Despite the linkbait-ish title, this is actually a very thorough and well written article.
- Moore's Law and the resulting implications regarding the "singularity"
- "Happiness" turns out to not be a Platonic ideal or otherwise specially-valued conception, but simply an ever-present state with slight fluctuations (and then perhaps "getting" happiness refers to obtaining the highest positive fluctuation--which will however stabilize over some time). See the recent TED talk on synthesizing happiness.
The key fact in this article, from which all other conclusions naturally seem to follow, is that males as a statistic exhibit much higher traits of extremity (in all aspects) due to the historically much higher probability of a woman being able to obtain a partner and reproduce.
Completely disregarding centuries/millena worth of cultural, historical and legal issues seems a little intellectually dishonest, however.
Women have had difficulty for centuries across many cultures in obtaining property rights: http://womenshistory.about.com/od/marriedwomensproperty/a/pr...
Women have had to fight to obtain the basic right to vote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_suffrage
Women have also had to fight to obtain the right to higher education, work in certain categories of jobs, etc...
Dismissing all the cultural, historical and legal evidence to the contrary, and chalking it all up to evolutionary pressures seems a little dishonest. It's hard to evolve aggressive women, when aggressive women are imprisoned or killed. You still the effects of that in some very conservative muslim countries. I imagine that would have some evolutionary pressure on culling certain aggressive genes in women.
In fact, it seems dangerously close to, "well, men evolved to be stronger, therefore, only men should be able to be ['soldiers', 'policemen', 'construction workers', 'etc...'].
I think he is ignoring the fact that men have throughout centuries passed laws that did not allow women to own property, get an education, vote, walk outside their house unveiled etc...
Maybe part of the reason that women didn't build boats and sail around the world was because women weren't allowed to own property in many areas of the world, or because women were prohibited from obtaining an education and learning astronomy.
If you can't study astronomy, it's hard to sail around the world. If you can't study medicine, it's impossible to be a doctor or improve Obstetrical care. If you can't own property by yourself, it's hard to build a business. It's hard to be a political leader if you can't vote.
Maybe part of the reason that women didn't build boats and sail around the world was because women weren't allowed to own property in many areas of the world, or because women were prohibited from obtaining an education and learning astronomy.
Certainly, in some cases. But even in cultures where women are granted the same rights as men, certain lifestyles seem to be much more popular with men than with women; hence far more men among soldiers, death row inmates, and Fortune 500 CEOs. In cases where we notice more men than women reaping a specific reward, we ought to at least consider different preferences owing to biological/evolutionary origins.
But I see what you're saying. I would have liked to hear some discussion of the blatant and real misogyny that exists in the world. In fact, I would be fascinated to see an analysis of the situations you bring up, in light of the observed differences in gender attitude and aptitude.
Funnily enough, everytime someone tries to say that male ascendancy in society isn't a conspiracy by evil men to put down women, there is always someone who construes this as a moral validation of male dominance, or even as an imperative for it.
That cultural, historical and legal issues might have been side-products of gender differences rather than their cause seems to be unthinkable for the typical feminist kool-aid drinker.
The feminist ideology requires us males to be villains, because otherwise there is no war (because males aren't fighting it, and probably never have), and they become obsolete. Which is of course exactly what they are. Gender-gap in pay, academic and economic achievements, or even domestic violence have little or no cultural basis nowadays, so feminists are about as useful as slavery abolitionists would be today in western societies.
In other words, very useful and laudable pursuits:
The article is very good. Incomplete, but very good. Your response is disappointing because it dismisses the suffering of many people: women and slaves. Just because some university professor came up with a good explanation for the origin of suffering, it does not mean that the suffering is good, or that we should tolerate it.
What he does is list a couple surprising facts, then invent scenarios to fit the evidence. It's one of the most common rhetorical techniques on blogs and in pop-science speculative books, and whether the author means it or not -- it can turn intellectually dishonest very quickly without adding clear qualification in the text.
I don't find this sort of stuff convincing or useful anymore. It's the same reason I have a natural distaste for Gladwell and his book-selling ilk -- this type of conjecture seems enlightening, and maybe you could get a few interesting ideas out of it.. but it's not supported. And in the end, you end up with stuff that's an interesting thought-experiment, but leaves you none the wiser.
On the Titanic, the richest men had a lower survival rate (34%) than the poorest women (46%)
Somehow, I don't expect a lot of poor men to have survived.
But a more interesting link why men become obsessed with specific specializations. For a well understood example consider how many partners a highly talented and successful musician might have over 30 years. The long term impact of effective birth control will probably have long term impact on the most successful approaches.