This is a very interesting study, no wonder it's referred by Washington Post and TIME.
The researchers wanted to know if misogyny (hostility towards women) is a social construct like the feminists say or something stemming from evolutionary biology. According to the feminists, men in general behave in a sexist manner towards women to remove them from a male-dominated area. On the other hand evolutionary theory thus predicts that only lower-status males will be hostile towards females who want to restore their status via violence. It also predicts that higher-status males will be more friendly to females.
To the study they used Halo 3, because it had clear status measurement by rank system (points 1-50) and because it has no sexualized content, the player avatars are mechanical suits. The researchers played the game while using pre-recorded chats to always present themselves the same way. They said neutral, in-game things like "I like this map" either in male or female voice. They played 163 games and recorded them. 189 players spoke up, all males, 147 of them were teammates. 82 of them talked when the researcher talked in female voice, 65 when in a male voice. They transcribed the speeches and coded them for positive and negative statements.
They've found that players behave worse when they were bad, and this effect was especially strong towards a female. It was true both about overall skill rating and performance in the game where the comments were made:
They conclude that increased female-directed hostility of low status men aims to decrease a female’s confidence and perception of her self-worth (which makes sense because women usually don't mate below their status) while simultaneously increasing the perception of him being a dominant mate. Higher-skilled males do not behave in this manner as there is no need for them to reinforce their dominance to maintain their attractiveness.
I don't buy into this, because in the next sentence they say that "there is no direct evidence in the literature that negative behavior towards females increases a male’s mating opportunity", which is the central goal of all evolutionary behaviors.
My explanation is simpler: show me a bad player and I show you a bad person. Someone who cannot learn a silly video game that he chooses to play is either a moron (unable to figure out problems due to low IQ and/or low education) or a slacker (not motivated to stuff well, alcohol/drugs can be present). From there the "bad people behave badly" is an obvious conclusion. Them being especially negative towards women can be explained by ineptitude and inexperience dealing with women.
However whether I'm right or they are, the solution in both cases is my decade old demand for video game companies to strongly stratify their games and keep bad players away from good ones on different servers based on skill. "Accessible gaming" and "playing with friends" is a dead-end, as low skill players are also toxic players. By allowing them to play with skilled players, developers turn their play experience horrible leading to customer loss. The sooner they realize it, the sooner they make money. Bad players should be placed in social isolation, into solo and automatic group content with no way to communicate with other players. For example in WoW there should be
The researchers wanted to know if misogyny (hostility towards women) is a social construct like the feminists say or something stemming from evolutionary biology. According to the feminists, men in general behave in a sexist manner towards women to remove them from a male-dominated area. On the other hand evolutionary theory thus predicts that only lower-status males will be hostile towards females who want to restore their status via violence. It also predicts that higher-status males will be more friendly to females.
To the study they used Halo 3, because it had clear status measurement by rank system (points 1-50) and because it has no sexualized content, the player avatars are mechanical suits. The researchers played the game while using pre-recorded chats to always present themselves the same way. They said neutral, in-game things like "I like this map" either in male or female voice. They played 163 games and recorded them. 189 players spoke up, all males, 147 of them were teammates. 82 of them talked when the researcher talked in female voice, 65 when in a male voice. They transcribed the speeches and coded them for positive and negative statements.
They've found that players behave worse when they were bad, and this effect was especially strong towards a female. It was true both about overall skill rating and performance in the game where the comments were made:
They conclude that increased female-directed hostility of low status men aims to decrease a female’s confidence and perception of her self-worth (which makes sense because women usually don't mate below their status) while simultaneously increasing the perception of him being a dominant mate. Higher-skilled males do not behave in this manner as there is no need for them to reinforce their dominance to maintain their attractiveness.
I don't buy into this, because in the next sentence they say that "there is no direct evidence in the literature that negative behavior towards females increases a male’s mating opportunity", which is the central goal of all evolutionary behaviors.
My explanation is simpler: show me a bad player and I show you a bad person. Someone who cannot learn a silly video game that he chooses to play is either a moron (unable to figure out problems due to low IQ and/or low education) or a slacker (not motivated to stuff well, alcohol/drugs can be present). From there the "bad people behave badly" is an obvious conclusion. Them being especially negative towards women can be explained by ineptitude and inexperience dealing with women.
However whether I'm right or they are, the solution in both cases is my decade old demand for video game companies to strongly stratify their games and keep bad players away from good ones on different servers based on skill. "Accessible gaming" and "playing with friends" is a dead-end, as low skill players are also toxic players. By allowing them to play with skilled players, developers turn their play experience horrible leading to customer loss. The sooner they realize it, the sooner they make money. Bad players should be placed in social isolation, into solo and automatic group content with no way to communicate with other players. For example in WoW there should be
- Leveling servers where you become eligible for transfer when you reached lvl 110 and gathered X ilvl by completing some basic solo content. There should be no group content available on this server as grouping with these players is surely a negative experience. No guilds, just friend list but no way to chat with other players who are not friends, so you can only get into someone's friend list by knowing him outside of the game.
- LFR + LFD server, you can leave it by gathering Y ilvl. Still no guilds, all groups are formed by the random group feature. Automatic DPS/HPS measures and auto-kicking low performers to prevent them reaching Y ilvl by being carried.
- Normal + Heroic raid, Mythic dungeon server. This is the first with guilds and open chat since those who reached here can be trusted to function above the level of baboons. You can transfer away after reaching Z ilvl.
- Mythic raid server.
13 comments:
i did hardcore raiding back in the day and dont find that true at all. i didnt mind carrying my freinds who were less skilled or geared and used help to gear my alts for better progression overall.
Might be that the socials in my group were freinds of mine or someone else in the guild. We didnt take them to progression raiding but when we had it on farm it was no big deal.
The low-performing male thinks: "That's not a player, that's a woman! Get her out of here so that I can move up in the hierarchy."
The high-performing male thinks: "That's not a player, that's a woman! I'll play it sweet; perhaps she will notice my big, big, number on the scoreboard."
I'm all for a bit of old-fashioned gallantry but let us be honest, neither is the same as treating women as ordinary, de-sexualised players.
@Anon: while YOU didn't mind them, they probably poisoned many players experience with their toxicity.
@Esteban: irrelevant. The fact remains that "bad player = toxic player" and the solution remains "isolate them"
As most people if they think "socials" or "min/maxers" are the most toxic groups in a game.
All right.
May I ask how this Brave New World Online proposes to accommodate a new player trying to learn how to perform as part of a group? Particularly as it relates to healers and tanks, as well as PvP?
Ordinarily, one does that in levelling dungeons, and often as part of a guild willing to teach a bit. Mistakes are laughed off because the stakes are not high. If you throw someone who has literally never healed or tanked in an MMO into an LFD raid, I can guarantee you that they will perform poorly (and therefore be toxic people) even if they read up on how it's done on Icy Veins and watch the encounter video. They will feel rotten for sucking, get autokicked repeatedly (leaving their group waiting in long queues to refill the keystone roles) and their incompetence will inconvenience strangers instead of guildmates. How is this an improvement, let alone pleasant?
@Esteban: by playing scenarios with bots. The proving grounds isn't a bad start for such content.
How to measure performance of tank in LFG?
Is standing in fire while doing great dps OK?
By the way, there's already some ilvl gating - you need minimum ilvl to be able to queue in LFG. Or do you want: in order to join activity that drops ilvl X loot, you need to have ilvl Y, with Y>X?
Tanks need to hold aggro, turn the mob away from crowd, taunt from other tanks on stacks. These are all measurable. Also, many boss abilities are dumbed down anyway for LFR.
It just so happens that the single most toxic person in my life now is also one of the most competent.
ever heard a women voice com saying to total strangers "this is a nice map" in ANY game!? I play 2 decades. and no I never heard that one before from anyone male or female in that scenario. how many comments are sarcastic? I would have commented sarcastic.
There do exist bad players who are not toxic. The casuals who are grateful when being carried but who never insist on being carried.
Toxic but competent people might exist but are rare. It's surely a sign of some mental problems which sooner or later make a person unfit for productive work if it includes cooperating with other people.
@Anon: and why did men did not receive the same "sarcasm"? Why only bad players were "sarcastic"?
@Antze: of course. And there are female weightlifters. But that doesn't change the fact that women on average are physically weaker or that bad players on average are toxic.
Do you think isolation has to be the answer? Can't encounters be geared to punish bad performance to an increased degree instead of allowing it to spread and harm decent players, as such avoiding the toxicity associated.
Post a Comment