2 ms·
This comment was never meant to be anything more than "story time". Logically, I know that this study doesn't prove any genetic difference in how men and women
by NoodleIncident 7y ago
This comment was never meant to be anything more than "story time". Logically, I know that this study doesn't prove any genetic difference in how men and women interact with video games. However, my monkey brain wasn't satisfied with "well there could be some other reason"; so I put together a neat little narrative, to represent a single point in that entire probability space. It took some effort to come up with this narrative, and the thread didn't have any good comments at the time, so I decided to post it.
If you do think that this study proves a genetic difference between how men and women, then one of us is wrong about what an experiment like this can "prove". (I don't think it's quite "correlation != causation", but it's along those lines; I don't have the vocabulary to precisely say why I think that position is wrong.) If that is your position, then maybe this one counterexample will be enough to change your view; it should be, even though that was never my intent. Maybe I've drastically misread your comment and you don't believe anything of the sort. If so, I'm sorry.
- solidsnack9000 7y agoYou say that you "know" that "that this study doesn't prove any genetic difference in how men and women interact with video games." That is a really strong statement, which you offer without support. How do you know that? What if we asked whether this study "supports" such a difference instead of "proves" it? Would you still say you know it doesn't support it?