Study confirms that sexist men are losers

More interesting to me is the graph of positive comments vs difference in skill level–men are vastly more likely to compliment a woman’s skill when they feel their own skill is significantly superior to hers. God forbid you enter a man’s “turf” and outperform him.


I noticed the same. I’d like to see a comparison with the same test subjects in a scenario where the men who are good at Halo 3 are put in a situation where they have to perform any activity that they suck at and see if they statistically look like the losers from this study. Would they maintain a high level of compliments for others if they were losing a lot?


While I mostly agree with your sentiment, we need to be careful not to oversimplify the problem. There are likely many underlying causes, which are not necessarily mutually exclusive, to these kinds of problems, and this study points to one possibility.

Also, drawing parallels with other forms of discrimination/bigotry might not be helpful, as the root causes could be completely different.

That said, I agree that there is something to be learned from this study, and future ones, about how to deal with this kind of behaviour.


I like that the headline confirms to the biases I want to see realized in the world, but a couple of problems.

We thus argue that our results best support an evolutionary explanation of female-directed aggression.

Unclear what “evolutionary” means here. It doesn’t mean that the high-skill / low-sexist male HALO players had more offspring or made better dads, because they didn’t match these gamers to real-world people to know that. So is the “evolutionary explanation” implying then that the sexist taunting of women is an inherited trait that co-occurs with being a loser? How do they rule out the general sexist culture, and the specific practice of trash talk, as having less of an effect than genes? Seems to be an interesting study methodology being hampered by evo-psych theorycrafting.

Also unclear when the dataset was collected. This study references a prior study for the data collection, but specifics of that are behind a paywall. That prior study was published in Sept 2012, so, what if the data was collected in 2010? That would be 3 years after Halo 3 was released in 2007. Let me say this politely, anyone still playing a multiplayer HALO match 3 years after launch would put themself in a self-selected group. The authors could at least point that out as a limitation.*

*Pet peeve: any social science pub that doesn’t use the word “limitation” at all is hubristic.


Some boys just aren’t raised right or in an environment with a strong woman showing them that women can be dominant too.

If it wasn’t for my ex I would have never unlocked 100% in Red Dead Redemption. Gotta’ respect women gamers.


I genuinely enjoy boingboing right up until the point where they latch on to the SJW bullshit which seems to be all the time these days. We get it, men are assholes, women are eternal victims and anyone who disagrees is obviously misogynistic pond scum.


Well, that’s a totally fair summary of the situation… Can’t see your prejudices colouring it at all.


Someone’s just upset that they’re a loser.


I play soccer at 54 and occasionally our teams play women’s teams (the majority of these teams are mid to late 20s) and I don’t see the kind of conflicts described in gamer culture.

Maybe our guys are too old for such bullshit.

Mostly by half time we’re up by four or five, so we mix the teams up and finish the games for fun.

Like adults.


I suppose that this is the less-rosy implication of the ‘harassment is for losers’ thesis: that the winners aren’t so much being wonderful people as they are turning on the charm in order to follow up on their perceived high status. Still less noxious than harassment; but Master Chief may have been white knighting in this situation.


This study obviously doesn’t provide us with the sorts of background data required to asses ‘loserdom’ more broadly; but I do find it rather interesting that the effect is apparently so robust purely within the confines of a Halo 3 session.

I would have expected that people’s self-perceived status, as carried over from the rest of their day, would have substantially confounded the game-specific effects. Someone coming in from a day at the bottom of the high school totem pole would (in my naive expectation) be nursing a sense of low status that even a string of really pleasing needler kills probably couldn’t erase. I would have assumed that this might lead to compensatory high-achieving bad sportsmanship; while somebody coming in from a great day of affirmation and success would hopefully be able to bask magnanimously even if they are playing poorly.

Was this effect damped by most players coming to the game at a roughly similar level(because they’d be drinking if they felt worse and socializing if they felt better)? Does the design of the game simply have sufficient emotional valence that it successfully overrides outside considerations? Did they get a relatively lucky sample?


The guy who is a winner at life is the guy that spends all his time playing Halo? So that’s what I’ve been doing wrong!


When you don’t have much to win at life, being a winner at least in Halo vs being a loser even in Halo can be a pretty damn meaningful difference.


Look at this asshole. Just look at it.


Considering that everyone around Master Chief tends to get killed, I’m surprised he isn’t more of an asshole since few will be around to remember him as such.


The findings aren’t surprising.

I would suggest that the interpretation of the data is slightly askew. Lower-skilled males may be threatened by the presence of women, particularly those who are of equal- or greater-skill. I believe it is also true that males of lower standing or rank are forced - by the inclusion of all women - to compete within a much larger field of agents all vying for power - if not the actual power held by high-status/ranking males and females then through their privileged allegiance with them. So, it is in fact the case, IMO, that males are threatened and challenged by the very presence of women as equals. Threatened directly and indirectly as well as challenged by the implicit dynamism that shapes the multitude of social ecosystems today’s adults must navigate. Examples of such social ecosystems can be found within and across the boundaries of work, home-life, recreation, education, mate “selection” and many other arenas. Males of lower social rank or contextually dependent skill can no longer depend upon the exclusive, sexist role definitions that guaranteed them at least some glimpses of power - even if narrow, fleeting or merely imagined.


No, no, “winning” = “accruing more Likes in a Boing Boing discussion thread”.
This is a timely reminder to behave civilly in any given discussion thread, because it could easily be part of someone’s research.


If only “status” and “dominance” were meaningful concepts, then this would really say something!


It has meaning in a particular context.