5 ms·

Despite the linkbait-ish title, this is actually a very thorough and well written article.

anigbrowl 18y ago
So it is, but isn't it a little more MetaFilter than HackerNews? At the same time I can't help a mild feeling of 'Say it ain't so, captain Obvious!' You only have to sit down with a good nature or anthropology documentary to see our social structures aren't all that complex or different from 'primitive' ones.
- Retric 18y ago
  He actually talks about starting new company's so the link to HackerNews is not that hard to see. But a more interesting link why men become obsessed with specific specializations. For a well understood example consider how many partners a highly talented and successful musician might have over 30 years. The long term impact of effective birth control will probably have long term impact on the most successful approaches.
- skorgu 18y ago
  Already posted to Metafilter two years ago (along with, frankly, an extremely unproductive debate in the comments): http://www.metafilter.com/64034/The-Waw-effect http://www.metafilter.com/64034/The-Waw-effect
Retric 18y ago
There was a lot of interesting ideas. On the Titanic, the richest men had a lower survival rate (34%) than the poorest women (46%) Somehow, I don't expect a lot of poor men to have survived.
- aci 18y ago
  Titanic casualty figures: http://www.anesi.com/titanic.htm http://www.anesi.com/titanic.htm
robertk 18y ago
This is one of those articles that could be labelled "worldview changing." I mean this in the sense that to gain knowledge of certain facts and arguments has immense corollaries for how one understands and interprets the world. Here are two other recent examples I can think of: - Moore's Law and the resulting implications regarding the "singularity" - "Happiness" turns out to not be a Platonic ideal or otherwise specially-valued conception, but simply an ever-present state with slight fluctuations (and then perhaps "getting" happiness refers to obtaining the highest positive fluctuation--which will however stabilize over some time). See the recent TED talk on synthesizing happiness. The key fact in this article, from which all other conclusions naturally seem to follow, is that males as a statistic exhibit much higher traits of extremity (in all aspects) due to the historically much higher probability of a woman being able to obtain a partner and reproduce.
- iamelgringo 18y ago
  I think the author did have some interesting things to say. His idea of men going to extremes on either end of the productivity scale was interesting. His points that men occupy the top rungs of society as well as are considered expendable are interesting as well. Completely disregarding centuries/millena worth of cultural, historical and legal issues seems a little intellectually dishonest, however. Women have had difficulty for centuries across many cultures in obtaining property rights: http://womenshistory.about.com/od/marriedwomensproperty/a/property_rights.htm http://womenshistory.about.com/od/marriedwomensproperty/a/pr... Women have had to fight to obtain the basic right to vote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_suffrage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_suffrage Women have also had to fight to obtain the right to higher education, work in certain categories of jobs, etc... Dismissing all the cultural, historical and legal evidence to the contrary, and chalking it all up to evolutionary pressures seems a little dishonest. It's hard to evolve aggressive women, when aggressive women are imprisoned or killed. You still the effects of that in some very conservative muslim countries. I imagine that would have some evolutionary pressure on culling certain aggressive genes in women. In fact, it seems dangerously close to, "well, men evolved to be stronger, therefore, only men should be able to be ['soldiers', 'policemen', 'construction workers', 'etc...'].
vaksel 18y ago
Thats the reality of the blogosphere, everyone uses linkbait titles now
ezy 18y ago
I disagree, I found it cliche'. It's a good blog-post, but not really world changing. Not to put you down -- I get caught up in these kinds of things too -- but what real evidence does he actually have to support his hypothesis? Sure, I could say that it isn't true because of this and that, but how valid would my argument be? ANgels on the head of a pin, and all that... What he does is list a couple surprising facts, then invent scenarios to fit the evidence. It's one of the most common rhetorical techniques on blogs and in pop-science speculative books, and whether the author means it or not -- it can turn intellectually dishonest very quickly without adding clear qualification in the text. I don't find this sort of stuff convincing or useful anymore. It's the same reason I have a natural distaste for Gladwell and his book-selling ilk -- this type of conjecture seems enlightening, and maybe you could get a few interesting ideas out of it.. but it's not supported. And in the end, you end up with stuff that's an interesting thought-experiment, but leaves you none the wiser.

So it is, but isn't it a little more MetaFilter than HackerNews? At the same time I can't help a mild feeling of 'Say it ain't so, captain Obvious!' You only have to sit down with a good nature or anthropology documentary to see our social structures aren't all that complex or different from 'primitive' ones.

Retric 18y ago
He actually talks about starting new company's so the link to HackerNews is not that hard to see. But a more interesting link why men become obsessed with specific specializations. For a well understood example consider how many partners a highly talented and successful musician might have over 30 years. The long term impact of effective birth control will probably have long term impact on the most successful approaches.
skorgu 18y ago
Already posted to Metafilter two years ago (along with, frankly, an extremely unproductive debate in the comments): http://www.metafilter.com/64034/The-Waw-effect http://www.metafilter.com/64034/The-Waw-effect

Retric 18y ago

There was a lot of interesting ideas. On the Titanic, the richest men had a lower survival rate (34%) than the poorest women (46%) Somehow, I don't expect a lot of poor men to have survived.

aci 18y ago
Titanic casualty figures: http://www.anesi.com/titanic.htm http://www.anesi.com/titanic.htm

robertk 18y ago

This is one of those articles that could be labelled "worldview changing." I mean this in the sense that to gain knowledge of certain facts and arguments has immense corollaries for how one understands and interprets the world. Here are two other recent examples I can think of: - Moore's Law and the resulting implications regarding the "singularity" - "Happiness" turns out to not be a Platonic ideal or otherwise specially-valued conception, but simply an ever-present state with slight fluctuations (and then perhaps "getting" happiness refers to obtaining the highest positive fluctuation--which will however stabilize over some time). See the recent TED talk on synthesizing happiness. The key fact in this article, from which all other conclusions naturally seem to follow, is that males as a statistic exhibit much higher traits of extremity (in all aspects) due to the historically much higher probability of a woman being able to obtain a partner and reproduce.

iamelgringo 18y ago
I think the author did have some interesting things to say. His idea of men going to extremes on either end of the productivity scale was interesting. His points that men occupy the top rungs of society as well as are considered expendable are interesting as well. Completely disregarding centuries/millena worth of cultural, historical and legal issues seems a little intellectually dishonest, however. Women have had difficulty for centuries across many cultures in obtaining property rights: http://womenshistory.about.com/od/marriedwomensproperty/a/property_rights.htm http://womenshistory.about.com/od/marriedwomensproperty/a/pr... Women have had to fight to obtain the basic right to vote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_suffrage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_suffrage Women have also had to fight to obtain the right to higher education, work in certain categories of jobs, etc... Dismissing all the cultural, historical and legal evidence to the contrary, and chalking it all up to evolutionary pressures seems a little dishonest. It's hard to evolve aggressive women, when aggressive women are imprisoned or killed. You still the effects of that in some very conservative muslim countries. I imagine that would have some evolutionary pressure on culling certain aggressive genes in women. In fact, it seems dangerously close to, "well, men evolved to be stronger, therefore, only men should be able to be ['soldiers', 'policemen', 'construction workers', 'etc...'].

vaksel 18y ago

Thats the reality of the blogosphere, everyone uses linkbait titles now

ezy 18y ago

I disagree, I found it cliche'. It's a good blog-post, but not really world changing. Not to put you down -- I get caught up in these kinds of things too -- but what real evidence does he actually have to support his hypothesis? Sure, I could say that it isn't true because of this and that, but how valid would my argument be? ANgels on the head of a pin, and all that... What he does is list a couple surprising facts, then invent scenarios to fit the evidence. It's one of the most common rhetorical techniques on blogs and in pop-science speculative books, and whether the author means it or not -- it can turn intellectually dishonest very quickly without adding clear qualification in the text. I don't find this sort of stuff convincing or useful anymore. It's the same reason I have a natural distaste for Gladwell and his book-selling ilk -- this type of conjecture seems enlightening, and maybe you could get a few interesting ideas out of it.. but it's not supported. And in the end, you end up with stuff that's an interesting thought-experiment, but leaves you none the wiser.