How would identify a female player guy/girl?

[Kosmos992k]

Ignorant of what exactly? This is your own little soap box thing over explaining why tally marks from a random sample of 375 people needs a peer review. If I could find another study I would, but this is the only one I've found without pure EQ data from a decade ago. You are chasing your tail here until you offer evidence to the contrary. I think ~25% and ~7% are accurate.

This is way off topic, but please do no mock the fields that did this study while claiming Psychologists are medical scientists and statistical experts. Psychology is a soft science at best. It has its uses and I respect that but ultimately it proves absolutely nothing concretely.

I take it then that you're a journalism major? XD

Come off it, you posted the linked study to support your statements, and now you can't deal with a bit of direct, and on target criticism? Communications, Information sciences, PR and Journalism are not disciplines that will help anyone understand why people choose their avatar gender and appearance, nor how male or female players betray their gender during play. You presented evidence, I pointed out the flaws in it. All you can do is attack me and dismiss the need for peer review, proper methodology and ignore the paltry sample size.

The ignorance is evident when you willfully dismiss and ignore psychology in favor of journalism, communications, Information "Science" and PR with respect to researching why people make gender choices for their avatar. I'm not mocking those fields (if I wanted to mock those fields I could do a damned sight better than this discussion), I am pointing out the obvious - they are not the appropriate fields in this regard. I'm not mocking those fields when I point to the lack of peer review in what you implied is an academic study. I'm not mocking them when I point to the lack of sample selection criteria, test methodology and control group, or a proper test of a hypothesis. Without those things, the 'study, is nothing more than a survey with a small sample size and conclusions drawn by people interested in the results they report.

BTW, I did not say that psychologists are statistical experts, I said that statistics are used as a tool to evaluate the results of research by quantifying and analyzing the outcome. Believe it or not, statistics are a tool that can be used without being an expert statistician.

I don't have to offer a shred of evidence to critique something. You offered conclusions, statistics and opinion as fact that you subsequently supported with a link to a 'study'. I've offered sound criticism of that study.

You know, for someone who thinks so little of statistical method and proving a hypothesis with statistics, you're awfully quick to pull numbers out of the air and challenge others to post alternate numbers. You can't have it both ways.

[Red_Wolf]

I take it then that you're a journalism major? XD

Come off it, you posted the linked study to support your statements, and now you can't deal with a bit of direct, and on target criticism?

Ha, definitely not a journalism major. Do you see my grammar?

Your criticism is that only Psychologists can count. I disagree... I guess I can provide proof if that's what you need.

[Kosmos992k]

Ha, definitely not a journalism major. Do you see my grammar?

Your criticism is that only Psychologists can count. I disagree... I guess I can provide proof if that's what you need.

I'm not going to chase you in circles any more, I have made my criticisms of your posted 'evidence' if your evidence and argument is so weak that it cannot stand scrutiny...so be it.

[Aeyis]

Ha, definitely not a journalism major. Do you see my grammar?

Your criticism is that only Psychologists can count. I disagree... I guess I can provide proof if that's what you need.

You mention Psychology as a soft science. Sorry, but you just lost complete credibility as far as I'm concerned.
There is only one field of science that can be called a soft science that ultimately proves nothing, and that is statistics.
Because it is not a science wherein one thinks, only observes; rather then seek to understand.

Even journalism can't be considered a soft science.



But psychology? Not sure if you are serious here. I find it extremely odd that any scientist or thinker would consider the science of ''the human software, and it's relation to the human hardware'' a science that ultimately proves nothing.

Your criticism is that only Psychologists can count.

Psychology was the relevant field because of the conclusions they drew from their study. They used psychology to obtain their results.It's only the most important science in this question because of that.
Ofcourse a study is questionable at best when it has no links to the field of science that they used to obtain their research results.