3 ms·

That is a lot of authors on a paper. As a layman reading the paper, my understanding is that greater male variability has already been observed in "personality

That is a lot of authors on a paper. As a layman reading the paper, my understanding is that greater male variability has already been observed in "personality, coginitive abilities, and school achievement". The question here whether and to what extent that variability is due to "early life genetic or gene-environment interaction mechanisms". The implication of this paper seems to be that since pervasive brain-structure differences in variability can be observed throughout the lifespan of individuals, the variability in high-level traits are likely to have strong genetic component. The introduction in the paper focuses on the "downside" of high-variability in males (their propensity for neurological disorders). Unless I've missed it, any "upside" to high-variability was left unstated.

lunias 7y ago
Intuitively to me (I'm a layman as well) it seems that this male variability stems from increased competition amongst males. Historically, but certainly not necessarily, men have played the active role in society while women have been much more passive. It makes sense to me that without constant new stimuli, women have settled into a "best fit" position; while men are still rolling the dice (so to speak) looking for a big win.
- Pyxl101 7y ago
  Point of consideration: supremely fit men in history (in a Darwinian sense) could have hundreds or thousands of children. Big wins can have big genetic payoffs. Supposedly Genghis Khan has millions of living descendants today, with perhaps as many as 1 in 200 men being direct descendants [1]. Supremely fit women can only have a limited number of children. This difference likely has some kind of effect on reproductive strategies, and what kinds of variation are selected for. [1] https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/1-in-200-men-direct-descendants-of-genghis-khan https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/1-in-200-men-d...

lunias 7y ago

Intuitively to me (I'm a layman as well) it seems that this male variability stems from increased competition amongst males. Historically, but certainly not necessarily, men have played the active role in society while women have been much more passive. It makes sense to me that without constant new stimuli, women have settled into a "best fit" position; while men are still rolling the dice (so to speak) looking for a big win.

Pyxl101 7y ago
Point of consideration: supremely fit men in history (in a Darwinian sense) could have hundreds or thousands of children. Big wins can have big genetic payoffs. Supposedly Genghis Khan has millions of living descendants today, with perhaps as many as 1 in 200 men being direct descendants [1]. Supremely fit women can only have a limited number of children. This difference likely has some kind of effect on reproductive strategies, and what kinds of variation are selected for. [1] https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/1-in-200-men-direct-descendants-of-genghis-khan https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/1-in-200-men-d...