[curi]

But theoretical high energy physics vs experimental condensed matter physics? That sounds way too specific for a diffuse cultural cue that no one can identify.

That is hard to explain, with any method. (i.e., the correct explanation appears likely to depend on the complex relationship between lots of details). But I think at least our culture contains knowledge of what different types of physics are, whereas our genes don't.

Edit: And we know our culture created different types of physics and has mechanisms for people to learn about them, and to become interested in learning about them. it wouldn't be a huge shock if they had some quirks and biases in them.

-----

@testosterone: animals don't have personalities in the sense humans do. I'm asking for an explanation of a mechanism that would work on humans.

The primary issue is that humans have general intelligence, by which they normally make decisions. So the mechanism by which testosterone (or something else) works needs to either bypass intelligence somehow (but then you'd have to explain why it still constitutes part of someone's personality), or harness intelligence and work with/through it. No such issues arise in the animal case.

[angryprofessor]

The best explanation I've seen for the disparities within science is reasoning/mathematical ability. String theory () requires the most (all difficult math), experimental condensed matter requires much less.

By the way, I should have mentioned that these disparities exist after grad school, not among first year students. They appear after qualifying exams/coursework has weeded out the people who aren't super smart.

() I'm not a snobby string theorist, I do computational E&M. But string theorists are the smartest, for reasons I can explain another time.

As for hormones:

First, animals do have personalities, though they are different from humans.

Second, it doesn't need to bypass intelligence. Humans aren't computers with an "emotion" screensaver on the front. Humans make most decisions (partially) emotionally. Starting a business or choosing a field is not a purely rational decision, no matter what most business owners want to think.

[curi]

Do you believe you have any evidence which implies that this emotional view of humans is correct and that mine is not?

[angryprofessor]

No offense, but I'm 99% convinced you've never had a girlfriend.

Here is a blog that has links to lots of quantitative evidence.

http://www.overcomingbias.com/

For more anecdotal evidence, ask your female friends why they support Hillary for president. When they give the rational (but mistaken) response "she is against the war," point out her actual position. Ask if this changes their view. If you believe people are rational, you might be surprised at the results.

edit: I don't mean to single out women as irrational. Men are too, though in different ways (a comparable example: lots of anti-war men like McCain). But since we are discussing gender differences, the Hillary example popped into my head.

[curi]

Here is one detail about me, for the fun of bursting irrelevant personal assumptions:

I, and a majority of my friends, are in favor of the war.

Regarding Overcoming Bias, I take it you are referring to the studies about people being very silly, which they have. But those are not relevant to our debate. The issue is not whether people have silly or irrational personalities, but why. And in particular, whether it is best explained as due to ideas, or not.

Edit: To reasonably be so certain I haven't had a girlfriend, you must think I am quite young. What about my writing style makes you think I am young?

[angryprofessor]

>I, and a majority of my friends, are in favor of the war.

I'm not opposed to it either (1). I guess I'm assuming you live on the coast; if you do, it's very surprising if you know multiple people who favored the war.

Regardless, my point is that many women make an emotional decision to support Hillary. They then come up with rational sounding reasons after the fact.

In any case, the point is that we know for certain that chemicals in the brain influence emotion and decision making (e.g., Ritalin). And the silliness/irrationality described on overcoming bias is mostly emotion defeating reason.

Regarding aggression specifically, we know that males are more aggressive both in humans and other mammals. Why do you suspect a non-chemical cause in humans, and a chemical one in other mammals?

>To reasonably be so certain I haven't had a girlfriend, you must think I am quite young. What about my writing style makes you think I am young?

I have no idea what your age is. I've never met a person who has had a seriously relationship and also believes women don't make extremely emotional decisions.

(1) I think freeing Kurdistan was sufficient justification, just as freeing Kuwait was sufficient justification for Iraq 1. At this point, I favor either ending it immediately or doing it right (split the country into small pieces, let them merge together if they want).

[curi]

I agree that many (but not all) women (and men) make bad decisions, act emotionally, make up ad hoc reasons after the fact, etc

Regarding aggression, we know that ideas are capable of causing aggression. I don't think this is in dispute: it is a possible cause. But we don't know that chemicals can do it, in humans. No one has suggested a mechanism by which they could.

I also don't agree that emotions are a separate thing from intelligence, which sometimes bypasses or overcomes it. I think that emotions are labels for (not amazingly good) ways of thinking -- they, like personality generally, are a part of ones ideas. In this case too, I submit that there is no coherent explanation for how they could be anything else.