Men have more variance -- your biggest losers and your biggest winners will all be men. Women tend to clump in the middle, neither exceptionally good nor bad.
This tends to make women shitty leaders. I've seen this borne out across cultures, too, so it's not part of the unique American ennui going around. It doesn't mean that women can't be leaders (Margaret Thatcher, like her or hate her, was definitely a leader), it just means that trying to fulfill leadership quotas or pointing to a 50/50 split is a bad thing.
Men have more variance -- your biggest losers and your biggest winners will all be men. Women tend to clump in the middle, neither exceptionally good nor bad.
Men are encouraged to excel and break away from the pack as such traits attract women.
Women are berated and ostracised if they try to stand out because it diminishes the remaining women.
So women may clump in the middle more however that could be a result of social pressure from their harridan peers rather than a true representation of things.
Why can't it be a social pressure that is biologically motivated? Human societies evolved these traits for survival in a different time, but we still have to answer to our biological instincts.
How much better the world would be if we leaned into our sexual dimorphism and brought the best manliness characteristics out alongside the best feminine characteristics.
You'd probably see a lot less mental illness. Our world and social order has changed dramatically in a very short amount of time, and not enough research has been done into how this "change in social ecology" has affected us.
women are statistically inferior to men, that's why you made up emotional IQ despite women having the emotional control of a 5 year old.....
The way I think of it is this:
Men have more variance -- your biggest losers and your biggest winners will all be men. Women tend to clump in the middle, neither exceptionally good nor bad.
This tends to make women shitty leaders. I've seen this borne out across cultures, too, so it's not part of the unique American ennui going around. It doesn't mean that women can't be leaders (Margaret Thatcher, like her or hate her, was definitely a leader), it just means that trying to fulfill leadership quotas or pointing to a 50/50 split is a bad thing.
Men are encouraged to excel and break away from the pack as such traits attract women.
Women are berated and ostracised if they try to stand out because it diminishes the remaining women.
So women may clump in the middle more however that could be a result of social pressure from their harridan peers rather than a true representation of things.
Why can't it be a social pressure that is biologically motivated? Human societies evolved these traits for survival in a different time, but we still have to answer to our biological instincts.
How much better the world would be if we leaned into our sexual dimorphism and brought the best manliness characteristics out alongside the best feminine characteristics.
You'd probably see a lot less mental illness. Our world and social order has changed dramatically in a very short amount of time, and not enough research has been done into how this "change in social ecology" has affected us.