[Closed] New research published on gender differences in personality

Whilst looking via my iPhone, you don’t get to see who the poster is..

I looked at the title and new instinctively who the poster would be.

😜

I looked at the title and new instinctively who the poster would be.

Yep, he just won't let it lie

since inherent differences in preference should not be moderated out of existence as that would be deeply inefficient and counterproductive

I would prefer equality over efficiency.

"All very interesting stuff in pursuit if trying to better understand how best to structure our society and get the best out of what people have to offer."

Or, you know, just let people do what they want.

We all have our hobbies and interests. I share/inflict jingly jangly on the forum, geetee shares/inflicts gender issues.

It appears that autism is more likely to affect men

It appears autism is more likely to be diagnosed in men.

ftfy

I heard this story and the Radio this morning and thought to myself that STW would actually explode. 🙂

All that the study shows is the result of the different ways that boys, girls, men and women are treated throughout their lives combined with any inherent differences in their personalities.

Considering the number of pink dolls my daughter has been bought, fostering roleplay involving empathy and emotional connection, and the number of "mechanical" toys, cars, pretend tools etc. my boy has received, this does not remotely surprise me, but nor does it prove any inherent difference between the genders.

The high rate of suicide amongst men shows in my mind a need for boys (and, subsequently, men) to be encouraged and taught to develop their empathy and emotional communication skills better. Sexual discrimination and inequality is bad for everyone, and if you eliminate it you don't necessarily get 50:50 distribution in all professions etc., but you do get the right person for the job.

All very interesting stuff in pursuit if trying to better understand how best to structure our society and get the best out of what people have to offer.

Now to me that all sounds a bit too much Strength through Joy. Although I'm pretty sure he's is nowhere a Nazi, that sentence sounds very unpleasant.

Started to write a reply, but realised I just can't be bothered challenging your nonsense. (Perhaps I'm not an extreme enough male?)

Or, you know, just let people do what they want.

Exactly. Equality isn't about making everyone the same, much as certain people like to pretend it is.

It is about trying to give everyone the same opportunity.

Done with this thread.

 in pursuit if trying to better understand how best to structure our society

You're making a fundamental mistake.  Let me try and explain it in scientific terms, cos you know, you're a man*...

The study says that there are differences ON AVERAGE.  But that does not mean you can assume that every woman thinks one way and every man another.  If you set up 'women's' things for this and 'men's things' for that, that is to say, start treating all the women one way and all the men another, you will end up forcing those women who are not average to behave one way and those men who are not average to behave another.

And hardly anyone actually IS average.  Compare with the fact that hardly anyone has the average number of legs, in fact almost everyone has more than the average number of legs.  The average number of legs can tell you useful things about how many amputees there are in the world but it tells you nothing about how to treat people.  You must cater equally for those with two, one or none.

So what should we do?  We should treat those men who are empathetic like we would treat them women who are empathetic, and the women who are systematic like the men who are systematic.  Or, in other words:  treat everyone as an individual and don't stereotype them.

Which is exactly what we are trying to achieve.

* and, based on your forum posts, quite strongly veering towards the systematic end of the spectrum, which might be why you want society classified.

It's equality of opportunity that's important not continuing with a society where people's opportunities and expectations are limited by their gender.

The outcome will just be what it is if we get the opportunity bit right.

Damn and I've run out of biscuits.

Blimey, 2 days of Big-Hitting/amchair expertese in a row!

Just like the bad/good old days 🙂

The OP posted a link, I'm wondering if he read it?

In the paper, the authors discuss how it is important to bear in mind that differences observed in this study apply only to group averages, not to individuals. They underline that these data say nothing about an individual based on their gender, autism diagnosis, or occupation. To do that would constitute stereotyping and discrimination, which the authors strongly oppose.

so exactly this

treat everyone as an individual and don’t stereotype them.

 The Italian physicist at CERN and James Damore at Google are two such examples.

These two are very bad examples to choose. But we've been here before , and as you choose to ignore what people say to you regarding them  I don't think I'll contribute further, it seems pointless

But Jordan Peterson is still good, right?

The OP posted a link, I’m wondering if he read it?

Why read it if the headline confirms your opinions

Well now a new and extensive pieces of research has been conducted that conclusively demonstrates that the theory is correct; men on average are more likely to shift towards systematising and women towards empathising

What's your conclusion? That roles involving systematising will, on average, have a higher percentage of men than women - and that equalising the numbers in these roles would disadvantage a higher number of more "suitable" men (and vice-versa for empathising roles)?

I guess that all of this is based on how we currently "condition" children rather than some genetic difference though.

[i]It appears that autism is more likely to affect men; it also shows that autism is over represented in the STEM fields[/i]

See, I was bored, so read it. And I didn't get the above from it. I read it as about male/female traits, not men and women.There was no "over-represented", just a measure of the proportions. And its a study of autism, not [i]how best to structure our society[/i]...

I'll go back to the jingly jangly, I think.

Backs slowly out of thread.

The research also confirms the ‘extreme male’ theory, which says that in many populations, the male of the species is typically over represented at either extreme.

If the effect is only seen in "many populations", not all populations, then there must be a very large environmental component to it, large enough to outweigh the genetic component. So the "men should be allowed to be arseholes because of genetics" just doesn't work if genetics can be outweighed by environment, does it?

It’s important to acknowledge that while the effect is real, the cause is still unclear; it could just as likely be the result of social conditioning as biology; I would argue that it would have to be both and it will be very difficult to unpick.

Based on what evidence?

Based on what evidence?

We all have our hobbies and interests. I share/inflict jingly jangly on the forum, geetee shares/inflicts gender issues.

This made me laugh for some reason.

EDIT: Also, @GrahamS 😀

I don't think GT is saying anything more than we need to be wary of jumping to conclusion about inequality of opportunity based on many of the reports that are published and commented on in the media which measure outcomes - because frankly that's easier, as the on-average different traits will cause people to go in different directions.  I can't see what is particularly controversial about that.

Next week: scientists prove sun different to moon!

no shit Sherlock

who funds this stuff and how do I sign up

I don’t think GT is saying anything more than we need to be wary of jumping to conclusion about inequality of opportunity based on many of the reports that are published and commented on in the media which measure outcomes – because frankly that’s easier, as the on-average different traits will cause people to go in different directions.  I can’t see what is particularly controversial about that.

Yes he is. He is saying that, he would argue, there are genetic differences between sexes that contribute to gender inequality. This study does not support that in any way.

wot kamakazie sed. GT is desperate to prove that DNA not home and wider social structures are responsible for women not being adequately represented in whole swathes of roles in society.

Really terrible use of statistics in the article on the study.

I thought in another thread you said (paraphrase) that these studies were "as rigorous as high energy physics".  Based on the article they are really not!

What are the distributions?  Where do they overlap, what are the modes, where are the quantiles, etc?  What is the statistical significance of the results?, etc. etc.  What are the assumed priors?  I could go on.

I just walked past a telly and saw the words (it had subtitles on) "so autism"... I bet it was about this same research. I didn't stop to find out, I was going to buy chocolate.

Men are bigger than women.

What are the distributions? Where do they overlap, what are the modes, where are the quantiles, etc? What is the statistical significance of the results?, etc. etc. What are the assumed priors? I could go on.

I'll take your word for it.

Not post modern enough pls try again

It basically comes down to (I think) what kind of equality people mean when they say "I would prefer equality over efficiency".

Equality of outcome or equality of opportunity. We have equality of opportunity or, at least, we're extremely close. Females outperform males until they decide to have children which is a free choice of theirs. Women who don't have children perform equally as well as men. The change is taking time off work and deciding to be a mother. We can't change biology.

It seems foolish to suggest that men and women are the same and against best practice (Ocam's Razor) to suggest that the millions of year of sex-specific evolution won't mean that given large data samples, there will be differences between the sexes.

Men and women have different:

eyes / sight

ears / hearing

skin / touch

hair

bones (density)

joints / skeletons

gonads

reproductive systems

chemical make up

responses to stimuli

brain structure (chemical and physical)

voices

metabolisms ...

With all these observable differences, you have to be a bit of a moron to think that the brains of the sexes must be the same. Especially when we know that the brains are physically different. Remarkably so when we know that the brains are physically different from mid-gestation (before society can be blamed) and this is due to a 'dump' of testosterone by the mother.

We don't have equality of opportunity between the sexes. We should be worried about males and should be addressing the issues. The problem is the mindset of some who think that men and women are the same and women are dealt the bad hand.

We have equality of opportunity or, at least, we’re extremely close.

In which country?

The problem is the mindset of some who think that men and women are the same and women are dealt the bad hand.

Asked many women about that?

Can't really work up enough "give a shits" for a proper response so i'll just post this.

"Meh"

Get help. Please.

As above I’d agree about autism diagnoses and suggest it’s under diagnosed in females.

On on a not really related to the OP I’d add that practice experience (from an LD adult and CAHMS perspective) would be that often girls/women with autism diagnoses often have a marked difference in how autism impacts them and strategies they use manage these.

I don't think any of us are denying there are statistical differences.  But so what?  What are you going to do with that information?

Height is a good one.  Statistically, men are taller than women.  But so what?  Do you make the doorways on women's toilets lower?  Then those women who are tall would be banging their heads all the time, and would probably feel pretty crap.

Let's pretend most girls like dolls instead of car toys.  Should we have segregated toy shops with a girl section and a boy section?  If we do that, any girls who want car toys would feel dissuaded from wanting to play with them and feel frustrated with being pigeon holed, etc etc.  No, we should just put the dolls in the doll section and the cars in the car section and let them get on with it.

So basically, so what?  Interesting from a medical point of view, but society shouldn't act on this.

until they decide to have children which is a free choice of theirs

apart from Northern Ireland, where that choice is denied to them, mostly by middle aged white men.

Especially when we know that the brains are physically different. Remarkably so when we know that the brains are physically different from mid-gestation (before society can be blamed) and this is due to a ‘dump’ of testosterone by the mother.

Genuinely curious as to where there is evidence available to suggest differences in function at birth?

I've not found anything done on new borns to demonstrate clear differences exist. Also nothing thay demonstrates impacts they have on apperent tendencies / choices.

I think the research has yet to find any physical differences in brain structure but there's clearly something physiologically different between men and women, clearly so and it's the effect or hormones. Behaviour is to a large degree chemically managed/influenced.

there’s clearly something physiologically different between men and women

ON AVERAGE

The point I'm trying to make is that you cannot and MUST NOT treat people according to averages.

My point is this:

The article reports that the paper found very slight differences in the averages of the two scores for men and women.

The distribution of these scores will be normal distributed because they have a large sample size and, for population statistics like this, when you have a large sample size the Central Limit Theorem kicks in, therefore it's normally distributed.

If you overlay two normal distributions with very slightly different (mean) averages then you will find that they overlap a lot.

So, what the research really shows is that for the majority of men and women, their empathy and technical skill scores are indistinguishable!  But the authors of the article have purposely misreported this to make a point.

I've always taken the view that all people deserve to be treated with fairness and respect, irrespective of their gender, race, social status, religious views, etc, etc.  That is distinct from treating everyone equally, of course, since you might give up your bus seat for an obviously frail elderly chap, or a heavily pregnant woman, where you might not do so for a young man.  But the ideal should be, essentially, that everyone gets a fair crack of the whip, whoever they may be.

The question is: what would we expect to see, if everyone got that fair crack of the whip?  I used to take the view that we'd see broadly equal representation of men and women in all fields eventually.  But studies like this do cast doubt on that view.  If it's the case that women and men on average express slight personality differences, it seems reasonable to expect to see that reflected, in average, in society in general.

So, as molgrips said earlier, what do you do on the basis of that conclusion?  I don't think you do anything directly.  Certainly you don't start saying things like "ah, well, women are less good than men at X because of science, and therefore we can discourage them from e.g. STEM subjects with a clear conscience".  But equally, it does question whether or not we should expect men and women to be equally represented in all fields across the board.

This said, I think the reporting of the research as linked in the OP is quite careful to caveat the findings:

In the paper, the authors discuss how it is important to bear in mind that differences observed in this study apply only to group averages, not to individuals. They underline that these data say nothing about an individual based on their gender, autism diagnosis, or occupation.

and:

Dr Varun Warrier, from the Cambridge team, said: “These sex differences in the typical population are very clear. We know from related studies that individual differences in empathy and systemising are partly genetic, partly influenced by our prenatal hormonal exposure, and partly due to environmental experience. We need to investigate the extent to which these observed sex differences are due to each of these factors, and how these interact."

So it's not as clear-cut as saying "men are mostly X and women are mostly Y and that's just the way we are"; it's more nuanced than that.

The point I’m trying to make is that you cannot and MUST NOT treat people according to averages.

I couldn't agree with you more; this is extremely important. However, it does mean that we should worry less about equalising the outcomes in various areas of society. For example, we shouldn't worry if the number of men in high level STEM roles is always higher (slightly) higher than women and in nursing roles the reverse. There needs to be a debate though as to the point at which we have normalised for preference in those outcomes. That part is not clear and it's hard to know when it's been achieved.

One other point: my reference to physiology was more obvious and blunt; men and women differ significantly in physiology and yet our brains are almost identical in structure. My point is that brain structures don't need to diverge in order for there to be obvious physiological differences. Something else is accounting for that.

If it’s the case that women and men on average express slight personality differences, it seems reasonable to expect to see that reflected, in average, in society in general.

Well no that doesn't reasonably follow, small differences in preference can give rise to big differences in outcome. The evidence for this is very clear in Scandanavia; these counties have gone further than anywhere to normalise for gender equality (in terms of choice and opportunity) and yet they have seen the complete reverse in terms of outcomes. When given more equality of opportunity, the gap between the choices that men and women make gets even larger than in countries where equality of opportunity is actually restricted.

The point I’m trying to make is that you cannot and MUST NOT treat people according to averages.

That's good in theory but impossible in reality.  Medication dosage, treatment guidelines, health advice, insurance, pay equity bike sizing and on and on are all based on averages.  The thing about using averages is you can usually predict with frightening accuracy how many people will fall within how much of the average.  That's why it works as well as it does.

To go back to your example of number of legs - in that situation you would use the median number, which I will get any amount you want is bang on 2, because the median is less susceptible to outliers (which is why it is very often used when dealing with income)

Illustration of what nerd and others are saying. This is from the actual paper. Look at the control group lines. These show small differences between males and females, which are statistically significant because of the huge size of the sample.

No one's trying to dispute that there are small differences in how men and women score on various psychometric measures. There are questions as to why this might be the case - crudely nature/nurture - and neurosci actually shows not much difference between men's and wonen's brains (ah google for refs saini rings a bell). Main point is sure small differences: so what? Would you treat anyone differently, make any policy changes because of this? Obviously not.

All very interesting stuff in pursuit if trying to better understand how best to structure our society

Let me channel a Lobster perspective:

There (my bold, your quote) is the rub.  And the current battleground.  Socialism vs Realism.

It's easy really.  History as always has the answer.

Send the men to the boardrooms, labs, workshops and battlefields

Send the ladies to the sandwich and bandage factories until they give us babies, then kitchen.

We shouldn't meddle with hundreds of years of evolution.  Look what it brought us the last time we tried that? An all-female Ghostbusters is what it brought us.  A pseudo-female Dr Who is what we now have.  Feminist brainwashing of male prison inmates is what it brought us.  Shrieking, blue-haired, man-hating harpies is what it brought us.  Man-babies who knew not how to rescue their father from the belly of the whale.  Is where it has brought us.

I've heard all of the whining/arguments from the Post-Marxist Cultural Modernist Communist Justice Warriors, and to be completely frank they fail at the starting gate.

Take (for example) the baseline hierarchical binary chroma of Male vs Female:

Male = Blue (A primary colour). Blue-sky thinking, cool-headed, organising, clarity, fresh air, sometimes too cool ie ice blue, rugged, individualistic)

Female = Pink (a secondary colour).  Blend of red anger/sexuality and white purity/chastity, an unpredictably mixture of warm pink (ie nurturing) with hot pink/red (ie disagreement and bloody confusion)

These hierarchical binary chroma representations of M vs F are not arbitrary in the way that Communistic Modernist Justice Idealogues try and restructure society.  By contrast, the binary chroma are the very bedrock of our society.   The 'substrate' in which we continue iur species.  The fertile soil where we nurture and respect our traditions.   If you try and cut our boys and girls 'free' from these archetypes we will see the chaos that we see today.  We won't even recognise ourselves as human

Sweden has already tried this social experiment, and what happened? Nature/God spaketh unto them, is what happened.  The result was swift, decisive and catastrophic for our Post Marxist Culturalists.  A walloping effect. The data is in, and they don't bloody like it.  Well, it's like, sorry, but you'll just have to deal with it.  Here's how it is:

Try and socialist-engineer a girl to be more like a boy and she will respond by becoming even more like a girl.  Even the salty tears of defeated socialists cannot wash away this universal truth.  In other words, even with a rocket up the ass she won't choose rocket science over domestic science.   In fact she'll now choose nail art,

Male and female are meant to complement each other, not compete with one another.  Men are meant to compete against other men for access to a woman.  Women are meant to compete with other women to attract a man.   Natural selection doesn't care about (communist) feels.  Reality deals with reals not feels.

So if you're a  mewling manboy who has slipped too far into the post-modern arbitrary/metrosexual world of typing, shopping, vegetarianism and the wearing of slack, unisex pseudo-sporty  clothing - then STOP.  Just stop.

Instead go grab yourself a par of stiff-soled brogues and a sharp waistcoat.  Straighten up.  Try a cane with a silver-inlaid antler-handle and a claw ferrule.  A monogrammed kerchief.  You'll find that you will begin to respect yourself, and (importantly) shall command respect from others.

If OTOH, you are  a sadlypseudomanlywoman who was literally  pushed down the communist manifesto path to the very threshold of the manworld, then you already know that you have since rebelled and become even more womanly.

They (postmodernist socialist femitards) may have won a few pyrrhic victories (losses for our species) along the way, but they will not (and cannot) win the war. So what now? Men? Go rescue your father from that whale.  Go and be victorious.   And you 'oppressed' women?  Quit whining and get hobby.

I idly dipped back in here just to see if people were lowering themselves to the OP's level by taking his drivel seriously. I didn't expect that Malvern Rider!

Magnificent.

OP’s level by taking his drivel seriously. I didn’t expect that Malvern Rider!

I assumed he was taking the piss?

Let’s pretend most girls like dolls instead of car toys.  Should we have segregated toy shops with a girl section and a boy section?  If we do that, any girls who want car toys would feel dissuaded from wanting to play with them and feel frustrated with being pigeon holed, etc etc.  No, we should just put the dolls in the doll section and the cars in the car section and let them get on with it.

Er... Are you really this naive?

eg. Have you never been in a SMYTHs store? it IS segregated. it just doesn't say so in writing.

Edit:

monogrammed handkerchief.

Kerchiefs is for the womens*.

*And I'm being descriptive, not prescriptive so lower your lather, you lowly pomo-s!

As you were.

I assumed he was taking the piss?

The OP? Of course not.

MR? Possibly the finest piss-take this site has ever seen.

@Kerley

The UK.

As I said, women are outperforming men in school and post-grad employment.

Let me channel a Lobster perspective:

Rock on! That's pretty much perfect...

Er… Are you really this naive?

eg. Have you never been in a SMYTHs store? it IS segregated. it just doesn’t say so in writing.

As a parent, yes, loads and loads of times.  We do have segregated toy shops, the question is SHOULD we?

That’s good in theory but impossible in reality.  Medication dosage, treatment guidelines, health advice, insurance, pay equity bike sizing and on and on are all based on averages.  The thing about using averages is you can usually predict with frightening accuracy how many people will fall within how much of the average.  That’s why it works as well as it does.

You MUST NOT treat INDIVIDUALS as averages.

As I tried to point out - things like buying a doll for a girl because girls like dolls, instead of asking them what they want - this is bad.  This is of course only an example, and it runs far deeper than that in society.

The toy shops only want to treat people as averages because they have realised that on average they can get girls to respond to girl based marketing better and sell more girly shit.  Which is good for them, but bad for our kids.

So most drillers of earth (drillers of Earth?) are male. What do we learn from this? Males are more inclined to be drillers of Earth because of the physical makeup of their brain? Or because we have spent many centuries keeping it from the ladeez of the species that there is a job called "drillers of Earth"? Or is it just that the toilets at places where earth is drilled are stinky, which puts the women off? I think we need more affirmative action in the world of drillers of Earth.

What do we learn from this?

That depends whether learning constitutes putting your fingers in your ears and crying about Trump.

A woman on an oil rig would be a terrible idea.  Hence customarily no women oil rigs.

Her kids would miss her and the male coworkers would want to boff her.

Her husband would feel less of a man at home.  Jealousy would destroy the family unit.

Losers all around.  So why do pomos choose losing and call it winning? Tin foil hat says because patriarchy!   Something something orange man bad, Trump, cucks etc.

So most drillers of earth (drillers of Earth?) are male. What do we learn from this? Males are more inclined to be drillers of Earth because of the physical makeup of their brain? Or because we have spent many centuries keeping it from the ladeez of the species that there is a job called “drillers of Earth”? Or is it just that the toilets at places where earth is drilled are stinky, which puts the women off? I think we need more affirmative action in the world of drillers of Earth.

That dirty, physically hard and dangerous jobs are done by men.  Cos, y'know evolution.

Like prostitution?

You MUST NOT treat INDIVIDUALS as averages

That's okay if you are dealing with e.g. what subject your daughter should study in school but utterly impossible if you are designing a curriculum for all 12 (or whatever age) children in the land.

To your toyshop example, early studies show that the more equal a society becomes (e.g. Scandinavian countries) that is, the more equality of opportunity there is, the outcomes become more polarized, not less.  One interpretation is that if you let people choose what they want they feel free to express themselves and gender differences naturally occur to a greater not lesser extent.

Mere statistics.

In the real world, as Depeche Mode told us, people are people.

Interesting thread.

The more we strive for equality of opportunity, the closer we get to being able to formulate the right question. 🙂

There is no legitimate reason to demand we all take one step backwards because you don't like the game anymore.

OP’s level by taking his drivel seriously

It's not 'my drivel' it's published and respected academic research. I know that is an uncomfortabletruth for you though which is why you resort to ad homenins.

The more we strive for equality of opportunity

We already have this though, which is why the battle ground has shifted to trying to equalise outcomes, which is a horrendously bad idea and why any intelligent person opposes it and why I post about it. Equalising outcomes is a rdiculous construct and all the evidence shows that it's not what people want.

The more we strive for equality of opportunity

We already have this though

I'm not convinced we do - yet, but it does appear to me that we are (or ar in danger of) falsely striving for equality of outcome.

We already have this though, which is why the battle ground has shifted to trying to equalise outcomes

Battleground? Give over. 🙂

We've always had ways of 'equalising outcomes'. From charity, altruism and friendship to a strive for universal suffrage.

As a species It's usually seen as one of our more pleasant traits.

It’s not ‘my drivel’ it’s published and respected academic research. I know that is an uncomfortabletruth for you though which is why you resort to ad homenins.

The thing that's uncomfortable for me is seeing someone who probably has the potential to be a decent human being wasting his time - AND ALL OF OURS - trying to push a twisted, sinister agenda.

The drivel is the simplistic, transparent spin you try to put on "respected academic research".

Get over yourself and get help. Please.

Get over yourself