Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science

AFAIK, the sex differences in intelligence are expressed just as are class differences in intelligence but amplified by the wide-field, in time, verbal, pictoral, empathizing female, vs the narrow-field (compartmental), over time, model, transformational, systematizing male – meaning that only the smart fraction hierarchy makes any difference to the polity. Meaning that the catgory of questions and problems that can be solved by each sex diffrence in cognitive structure of the brain optimizes for different questions. The result is that no only are there four-to-one males at the margin (145), and moreover 8 to one among autistics who appear to dominate theortical inovation. But even at that margin, despite eighty years of trying, while there are women capable of inovation in empirical explanation (including one of my heroes Elinor Ostrom), there are no women demonstragly capable of theoretical innovation – even though we are skipping over opportunities for men whith greater potential to give women the opportunities. In other words Larry Sommers was correct. This is why men dominate the margins of everything – always have and it appears always will.
At present we have inequality in the workplace due to female superiority at verbal (what we call computation), labor. And due to social group adapability of women. And we have inequality in the workplace due to technical ability, and physical strength, and risk tolerance. But given female instinct and intuition, they are somehow surprised that excellence in multiplier-producing innovation, organizational management, capital management, prediction of systems including organizations and markets over time, omnifocus on them, and not only risk tolerance but risk seeking for competitive advantage – and the most subtle feature of sex differences is in female devotion in time vs male loyalty over time leading to all observed differences in female intolerance for bearing costs of the commons vs male bonding through tolrance for bearing costs of the commons – which is necessary for executive (and military) competitive achievement.

I could write about this subject all day, but it’s quite simple. We are compatible because evolution evolved genetic, instinctual, motivational, intuitional, (emotional), and cognitive biases, that allowed us to divide the labor of a small number of relationships and a large number of tasks in time, specializing in consumption in time versus a large number of relationships, and a narrower number of goals, specializing in capitalization over time.

Cheers

Reply addressees: @spaceangelvoice @NWEurasian @StephenThomasHC @AutistocratMS