3 ms·
Um, okay. Here's a paper that did a study based on gendered behavior in Halo 3. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0131613 http:/
by striking 11y ago
Um, okay. Here's a paper that did a study based on gendered behavior in Halo 3.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0131613 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.... (tl;dr: there is male hostility towards women in online video games)
No one's stopping you from posting evidence and discussing it, of course. In a debate with sides this polarized, you will sound partisan whenever you use any kind of evidence.
I try fairly hard to combat that fact when I present evidence, although I honestly don't know all the facts and thus can't represent them all fairly. But then again, that's why I participate in discussions online. To learn.
- MBCook 11y agoI remember seeing that. I meant my comment in the abstract, outside of this issue. I seem to remember On The Media (or something else) discussing something like this. I think there was a study that at a certain point any evidence tends to reinforce people in their position even if it's backwards (i.e. your proof I'm wrong convinces me I'm right). It's not like we haven't seen a number of topics get wedged in this permanent 'stuck' state even when we have objective proof. They become politicized and truth no longer works on the discussion.