Brain Research On Boys' Preference For Video Games and Girls' For Social Media (wsj.com) 161
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Wall Street Journal: Many parents of both boys and girls have witnessed striking differences in the way their kids use technology, with their sons generally gravitating to video games and their daughters often spending more of their screen time scrolling through social media. Emerging research indicates that brain differences between males and females help account for the split. According to a 2017 survey conducted by Pew Research Center, 41% of teenage boys said they spend too much time playing video games while only 11% of girls said they do. Marc Potenza, a psychiatry professor at Yale University, teamed up with researchers at universities in China to find out why. Using functional MRIs, which measure brain activity by detecting changes in blood flow, the team studied neural responses in young male and female gamers, particularly in the parts of the brain associated with reward processing and craving -- a motivating factor in addiction. When the men and women were shown photos of people playing video games, those parts of the men's brains showed higher levels of activation than those parts of the women's brains. Brain regions that have been implicated in drug-addiction studies also were shown to be more highly activated in the men after gaming. The researchers said the results suggest men could be more biologically prone than women to developing internet gaming disorder.
But girls and women aren't free from problems when it comes to digital media. Data from Pew shows that, in general, women use social platforms such as Facebook, Instagram and Pinterest far more than men. Many girls and women are drawn to those photo-sharing sites because they like to form bonds and find similarities, says Rosanna Guadagno, a social psychologist at Stanford University. Even if women only use those sites more than men because that is where their friends are, many experts and parents say they have found that girls appear to have a greater fear of missing out, which compels them to keep up with what their friends are posting. Some recent studies show that girls feel the ill effects of too much social media use, such as depression and anxiety, more than boys do.
But girls and women aren't free from problems when it comes to digital media. Data from Pew shows that, in general, women use social platforms such as Facebook, Instagram and Pinterest far more than men. Many girls and women are drawn to those photo-sharing sites because they like to form bonds and find similarities, says Rosanna Guadagno, a social psychologist at Stanford University. Even if women only use those sites more than men because that is where their friends are, many experts and parents say they have found that girls appear to have a greater fear of missing out, which compels them to keep up with what their friends are posting. Some recent studies show that girls feel the ill effects of too much social media use, such as depression and anxiety, more than boys do.
Sexist (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone is the same!
Unless there is some advantage of course, then that should be brought forward.
Unless one is white, male, or identifies as their biological sex.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The women would stay behind and take care the children and the camp. The skills needed were communication and empathy and interest in social interaction.
This social model was successful enough that over generations the best reproducers were those that supported it. And so we evolved.
I thought this was all pretty much consensus way back befor
Re: (Score:2)
And women would be very hierarchical, with one elder on the top, organizing the daily chores, and not much need of internal communication. On the other hand, women would be very much into fighting and soldierdom, as they had to defend the living space against intruders.
But for some r
Re:Sexist (Score:5, Insightful)
So according to your theory, men would be all about communication
You have it backwards. The hunter history is not offered as proof of anything. You are confusing speculation with observation.
We have empirical evidence about sex differences in humans (and other species). The talk of hunters is just speculating as to how those observed differences originated. It is not a scientific claim unless it makes specific predictions of things we do not already know, that can be tested.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but while the empirical evidence of differences reveals massively overlapping bell curves between men and women in almost any dimension you care to measure, "just-so" narratives reinforce the massively incorrect "all men > all women" (or the reverse).
In fact, I'll make the claim that the concept of overlapping bell curves is such a difficult concept for most minds to handle, that the brain defaults to "all A > all B" as soon as we're told about sex differences (or as my son put it, the human mind
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Then there's the whole separate issues that many measurements have a compounding effect kind of synergy. This happens all of the time. A 1% reduction in contention of a resource may result in a 30% improvement in perfor
Re: (Score:2)
You (and your son) are very insightful. What you've said is true when reasoning about individuals or small groups.
The problem is, when you generalize to large groups, such as when you're making policy, the small differences that are irrelevant to individuals can become important.
Re: (Score:2)
Children learn behavior (Score:2)
"Children know they have to say "thank you" for instance."
No they don't. Unless the parents teach them to say thank you. If a parent teaches them, or even if they observe a parent, treating people like trash, then that is what they will do.
I've had enough compliments from servers and other service workers to know that saying 'thank you' isn't always taught to kids these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
people tended to be hunter/GATHERERS.
I think everyone knows this. (Eskimos notwithstanding)
And men did the hunting, or at least the bulk of the big-game hunting. And the fighting.
This was driven of course by reproductive biology at a time when women were usually pregnant or breast-feeding.
Different roles means evolution gives the sexes different adaptations, physical and mental.
Re: (Score:3)
So according to your theory, men would be all about communication and passing informations, as on a hunt,
You obviously have no idea how to hunt.
women would be very hierarchical, with one elder on the top, organizing the daily chores, and not much need of internal communication.
You obviously have never seen how women organize when in a group.
women would be very much into fighting and soldierdom, as they had to defend the living space against intruders
You don't understand how rare inter-tribal interactions were for more than 100,000 years.
So either we do everything wrong and against our biological determination, or your speculation how life was in the Stone Age is somewhat off the reality.
Your ignorant straw man representation of stone age life is not a valid argument, little lady.
Re: (Score:2)
"You obviously have no idea how to hunt...You obviously have never seen how women organize when in a group."
I think she meant 100,000 years ago.
"Your ignorant straw man representation of stone age life is not a valid argument, little lady."
I think she was pointing out that the previous poster's portrayal could be questioned in the same way you just did.
Re: (Score:2)
Except when the societies turned to cultivation. Then men were responsible for raising crops, and the women would be tasked with gathering or hunting small game animals.
Re: (Score:2)
You win 'the internet' today.
Re: (Score:2)
Put your labels on the pile back there to the others, I'll ignore them later.
Re: Sexist (Score:2)
Do you know what sarcasm is?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it is what used to be funny and is now sexist.
google fire (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The guy at Google got fired not because he said, "Girls may have different preferences than boys," which is reasonable.
No, he went and added "Maybe Google should seek to take into account average females' natural preferences if they want more female candidates to apply." which a few employees saw and reee'd to management and leaked to the press causing a shitstorm among the identitarian/feminist Left on social media, management panicked, kneejerked, and fired James Damore who did nothing wrong.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
I have not seen anyone at all get upset over that particular statement.[...]
That is why you and your peers use straw man arguments.
Re:google fire (Score:5, Interesting)
If you have a link or citation, it would be interesting to see.
Here's a link below to a Wiki article with the full text of the internal memo in question.
As far as I've been able to determine with some measure of reliability, it was originally only posted to an internal side-channel memo thread meant for employees to reply to Google's request that they toss out suggestions and ideas on enhancing employee diversity. Damore's memo has numerous citations to scientific studies, peer-reviewed papers, scientific literature, etc. This was an engineer being an engineer and attempting to logically solve the diversity problem he along with everyone else were asked by Google to provide input, ideas, and suggestions if they could.
Then, some unknown individual employees who read the memo became offended and angered, they then outed the memo to the public where the outrage mob grew larger and louder. Google then caved to the reee-ing mob both within the company and on social media and fired Mr. Damore.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I can't imagine why anyone (besides CxO- or VIP-level positions) would want to work someplace like Silly Valley, when one honest moment, a single, somehow interpreted as "offensive" by a few individuals, internal memo, or one unguarded comment can ruin your entire life and get you trashed for weeks in the MSM and across the 'net such that you become a pariah to many people across the nation and beyond.
And even when you leave work you still have to wade through actual human shit just to get back to an astronomically-priced tiny apartment, and wade back the next day if you're still employed! Talk about living "in a world of shit"! Yikes! [FMJ Pvt Pyle music intensifies]
Strat
Re: (Score:3)
Then, some unknown individual employees who read the memo became offended and angered, they then outed the memo to the public where the outrage mob grew larger and louder. Google then caved to the reee-ing mob both within the company and on social media and fired Mr. Damore.
As I understand it (from internal scuttlebutt; not firsthand knowledge), there were some steps in between people getting upset about the memo and Damore's firing. Damore apparently responded to complaints about his memo by becoming more strident and less measured, indicating that the careful tone in his memo was to some extent a careful misstatement of his real beliefs. He also refused to back down or apologize, even for comments (not in the memo) which really should have been walked back and apologized fo
Re: google fire (Score:2)
Re:google fire (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:google fire (Score:4, Interesting)
Basicly, the groups overlap 95%, with their centers close together. It's only the outliers where you find differences.
Re: google fire (Score:5, Informative)
No. It's 60:40. The male distribution peaks at 40 percentile snd the female at 60.
The largest difference is one SD. Not on a big five trait but interest in people versus interest in objects. Which means that the average female is already more suitable for people related job than 85 percent of the males. See teachers.
Conversely the average male is more suited for things related job than 85 percent of the females. See engineering.
They found that in Scandinavia. The loathed the facts so the facts were ignored. Cause facts are sexist...
Re: (Score:2)
Let's assume what you say is correct, the obvious question is why is it that way?
Is it because of some inherent difference between male and female brains? There is some, although most people tend to vastly over-state it. Or is it something environmental?
An interesting example is the idea that girls are somehow worse at tasks involving spacial cognitive abilities, like model making or driving a car. When very young girls are given toys like Lego to play with they tend to do just as well as the boys at assemb
Re: (Score:3)
Is it because of some inherent difference between male and female brains
Yes, the evidence for that is staggering. The "science is settled" some might say.
When very young girls are ...
Does puberty affect behaviour and interests? In case you are confused that question is rhetorical. The answer is yes.
Re: (Score:2)
No the evidence is not staggering and the science is certainly not settled. It's not like global warming were anyone can cheaply and easily measure the absorption spectra of carbon dioxide and demonstrate that it's a greenhouse gas. Etc.
There may well be done differences but it's not known what they are or how big the effect is.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like brain scans, affects of hormones on the brain, cross-cultural studies, the fact that it is very common in the animal world and among our closely related primates?
You're right though, it might just be normal solar cycles.
Re: (Score:2)
I was talking about well before puberty.
Re: (Score:2)
The GP talks about preferences, not abilities. The majority of women and men certainly have very much overlapping capabilities to develop any particular skills. Our preferences affect which we actually *choose* to develop though, given the choice.
Differences in behaviour and preferences between the sexes are present from very early on, including in the womb, and have also been observed in non-human primates.
The logical conclusion is that we should be careful to give everyone the same opportunities, but we s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. It's 60:40. The male distribution peaks at 40 percentile snd the female at 60.
Dosn't that mean that, for each ten mixed couples taken at random, in four of them the man ranks higher in neuroticism than the woman?
Re: (Score:3)
They found that in Scandinavia.
It is a very interesting data point that Scandinavian countries, which likely have the highest level of social mobility and least amount of gender bias in the world, have some of the highest levels of gender inequality in job roles that are typically gender-imbalanced. Anecdotally, a Danish friend of mine had never heard of a male nurse before moving to the US, and had known only one male teacher during his primary education. Employment statistics bear out this anecdote.
However, this doesn't mean we don
Re: (Score:2)
Re:google fire (Score:5, Insightful)
Then the first example he could think of was, "women are more neurotic than men."
Completely incorrect.
The item you describe was the last item in the Personality Traits section.
That section doesn't even start until page four (out of ten), after a long preamble about the need to correct biases (both of Google and of the author), the likelihood that biology only explains a part of the differences in representation, and the need for open communication.
The statement (after attaching the preamble of the list) is "Women, on average, have more Neuroticism.", which might be confused with "neurotic" if it wasn't for the clear definition following it and the hyperlink to the appropriate Wikipedia article.
On the other hand, I couldn't possibly blame you for getting this wrong. Nearly every mainstream article covering this was full of what I'll refer to as "explicit, obvious, and easily correctable factual inaccuracies" about the memo.
Re: google fire (Score:5, Interesting)
And they stripped all the hyperlinks from it too. There's a difference between "women are more neurotic" and "women are more neurotic, here is the link to the Wikipedia article describing exactly what neuroticusm is (ie. Not an insult) with dozens of sources backing it up".
The "journalists" that decided to remove the sources should be ashamed of calling themselves journalists, they clearly lost all their integrity there.
Re: google fire (Score:4, Informative)
Damore: *puts clinical definition of neuroticism on the same page, prefaced with extensive explanation of what normal distributions mean and how they overlap between men and women*
Mainstream media: "so you're saying girls are crazy"
Most journalists are worthless.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Every comment about this mischaracterizes the criticism Damore received. Not one has got it right so far, as if they didn't read beyond the first paragraph of those articles.
The issue is not that such a difference exists or is quantifiable. The issue is that the author of the paper he cited to back up that claim publicly stated that while the difference exists drawing the conclusion that this would contribute to women being less interested in working at Google is unwarranted. Damore made a leap that the per
Re: (Score:2)
Every comment about this mischaracterizes the criticism Damore received. Not one has got it right so far, as if they didn't read beyond the first paragraph of those articles.
I've read quite a few, in full. On the other hand, I can't blame people for skipping the rest of the article when (I believe the first) headline describes "his viewpoint—of thinking women are less qualified than men" [vice.com] and others (I believe the first to publish the text [sans citations and charts, of course]) describe the memo as an Anti-Diversity Screed [gizmodo.com] and the reader already knows that those are lies.
The issue is that the author of the paper he cited to back up that claim publicly stated that while the difference exists drawing the conclusion that
Which claim, which paper, which person? At least Damore was clear about his meaning and provided links
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not going to defend Vice. Here's a link for the authors of the studies he cites, including the one he relies on for that neuroticism claim, debunking him: https://www.wired.com/story/th... [wired.com]
If there are other peer reviewed, respected academics who agree with him then all that means is that his strong conclusions are unwarranted given the lack of consensus on the matter. He clearly didn't do much research though, as he didn't notice that the exact same arguments he was using have been in use for over a cen
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not going to defend Vice.
A wise choice.
Here's a link for the authors of the studies he cites, including the one he relies on for that neuroticism claim
They wrote the Wikipedia article he linked to? One of the studies that article links to?
According to the bios at the bottom, your linked article was written by Megan Molteni (a staff writer) and Adam Rogers (another writer).
But since this doesn't start out with a blatant lie, let's see what they have to say (I'll skip all of the "Nothing to argue about here"s and "other things matter to!"s and focus on what they say he actually got wrong):
his analysis of its implications is at best politically naive and at worst dangerous
The problem with that set of logical inferences is that it provides a convenient excuse to paint a veneer of shaky science onto “me Tarzan, you Jane” stereotypes.
But trying to use that data to explain gender disparities in the workplace is irrelevant at best.
Damore is hardly the first person to use science to justify social norms or political preferences.
What he’s advocating is scientism—using undercooked research as coverage for answering oppression with a shrug.
It’s an attempt to make permanent a power dynamic that shouldn’t exist in the first place.
So his facts are right, his interpretation is general
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Then the first example he could think of was, "women are more neurotic than men."
This is true, but does not mean what you think it means.
I am high in neuroticism, in the psychology sense, but am also a nerdy guy who is into computers and such.
Re:Male vs Female (Score:4, Informative)
The evidence I have seen is that while the center of average/median intelligence between men and women is in roughly the same spot, the standard deviation is larger for males.
This idea was popularized several years ago, as a result of an artifact found in some studies. When larger studies were done [forbes.com] (15,000 people!) the differences disappeared, and thus were likely a statistical anomaly in previous studies.
In brief, no difference in IQ between men and women.
Re: (Score:3)
When larger studies were done [forbes.com] (15,000 people!) the differences disappeared, and thus were likely a statistical anomaly in previous studies.
I doubt that this sample size is bigger than the first and most used sample [udel.edu]: the aptitude test of the American armed services [wikipedia.org].
In brief, no difference in IQ between men and women.
So one study, in one low impact journal is a sufficient proof for a final verdict? Let's play your game. A straw man argument now. Intelligence [wikipedia.org] had on its editorial board both Gerhard Meisenberg and Richard Lynn, supporters of eugenics and racism (actual racism, that is cognitive differences among races). Your turn.
Re: (Score:2)
the aptitude test of the American armed services
Not exactly an unbiased cohort. For a start only about 14% are women, and obviously all of them are people who decided to join the military. The demographic make-up of the military is not representative of the whole country.
I don't know about the US but in the UK the military demographic is skewed heavily towards those with lower qualifications than the national average.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When larger studies were done [forbes.com] (15,000 people!) the differences disappeared, and thus were likely a statistical anomaly in previous studies.
I doubt that this sample size is bigger than the first and most used sample [udel.edu]: the aptitude test of the American armed services [wikipedia.org].
I'm not making a claim one way or the other, but I want to point out that it's likely that there's significant selection bias at work in that sample. While it's true that many people with no intention of joining the military take the ASVAB, it's still primarily taken by those who are contemplating a military career, and it's an atypical teenage girl who is thinking about being a soldier. For that matter, there are clear biases inherent in which men choose to take the test. I personally would not have taken
Re: Male vs Female (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're doing the thing where studies that support your preferences are valid but any study that doesn't support your preferences is to be considered debunked. Don't do that thing.
Re: Male vs Female (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How many studies do we have to have?
Enough to rule out methodical error and sampling error. This is basic science.
So now we live in a time when you're punished for the truth. Fuck their feelings.
Sounds like you are emotional there. Does it make you upset that James Damore was fired from Google?
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like you are emotional there. Does it make you upset that James Damore was fired from Google?
I'm upset that we are still talking about him (or ever did). Something that at most should have stayed internal to that group within Google with maybe a reprimand or counterpoint provided by his peers or a firing if they decided they could no longer work with this individual has instead has taken so much space in the media and beyond.
Do I think he should have been fired? Probably not, but it's not really my business. Regardless, he very likely should have been looking for a different place to work as his vi
Re: google fire (Score:2)
Any big AHA! here? Nope. (Score:2, Informative)
Back when we were all living in tribes on the plain or the jungle the men would all go out and hunt. The skills needed were to track, stalk, and attack to kill.
The women would stay behind and take care the children and the camp. The skills needed were communication and empathy and interest in social interaction.
This social model was successful enough that over generations the best reproducers were those that supported it. And so we evolved.
I thought this was all pretty much consensus way back bef
Re: (Score:3)
Back when we were all living in tribes on the plain or the jungle the men would all go out and hunt. The skills needed were to track, stalk, and attack to kill. I thought this was all pretty much consensus way back before The Naked Ape was published.
Back when we were all living in tribes, women gathered berries. This selected for a propensity to be more attuned to (and prefer) berry colors, and that's why women like pink. It's consensus that women prefer pink. But it's not really true - http://www.bbc.com/future/stor... [bbc.com]
So how do we distinguish evolutionary psychology stories like "social" that are true, from those like "pink" that aren't? - Just by the necessary boring grunt work of science. That's what this story is about. No one's surprised at the "r
Re: (Score:2)
Back when we were all living in tribes, women gathered berries. This selected for a propensity to be more attuned to (and prefer) berry colors, and that's why women like pink. It's consensus that women prefer pink.
The use of pink and blue is arbitrary and recent [quora.com]. In old photos, all babies wear white clothes. In historical paintings you never see this pink/blue dualism. That is a well known fact to everybody with half a brain.
So, no, it is not consensus that women prefer pink, it is just a color coding. I suspect that those, who say it is consensus, just want to "debunk" another (false) imposition of the patriarchy.
Re: Any big AHA! here? Nope. (Score:2)
Actually pink was male color before because it was considered strong, shawty color.
Also only 100 years ago all boys were dressed as girls until 7 or so. My grandma sang me song about a boy that gets his first pair of trousers.
BTW I went to my first medical check for the army dressed in pink top to bottom. Noone made a comment...
Re: (Score:2)
White is an odd colour to dress a baby. Brown, or puke yellow would be much more practical. It's as if we dress babies to suit our own preferences.
Re: (Score:2)
White is an odd colour to dress a baby. Brown, or puke yellow would be much more practical. It's as if we dress babies to suit our own preferences.
Preferences had very little to do with it. People dressed their babies in white because white cloth was the cheapest. Good dyes were rare and expensive for most of human history. Purple was the color of royalty because the dye was literally too expensive for most anyone else. Meanwhile linen is naturally white or off-white, and when it's off-white, just bleaching it whiter is fairly cheap. In short, it was all about the benjamins.
Re: (Score:2)
Clothing dye wasn't particularly expensive, so long as you didn't want a colour that required something exotic (like purple). In medieval Europe woad blue was cheap and common among the lower classes.
Art often depicts babies wrapped in woad blue, or brown, which were easy to make, or brilliant white, maybe because people associated it with purity.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh golly more evolutionary just so stories.
Thet sound nice and neat and for very cleanly into many people's preconceptions based on a weird idealised view of society, but that doesn't make the stories correct.
Unless of course the men all carried stone spears, wore spiffy leopard skins, were bad with prepositions and we're all called Og, Thag and such like. In that case I'm right with you.
UNPOSSIBLE (Score:2, Funny)
Re: UNPOSSIBLE (Score:2)
You need more cowbell!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Poe's Law is strong in this one.
I tend to think you might be sarcastic, but knowing that there are actual loonies out there that would say that in all seriousness makes it just more weird.
Socially determined (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
For men it is, on the other hand, winning, being strong, etc.
I really hope not, because nerds are not usually associated with winning and being strong, and I'm certainly quite puny compared even to my wife who is half my size.
Fortunately it doesn't seem to have held me back.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can try all you want to force kids to play with "the other gender's" toys, but in the end, the majority* of them will pick the toys we stereotypically assign them. And they do this starting from an age where they haven't interacted with other kids or other caregivers much yet. Yes we know that some specific adults (generally older ones) will try to reinforce this stereotype (as shown in your study) but that doesn't disprove the natura
Re: (Score:2)
We always had cars, trucks, and other things that I would have wanted to play with as a boy around for our girls.
They never got used.
And then, one day, I saw our twins playing with the trucks and cars at the garage in the playroom.
I grabbed my wife, and as we got close enough to hear,
"This is the mommy truck."
The other picked up another and announced, "This is the baby truck."
At which point we just threw in the towel.
hawk
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm also a parent (2 step sons full time from a very young age, one daughter, and one older girl that we took in when she was in her teens). I'd say that the social circles you are seeing girls form are also "teams" that are picked based on ability. Certainly, I noticed significant differences between the girls and boys, but all of them have been part of a team.
The researchers got it wrong (Score:2, Flamebait)
It isn't that girls don't like competition, its that they don't like the make-believe stakes that occupy boys.
This was especially true in the early days of computer games, so the people who got interested in computers were disproportionately male. The resulting culture reflects this--and combined with linge
Re:The researchers got it wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Once women have equality of opportunity and incentives, time will tell what is dictated by biology
I thought these experiments had already been run. In the most gender-equal nations, like Sweden, the gender gap in professions increased. When women are perfectly free to choose whatever they want to do, they want to do not programming.
Does boys prefer games..or are they made for them? (Score:2)
You don't have to go far to find out that boys have been developed 'for boys'. You look at the 80s and all TV ads were about boys playing video games. They are 'boys themed' (cars, fighting, male protagonist etc.) and they used to be in the boys aisle. No wonder they got a preference for them, they were (and still are) developed 'for them'. And even if it's not as obvious, we could say the same about social medias for girls.
Next on 'Obvious Real Science', does dogs prefer chicken or broccoli? Let's find out
Re: (Score:2)
The median gamer is a middle aged woman. They play Farmville and Candy Crush and that sort of thing. The existence of Call of Duty does not discourage girls from playing the sorts of not Call of Duty games they want to play. This is a problem capitalism has already solved.
There you go (Score:2)
Men evolved to fight for dominance and impregnate women with their domination-winning genes. It's not a proud thing but that's the animal kingdom for you.
Re: Duh (Score:2)
Hey man, which tools are those? Thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
I stopped meeting girls. I'm much happier now, and get to keep a lot more of my money, too.
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't, but then again, I didn't routinely give away all my money in an attempt to buy affection...
Re: (Score:2)
It's less buying affection it's more being stupid enough to marry. Afterwards, it's less about what you want but more about what you got. Or had, rather.
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds more like being stupid enough to marry unwisely. I'm married.
Re: (Score:2)
People do stupid things when they're young. Or in love. The combination thereof has horrible consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
I was in love, don't worry, I am old enough to know the difference. I was horny enough a lot of time in my life, but in love, I was just once.
About MGTOW, put them in an enclosed room with the feminazis and sell the TV rights to some Pay-Per-View provider for all I care. I have neither use for a label nor a support group.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Marry at least three, if you can swing it. Then two can keep each other busy while you're busy with one.
Re: (Score:2)
When you stop to ask yourself why you don't believe it's related to gender, what kind of answers do you get?
What's the thought process? I'm very curious.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a speed reader. I was trained on it in elementary school with a small group of other GATE program students, and i was the fastest of the group (we all had comparable retention, as i recall.) And i don't think that the difference is in remembering what i read. I think it's in how i process text. I'm better at recognizing word shapes and even the shapes of phrases, so i simply read them faster. This makes it more like the flow of a normal conversation. I can also read words without thinking about them. I
Re: (Score:2)
You see a lot of them there all the time, do you?
Re: (Score:2)
+1 bunch of slurs is funny.
New low for slashdot mods, well done! Make sure you spend your mod points punishing anyone who disagree with you about James Damore (because the troll mod means "disagree" or "I don't like what you said) instead of modding down utter shit like the parent.
Re: (Score:2)
Androids don't count.
Re: (Score:2)
I highly doubt that they raised a bunch of kids in a sterile, non-social environment. I think that kind of human experiment is forbidden.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some have an interest in people.
Some like things.
Huh? People are not things?
Re: (Score:2)
Correct, they are people. That's why a noun is a "person, place or thing" and not a "thing, thing or thing".
People have their own special category because we say so.