[scotty79]

> Actually, I think the idea is that males have higher variance on a variety of attributes, due to higher expected utility, in an evolutionary sense, from trying high-risk, high-reward strategies (standard disclaimer: do not anthropomorphize evolution, do not equate evolutionary goals with conscious goals).

I think if anything it can be attributed to lower evolutionary obligation of males rather than to higher expected utility. Breeding for males is fairly easy so you can have a kid even if your IQ is 60. Child of woman of such low IQ would have much higher probability of dying.

Also males having single X chromosome have higher variability in traits influenced by genes on X chromosome as the defect of some gene of X chromosome won't be alleviated by correct gene at the other X (because there is no other X in males).

Personally I don't care if all Einsteins and Newtons will be male but since more and more scientific discovery rely on joint venture of tens or hundreds of scientists I really think that you should not pass up on opportunity to encourage half of the population to go into science just because there might be some relevant skewing in right tail of distribution.