that it will.

> Assuming the observations are valid, then you do have a
> "scientific" basis for believing whatever-it-is. (In other words,
> right on.)

> Assuming the observations are good:

Well, there's the rub. I tend to draw a line between statistics and
science, because they seem almost mutually exclusive; the average
statistician doesn't understand science, and the average scientist
doesn't understand statistics. Statistics will say "this is true
because it has been observed to be true many times", and scientists
will say "this is true because we can mathematically demonstrate
with a formal proof that it absolutely MUST be true". The scientist
doesn't need an observation, and the statistician doesn't need a
proof. To varying degrees, scientists do use observation...  but the
line needs to be drawn primarily because statisticians virtually
NEVER use proof. It's actually common for statisticians to actively
conceal their methods: "eighty percent of respondents like our
magazine" may be a perfectly valid statement, but when you ask the
question *only* of subscribers renewing their subscriptions and
received only five responses, you don't really have much to crow
about. They generally wouldn't be renewing if they didn't like the
magazine.

Anecdotal evidence is basically amateur statistics. And amateur
statistics are notoriously error-prone. It's simple human nature to
remember only the cases that actively support your position. That's
the biggest problem with anecdotal evidence; I've seen several
gaming centers where people have set up a LAN where people can rent
time to play networked games, and there are never any women
there. One might conclude "women won't pay for computer time", but
one would also be wrong -- you can find the women renting their
computer time at internet cafes where they can enjoy a pastry and
some coffee in a nice comfortable atmosphere. The gaming centers
I've seen are generally sparse and austere with bad lighting, and
tend to be frequented by crass little schoolboys who yell
obscenities at one another and hold belching contests across the
room. Not a very girl-friendly environment, so the fact that there
are never any girls there really doesn't have a thing to do with
whether they want to play multiplayer games. It may very well be
true that girls don't want to rent computer time for games, but I
don't think a suitable enough effort has been made to draw any
conclusions yet.

Related observation: Boys like to do things. Girls like to have
things done.

Generally speaking, most games involve some concept of "you". You
need to do this. You need to do that. Boys relate to this easily,
and play first-person sorts of things. Girls, on the other hand,
seem to have some reluctance to being "inside" someone or other in
the game; they apparently prefer the "god game" or the third-person
perspective. Something I've found intriguing is that girls don't
seem to flock to Pokemon-style games, which you would think are nice
outlets for that maternal nurturing instinct girls are supposed to
have... but on consideration, it's occurred to me that these are
sort of a first-person game from the trainer's POV. Looking at The
Sims, you sort of "train" your sims to do what you want them to do,
but you don't do this AS anyone. You're observing and taking part,
but you don't have a clearly defined title or role.

It may be interesting to consider that girls may prefer
"anti-roleplay", where they don't have to *be* anything. Is that
related to pressure, or to freedom? Do girls want to be left alone,
so they can just not be anything at all, or do they actually want to
write their own definition of what they are at *this* present moment
in time? I notice my wife referring to different members of her
family on "The Sims" in the first person, while referring to
everyone ELSE in the third person. At one moment, she'll "be" the
father, and at another she'll "be" the daughter -- and whenever
she's "being" one, *that* one is "I" and the other is "he/she". I
don't know if this is a pattern or not, but it seems interesting.



_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev