Men Are Exceptional

Men and women vary in many ways. The debate has raged for a long time about whether this is more likely to be a result of nature or nurture. Some feminist groups tend to maintain that the differences are socialised and thus very much within the nurture camp. Recent research has shown that there are fundamental differences between men and women, even within brain structures. So while some differences are certainly socialised (and thus within the nurture camp) we cannot any longer ignore or dismiss the fundamental differences that exist between human males and females at a biological level.

The human species tends to show low sexual dimorphism compared to many other species. This means that while there are fundamental differences they are far out weighed by the similarities.

The apparent contradiction between the proceeding concepts can be explained if we accept that humans are essentially programmed to recognise sexual differences within our own species. We see males and females and easily notice the differences. When researchers have compared human sexual dimorphism to other species it has been shown than human sexual dimorphism is lower than a large proportion of species. The existing gender differences do reflect in differences in behaviour and life outcomes however.

It is the thesis of this article that a large proportion of observed differences between male and female life outcomes can be explained with reference to only one difference: variance. Men tend to vary in characteristics more than women. This has been shown to be true for all characteristics that have been studied and there is good evidence to suggest it is generally true. This is often known as Greater Male Variability or the variability hypothesis although it would perhaps be better called a theory now as evidence builds. It is notable that this notion fell out of favour as a result of the activities of feminists in academia..

Men vary more in height, weight and many other physical characteristics. While the average intelligence of men and women are the same or almost the same what is clear is that males vary more than females in intelligence. This means that a majority of people with high IQs will be men as will a majority of people with a low IQ. The further we get from the mean the more pronounced this phenomenon is.

Astoundingly, greater variance among men even appears to be true when it comes to personality

Of course there are other differences between men and women and they do contribute to observed behaviours and life outcomes. Men are more likely to engage in risky behaviour. This is one of the reasons that men have a lower life expectancy around the world. This certainly contributes to observed behaviours and life outcomes along with the greater variance among men.

Everywhere we go we see the same trend. Men tending to dominate at the top of society with other men tending to fall to the bottom of society, with a smaller group of men and most women clustered in the middle.

When the females of a species invest significantly more energy in to reproduction than males then the size of the next generation is largely constrained by the number of fertile females. As a result of this a species can generally tolerate the loss of a male more easily than the loss of a female. It thus makes sense for a species to allow males to vary more in their characteristics. If a characteristic is disadvantageous to a species then the loss of males will be less damaging than the loss of females. If a characteristic is advantageous it can be spread to the rest of the species. Thus testing new characteristics on males is an advantage to a species overall and so we find men vary in their characteristics more than women. In effect the loss of women will constrain the size of the next generation, the loss of men will constrain genetic diversity. This is generally true for any species where females must invest significantly more energy into reproduction than males. Thus most mammal species follow the same trend.

In the case of humans the greater variance among men leads to significant implications for society. These tendencies have a widespread and profound impact on the human species and human civilisation and go a very long way to explaining the observed differences between men and women in terms of life choices and outcomes.

Since men vary more in characteristics it follows that they will be over-represented among the highest achievers in many areas. The lowest achievers in an area, those not suitable for employment or endeavour in that area, will generally choose to not work in that area. As a result when we look at most areas of achievement we should see the highest levels dominated by men with the rest of the men in the field and most women among those who perform in the field competently but without great distinction.

If the highest achievers in a field are mostly men then we should expect the highest paid members of the field to be mostly men too. Income differential is partly a result of exceptionality but many other factors are relevant too.

A particularly notable area is scientific achievement which has been overwhelmingly conducted by men. Some argue that female scientists have been marginalised and their accomplishments attributed to men. That may be true in some cases but the reverse is true also. Marie Curie is often remembered for conducting ground breaking research in to radioactivity. Most know her name, but few know that she collaborated with two other scientists for this work - her husband Pierre Curie and Henri Becquerel. Marie was actually the junior of the three scientists. Despite this she is often believed by the wider community to have made significant discoveries on her own with the efforts of her husband and Becquerel forgotten. Both Marie and Pierre were responsible for the discovery of Polonium and Radium although today these discoveries are often attributed to Marie alone.

We see the same pattern in medicine. Today, more than half of all doctors are women but they tend to become general practioners. Most specialists are men. This can be explained through the greater variance among men. If we take surgery as an example. A surgeon needs to be intelligent, to have achieved both a medical degree and to have passed in this demanding speciality. But that isn't sufficient. A surgeon needs an exceptionally steady hand and good manual dexterity - this cannot be taught. An individual either has these characteristics or they do not. Even if we ignore other contributing factors the greater variance among men in intelligence, manual dexterity and indurance should lead to the conclusion that most surgeons will be men.

Business and political leaders are overwhelmingly men. Just as with scientific endeavour, men will dominate among those who are over-achievers in business with other men and most women performing competently.

Evidence suggests that men have always dominated among societies leaders. This is reflected in the modern world with men dominating among politicians in every country today except Rwanda. Rwanda is an exception because men were overwhelmingly the victims of the Rwanda Genocide and even today constitute only 46.5% of the population.

Since men vary more in personality, in capabilities, and are over-represented among those with low IQ it follows that men should be over-represented among those who are anti-social, have difficulty fitting in and following societies rules. These are precisely the people most likely to commit offences and be imprisoned. This is what we do see in societies around the world.

It should be noted that all else being equal men are more likely to be charged with an offence, more likely to be convicted of an offence, and if they are convicted they are more likely to be incarcerated and will on average serve a significantly longer sentence. This is all true even when the circumstances surrounding the offence are substantially similar. Thus the higher proportion of male prison inmates cannot be explained by variance alone and is a function of institutional bias against men in the judicial system of many countries.

The vast majority of composers are men. Music composition shows the same pattern that we see in other areas of endeavour. Those who have little or only average capabilities in music composition will not generally persue this as a career. In constrast those who excel at music composition will persue it as a career. The greater variance among men means that most exceptional composers will be men and this will mean that it will be men who are most likely to be paid for music composition. The majority of musicians are men. Many orchestras have around 25-30% female participation

We should see the greatest domination by men in areas where individuality is most important. Among all areas of music the greatest gender disparity exists in Jazz. This is also the area of music where individuality is most important, with the high emphasis on creativity and improvisation.

A notable area dominated by men is the game of chess. Chess is notable because it does not require physical strength, or manual dexterity or any physical characteristics other than the ability to communicate. Chess does not require any knowledge other than knowledge of chess. Even having a high IQ is not a guarantee of success in chess. Like many fields of endeavour hard work and commitment are necessary along with innate ability. Having said that, chess is perhaps the purest example of exceptionality we have. The vast majority of chess grand masters are men.

Men even dominate in knowledge based game shows. This is consistent with men showing greater variation as it is, again, the most exceptional individuals that will shine.

It is a reasonably obvious position to claim that employers will generally want to employ people who perform can the work involved in that job to a reasonable standard. It can often be difficult to differentiate people who would be exceptional at performing the work. The bottom few percent of the population (as measured by job specific capability) will be the ones most likely to be unable to obtain employment. The bottom few percent of the population will be dominated by men. Thus, based on gender variance alone we should expect men to have a higher unemployment rate than women.

Quite a lot has been made of the y-chromosome of late. Claims are made that it is small, broken and inadequate. This is just more casual misandry. Those making statements like this have, at least, a fundamentally flawed view of human sexual selection and genetics. The y-chromosome is the basis of the exceptionality of men. It destabilises human genetics, which is precisely what you need to have exceptional individuals. It is why more male foetuses abort but it is also why there are more male nobel prize winners, and great poets. Many of those denigrating the y-chromosome are ignoring the evidence right in front of their eyes. They try to presume to understand the effects of the y-chromosome when all they need to do is look at the world to find them. It is exceptional individuals, overwhelmingly men, who have built the world.

This article has discussed at length the notion of greater variation, the negative and positive consequences of this and how they explain many of the historical trends observed. History is replete with powerful, famous and successful women but they were typically a minority.

Men are over-represented in the top rankings of virtually every area of endeavour. Some people look up, see mostly men and make claims of patriarchy. Those people need to look down. If they do they will also see mostly men. This opens up the intriguing possibility that modern society is substantially a meritocracy. Even preferences cannot fully explain the gender bias seen in many areas of endeavour, as the bias tends to get more significant as one approaches the most exceptional levels of achievement.

The notion of greater variance among men has been discussed for decades and is, perhaps not surprisingly, not popular in feminist discourse. In 2005 Lawrence Summers, then the president of Harvard University, speculated on greater variance among men and the resultant domination of certain fields, particularly physical scients, by men. Despite the fact that he made it clear that he was not criticising the suitability of women to physical sciences, he was publicly castigated and was subsequently the subject of a no-confidence motion of a faculty at Harvard. It is likely that these events were major contributors to his resignation the following year.

In the end statistical analysis of the relative merits of different groups of humans is interesting but it says nothing about the ability of a particular individual human to achieve. Just because men dominate in a particular field does not mean that any given man is able to achieve in that field and it does not mean that any given woman cannot achieve in that field.

The title of this article may seem incendiary and may have caused some people to become angry. The title is of course a pun. Men are exceptional - but this means that men are over-represented among the most successful people in society but also over-represented among the least successful people in society. The title is offered as proof that Hanna Rosin, author of "The End of Men" and "Men are Obsolete" is not the only person who an write articles with provocative titles.

The upshot here is that if you have a group of people who are competing on equal terms for top roles the most capable will be most likely to gain these roles. In many cases we can expect more men than women to be among the over-achievers and among the under-achievers. But the top roles are taken by the over-achievers, who are more likely to be men.

It should be noted that nothing in this article should be taking as being negative towards women. Women, it seems, largely maintain the core social cohesion needed for human society to continue. Women and men are needed for a properly functioning society. This article should also not be construed as suggesting that women cannot achieve at the highest levels. An individual is not constrained by the norms for their gender. Just because there are fewer women at the highest levels of achievement in many areas does not mean, in general that a particular woman cannot be the best at what they do.

<References>