Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science

Well you know, he is right. It’s in the data. We have decades of it. And it’s an open secret in the industry.

I still don’t understand how anyone can argue with it.

The marginal difference in talent in the creative industry is very meaningful. It is much more meaningful than in any other industry outside of the top one tenth of a percent of intellectuals.

Because of the slight genetic advantage men have over women at the extremes, but the vast marginal difference in results at the extremes, we would expect to see a certain distribution of genders. And we do.

Nobody complains that women have displaced nearly all the men at the center of the distribution where women dominate. But for some reason it’s surprising that men dominate the extremes of the distribution.

Sorry but it’s not bias. There are just two to four to ten to one hundred men for every woman at the top of the talent distribution. And men demonstrate higher loyalty. And loyalty is an asset. And that combination means that we should have seen peak distribution of women already.

And that’s what the data shows us.

Just like women communicate in a much more rich set of signals than men do, and they are invisible to us and discounted as irrelevant if we do see them, women equally fail to grasp the depth and importance of loyalty and sacrifice that men subtly communicate to one another, and women discount it as nonsense when they do see it.

But we evolved these behaviors and perceptions for good reasons and we would cease to be human if we lost them.

We are compatible but we are not equal in any way other than our ability to be attempt to be compatible with one another.

We had enough psychological, sociological, anthropological, economic and political pseudoscience for one century. It’s time to move on.

It interferes with our compatibility.

Cheers.