New research published on gender differences in personality

Some time ago I posted a number of references to the theory of  systematising/empathising among other personality trait differences between men and women and the reaction was rather explosive with many people suggesting that positing such theories was tantamount to misogyny. More recently there have been very high profile examples where individuals, perhaps clumsily but not inaccurately, have offered this theory as an explanation for why we see differences in male/female representation in certain industries, for example STEM fields being over represented by men and caring professions by women. The Italian physicist at CERN and James Damore at Google are two such examples.

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. You’ll have to read the research (link below) to understand more about what that means.

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. But the implications for policy and values are really important.

For example, it challenges the notion that equality of outcome is something we should be aiming for (since inherent differences in preference should not be moderated out of existence as that would be deeply inefficient and counterproductive)

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. It appears that autism is more likely to affect men; it also shows that autism is over represented in the STEM fields, suggesting that ability and preference for roles in this area are related.

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.

https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/over-half-a-million-people-take-part-in-largest-ever-study-of-psychological-sex-differences-and

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.

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

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 how best to structure our society…

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”