Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fusangite" data-source="post: 2785834" data-attributes="member: 7240">OK Edena, Oryan, bear with me here.Can we accept that it is possible to make generalizations about groups of people? That groups of people can be compared to one another, that, for instance, men tend to be taller than women or people in Denmark are less likely to have black hair than the rest of the populations? Given the way you guys are expressing yourselves, I'm not sure the I can take that for granted. So I'd like check. Next, can we accept that statistics and demography are actual empirical disciplines that people can practice? That a polling firm can ascertain, for instance,  that Canadians are twice as likely to vote Liberal as they are to vote NDP at the moment. Let's suppose, for instance, we have a room containing twenty people, twelve of whom are redheads. And we deploy a reputable polling/statistics firm to determine that in a randomly statistically representative group of people, only one in twenty has red hair. Can we confidently assert that people in this room are more likely to have red hair than does the population at large? Good.Hopefully, we can all agree that it is possible to generalize about gamers in this way, if we accept, for instance, WOTC's market research. It indicates that games are more vastly more likely to be male than the population at large; that in your average room of 20 humans, there will be about 10 females, whereas in your room of gamers, there will be about two.Now, I think I can make a credible case that a room full of twenty gamers will contain more socially dysfunctional individuals than a statistically representative group of twenty people chosen from the population at large. Although I have not commissioned market research on the subject, I think that I can make a pretty solid, empirically-grounded case for this. As for this maturity argument, To be personally mature entails personally exhibiting traits associated with maturity. Affixing the adjective "personal" does not change the meaning of the word. "Mature" still means mature.I don't comprehend what you mean by "mature." Mature people exhibit maturity. By doing what? Acting that way. I hate to tell you this but people who act more mature are more mature. It's really that simple.Well, we don't really have a chance to compare adults getting divorced to children getting divorced; do we? So you can't actually assert that adults handle divorce more maturaly than children.Yes. But I find that on a day to day basis, I am less frequently assaulted than I was in elementary school.Yes. And your point is....?Yes. But I find that adults in restaurants upset me with their shouting less frequently than children in restaurants do. They also appear less likely to throw food. We could go on with different examples but I think you get my point.What does the word "mature" mean to you? "Mature" means essentially the same thing as "old" does. So, what you are saying is that you believe that adults and children act about as old as eachother. It sounds to me like you are measuring "old" wrong if this is the result you're coming out with. As far as the dictionary is concerned,your last statement makes about as much sense as saying, "I find that bald people have just as much hair as everyone else does."Yeah -- in more or less mature ways.I am. Sorry you're indifferent to it. I like talking with successful, articulate people. I think most of us do.No one is disputing that people of all ages are capable of immature behaviour. What we are talking about here is the level of maturity exhibited, on average, by different groups of people.</blockquote>

Verification