[pron]

> Does anyone truly believe that this is not the case?

Of course! Especially with the "naturally" part. Biological differences in pertinent cognitive abilities, while they certainly exist, have never been shown to be too big (certainly not big enough to be the major cause for observed differences in representation). It is certainly logical to believe that most observed differences are mostly explained by social causes.

> 'Gender equality' doesn't mean that everyone should be 'the same' but rather that everyone should have equal rights.

Not exactly. Equal rights implies legal rights, and gender equality (as well as racial equality) goes beyond that. The idea is that the sexes (and the races) be treated similarly in society, and not have their choices limited -- not just by laws but by hidden biases which translate to social pressure. The desired result is equal power not equal rights (but, as you correctly note, not "sameness"), as rights alone are a necessary but insufficient condition in the change of the power distribution.

[douche]

It's demonstrably true that, while men and women are, on average, about the same in cognitive abilities, it's also true that the distributions are not the same. There are much bigger "tails" for men[2] - you've got more men at the top end of the spectrum, and also more men at the absolute bottom of the spectrum[1].

[1] http://mn.gov/mnddc/parallels2/pdf/80s/82/82-PMR-ARC.pdf [2] https://www.aei.org/publication/are-there-more-girl-geniuses...

[pron]

I really don't think that the prevalence of geniuses or mentally retarded among any social group has any significant effect on the overall distribution of power. You are speaking of people who are, by definition, outliers.

But even more theoretically, I don't see your point, though. History has proven beyond a doubt that society can and does change in rather extreme ways. In terms of changes to the power distribution in society, we are still far from hitting any biological limitations (and when we do, we often find technological solutions to them). So just because there are some biological limitations we should stop way short of them?

And we can take it further. Suppose (this is not the case, but suppose) that some large population is biologically significantly stupider than other groups (they're not idiots, just far from smart), and as a result, that group is constantly subservient to other groups, and has far less power to advance its interests. Don't you think we should actively help them? I mean, people can't fly, yet we've gone to great lengths to overcome that biological barrier through technology. We also go to great lengths (though that depends also on who suffers, but never mind) to overcome physical medical conditions. Shouldn't we also make some effort to fight social problems, or should we say, "let nature run its course" even though we never do that for anything else?

Finally -- and I'll repeat that because it's a relevant historical fact -- for centuries people (men and sometimes women, too) honestly believed -- they were certain, really -- that women are too stupid to be doctors and lawyers (although they put it gently with phrases like, "their wisdom lies elsewhere"). Then they said that regardless of intelligence, no one would put their life in the hands of a woman (or a black) doctor. But guess what? They were wrong and we got used to it. So while this is not a very scientific argument, history shows that -- so far -- if you base your arguments on what you believe are biological limitations or the persistence of social customs, you'd be on the wrong side of history.

[cryoshon]

I was thinking about this concept abstractly (deviations from the norm evolutionarily). I'm not trying to dispute the data you have here, but rather play the devil's advocate to propose an alternative theory which might contradict the data. I'll preface this by saying I already know the (correct and definitive) rebuttal to this line of thought, but it's fruitful to mention the problem nonetheless.

Men are the risky sex, relative to the propagation of the gene lineage. Men have a higher chance of not reproducing either as a result of sexual competition or death, but also the capability of reproducing many times in the proper scenario. Why does it make sense for men to be more variable? Why aren't women the variable sex?

Females get a huge advantage in reproduction of their genes: they are the gatekeeper of the gene line. An undesirable female will probably still reproduce, whereas an undesirable male probably won't. Why aren't females extremely variable instead of males? Females could biologically "get away" with extreme (but viable) variation because they're practically guaranteed to reproduce anyway. Males being extremely variable merely results in a lot of detritus at the edges-- wasted energy from the perspective of the parents / gene line. Isn't there an evolutionary pressure against wasteful reproduction?

[mark_integerdsv]

> Of course! Especially with the "naturally" part. Biological differences in pertinent cognitive abilities, while they certainly exist, have never been shown to be too big (certainly not big enough to be the major cause for observed differences in representation). It is certainly logical to believe that most observed differences are mostly explained by social causes.

Huh?

Are you saying that you truly believe that everyone is the best at everything?

Are you being sarcastic?

[pron]

I meant between the sexes and racial groups -- not between individuals. I thought that was abundantly clear from the context.

[polymatter]

I read him as saying that while men and women are different they are not _that_ different and that social causes is probably a bigger factor than any biological one.