A Tale of Tails - Male Variance is greater than Female. Make Science Stop?

Malayalam

Among males the difference between the best and the worst, most and least, tallest and shortest, etc etc is far greater than among females. Females tend to cluster around the mean (ie the average). In females the ''tails'' are much less far apart. This hypothesis refers to areas such as interests, abilities and personality traits among the sexes.

For males the variance between the tails is huge so males are destined apparently (by nature as recorded by science) to be over-represented both at the bottom and at the top. More dumbbells, but more Nobels. (to quote Helena Cronin - British Drawinian philosopher and rationalist).

The ''tails'' are the ends of any distribution curve - the bad end and the good end.

Here is Helena explaining it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7Q9GvR1Mnk

Well, that's fine. I don't mind at all. Nor do I think it is due to nurture or problems with society - it's a natural sex difference. The variance can be measured pre-education. No problem.

Except it is, apparently, a problem. Scientific research that confirms the greater male variance in the tails is being actively suppressed.

https://reason.com/blog/2018/09/10/math-paper-censorship-quillette-pc-left

Theodore Hill, a retired professor of mathematics at Georgia Tech, claims that activists successfully pressured the New York Journal of Mathematics to delete an article he had written for the academic journal because it considered a politically incorrect subject: the achievement gap between men and women at very high levels of human intelligence

Hill says that he and a co-author came up with a theoretical model that would help explain the gap, then attempted to publish a paper about their work in Mathematical Intelligencer. The paper was accepted, though the topic is controversial

As might have been anticipated, the paper was poorly received by feminist scholars. Hill's co-author, Sergei Tabachnikov, faced strident opposition at Penn State, where he is employed as a professor of mathematics.

Mathematical Intelligencer rescinded its acceptance of the paper. According to its editor-in-chief, publishing Hill and Tabachnikov's work would create a "very real possibility that the right-wing media may pick this up and hype it internationally." Hill claims that a University of Chicago mathematics professor, Amie Wilkinson, lobbied the journal to abandon its plans to publish the piece.

Etc etc you can read the frest of the sorry saga at the link. The paper was memory-holed from a second scientific journal - The New York Journal of Mathematics - subsequently, again due to pressure applied...NYJM Editor in Chief Mark Steinberger said he was forced to remove the article as

Half his board, he explained unhappily, had told him that unless he pulled the article, they would all resign and "harass the journal" he had founded 25 years earlier "until it died." Faced with the loss of his own scientific legacy, he had capitulated.

I don't think it helps anyone to deny scientific research. PC suppression like this is patronising to women, at the very least. Why not simply research and publish rebuttals and qualifiers instead of suppression, or make public well founded arguments that might challenge the findings if that is possible to do? Otherwise it's a form of pathetic cosseting that can lead to no good. In my opinion.

What do other people think, not from the lame vitriolic battle of the sexes points of view, but genuinely as intelligent human beings who allow for reason to exist?

daheff

so men have tails?

Malayalam

daheff wrote: »

so men have tails?

yes. But so do women in this case.

backspin.

The only scientific research allowed these days on male female differences is where they demonstrate there is no difference or where women are better than men. Anything else is sexist and must be suppressed and the authors career ruined.

And I think they call that the patriarchy... You know, where men dominate or something.

Malayalam

backspin. wrote: »

The only scientific research allowed these days on male female differences is where they demonstrate there is no difference or where women are better than men. Anything else is sexist and must be suppressed and the authors career ruined.

And I think they call that the patriarchy... You know, where men dominate or something.

Have you seen evidence of other suppression? I have come across one or two examples but due to my mediocre memory have forgotten them. I wonder is it widespread. I was surprised at the blatancy of this example re maths journals.

d8491prj5boyvg

Suppressing science is bad. I agree that we should let it be published and subject to public rebuttal if it is bad research.

This attitude is dangerous and a symptom of the modern age where we are averse to engaging in debate. We all go into our own echo chamber and get whipped up into a storm by everyone telling us we are great and the others are terrible and the first chance we get to pull the trigger on them we hit the nuclear button.

I'm not a mathematician but the journal doesn't look to be all that great (IF: 0.23) and in its scope it says it "Informs and entertains: humor, puzzles, poetry, fiction, and art can be found throughout the journal". So if the first choice home for that paper was a junk journal, then the research is probably junk.

One thing we do need is to stop research (or anything published) being misquoted and used incorrectly to fight a battle. It seems that fed into the decision not to publish this paper.

Malayalam

Cason Aggressive Tumbleweed wrote: »

Suppressing science is bad. I agree that we should let it be published and subject to public rebuttal if it is bad research.

This attitude is dangerous and a symptom of the modern age where we are averse to engaging in debate. We all go into our own echo chamber and get whipped up into a storm by everyone telling us we are great and the others are terrible and the first chance we get to pull the trigger on them we hit the nuclear button.

I'm not a mathematician but the journal doesn't look to be all that great (IF: 0.23) and in its scope it says it "Informs and entertains: humor, puzzles, poetry, fiction, and art can be found throughout the journal". So if the first choice home for that paper was a junk journal, then the research is probably junk.

One thing we do need is to stop research (or anything published) being misquoted and used incorrectly to fight a battle. It seems that fed into the decision not to publish this paper.

Good points. Totally agree with the need to encourage robust rebuttal etc. And regarding the nuclear option echo chambers. it's depressing.
I hadn't looked at the Journal, although there are 2 - did you mean the New York one? At any rate they are not second rate or junk mathematicians according to their career bios.
Ted Hill - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Hill_(mathematician)
Serge Tabachnikov - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Tabachnikov

Ficheall

Cason Aggressive Tumbleweed wrote: »

Suppressing science is bad. I agree that we should let it be published and subject to public rebuttal if it is bad research.

Where would you like junk research to be published? You can already upload almost anything in Mathematics to the arXiv where Joe Public can access it if they wish.

Cason Aggressive Tumbleweed wrote: »

One thing we do need is to stop research (or anything published) being misquoted and used incorrectly to make ice cream.

Good luck with that.

d8491prj5boyvg

Malayalam wrote: »

Good points. Totally agree with the need to encourage robust rebuttal etc. And regarding the nuclear option echo chambers. it's depressing.
I hadn't looked at the Journal, although there are 2 - did you mean the New York one? At any rate they are not second rate or junk mathematicians according to their career bios.
Ted Hill -
Serge Tabachnikov -

I only looked up "Mathematical Intelligencer". Yeah, they seem to have good credentials.

The ironic thing is, insight like this (if valid) can help understand gender barriers, what is driving them, and how to tackle them. It can help reduce inequality and sexism.

d8491prj5boyvg

Ficheall wrote: »

Where would you like junk research to be published? You can already upload almost anything in Mathematics to the arXiv where Joe Public can access it if they wish.

Journal is a signal (albeit an imperfect one) as to the importance of the research. If it is published in a poorly ranked journal, it would suggest that the result isn't as important as if it were published in a top journal.

Ficheall

Cason Aggressive Tumbleweed wrote: »

Journal is a signal (albeit an imperfect one) as to the importance of the research. If it is published in a poorly ranked journal, it would suggest that the result isn't as important as if it were published in a top journal.

Right... so where do you want the junk research to be published? Do you think a Journal of Junk Mathematics should be set up to catch all the research that peer-review (by people who can understand the paper) deems too shit to publish in a good journal? How would you avoid suppressing a shit paper?

d8491prj5boyvg

Ficheall wrote: »

Right... so where do you want the junk research to be published? Do you think a Journal of Junk Mathematics should be set up to catch all the research that peer-review (by people who can understand the paper) deems too shit to publish in a good journal? How would you avoid suppressing a shit paper?

There are loads of such journals. If it passes peer review it should be published.

Ficheall

Cason Aggressive Tumbleweed wrote: »

There are loads of such journals. If it passes peer review it should be published.

And if it doesn't? Are you still opposed to suppressing it?

Malayalam

Cason Aggressive Tumbleweed wrote: »

I only looked up "Mathematical Intelligencer". Yeah, they seem to have good credentials.

The ironic thing is, insight like this (if valid) can help understand gender barriers, what is driving them, and how to tackle them. It can help reduce inequality and sexism.

Absolutely. Not only can it help reduce inequality and sexism but it could also clear up some confusions for SOME women. Eg I graduated top of my class at University in a demanding discipline, but even before turning 20 I knew I did not have the competitive drive, extroversion or even interest to pursue a top level career. I had the ability but neither the interest nor the personality traits, although I did not have the language to express it, which would have been enormously helpful. Instead I took enormous amounts of flack for that from family, friends and educators. It was implied that I would not be a ''successful'' human being unless I chose a certain direction, a certain life, that I was a failure of sorts, but I knew my nervous system and inclinations would not withstand that kind of hot housing. I am sure there are lots of males and females who are subjected to similar pressures, and especially females should be allowed to know that scientifically speaking they are not as likely to be in the ''tail'' of the distribution curve regarding interests or personality traits that will drive them to compete flat out in demanding areas. That to feel pressurised to do so will likely cause them unhappiness as a result, but that they can perfectly validly choose something else that suits them. Similarly to pathologise the male competitive drive at the end of the tail distribution is detrimental. Lads who were way less capable academically than me became great academics and top professionals because they had that extroverted competitive edge and absolutely fair fcuks to them, I reckon. I'm delighted for them.



To other posters as far as I know the Gender Variability Hypothesis is not junk science. It goes through periods of assertion and rebuttal but has not been shown to be junk.

d8491prj5boyvg

Ficheall wrote: »

And if it doesn't? Are you still opposed to suppressing it?

Let it sit on ArXiv

Ficheall

Cason Aggressive Tumbleweed wrote: »

Let it sit on ArXiv

It is on the Arxiv.

suicide_circus

yes plenty of anti science is now widely accepted as fact around the sexes. stuff like gender and sex being seperate resulting in things like gender fluidity...despite the overwhelming evidence that sex and gender are inextricably linked.

also the refusal to understand the relatively straightforward principle of averages. "On average men are more interested in stem subjects" does not mean that "no women are interested in stem subjects".

ultimately this stuff will make us all less happy.

d8491prj5boyvg

Malayalam wrote: »

Absolutely. Not only can it help reduce inequality and sexism but it could also clear up some confusions for SOME women. Eg I graduated top of my class at University in a demanding discipline, but even before turning 20 I knew I did not have the competitive drive, extroversion or even interest to pursue a top level career. I had the ability but neither the interest nor the personality traits, although I did not have the language to express it, which would have been enormously helpful. Instead I took enormous amounts of flack for that from family, friends and educators. It was implied that I would not be a ''successful'' human being unless I chose a certain direction, a certain life, that I was a failure of sorts, but I knew my nervous system and inclinations would not withstand that kind of hot housing. I am sure there are lots of males and females who are subjected to similar pressures, and especially females should be allowed to know that scientifically speaking they are not as likely to be in the ''tail'' of the distribution curve regarding interests or personality traits that will drive them to compete flat out in demanding areas. That to feel pressurised to do so will likely cause them unhappiness as a result, but that they can perfectly validly choose something else that suits them. Similarly to pathologise the male competitive drive at the end of the tail distribution is detrimental. Lads who were way less capable academically than me became great academics and top professionals because they had that extroverted competitive edge and absolutely fair fcuks to them, I reckon. I'm delighted for them.



To other posters as far as I know the Gender Variability Hypothesis is not junk science. It goes through periods of assertion and rebuttal but has not been shown to be junk.

I don't know if that is true or not but my point would be that it should be explored openly as you suggest and fully understood. Whatever the outcome, and provided the research is valid, knowing that with greater certainty is incredibly useful information.

Ficheall

Here's the paper, for those of you interested in reading and understanding it before forming an opinion:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.04184.pdf

Malayalam

Cason Aggressive Tumbleweed wrote: »

I don't know if that is true or not but my point would be that it should be explored openly as you suggest and fully understood. Whatever the outcome, and provided the research is valid, knowing that with greater certainty is incredibly useful information.

Exactly, explore it openly - find out if it is true and if not totally true then how relatively applicable is it. The pre education and non-human species stuff seems relevant and should be reasonably straightforward to openly study.

Malayalam

Ficheall wrote: »

Here's the paper, for those of you interested in reading and understanding it before forming an opinion:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.04184.pdf

Thank you. I'd love to claim I am going to read in depth all 22 of those pages and even better understand them! but I am probably going to skim read and just about grasp. I see from the conclusion that it is really setting up ground work for further research, or rather outlining mathematical methods that could be used in such further work. Seems legit, to that extent.

Anyways I gotta go out now, I will try read some more of it later. Thanks.

Wibbs

This notion has been doing the rounds for decades and has fairly robust science backing it up. The degree of male variability was/is the grey area. A couple of points I'd have questions with that particular paper and one is in the introduction.

In his research on evolution in the 19th century Charles Darwin reported “Throughout the animal kingdom, when the sexes differ in external appearance, it is, with rare exceptions, the male which has been the more modified; for, generally, the female retains a closer resemblance to the young of her own species, and to other adult members of the same group”

Doesn;t exactly apply very well to humans as a subject. Yes males are very basically "augmented" females. That is human males start off as "female" in the womb and change into males as they develop and change again in puberty. However both adult men and women are very different to human juveniles. Externally women change in puberty just as much, if not more so than men and look less like their juvenile state. And unlike our closest relatives among the great apes. Also unlike our closest relatives humans have lower levels of sexual dimorphism. IE human males and females are closer in body size and strength, than say in the gorilla.

Male variability makes good sense from a survival standpoint. Different environments require different responses. To take down to hypothetical very basic terms, some require more "brain", some require more "brawn". EG in a war zone hyper aggressive physically stronger males would be more useful, in a corporate environment they'd be a disadvantage, but the bookish nerd seeking consensus would be better. If women had selected exclusively for one or the other and the environment changed the human race would be fecked.

And women as a gender clearly select for traits over time and the more traits and the more variability in the mix the better. In preagricultural societies women tend to have more fathers of their children, the male lines are more restricted. Over the genetic course of human history far more male lineages died out and far more female lines survived. Women had more descendants, men had fewer. As a group. Individual men had more. When tabloids point out women in disadvantaged areas with four kids from three different fathers this is actually more "natural" a strategy and was in the past and continues today.

While the human male has diverged from apes, The human female has diverged more and evolved in a very different way to our closest relatives. The most obvious being hidden fertility and constant fertility from puberty to menopause(even menopause is novel in the great apes). Human males are not nearly as confident of paternity compared to the harem set up of gorillas. They're more confident than chimps. We lay somewhere in the middle*.





*this is reflected in anatomy too. Gorillas have tiny testes. They don't need to produce as much sperm because competition is less. Chimps have huge nuts because competition is fierce. Men are in the middle in size. Men have the biggest mickeys though, something that was sexually selected for.

Ficheall

Iirc, they do say that it doesn't really apply/translate to humans/the real world. They're just proposing a simple model under some assumptions and simplifications.

d8491prj5boyvg

Ficheall wrote: »

Iirc, they do say that it doesn't really apply/translate to humans/the real world. They're just proposing a simple model under some assumptions and simplifications.

This point is key! It is more like a general mathematical model, a general foundation for understanding some simple concepts, maybe common to all species, maybe irrelevant to some. Suppressing this is therefore damaging to science in a much more general sense than human gender studies.

Ficheall

Cason Aggressive Tumbleweed wrote: »

This point is key! It is more like a general mathematical model, a general foundation for understanding some simple concepts, maybe common to all species, maybe irrelevant to some. Suppressing this is therefore damaging to science in a much more general sense than human gender studies.

So you didn't read and understand/digest the paper then?

d8491prj5boyvg

Ficheall wrote: »

So you didn't read and understand/digest the paper then?

I'm not a mathematician so don't understand it fully. Did I misinterpret?

Malayalam

Ficheall wrote: »

Iirc, they do say that it doesn't really apply/translate to humans/the real world. They're just proposing a simple model under some assumptions and simplifications.

Ficheall wrote: »

So you didn't read and understand/digest the paper then?

I think I'm missing your overall thrust here, if you do have one?

If the research is irrelevant, peripheral, a simple theoretical model, not likely to translate etc, (or even junk science) then why is Amie Wilkinson, University of Chicago Maths Professor, along with half the board of the New York Journal of Mathematics actively agitating to have the paper suppressed and/or rescinded?

If the research is relevant, in any respect, and given that it was initially accepted and even published, then why is Amie Wilkinson, University of Chicago Maths Professor, along with half the board of the New York Journal of Mathematics actively agitating to have the paper suppressed and/or rescinded?

d8491prj5boyvg

Malayalam wrote: »

I think I'm missing your overall thrust here, if you do have one?

If the research is irrelevant, peripheral, a simple theoretical model, not likely to translate etc, (or even junk science) then why is Amie Wilkinson, University of Chicago Maths Professor, along with half the board of the New York Journal of Mathematics actively agitating to have the paper suppressed and/or rescinded?

If the research is relevant, in any respect, and given that it was initially accepted and even published, then why is Amie Wilkinson, University of Chicago Maths Professor, along with half the board of the New York Journal of Mathematics actively agitating to have the paper suppressed and/or rescinded?

Don't have a thrust, just trying to figure out what's going on as I learn new information

Malayalam

Cason Aggressive Tumbleweed wrote: »

Don't have a thrust, just trying to figure out what's going on as I learn new information

Me too, I was referring to Ficheall, who seems (maybe?) to making a point which I'm not grasping.

riffmongous

They actually say in the discussion part of the article (6) that according to their skim through the literature that the gender difference in variability is decreasing in the US, which they can hint at from their model

Malayalam

riffmongous wrote: »

They actually say in the discussion part of the article (6) that according to their skim through the literature that the gender difference in variability is decreasing in the US, which they can hint at from their model

Yes they do. All this should be out in the open. Not suppressed. Plus the methodology needs to be open to public inspection. For example if abilities and interests are defined differently (and even politically) then results will be different. And definitions should be in the public domain.

They also say the variability holds regarding spatial awareness and higher mathematical abilities in general. Remember that Google chap?

d8491prj5boyvg

riffmongous wrote: »

They actually say in the discussion part of the article (6) that according to their skim through the literature that the gender difference in variability is decreasing in the US, which they can hint at from their model

This is very interesting. So if variability is decreasing in the US, and humans haven't evolved in that time, but we also see that there is maybe less variability in jobs, skills, lifestyles, etc. than years ago, that would indicate nurture rather than nature leading to the wider dispersion? I.e. there are wider tails in the male distribution because men do a wider distribution of things?

riffmongous

Cason Aggressive Tumbleweed wrote: »

This is very interesting. So if variability is decreasing in the US, and humans haven't evolved in that time, but we also see that there is maybe less variability in jobs, skills, lifestyles, etc. than years ago, that would indicate nurture rather than nature leading to the wider dispersion? I.e. there are wider tails in the male distribution because men do a wider distribution of things?

Hm, no my understanding was that they meant that the male tail was becoming less wide (and therefore becoming more similar to the female), and in their model that would happen if women became less selective. And rather that because there is less variability in jobs and lifestyles nowadays, that we will continue to see the greater male variability reduce.

I think their final idea is that if selectivity is time dependent, then so is the variability, which makes it odd then that feminist groups would want it suppressed.. maybe I have got it wrong, I'm a scientist but neither a statistician, biologist or social scientist

professore

Wibbs wrote: »

And women as a gender clearly select for traits over time and the more traits and the more variability in the mix the better. In preagricultural societies women tend to have more fathers of their children, the male lines are more restricted. Over the genetic course of human history far more male lineages died out and far more female lines survived. Women had more descendants, men had fewer. As a group. Individual men had more. When tabloids point out women in disadvantaged areas with four kids from three different fathers this is actually more "natural" a strategy and was in the past and continues today.

I have 2 daughters, therefore my male line (Y chromosome) has died out? My wife's line hasn't. Does this not account for much of the discrepancy? Not disagreeing with much else you said BTW

Malayalam

riffmongous wrote: »

Hm, no my understanding was that they meant that the male tail was becoming less wide (and therefore becoming more similar to the female), and in their model that would happen if women became less selective. And rather that because there is less variability in jobs and lifestyles nowadays, that we will continue to see the greater male variability reduce.

I think their final idea is that if selectivity is time dependent, then so is the variability, which makes it odd then that feminist groups would want it suppressed.. maybe I have got it wrong, I'm a scientist but neither a statistician, biologist or social scientist

That's an interesting interpretation. Thought provoking. And my jumbled initial reaction may be completely out of whack....but If this change is happening in a very short period of time - relatively speaking - it might say something important about modern life and structures not suiting males in particular? I have seen for example that education practices often don't suit boys. Plus we have such sedentary lifestyles, long times in commute, long times on office chairs, playing video games, watching telly, these may be having direct fast evolutionary impact on the sex differences (if I am reading you correctly.) Epigenetics. Could maybe even be related to the precipitous drop in male fertility - sperm count has declined 50 to 60% in 40 years, a statistic that every time I read it makes me wonder why we are not screaming this in horror at each other every day. The feminisation of the species. Hmmm, lots of thoughts.

Amie Wilkinson issued a statement - It seems she supports the robust rebuttal approach. Good for her.

Statement addressing unfounded allegations.
This statement addresses some unfounded allegations about my personal involvement with the publishing of Ted Hill's preprint "An evolutionary theory for the variability hypothesis" (and the earlier version of this paper co-authored with Sergei Tabachnikov). As a number of erroneous statements have been made, I think it's important to state formally what transpired and my beliefs overall about academic freedom and integrity.

I first saw the publicly-available paper of Hill and Tabachnikov on 9/6/17, listed to appear in The Mathematical Intelligencer. While the original link has been taken down, the version of the paper that was publicly available on the arxiv at that time is here.

I sent an email, on 9/7/17, to the Editor-in-Chief of The Mathematical Intelligencer, about the paper of Hill and Tabachnikov. In it, I criticized the scientific merits of the paper and the decision to accept it for publication, but I never made the suggestion that the decision to publish it be reversed. Instead, I suggested that the journal publish a response rebuttal article by experts in the field to accompany the article. One day later, on 9/8/17, the editor wrote to me that she had decided not to publish the paper.

I had no involvement in any editorial decisions concerning Hill's revised version of this paper in The New York Journal of Mathematics. Any indications or commentary otherwise are completely unfounded.

I would like to make clear my own views on academic freedom and the integrity of the editorial process. I believe that discussion of scientific merits of research should never be stifled. This is consistent with my original suggestion to bring in outside experts to rebut the Hill-Tabachnikov paper. Invoking purely mathematical arguments to explain scientific phenomena without serious engagement with science and data is an offense against both mathematics and science.

Amie Wilkinson
Professor of Mathematics
University of Chicago
September 11, 2018

NI24

Malayalam wrote: »

I have seen for example that education practices often don't suit boys.

And I have seen that education practices often do suit boys. Never in the history of free education have so many different learning disabilities and abilities been catered to. These days, teachers are pulling their hair out from stress trying to accommodate each and every students' "unique" learning style. And if this study is correct, then boys benefit far more than girls do, as their learning abilities vary much more than girls.

Malayalam wrote: »

Plus we have such sedentary lifestyles, long times in commute, long times on office chairs, playing video games, watching telly, these may be having direct fast evolutionary impact on the sex differences (if I am reading you correctly.)

None of these activities have to do with sex differences. A sedentary lifestyle is terrible for both men and women across the board.

Malayalam wrote: »

Could maybe even be related to the precipitous drop in male fertility - sperm count has declined 50 to 60% in 40 years, a statistic that every time I read it makes me wonder why we are not screaming this in horror at each other every day. The feminisation of the species. Hmmm, lots of thoughts.

Um, because unless you live in a cave every adult on Earth is told that overpopulation is going to destroy the human population. So I don't think lower sperm counts are cause for alarm.

Wibbs

professore wrote: »

I have 2 daughters, therefore my male line (Y chromosome) has died out? My wife's line hasn't. Does this not account for much of the discrepancy? Not disagreeing with much else you said BTW

Oh sure P, but even allowing for that it still shows overall more male lines dying out. Depends on local variability too. IIRC more survived in Asia than in Africa and Europe.

Wibbs

NI24 wrote: »

Um, because unless you live in a cave every adult on Earth is told that overpopulation is going to destroy the human population. So I don't think lower sperm counts are cause for alarm.

A) no they're not. The current fashion is calling for more kids because of "pensions timebombs" etc. A couple of European governments are encouraging or trying to encourage more births. of course dropping sperm counts and fertility is a cause for concern. Human health is a concern for us all and sperm counts dropping so precipitously is flagging deeper health issues. Testicular cancer has also been on a steady increase over the last few decades. And given both affect younger men this isn't a side effect of an ageing population(unlike prostate cancer for example, though even there a slight increase is seen, but it could be down to better diagnosis).

JohnnyFlash

Universities seem to be breeding grounds for useless arseholes these days No statistical analysis required.

Malayalam

NI24 wrote: »

And I have seen that education practices often do suit boys. Never in the history of free education have so many different learning disabilities and abilities been catered to. These days, teachers are pulling their hair out from stress trying to accommodate each and every students' "unique" learning style. And if this study is correct, then boys benefit far more than girls do, as their learning abilities vary much more than girls.





None of these activities have to do with sex differences. A sedentary lifestyle is terrible for both men and women across the board.






Um, because unless you live in a cave every adult on Earth is told that overpopulation is going to destroy the human population. So I don't think lower sperm counts are cause for alarm.

Hmmmm, the points I made are likely weak and random but I'm not convinced by your challenges to them. Again and again it's demonstrated that girls do better in schools than boys. Not at the tails but overall. The environment suits them. I homeschooled mine and the boys learned in different ways, they could not be kept at the table, they learned via very physical projects and activities. The girl loved those too but was much more inclined to quiet study which happened in the boys but when they were much older. Sedentary lifestyles harm both but men are stronger, faster, more athletic, which is why we have separate categories in sports - a sedentary life must have more epigenetic effect. Also I don't subscribe to the over population hypothesis for reasons I won't go into here but even if I did a precipitous decline in sperm count is a pathological indicator that should not be lauded regardless of unintended consequences regarding population control

riffmongous

Malayalam wrote: »

That's an interesting interpretation. Thought provoking. And my jumbled initial reaction may be completely out of whack....but If this change is happening in a very short period of time - relatively speaking - it might say something important about modern life and structures not suiting males in particular? I have seen for example that education practices often don't suit boys. Plus we have such sedentary lifestyles, long times in commute, long times on office chairs, playing video games, watching telly, these may be having direct fast evolutionary impact on the sex differences (if I am reading you correctly.) Epigenetics. Could maybe even be related to the precipitous drop in male fertility - sperm count has declined 50 to 60% in 40 years, a statistic that every time I read it makes me wonder why we are not screaming this in horror at each other every day. The feminisation of the species. Hmmm, lots of thoughts.

Amie Wilkinson issued a statement - It seems she supports the robust rebuttal approach. Good for her.

I think on the shorter human timescales it's just related to the selectivity of females, as they become less selective the male population becomes less variable, which just means less geniuses but also less idiots.. So hard to say if that's really a good thing or a bad thing, in fact it's not really a male vs female thing but an overall humanity question maybe..


Again assuming im interpreting it correctly which I might not be