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 these statements 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: 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. 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. Using the most common metrics (a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15), 90% of people with an IQ of 140 or over are male as are 90% of people with a score of 60 or below.

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. In addition, men are less likely to engage is consensus based decision making. Today consensus based decision making is often touted as superior but in reality it has some serious limitations. The group may assess a narrower range of options than they would if consensus was considered less important. In addition, individuals that don't need to seek consensus can engage in endeavours that no one else believes in. This involves forging out on their own even when their peers suggest the course of action is pointless or even dangerous. Men are thus more likely to experiment and create and develop even if the rest of the community is against them doing it. These characteristics, and others certainly contribute to observed behaviour 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 the characteristics is advantageous it can be spread to the rest of the community. 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 groundbreaking 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. Both Marie and Pierre were responsible for the discovery of Polonium and Radium. 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.

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.

Mark

Business and political leaders are overwhelmingly men. Just as with scientific endeavour, men wil 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. Everywhere else men dominate in political life. There are probably several reasons for this, including the greater tendency of men to take risks, however human variance is also factor.

Criminals and prison inmates are overwhelmingly men. 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. When men do experience hard times they are far less likely to receive assistance from the community or the state.

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.

Thus even when all else is equal we should more men than women to commit offences and be incarcerated.

Vast majority of composers are men

Majority of musicians are men. Many orchestras have around 25-30% female participation

Vast majority of jazz musicians are men.

It 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 threshold for most jobs is naturally set at a level such that the majority of the population could reasonably do 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 we should except men to have a higher unemployment rate than women, all else being equal.

Quite a lot has been made of the poor 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 is the elephant in the corner when it comes to discussions about gender. Women who want to achieve need only go out and do so - just as capable women have done in the past.

This article has discussed at length the notion of greater variation, the negative and positive consequences of this and how they explains many of the historical trends observed.

It should be obvious to everyone today that women perform wide vaiety of paid employment competently. This is not new with women having participated in the workforce of a community throughout history. The idea that women were forced to stay home and cook and clean through the ages until a recent emancipation just does not stand up to even a cursory review of the range of human societies that have existed through time. Most women, however, tend to choose work that is clean and safe. Most women are clustered near the middle of society - most in safe and moderatelty well paying employment. Relatively few women are homeless and outcasts from society, and few are making radical achievements that will fundamentally change the state of human affairs.

The world needs men. Human civilisation needs men. Many areas of employment are overwhelmingly performed by men. Despite high levels of youth unemployment around the world young women are not even trying to work in these areas. Perhaps most women could do these jobs but we can't know, given that most of them won't even try.

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.

If society really is a meritocracy, as the evidence presented in this article tends to suggest, then the most important characteristic that will determine success in life is merit.

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 tbe most exceptional levels of achievement.

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 positions of political power does not mean that any given man is suitable for public office.

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-represened 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 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. As such it is important that we guarantee humans equality of opportunity but avoid using quotas to guarantee equality of outcome.

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>