[another-cuppa]

I don't even understand why this is controversial. I've explained this to a number of women before and none of them have felt hurt. On the contrary, in fact, it makes them feel better. Humans always fixate on extremes. Men and women. It's a problem in our society. We always want to see the very best and we're not interested in others who are still way above average. There are thousands of women doing great science, engineering, programming etc., but the very best are almost always men, and it's our fault that we only care about the very best.

[feministohmy]

Same here. Most women I've talked to about this seem to accept it just fine. However, try explain this to a proclaimed feminist or activist (say, the "not a fan" lady). Any comment on statistical distribution that is completely meaningless at the individual level is taken as a direct, personal insult. No counter argument will be presented, just name calling or anecdotal horseshit. When I was in college I was required to take a gender studies course, and some notions taught there were simply absurd, like on average there's no difference between men and women's physical strength. What? What's next, there are no biological differences between genitals? I mean, physical strength isn't even a factor we normally judge people on. And regarding intellectual differences, I was personally taught by the first female Fields medalist and respect her immensely — she might just be smarter than all men. But that does not shake the statistical argument one bit. (Oh, feminists will say: "look, this dude is pulling out that I-worked-with-a-woman-once defense again.")

It is simply sad that our totally defensible theories are almost completely silenced these days for fear of hurting our academic or professional prospects, and they seem more triumphant by the day simply because we're silenced. I don't even feel safe posting from my usual account. Guess I should be thankful that people aren't burned at stakes anymore.

[majos]

I used to think this, but I don't any more. One argument that swayed me came from Izabella Laba [1], a math professor at UBC and former IMO competitor. The point that stood out to me is that women tend to be socialized away from extremes, for example it is generally more acceptable (to parents, guardians, and affiliated people choosing for children) for gifted boys to skip many grades than for gifted girls to do the same. Along the same lines, obsession and isolation in boys just seems to bother us less than the same thing in girls.

There's no great comcrete evidence backing this up (as far as I know). But Laba is one who should know, having once been a very mathematically gifted girl.

Maybe men really are outliers on a greater scale, but IMO we do enough tamping-down of female outliers that I'm not willing to draw that conclusion from the preponderance of male geniuses we see today.

[1] https://ilaba.wordpress.com/2017/06/24/gifted-while-female/

[another-cuppa]

I just don't believe in this "social conditioning" thing. I've seen absolutely no evidence for it in my life. My sister grew up with three older brothers and we became a programmer, an electrician, and a mechanic. Right from birth she was surrounded by computers, electronics, engines and gears. She is not interested and will not be interested no matter how hard someone like you tries to make her interested. She is instead an artist and a wonderful one. She just did what she wanted to do.

I've had intimate relationships with more than twenty women in my life. I've had friendships and professional relationships with many times more. I'd hazard to guess that my experience with women is way above average for this forum. I've not met a single one who told me they really wanted to be a scientist/engineer/programmer etc but found that society didn't let them. In fact, I find the contrary to be true: the ones that have chosen those fields were offered more encouragement than I ever was.

Just let people do what they want to do.

[fjsolwmv]

Your extremely unusual anecdote is not good data.

[shard972]

Doesn't really dispute the IQ bell curve differences between men and women as we find that IQ is less and less socially constructed than we thought.

[jquery]

Men are much more likely to have a very low IQ and this is uncontroversial. Are they socialized this way or is increased variability only in one direction.

[tptacek]

No, that is extraordinarily controversial.

[yorwba]

Are you saying that the IQ distribution is not measured sufficiently well and there is controverse among statisticians whether men are really more likely to have scored below e.g. 70; or are you saying that there is controverse about the causes?

[tptacek]

I'm saying that the claim made above is extraordinarily controversial.

[js8]

Excellent point!

"it's our fault that we only care about the very best"

Actually, that might also explain the cultural difference of USA vs the other parts of the world. Perhaps in the U.S. people are more obsessed with the very best, and that's why these things become controversial.

It reminds of a recent discussion here about being open about your salary. My conclusion from (based on comments of other people) it was that it is a strong taboo in the U.S., although in Norway, it is acceptable for everybody to know. And that it possibly also ties to higher emphasis on competition in the U.S.

It's interesting - it takes an outsider (or a jester) to see society's taboo.

[bostik]

> Perhaps in the U.S. people are more obsessed with the very best

It's not just U.S., btw, and you're not even extreme. I remember couple of articles from the mid-90's about Russians who had moved to US after the Cold War and got married. They carried their cultural norms with them, among which there was a ruthless drive for extreme excellence.

They ran into recurring problems with their US family members when the offspring won 2nd or 3rd place in science fair. The rest of the family were proud, but those from Russia simply considered them having failed. The mentality they carried was simple: "If you don't win, it's not worth noting. Improve."

What makes this truly interesting is that the USSR/Russian education system and culture has produced a much less gender-imbalanced outcome.[0] And going off on a tangent - I have no idea whether these things are related or not, but at least in maths those educated in Russian school system are routinely considered pretty hard-core.

0: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39579321

[pandaman]

Being unemployed had been a felony in the USSR [1] so the vast majority of women had to work. This naturally would produce different sex distribution in the workforce compared to countries where women had an option to become a homemaker.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitism_(social_offense)#So...

[WillPostForFood]

Less imbalanced than the UK, but still imbalanced overall. Massively in some areas, like when they talk about inventors:

In the UK, about 4% of inventors are women, whereas the figure is 15% in Russia.

[kupiakos]

It may have made the women you've talked to feel better, but personally, I'm not a fan of the idea that I'm simply less biologically capable than men in any way.

[js8]

"the idea that I'm simply less biologically capable than men in any way"

Nobody (serious) is saying that. First, when this is talked about, it's always about averages, which are meaningless from individual perspective.

Second, there are obvious biological traits where women are less capable than men on average, like weightlifting. There are also traits where women are more capable, like having kids.

These are facts though. You might also not be a fan of idea that "Earth revolves around Sun", but that's how it is.

On the other hand, I can understand your feeling. I am for example not a fan of idea that many humans are xenophobes.

[Zanni]

Weightlifting is an excellent example. It's not controversial in the least to say that men (on the whole) are stronger than women. And the strongest man will almost certainly be stronger than the strongest woman. But that doesn't mean a particular woman can't out lift a particular man. I see this all the time at my CrossFit box, where there are women who regularly put more weight on a barbell than I can manage. I'm not even talking about pound for pound of bodyweight either. I'm talking about women who are 50 pounds lighter than I am who can still deadlift 50 pounds more than I can. Some of these CrossFit women are strong.

[frickinLasers]

Perhaps it's not controversial in your circles. I realize this is anectodal, but I've dated two women pursuing a PhD in a STEM field, both smarter than me in many ways. The second I began to suggest the reason for my greater physical strength might be biological in origin, they both became completely irrational. They somehow believe biology plays no part in the differences between men and women--or maybe that there is no biological difference at all (?). Imagine the intellectual revolt that would occur if I were to bring up this GMVH hypothesis.

There's something about the "girls can do anything" mantra (which I totally agree with!) that seems to translate to "no girl has ever been less capable than anyone at anything as long as they try hard enough." Any theory or evidence contradicting that notion is nonsense.

[todd8]

I’ve had similar, surprising conversations with well educated women who believe that differences in physical strength between men and women have no biological basis. Maybe they were taught that; they didn’t have first hand experience training as an athlete in a strength related sport.

My daughter, who is very strong and is stronger than her brothers, wouldn’t even compete if she had to go up against men in her sport, powerlifting. It’s very obvious in that sport that sex related hormones make a difference.

[jnordwick]

I'm proud of you for only mentioning CrossFit twice. That must have taken a lot of will power.

[Zanni]

I mentioned CrossFit specifically because that's where I observed this. It's been a while since I've spent time in a traditional gym, but when I did, the men and women seemed largely (self-) segregated. Men on free weights, women on yoga mats and cycles, with some occasional crossover on some weight machines. I know women can get strong in traditional gyms, it's just not part of my experience. CrossFit has done a lot promote the idea of strength as a key component of fitness for women (as opposed to slimming). And if the price of that is having to suffer a few bros bragging about their WOD times on FB, I can live with that. Hope you can too.

[aixee3311]

> Nobody (serious) is saying that.

People are saying that seriously a lot on HN.

[mirimir]

I get how you and many other women might reject this idea. If I were a woman, I certainly would. And I'm sad that you didn't get better responses. So I'll attempt one.

Bottom line, notwithstanding ham-fisted commentary by the author, and some here, this paper is not about men exhibiting greater variability in reproductive fitness, or whatever, than women do. It's about gender differences generally among sexually dimorphic species. And given how remarkably humans are unconstrained by biological hardware, it's totally unclear how this work is relevant for us.

Also, this paper reports no observations. It's not even a review. It does list many studies and reviews, but without any substantial critique or discussion. It just presents results of some simple mathematical modeling.

And yes, perhaps the remaining author does display an agenda. But even so, the models presented are either interesting or not, regardless of the agenda. And from my reading of the history, it's arguable that the initial paper would have displayed far less agenda than the somewhat bitter version that ended up on https://arxiv.org/ .

[mnl]

Personally I prefer interacting with women because the odds of having an intelligent exchange are better, that's my experience. Also that there are more dull males than females, and more raw geniuses males than females. But that's cafeteria talk I would never try to make science proper about, firstly because I know basically nothing about that field, secondly because I don't care enough, and thirdly because when the previous considerations are met it's a suicide getting into a loaded subject every side is eager to misinterpret because of agendas.

[shard972]

> thirdly because when the previous considerations are met it's a suicide getting into a loaded subject every side is eager to misinterpret because of agendas.

So we should corner science off from loaded subjects? That sounds alot like what the church's position on Galileo was.

[vixen99]

Check out the literature. It isn't cafeteria talk. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/nature-of-human-intelli... however your third point is well taken. The list of loaded subjects seems to get longer and longer.

[DennisP]

The hypothesis makes no such claim; it's compatible with you being smarter than 99.999% of the world's men.

[cbolton]

It's also compatible with her being smarter than all men.

[DennisP]

True, and I didn't mean to suggest otherwise.

[another-cuppa]

What do you mean by less capable than "men"? Do you really think anyone is saying you're less capable than all men at anything at all? I can say with complete confidence that that is completely untrue. But you must accept that there are some people who are better than you at some particular thing. And if you must worry about who is the very best in the world at that particular thing it might well be a man. But why do you care?

[rhapsodic]

> but personally, I'm not a fan of the idea that I'm simply less biologically capable than men in any way.

That statement speaks volumes, and probably in ways that you did not intend.

[quotemstr]

Note the category error in the GP: comparison of a singular with a plural without any sort of grouping operator applies to the plural. It's become so fashionable to talk about group justice that some people see groups as the primary objects of human experience and think of individuals only as members of homogeneous groups. It's nonsense, but it's the only interpretation of the GP that makes any kind of internal sense.

[tomjen3]

Chances are you are shorter, physically weaker, etc than the average (or chosen by random, it is the same thing) man.

I am very short, so the same things apply to me, it doesn't mean I like it, but reality is that which doesn't go away when you deny it.

[maxnoe]

The thing is, reality is under no obligation to care about your feelings.

I don't like the idea men live shorter than woman, but that's reality.

Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.

And nobody here said that women are less capable than men. The hypothesis was, that the distribution for some traits for men has more kurtosis, so while the mean is similar, there are more outliers, and to be clear, in both directions!

[marchenko]

I'm agnostic about the GMV hypothesis, but I will note that is generally taken very seriously in behavioral genetics. Interestingly, the example of the significant female advantage in life expectancy is a relatively recent phenomenon thought to be significantly influenced at present (at the population level) to differences in smoking rates. Pregnancy and childbirth morbidity and mortality used to neutralize the difference or even tip the scales in favor of men in some places in the past. Nature might not be fooled, but we can be fooled about nature, especially when complex behavior is involved.

[charmides]

The difference in life expectancy between men and women appears to be significant across every human culture. The effect appears to be biological and not cultural.

[geofft]

Reality is under no obligation to care about your feelings, yes. But that does not imply:

1. that humans are not obligated to care about each other's feelings, either. If you are pursuing a course of research that is purely hurtful and has no perceived positive impact, nobody is making you pursue it. (I don't think this paper is in this category, to be clear.)

2. that an idea is more likely to be true simply because it hurts people's feelings. The hypothesis of this paper is simply a hypothesis. It's got some evidence, but it's subject as all ideas are to future argument. "What if it's true, let's not flinch away" is a fine sentiment; "It's true, deal with it" is not.

[haihaibye]

>> 2. that an idea is more likely to be true simply because it hurts people's feelings.

I suspect, given two hypotheses- one that is politically correct and one that isn't- the politically incorrect one will be held to a much higher standard of evidence required due to confirmation bias and people acting as described in the article.

If you look at psychology, the politically incorrect results (IQ) have much better evidence despite being constantly attacked. Compare that to say, priming and sterotype threat - which everyone wanted to believe in.

[tomp]

Nobody is claiming (2). IMO (1) is plain wrong, I believe there is positive utility in pursuit and subsequent discovery of the truth, even if such truth is "purely hurtful" - it still allows us to structure our society and plan our future better (i.e. readjust our goals so that they are realistic (not impossible / in conflict with reality) and figure out better ways to achieve them), taking strictly more (and better) information into account.

[darkerside]

Does the pursuit of truth, with no tangible outcomes, count as a perceived positive impact? (I'd argue it does)

[sremani]

We are talking about a research paper, a paper that can be scientifically refuted. The only reason much of abuse of power and non-scientific angles of attack are because there are no strong scientific refutations.

This is not about my feeling vs your feelings, it is about your tribe vs my tribe. Simple! The whole article is about the opposing faction was obsessed about Alt-Right or Conservatives using this paper as a basis of their arguments.

[commandlinefan]

As it is, though, there are only two competing theories on why there are fewer women in science than men - the first is that men dominate both ends of the bell curve, and the second is that men are just horrible people who can’t be nice to others. Are you a fan of the second? Or do you have a third explanation? The first seems like the _least_ controversial possibility.

[tzs]

Uhm...what? There are more than two theories.

Here's one I've seen a few articles on within the past year or so. According to test data (SAT, PISA, and I believe others) on teens, girls who are at the top in science tend to also be at the top in other areas too [1]. Boys who are at the top in science tend to be more ordinary in other areas.

People in general tend to to enjoy more and go into careers in areas they are good at.

Result for boys: boys who are at the top in science are highly likely to want to go into science. It's what they are good at and enjoy.

Result for girls. For the girls at the top in science, though, it is just one of the things they are good at and enjoy, and often they are even better at those other things than they are at science. So top girls in science are more likely than top boys to pick some other area to go into.

Roughly, the top girls tend to be more rounded than the top boys. I've not seen anything on why that might be so.

[1] Anecdotally, that fits me. When I first took the SAT in high school, I got 790 on math, and a terrible 540 on verbal. I took it again to see if I could do better on verbal, and got that up to 640, which is still nothing to write home about but is at least good enough to suggest I might actually be able to write. Math dropped to 750 the second time, which was embarrassing.

[js8]

But doesn't the fact that top girls are more well-rounded than top boys also follow from the GMVH? (I am not sure, genuine question.)

[joshuamorton]

Not obviously no. I could propose some reasons it might, but they'd require delving into pseudoscience in a field I'm not familiar with.

[monadgonad]

> men are just horrible people who can’t be nice to others

That’s an extremely bad and uncharitable way of summarising patriarchal oppression. It’s not about men being nice or not, it’s about (in part) a society that assigns roles to men and women and expects girls from a young age to be less logical, less mathematical, less interested in technology, etc., thus discouraging them from pursuing scientific careers. This effect, by this point, is extremely well-founded.

That’s not to say GMVH might not also be an effect, but to restate socialised gender roles as “men are just horrible people”, and to call that more controversial, is ridiculous.