New member, long time player.

[Powzone]

Yesterday I was thinking about a campaign to attract girls to the game like:

"You're a girl? You like strategy? You like pink tanks? Play Warzone 2100!"

...or something like that, while I was on a skirmish testing stuff...

[Rman Virgil]

Yesterday I was thinking about a campaign to attract girls to the game like:

"You're a girl? You like strategy? You like pink tanks? Play Warzone 2100!"

...or something like that, while I was on a skirmish testing stuff...

Hey, that's a tad sexist as I would venture there are a fair number of guys who like pink tanks, bare-breasted Scavs with leather chaps, paisley borgs & troops in velveteen camo.

.

[Wisler]

Yesterday I was thinking about a campaign to attract girls to the game like:

"You're a girl? You like strategy? You like pink tanks? Play Warzone 2100!"

...or something like that, while I was on a skirmish testing stuff...

Hey, that's a tad sexist as I would venture there are a fair number of guys who like pink tanks, bare-breasted Scavs with leather chaps, paisley borgs & troops in velveteen camo.

.

Actually its a proven fact that girls naturally like colours similar to pink and guys colours similar to blue.

Another fun fact tommorow

[Rman Virgil]

Yesterday I was thinking about a campaign to attract girls to the game like:

"You're a girl? You like strategy? You like pink tanks? Play Warzone 2100!"

...or something like that, while I was on a skirmish testing stuff...

Hey, that's a tad sexist as I would venture there are a fair number of guys who like pink tanks, bare-breasted Scavs with leather chaps, paisley borgs & troops in velveteen camo.

.

Actually its a proven fact that girls naturally like colours similar to pink and guys colours similar to blue.

Another fun fact tommorow

It's also a rock solid reality that some guys have more pronounced unconscious feminine psychological qualities or predispositions that Carl Jung dubbed the anima and that some gals have more pronounced masculine psychological qualities or predispositions called the animus. I can also attest to both from RL experience. Which is to say I have met gals that absolutely detest anything pink & guys who adore anything pink and think blue way too cold.

Maybe some more fun facts L8r.

- RV

.

[Zarel]

Actually its a proven fact that girls naturally like colours similar to pink and guys colours similar to blue.

You'd have to stretch the definition of "proven" pretty far.

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=238733

Before World War II, blue was ascribed to girls (as it was a calmer color) and pink to boys (since it was light red - the color of blood). It was only recently that Americans got them mixed up.

[Wisler]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 62390.html

I would mock you both for your lack of general knowledge, but yur devs so i let you off this time

[Jorzi]

maybe we shouldn't resurrect this thread?

[Zarel]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 62390.html

I would mock you both for your lack of general knowledge, but yur devs so i let you off this time

"that the gender difference may be down to genes rather than upbringing."

I'm sorry, but "may" and "proven" mean the exact opposite things. <_<

[Rman Virgil]

.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 62390.html

I would mock you both for your lack of general knowledge, but yur devs so i let you off this time

Rather than "general knowledge" (which you seems to take for absolute truth) I would use the term "conditional knowledge" (see my siggy). That is the first serious shortfall in your mental ejaculation.

That 2007 blog article you referenced that takes-up the results of a particular, narrow-scope, scientific study is at best "conditional knowledge" - as is, frankly, ALL science (see Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions").

I will only point-out a few more glaring flaws in the article & the study upon which it is based (there are more, but I'm not here to write a dissertation).

Three more major shortfalls are that the study (as well the article) take NO accounting for the conditional knowledge that has come out of the sciences of Evolutionary Anthropology, Cognitive Psychology and Epigenetics over the last 5 years. Absolutely NO accounting for the findings in those scientific disciplines which is both really bad science & intellectual dereliction of due diligence. (And make no mistake about it, there is a LOT of bad science being done every day and I can marshal the evidence necessary to demonstrate that.)

Thus, I first point out what is fundamental to the scientific method in general and, second, the very latest scientific work in disciplines germane to this subject that clearly bring into question stating any immutable conclusions on this matter of gender-based, color preferences.

Then there is the matter of my own first-hand experiences - will I believe those or should I instead write those all off as purely delusional and accept whole-hog your flawed argument & the very narrow-scope article / study (very narrow-scope in its science, of that there is no doubt) upon which it is based ?

There is no mockery here. And, btw, I'm no dev - just a forum member like yourself.

- RV

.

[Wisler]

.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 62390.html

I would mock you both for your lack of general knowledge, but yur devs so i let you off this time

Rather than "general knowledge" (which you seems to take for absolute truth) I would use the term "conditional knowledge" (see my siggy). That is the first serious shortfall in your mental ejaculation.

That 2007 blog article you referenced that takes-up the results of a particular, narrow-scope, scientific study is at best "conditional knowledge" - as is, frankly, ALL science (see Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions").

I will only point-out a few more glaring flaws in the article & the study upon which it is based (there are more, but I'm not here to write a dissertation).

Three more major shortfalls are that the study (as well the article) take NO accounting for the conditional knowledge that has come out of the sciences of Evolutionary Anthropology, Cognitive Psychology and Epigenetics over the last 5 years. Absolutely NO accounting for the findings in those scientific disciplines which is both really bad science & intellectual dereliction of due diligence. (And make no mistake about it, there is a LOT of bad science being done every day and I can marshal the evidence necessary to demonstrate that.)

Thus, I first point out what is fundamental to the scientific method in general and, second, the very latest scientific work in disciplines germane to this subject that clearly bring into question stating any immutable conclusions on this matter of gender-based, color preferences.

Then there is the matter of my own first-hand experiences - will I believe those or should I instead write those all off as purely delusional and accept whole-hog your flawed argument & the very narrow-scope article / study (very narrow-scope in its science, of that there is no doubt) upon which it is based ?

There is no mockery here. And, btw, I'm no dev - just a forum member like yourself.

- RV

.

Where as you personal expereinces could be greatly biased except if you have met and know thousands of peoples favourtite colours, this is an actual study of thousands of people, show me some evidence of a study which disclaims this theory that possesses the same amount of research and resources put into it and i shall believe you.

[Jorzi]

Maybe the discussion should be split from this thread?
Btw wisler I read the article, it involved only a bit over 200 people and is only based on statistics...
Typical "popular science" if you ask me.
Especially since they interpret "a preference towards the red end of the spectrum" as liking pink.
Also the "genes rather than upbringing" statement fails to consider the fact that most test subject are actually brought up in a society where men are not supposed to prefer pink.

[Powzone]

OMG!! What have I done???

[Dalton]

Funny what a ~3 year old post turned into.

[Wisler]

Show me some scientific evidence saying im wrong or you are all just talking out your asses.

But we did awesome job on going totally off topic GJ guys xD

[Rman Virgil]

Show me some scientific evidence saying im wrong or you are all just talking out your asses.

Actually that would be you as you obviously have no understanding of fundamental scientific methodology or the limited value of statistical sampling or any of the aggregate scientific disciplines that speak to this question directly.

You are also a good example of the maxim that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.... or, at the very least, as annoying as bed bug bites.

The evidence against your position is monumental & staggering but you would need to do some serous work of educating yourself starting at ground zero with Francis Bacon's delineation of the Scientific Method some 400 years ago. But that is not likely to happen as your are clearly an intellectual lightweight & proud of it - who also mistakes crass snark for incisive wit and pressing a hot link or two for exhaustive scientific rigor.

The subject is interesting however your presentation is anything but.

My initial post today was simply a jazzy intellectual riff of comedic wit which you chose to take down a sobering road which I mistakenly followed - mistakenly, I affirm, for all the reasons already covered.

I'll not make that mistake again or compound this one by fomenting any more debate with an obdurate boob.

.