5 ms·

One aspect that maybe deserves to be more explicitly outlined because people tend to assume that talking about gender differences means that we're pointing to o

One aspect that maybe deserves to be more explicitly outlined because people tend to assume that talking about gender differences means that we're pointing to one as being better than the other, is that "more extreme" doesn't just mean "closer to the top" or "better". There's more variance between men, success wise. There are more men at the top, but there are also 7X more homeless men than homeless women IIRC. There's also a higher rate of drug addiction amongst men, there are way more men in prison, way more men getting killed because of reckless driving, etc. It's a bit like investing. Nature takes a more high risk approach with men. High risk can yield high reward, but it also means a higher rate of failure. This is why, when investing, the advice people generally give you is to make conservative/safe investment decisions.

77pt77 5y ago
The real problem is that the ones that lose the game are effectively invisible because their outcome is not desired by the people complaining that men are overrepresented at the top.
- trashtester 5y ago
  Exactly. The root of the problem seems to be about optics. In some areas (business, science, etc), 90% of people that reach high enough to become famous, are men. A large percentage of "normal" people, ie close to the median will see those famous people as potential role models. When their internal pattern matching engine detects that 90% of those belong to a class they do not identify with, that can cause a crisis of faith in their own dreams, self-esteem, etc. At that point, there is no comfort to be found that 90% of the people at the very bottom belong to the same class as those at the top. Not only do they not see those at the bottom, they do not WANT to see them. So if someone tells a story that explains the difference as a result of oppression, it becomes really tempting to chose that explanation, whether or not it is true. Oppression may indeed be the main reason for differences in many cases, but even when it is not, it will be attractive to believe it is.
  - tachyonbeam 5y ago
    Should also be pointed out that there are probably two or three orders of magnitude more men at the bottom than there are men at the top. It's asymmetric. Your odds of failure are much higher than your odds of incredible success.
fastball 5y ago
My pet theory is that testosterone impacts brain development in a way that causes people with more of it on average (men) to be more singularly driven, or "one track mind". The key is that "driven" does not mean "usefully driven" – and that is why you seem the extreme outliers on both ends. Making men more likely to be completely non-functioning alcoholics or more likely to successfully commit suicide, but also more likely to excel at chess. In more egalitarian societies, we consistently see women make "better" choices when it comes to work/life balance etc, where as men are much more likely to unhealthily pursue career / etc doggedly even if it means sacrificing everything else. It probably only tips the scales a tiny, tiny bit, but when you're talking about 7B people and societies that want to extract maximum efficiency from participants, it shows.
- serverholic 5y ago
  Many of those men are unhealthily pursuing careers to make their family's lives better. Same with single mothers working multiple jobs. However, statistically men are more likely to be the breadwinners while women are more likely to have the luxury of "better" choices.
- KittenInABox 5y ago
  Seriously asking: How does this track where lots of women-specific jobs imo require a ton of drive? For example I can't imagine needing to get all the credentials and maintain credentials of being a nurse or a teacher for the pay they do. That's why I'm a dev. Also, romance writing and fiction writing as a whole (self-publish or not) is dominated by women and the hustle they need to do requires a ton of determination and business sense.
  - fastball 5y ago
    Yes, the idea of drive is a bit vague here. Would you say women are pursuing nursing because they want to be the best nurse in the world? That is the kind of behavior I'm saying you see more in men (as an average). I was under the impression that nursing is attractive because you get to work with people, it pays pretty well, you can do it with an associates degree, and you can have a good work/life balance. But yes, of course doing it well requires drive. Again, the idea here is not "men have drive and women don't", it is "men by a razor thin margin are more inclined to doggedly pursue something to the exclusion of all else, which shows up when you're looking at entire populations and you've geared your society in a way where you elevate people that are the best at one very particular thing". A nurse having more drive than you isn't really the point. It is like when you say "men are stronger than women", it does not mean that any man will be able to best any woman in a contest of physical strength. Of course not.
duckfang 5y ago
How much of that is genetic, and how much of that is societal? Pretty much everything I keep reading in this area never comes to anywhere near a conclusion. Nature vs Nurture - it's this combined with a lack of scientific rigor that I primarily disregard discussions in this area. At worst discussions become a screaming match of woke.
- tachyonbeam 5y ago
  When it comes to nature vs nurture, the answer seems to always be that it's a combination of both. Unfortunately, this is a heavily politicized topic.
- claytonius 5y ago
  It may help to have the set of keywords that will yield better search results. Geneticists generally assume that every trait is determined by a combination of Genes and Environment (GxE), and the differences between fraternal and identical twins are used to determine what component is heritable/genetic and what component is environmental.
jvanderbot 5y ago
You have nicely summarized the essay "Is there anything good about Men" by Baumeister. It used to be that you could find a single authoritative hosting of this lecture/essay, but now it's been ... adopted by the internet. I'd recommend googling and checking sources.

77pt77 5y ago

The real problem is that the ones that lose the game are effectively invisible because their outcome is not desired by the people complaining that men are overrepresented at the top.

trashtester 5y ago
Exactly. The root of the problem seems to be about optics. In some areas (business, science, etc), 90% of people that reach high enough to become famous, are men. A large percentage of "normal" people, ie close to the median will see those famous people as potential role models. When their internal pattern matching engine detects that 90% of those belong to a class they do not identify with, that can cause a crisis of faith in their own dreams, self-esteem, etc. At that point, there is no comfort to be found that 90% of the people at the very bottom belong to the same class as those at the top. Not only do they not see those at the bottom, they do not WANT to see them. So if someone tells a story that explains the difference as a result of oppression, it becomes really tempting to chose that explanation, whether or not it is true. Oppression may indeed be the main reason for differences in many cases, but even when it is not, it will be attractive to believe it is.
- tachyonbeam 5y ago
  Should also be pointed out that there are probably two or three orders of magnitude more men at the bottom than there are men at the top. It's asymmetric. Your odds of failure are much higher than your odds of incredible success.

fastball 5y ago

My pet theory is that testosterone impacts brain development in a way that causes people with more of it on average (men) to be more singularly driven, or "one track mind". The key is that "driven" does not mean "usefully driven" – and that is why you seem the extreme outliers on both ends. Making men more likely to be completely non-functioning alcoholics or more likely to successfully commit suicide, but also more likely to excel at chess. In more egalitarian societies, we consistently see women make "better" choices when it comes to work/life balance etc, where as men are much more likely to unhealthily pursue career / etc doggedly even if it means sacrificing everything else. It probably only tips the scales a tiny, tiny bit, but when you're talking about 7B people and societies that want to extract maximum efficiency from participants, it shows.

serverholic 5y ago
Many of those men are unhealthily pursuing careers to make their family's lives better. Same with single mothers working multiple jobs. However, statistically men are more likely to be the breadwinners while women are more likely to have the luxury of "better" choices.
KittenInABox 5y ago
Seriously asking: How does this track where lots of women-specific jobs imo require a ton of drive? For example I can't imagine needing to get all the credentials and maintain credentials of being a nurse or a teacher for the pay they do. That's why I'm a dev. Also, romance writing and fiction writing as a whole (self-publish or not) is dominated by women and the hustle they need to do requires a ton of determination and business sense.
- fastball 5y ago
  Yes, the idea of drive is a bit vague here. Would you say women are pursuing nursing because they want to be the best nurse in the world? That is the kind of behavior I'm saying you see more in men (as an average). I was under the impression that nursing is attractive because you get to work with people, it pays pretty well, you can do it with an associates degree, and you can have a good work/life balance. But yes, of course doing it well requires drive. Again, the idea here is not "men have drive and women don't", it is "men by a razor thin margin are more inclined to doggedly pursue something to the exclusion of all else, which shows up when you're looking at entire populations and you've geared your society in a way where you elevate people that are the best at one very particular thing". A nurse having more drive than you isn't really the point. It is like when you say "men are stronger than women", it does not mean that any man will be able to best any woman in a contest of physical strength. Of course not.

duckfang 5y ago

How much of that is genetic, and how much of that is societal? Pretty much everything I keep reading in this area never comes to anywhere near a conclusion. Nature vs Nurture - it's this combined with a lack of scientific rigor that I primarily disregard discussions in this area. At worst discussions become a screaming match of woke.

tachyonbeam 5y ago
When it comes to nature vs nurture, the answer seems to always be that it's a combination of both. Unfortunately, this is a heavily politicized topic.
claytonius 5y ago
It may help to have the set of keywords that will yield better search results. Geneticists generally assume that every trait is determined by a combination of Genes and Environment (GxE), and the differences between fraternal and identical twins are used to determine what component is heritable/genetic and what component is environmental.

jvanderbot 5y ago

You have nicely summarized the essay "Is there anything good about Men" by Baumeister. It used to be that you could find a single authoritative hosting of this lecture/essay, but now it's been ... adopted by the internet. I'd recommend googling and checking sources.