If one of the people in a relationship is the problem then both (or all) people need to work together to solve it. That means communicating about the problem without being confrontational, working together to find a solution or compromise, etc. Part of this requires a change in mindset: don't think "you are the problem", think "this aspect of you is the problem". It has to be a team effort.
That and solution driven language. Instead of going “you aren’t doing chore x” it’s “I need chore x to be done more frequently, here’s what I’m willing to commit to doing for it” and then they share what they are realistically able to deliver, and then you negotiate until some sort of compromise is reached. Of course that requires good faith. But if your relationship can’t have that, maybe there shouldn’t be a relationship.
What I find weird is I see people who can do this in their office job, but then completely fall to bring the same problem solving to their personal life.
I’ve been with my wife for 18 years, and this is 100% correct. Disagreements are always going to happen, you just have to talk your way through them and be willing to admit when you’re wrong.
Well, my wife has to be willing to admit when she’s wrong. Fortunately for me, I’m never wrong. I thought I was wrong once, but it turns out I was mistaken.
Agree 100%. My wife and I had pretty good communication but issues still came up occasionally. A few years in we made the conscious decision to treat arguments that came up as miscommunications first and make sure we each clearly understood each other before doubling down on it. It was a total game changer and was eye opening how often we might have the unrealistic expectation of wanting the other person to read our mind.
all of these cliché relationships where people don’t seem to understand basic forms of communication just confuse me. if you feel this way, tell them! If you don’t like something their doing, say something! this isnt highschool; it’s not a guessing game anymore, it’s people.
I’m really glad I was able to develop good communication skills in my life of work. When I just started out I made some pretty bad communication errors and I got to see the effects of the errors and learn from my mistakes.
Pretty much learned from the start to just never assume anything. If it’s important, say it even if you think the other party knows it already. Because at “worst” you just said something obvious but at best you realize there is a communication gap ASAP.
So many people going “opposite sex does X in relationships” and me just being like “you could stop dating people who do X” and they always look at me like I’ve sprouted horns. Like seriously, people who do X in relationships don’t need to be enabled to continue uncriticized
It’s always high school. Always has been, always will be. After generations of learning how to interact with each other in romantic contexts from media, what do you expect? Especially when we spend our formative years watching media that’s written to appeal to people in their formative years, you end up with a lot of people acting like poorly written characters because that’s how they learned to interact with each other.
Not to say that our generation is worse than previous generations, of course. Back then dudes didn’t know how to not hit their wives. Now we just don’t know how to talk. A marked improvement, I’d say
i’ve been in relationships where someone passive-aggressively refuses to communicate (or simply through incompetence doesn’t know how, and/or came to believe that I was supposed to already intuitively know their position and condition)
One such relationship recently ended on thankfully good terms.
One such relationship was years ago and never quite got off the ground because I was NOT going to play along with the stupid games.
Several others got up through the initial courtship phases but then disintegrated as I realized that my partner at the time was not going to engage me on an honest basis.
These people are real. They’re really out there. And they’re either destined to be vaguely miserable forever, or someone is going to have to teach them and make them intensely miserable in the immediacy until they learn - and not many people have the patience or psychological energy to guide someone (who is kicking and screaming objections about how they shouldn’t have to change or grow or adapt because they’re special and perfect just as they are) through establishing a basic understanding of communication.
When people are adults, it’s their job to learn the things and seek the knowledge and self improve. That thinking that you can save someone, that one will always get you in hot water. You just focus on improving you. And leaving the drift wood behind.
I could never figure out the built in callouts… Anytime I played with the bots in CS:GO, they would always do callouts and I’m pretty sure they’re just baked in, but I have no idea where, or how to use them.
Those are displayed on your minimap. Some of them are used by players, and players will know what you mean anyway, but most position calls by players are different from those. They’re also frequently regional, so there can be many calls for a single position. They’re pretty much always one or two syllables, and usually there’s a few similar ones that appear on many maps. Cat, for example, is any catwalk (the most important one on the map if there are multiple). Heaven/Hell is any raised or lowered area respectively, usually with Hell just below Heaven.
You just have to listen to people and ask if you don’t know them, maybe also watch some professional matches as the casters also usually use the most common calls for that language.
I used to solo-queue almost exclusively. Almost always every teammate communicated. This was like 5+ years ago though, so maybe things have changed. I also frequently initiated the communication and kept things going and didn’t get mad at people, so that all helps too. From my experience, be nice and communicate and general the same will be returned, but against this was a while ago.
(I’m assuming CS is Counter Strike, and not like competitive multiplayer Cities Skylines or something.)
You’ve never heard Goonswarm Comms. Utter chaos until someone utters the word “Check.” Then we all turn into pilots with complete comms silence except the guy calling for help and the fleet commander that gets to jump in to save the dummy.
everyone going on about how gamers can’t communicate for shit, meanwhile deep rock galactic players INSTANTLY agree that the compressed gold must be pinged unceasingly until management shouts at you, with no verbal communication whatsoever.
The zeal and insanity I have seen in Total War Warhammer 3 fans-turned-haters has been unlike anything I’ve seen anywhere else. The sheer stupidity of the boycot situation is astounding.
The Chaos Dwarfs DLC was such a massive labour of love, and was so clearly so even if you didn’t look into the background details like how they reached out to the Chaos Dwarfs Online forum. The fact that people were outraged it cost £5 more than the previous DLC was ridiculous, especially after all the difficulties they had with bringing TW:Warhammer 3 to market and the crazy preceding year of inflation.
Genuine r/insanepeoplefacebook stuff seeing the outrage, even more so when you consider Immortal Empires in 3 doesn’t even require the previous games.
I dunno, kinda bonkers to see people angry about a price hike in your forums, tell them that discussing your game in the steam-required forum is a privilege, and then perma ban people from making mods for your game over it.
You can think people are overreacting by being angry over the games quality and price, but taking away mods from the community for having the ‘audacity’ to discuss your game in the forums steam made for that game is a fucking insane response.
Okay, but surely we agree that forum posts calling to boycott the game are reasonable to remove? If I made a game and had a forum for it, I would ban users posting calling to boycott the game.
Complaints about bugs, lack of quality, constructive criticism are all completely fair, but using the forum as a platform to campaign against the very game?
Considering it’s a steam forum too, it’s like entering a shop and telling other customers not to buy the wares.
Tbh? No, not really at all. If your playerbase is so upset with you that they are calling for a boycott within a third party forum you do not own and are required to maintain to sell your game at the forum store, where boycott discussion isnt a site rule, not only do you really not have much ground to stand on besides being pissy that people dont like your game, youre kicking the hornets nest doing that.
Its the steam forums. As in, the forums where you discuss the product youre buying with other potential and actual buyers. If you cannot be honest about the quality of the wares, you cannot trust the storefront.
I get why they banned those people, but in the sense that I get why a piece of shit gets physical with someone for making a good point in an argument. Youre upset theyve made a point you cant rebut. I get that. Youre still a piece of shit for shoving them.
It shows how stupid and against your own best interests this kind of thinking can be.
I am the full time worker in my family, and happy to be the provider for them. However, I would be a stay at home dad / house-husband so damn fast if my wife got some random job mom making a lot more than me. I do have my priorities in order, after all.
My genuine theory is that many (if not most) people are emotionally stunted or emotionally immature. You don’t get this kind of mentality from someone who is balanced.
Now expand that to every facet of life and you get the world we live in.
There are wealthy women out there, so it is entirely in the range of possibility. My mom’s first husband left her when she started making more money as a lawyer than him. It’s an ego thing.
It was great at first! But after 6-months I was depressed. Guess I’m the sort that requires the structure a regular job provides. Kinda been the same for WFH. :(
That requires a certain amount of intelligence and interest in those things. No disrespect to those people but it you are below average IQ and make a living in a simple job, you cant just contribute to open source software and read academic papers for a hobby.
Believe it or not, cooking, cleaning and childcare full time doesn’t really leave you with much energy to play games, let alone contribute to open source or read academic papers.
It would be interesting to see if it’s really because of how they are as individuals or more about the response to social status thing. Like if they did an experiment where high performers were deceived into thinking they were actually performing poorly, and vice-versa, would the attitudes towards women be reversed or not? The conclusions in OP seem to imply the researchers think they would be.
My hypothesis is that if you’re a piece of shit, that will extend to all walks of life(misogny, sucking at video games) whereas if you are not, the same rules apply(equality, excelling at video games)
By being a piece of human garbage you effectively hamstring yourself in every field.
There’s further discussion in the second link where the original authors stand by their claim.
The two use different statistical methods to try to demonstrate the conclusion, and that’s where the difference lies.
I’m not a big stats person, but I’m coming away feeling like the original claim is valid since a) it was shown in two different models the original author used and b) it makes intuitive sense to me.
Hasn’t evolutionary psychology been heavily debunked at this point?
I think it’s much easier to say that dudes have it hammered into their heads that girls are bad at games, so when they underperform and a girl is on their team, they feel emasculated. This isn’t too far off from when dudes end up losing their ‘bread winner’ status in their relationship. They were told they had explicit traits to exhibit and they failed to do so, so it hits them in their self esteem. Classic fragile masculinity.
Patriarchal conditioning makes way more sense than “caveman brain HATE competing with woman!”.
Hasn’t evolutionary psychology been heavily debunked at this point?
No. On the most basic level it shouldn’t really be terribly contentious that evolution has an impact on psychology, on a more detailed level, well, they have their hits and misses just as every other field.
Patriarchal conditioning makes way more sense than
…case in point “everything is socially constructed” is just as bonkers a position as “everything is biologically predetermined”. Why do people have to universalise their specialised area of investigation and “caveman brain HATE competing with woman!” is a rather cartoonish take on evolutionary psychology. If anything it’d be “young male annoyed he can’t hunt for shit while female age-peer can because he wouldn’t be able to provide for her while heavily pregnant”. Note that not being annoyed in that case doesn’t require better hunting skills, only sufficient ones, and “annoyed” can lead to “will work harder on his skills” or “is going to lash out” or “becomes depressive and walks into the desert” or “is going to look around, see all those capable hunters, and focus on hut building instead”. There’s a fuckton of behavioural flexibility left there.
Bad social conditioning then comes into that and shapes tendencies into caricatures of themselves, or good social conditioning comes in and, well, does good things. It’s not an either/or thing, pretty much everything is both nature and nurture.
I was about to point this out - evopsych is an essentialist pseudoscience. Human interactions are governed by culture at least as much as they are by biology.
The entire field of evolutionary psychology debunked? Do you mean the idea that our brains are subject to evolutionary forces like every other part of our anatomy? No, not debunked.
This is conflating specific methodological problems with theoretical claims. Yes, many have criticized the game theoretical methodology typical of evolutionary psychology. There are a lot of highly speculative junk claims out there. It’s also true that some (not all or even most!) cognitive scientists think that we cannot take the perspective that psychology evolved at all. But it is certainly untrue that there is some consensus that evolutionary psychology has been “debunked”.
This criticism is also a bit ironic given the highly speculative nature of the claims you put forward. Your guess sounds plausible I suppose, but I see no reason to think it’s any more methodologically rigorous.
That’s not how science works. I understand that you’re trying to criticize the field, but lack of predictions, even reliable ones, is not itself a problem it has. For one thing, even false theories can make reliable predictions, like Levoisier’s defunct theory of caloric in the 18th century which has now been replaced by modern thermodynamics. The caloric theory can be used to make mathematically accurate predictions, but the underlying theory is still wrong.
Similarly, evo psych can make a lot of reliable predictions without saying anything true. On the contrary, one criticism of the field is that it’s unfalsifiable because an evolutionary theory can always (allegedly) be proposed to fit the data. Which is to say, you’re barking up the wrong tree.
One example: it is proposed that the fusiform face area of the brain is a domain specific module evolved for face detection. It’s present in other animals that recognize conspecifics by their face. In humans, damage to the area leads to face specific agnosia. The theory makes accurate predictions, but is it true? It’s still being debated.
Without predictions and without tangible models you don’t have falsifiability. You unintentionally acknowledged my point without understanding it. The field isn’t a science, just philosophy trying to explain the results from actual sciences, but didn’t itself have any kind of proof of validity.
Your example is much more closely related to neurology and neuropsychology.
If you actually take a graduate level course on scientific methodology or on the philosophy of science, you will learn that “falsifiability” is no longer a viable standard for scientific validity. This is because, logically, no claim is falsifiable: one can always adjust background beliefs to evade a logical contradiction. See the Duheim-Quine thesis.
Moreover, if your argument were correct, we would have to reject evolutionary inferences altogether! What you say about the cognitive system is true for, e.g. the immune system or the endocrine system. But that’s ridiculous. Evolutionary claims are part of the bedrock of the so-called Modern Synthesis in the biological sciences of the last hundred years. Yours is similar to bad arguments made by creationists.
Your “No True Scotsman” response is just deeply confused about what evolutionary psychology even is. What a mess.
Well duh, curve fitting isn’t new, that’s why we try to make predictions before we know the result and try to keep the hypothesis simple. Of course falsifiability isn’t enough alone, but it certainly hasn’t lost its place.
Your comparisons are ridiculous because you’re comparing things which are testable (genetic variances, etc) with hypothetical differences between ancient brains we don’t know the structure of. We still don’t even know enough to make deep comparisons between brains of related animals. Until you can both synthesize and simulate the brain of ancient genomes you have absolutely no idea if you’re on the right track, you can’t know at all. There’s so many different ways a brain can implement the same behavior with so many different unpredictable side effects that you can’t say more than “they behaved in a way that kept them alive long enough” with any reasonable certainty. Do you know at what rate brains have changed biologically? No?
Ugh, your comments are everything I hate about the internet. Both of us know that only one us does research on cognitive science, and it’s not you. Yet, because it’s the internet, you think you can get by with bluster and false confidence.
Of the many mistakes you make: No cognitive neuroscientist would say, without huge caveats, that we can’t make deep comparisons between animal and human brains — not after all the groundbreaking work finding deep functional similarities between bird brains and human brains in the last 10 years. These are groundbreaking findings in comparative neurology, and it’s pretty obvious you know nothing about them. You go on to propose a standard of evidence which require that we can predict protein synthesis based on genetic variances, which is laughable. You also seem to be completely unaware of phylogenetic analysis, which is actually the standard way we make many of our evolutionary inferences.
Look, I’m not even an evolutionary psychologist. I have no skin in that game. But I do hate bullshit artists on the internet.
Why are you spending your time defending the least useful parts of your field? You’re just making it sound more and more like people taking findings from neuropsychology (a science) and making historical guesswork around it (trying to guess what caused changes with zero evidence of how animals behaved in past environments). I’m aware of phylogenetics, but it seems to lose it’s usefulness when most genes have such a weak correlation to behavior and when you can’t actually observe historical behavior. Brains have too high plasticity to predict why a certain region would exist if you don’t know the environment the animal lives in.
You seem to be confused. My claim is not that there are no challenges or criticisms to evolutionary psychology, or that the topic isn’t very hard to study. It’s that these are live debates in a live field because that’s how science works. It is misunderstanding and arrogance like yours that spreads misinformation online.
Your argument is akin to saying “something is hard to study so it doesn’t exist”. We can’t get evidence for how psychology evolved, so psychology didn’t evolve. This was the mistake of radical behaviourists like B.F. Skinner, who thought internal cognitive states were impossible to measure, so cognition must not exist. That is obviously an error in inference, but also a lack of imagination.
Making predictions and conducting manipulation experiments isn’t possible / practical in all fields of science. Medicine, astronomy, archaeology, evolution and climate studies are other examples.
Astronomy at least collects a lot of data from those one-time observations and try to model the physics, hoping to be able to see something similar again to calibrate the models. For medicine it varies, for rare disease and injuries that are unethical to replicate its a valid issue but they still have scientific models of the affected organs, etc, and similarly to above they try to model it and predict what treatments would work. And all your examples have historical data to some extent.
Evopsych have essentially zero usable historical data and adds no new understanding over regular psychology, and I’ve never heard anybody talk about how they expect behaviors to actually have formed over generations (nor does it meaningfully cover learned and taught behavior)
You explained the limitations astronomers and medical researchers face. Psychologists face similar problems, which is why all their results should be treated with a certain amount of scepticism. But that does not mean their work is worthless; just that it is hard. A lot of traditional psychology was based on what one person thought, rather than logical arguments or experimental evidence. Evolutionary psychology is an attempt to place the study of the brain’s workings in the context of evolution.
I’ve never heard anybody talk about how they expect behaviors to actually have formed over generations (nor does it meaningfully cover learned and taught behavior)
Individual human behaviours depend on a lot of other factors. All you can do from an evolutionary perspective is to explain some common trends. For example, in almost all cultures, some people are gay / ace. Traditional psychologists long thought of this as some sort of mental condition. But if you think of society in the context of inclusive fitness and r/K strategy, it makes a lot of sense to have a certain percentage of the population not reproduce. Is this why some people are gay / ace? I don’t know, and I don’t think we’ll ever know. But at least we can try to explain some things.
Yes. It is unethical to give someone a disease so you can study it. Best we have are case studies of people who got the disease and are being treated for it.
In climate studies, it is not practical to increase temperature or humidity by x% and see the effects. Again, you have case studies - either from the past or from parts of the world that are warming much faster than the rest. Or you can do mesocosm experiments where you warm, say, a square metre of grassland, and see the effects. But then there is a lot of uncertainity in scaling up the findings of such small-scale studies.
I tend to think the social angle is more credible Because the behavior of being a dick to female-sounding voices in games is not a universal behavior. Those who aren’t misogynists don’t act that way. How strange.
gaming
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.