3 ms·
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 nec
by 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 agoPoint 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...