Im not, he’ll you could look it up yourself if you actually cared, but you clearly don’t,nhence why you dodged the question I asked you.
So why should I go through the effort of reading and reviewing these papers in order to provide them to you if you have no intention of engaging with me in good faith?
If you answer my question from my last comment I can give you half a dozen good sources, but i know it won’t make you change your mind.
“I can totally prove my point, but I won’t because reasons”
Yeah, that makes you sound really confident. You’re the one that makes the ricidulous and misogynistic claim. The burden of proof is on you. Otherwise fuck off and go touch some grass.
Yes the burden of proof is on me. And as I’ve stated like 4 times now, I will happily give that proof if you will tell me that providing said proof will actually be productive and get you to change your mind.
And the fact that you again refuse to do so just means you are consciously aware of the fact that you’re not here arguing in good faith in any way shape or form.
You are stuck in a particuksr world view and you are so narrow-minded that anything that goes against it you will just reject it. Just like arguing with a flat earther or COVID truther or a terf.
If you want to deny that, just tell me you are willing to accept my sources and change your mind if I give them to you. It’s that simple. But unfortunately, we both know you won’t do that.
I’m not obliged to change my mind just because you’ll give me a link to a biased source or an AI generated article. If you can provide an actual credible source, sure. But I know for a fact that your source is going to be just as full of shit as you and then you’re going to whine about me not believing you. Otherwise you would have shared your sources and moved on.
You can talk about good faith when you stop projecting out of your ass.
See thats exactly my point. You’ve already primed yourself to reject literally any study I can provide to you as “”“biased”“” or AI generated or some other lazy and bad faith argument in order to protect your worldview, without any actual reason or evidence to make that claim
But you did kinda, sorta say you could maybe, possibly change your mind if my sources somehow manage to pass your arbitrary standards for what you will accept. So ill give you some sources.
This study is probably the one that would be hardest for you to make an argument of bias over, as its just a a fairly simple plotting/analysis of open data from the Beijing Olympics (that you could somewhat verify yourself if you wanted to put in the effort of finding the videos from the even and timing it yourself, although it wouldn’t be as accurate due to limits on frame rates) and its also good because its looking at elite athletes who have trained to have quick reaction times, so there isnt an argument about a random sample having bias towards men being more likely to engage in stimulus that would reduce their reaction times. It also has enough data to have a very high confidence interval for its findings.
This study is a meta analysis that looks at a variety of metrics, including reaction times. It makes a point that while men have faster reaction times, women do better on some of the other metrics it looks at.
This is the best laboratory conditions study I could find on the subject. Looking at the difference between audio and visual stimulus between men and women. Interestingly this one found that while men have faster movement and transit to stimulus for both audio and visual, the actual reaction times are only significantly lower for men in response to audio stimulus, while responses to visual stimulus was roughly equal (although this is the only study I found that came to this conclusion)
This one isnt presented as well as others (i dont like it doesnt have error bars for example) but its a large sample size (and also looks at age) and found women have ~8% slower reaction times when compared with men.
another well put together study with a good sample size, this time looking at driving behaviour, that like the others found women’s reaction times to be about 0.2s slower than men’s
and finally im just going to dump a bunch more studies here, that I havnt had the time or effort to read thoroughly, merely skim through, just to show that this particular topic has had dozens upon dozens of studies done over the years that all come to the same conclusion.
As you can see there is an absolute plethora of data showing men have faster reaction times than women. And I could not find a single study, even when using very biased wording, and looking at specifically feminist and anti-sexist sources, that showed women having faster or equal reaction times to men.
So given all of this data, and the fact that not a single study exists that even claims to disprove any of this data, the only reasonable conclusion is that men do in fact have faster reaction times than women. And in my personal opinion, if when presented with this evidence you chose to continue to deny it, then you are simply anti-science and care more about protecting your pre-existing worldview than any sort of abject reality.
I look forward to you either surprising me and changing your mind/admitting you were were wrong, or just doubling down yet again on being wrong.
I am pleasantly surprised you’ve actually backed your point. Not sure why you’d need to ruin your credibility beforehand, but at least part of these seems legit, and the primary sources seem to be different. You literally could avoid being seen like an idiot if you just did this from the start.
So:
I admit I was wrong about the initial rejection of your claim
The only reason I was initially dismissive is because you didn’t provide the sources but instead started the pointless argument about my worldview, so I hope you’ll be able to accept that reason, if not forgive me for that
I’m actually interested in whether there’s any definitive conclusions about the reasons behind this disparity. As in nature vs nurture, or part of both?
I still don’t accept that the reaction time disparity is the reason or even a significant contributor to women being less prominent in gaming. That one is still on the rampant sexism in the industry, and these studies don’t contradict that. Like, there’s plenty of games that don’t need lightning fast reaction time even at the highest level of play, and where strategy and prediction matters a lot more.
I’m pleasantly surprised you accepted it. I guess I’m still used to other parts of the internet where people are a lot worse than they are here.
But yeah, through my other experiences I’ve learnt to not give someone evidence until they tell me what evidence they will actually accept, as it’s the best method to counter people moving goalpost. And you saying any sources I might have would be biased put me in that mode.
But hey, all’s well that ends well and no hard feelings dude. And I’m sorry for being a dick.
From what I’ve read theres a couple educated guesses people make but very little in terms of actual study on what causes the difference.
Yeah that’s fair, but I can’t think of many eSports where reaction times don’t st least play a part, and at the highest levels, even a small disadvantage can make a big difference. But it’s certainly not the only factor and sexism is probably a bigger problem
Im not, he’ll you could look it up yourself if you actually cared, but you clearly don’t,nhence why you dodged the question I asked you.
So why should I go through the effort of reading and reviewing these papers in order to provide them to you if you have no intention of engaging with me in good faith?
If you answer my question from my last comment I can give you half a dozen good sources, but i know it won’t make you change your mind.
“I can totally prove my point, but I won’t because reasons”
Yeah, that makes you sound really confident. You’re the one that makes the ricidulous and misogynistic claim. The burden of proof is on you. Otherwise fuck off and go touch some grass.
Yes the burden of proof is on me. And as I’ve stated like 4 times now, I will happily give that proof if you will tell me that providing said proof will actually be productive and get you to change your mind.
And the fact that you again refuse to do so just means you are consciously aware of the fact that you’re not here arguing in good faith in any way shape or form.
You are stuck in a particuksr world view and you are so narrow-minded that anything that goes against it you will just reject it. Just like arguing with a flat earther or COVID truther or a terf.
If you want to deny that, just tell me you are willing to accept my sources and change your mind if I give them to you. It’s that simple. But unfortunately, we both know you won’t do that.
I’m not obliged to change my mind just because you’ll give me a link to a biased source or an AI generated article. If you can provide an actual credible source, sure. But I know for a fact that your source is going to be just as full of shit as you and then you’re going to whine about me not believing you. Otherwise you would have shared your sources and moved on.
You can talk about good faith when you stop projecting out of your ass.
See thats exactly my point. You’ve already primed yourself to reject literally any study I can provide to you as “”“biased”“” or AI generated or some other lazy and bad faith argument in order to protect your worldview, without any actual reason or evidence to make that claim
But you did kinda, sorta say you could maybe, possibly change your mind if my sources somehow manage to pass your arbitrary standards for what you will accept. So ill give you some sources.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3198384/
This study is probably the one that would be hardest for you to make an argument of bias over, as its just a a fairly simple plotting/analysis of open data from the Beijing Olympics (that you could somewhat verify yourself if you wanted to put in the effort of finding the videos from the even and timing it yourself, although it wouldn’t be as accurate due to limits on frame rates) and its also good because its looking at elite athletes who have trained to have quick reaction times, so there isnt an argument about a random sample having bias towards men being more likely to engage in stimulus that would reduce their reaction times. It also has enough data to have a very high confidence interval for its findings.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1041608010001639
This study is a meta analysis that looks at a variety of metrics, including reaction times. It makes a point that while men have faster reaction times, women do better on some of the other metrics it looks at.
https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/fulltext/2010/04000/Gender_Influence_on_Response_Time_to_Sensory.10.aspx
This is the best laboratory conditions study I could find on the subject. Looking at the difference between audio and visual stimulus between men and women. Interestingly this one found that while men have faster movement and transit to stimulus for both audio and visual, the actual reaction times are only significantly lower for men in response to audio stimulus, while responses to visual stimulus was roughly equal (although this is the only study I found that came to this conclusion)
https://skeenapublishers.com/journal/ijeti/IJETI-04-00051.pdf
This one isnt presented as well as others (i dont like it doesnt have error bars for example) but its a large sample size (and also looks at age) and found women have ~8% slower reaction times when compared with men.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-16045-1
another well put together study with a good sample size, this time looking at driving behaviour, that like the others found women’s reaction times to be about 0.2s slower than men’s
and finally im just going to dump a bunch more studies here, that I havnt had the time or effort to read thoroughly, merely skim through, just to show that this particular topic has had dozens upon dozens of studies done over the years that all come to the same conclusion.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03208225 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-006-8869-6 https://www.josam.org/josam/article/view/66 https://oro.open.ac.uk/87874/8/87874.pdf https://www.scribd.com/document/733475162/effect-of-gender-on-reaction-time-capstone https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=2689 https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.3758/BF03208225.pdf https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22390656/
As you can see there is an absolute plethora of data showing men have faster reaction times than women. And I could not find a single study, even when using very biased wording, and looking at specifically feminist and anti-sexist sources, that showed women having faster or equal reaction times to men.
So given all of this data, and the fact that not a single study exists that even claims to disprove any of this data, the only reasonable conclusion is that men do in fact have faster reaction times than women. And in my personal opinion, if when presented with this evidence you chose to continue to deny it, then you are simply anti-science and care more about protecting your pre-existing worldview than any sort of abject reality.
I look forward to you either surprising me and changing your mind/admitting you were were wrong, or just doubling down yet again on being wrong.
I am pleasantly surprised you’ve actually backed your point. Not sure why you’d need to ruin your credibility beforehand, but at least part of these seems legit, and the primary sources seem to be different. You literally could avoid being seen like an idiot if you just did this from the start.
So:
I’m pleasantly surprised you accepted it. I guess I’m still used to other parts of the internet where people are a lot worse than they are here.
But yeah, through my other experiences I’ve learnt to not give someone evidence until they tell me what evidence they will actually accept, as it’s the best method to counter people moving goalpost. And you saying any sources I might have would be biased put me in that mode.
But hey, all’s well that ends well and no hard feelings dude. And I’m sorry for being a dick.
From what I’ve read theres a couple educated guesses people make but very little in terms of actual study on what causes the difference.
Yeah that’s fair, but I can’t think of many eSports where reaction times don’t st least play a part, and at the highest levels, even a small disadvantage can make a big difference. But it’s certainly not the only factor and sexism is probably a bigger problem