Mating
- Lafyva
- May 27, 2019
- 11 min read
Updated: Aug 26
Contesting essentialist theories of patriarchal relations: Evolutionary psychology and the denial of history.
(Buss, 2019-02-22)
Buss, D. M. (2019-02-22). Evolutionary Psychology, 6th Edition. [[VitalSource Bookshelf version]]. Retrieved from vbk://9780429590061
The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating. [[VitalSource Bookshelf version]]. Retrieved from vbk://8TJzbjrcJ5PCDUNe_Oqnb2hk0Xu0fgGXIhaYuV_MfLc
Google AI:
Self-centered people can be preoccupied with their own thoughts and feelings, and may not be very attentive to the needs and perspectives of others. They may also have little consideration for others, and may actively pursue their own goals and desires at the expense of others.
Some research suggests that men and women may react differently to stress when it comes to self-centeredness:
Men
A study published in the journal Psychoneuroendicrinology found that men become more egocentric and less able to respond to social situations during times of stress. The study's authors hypothesized that stressed individuals tend to become more egocentric because taking a self-centered perspective reduces emotional and cognitive load.
Women
In contrast, the study found that women react in the opposite way, becoming more prosocial and able to relate to others during times of stress. Other research in social and behavioral sciences has also concluded that women are more socially-oriented (selfless) and men are more individually-oriented (selfish).
Generative AI is experimental.
(Google AI)
The general conclusion drawn from this work is that women will be more socially-orientated (selfless), and men more individually-orientated (selfish).
Full PDF Free: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12553949_The_evolution_of_sex_differences_in_language_sexuality_and_visual-spatial_skills
Female students in the Humanities on average had a stronger drive to empathize than to systemize in comparison to males in the Humanities. Male students in the Sciences on average had a stronger drive to systemize than to empathize in comparison to females in the Sciences.
Sex-related differences in general intelligence g, brain size, and social status.
The higher male g average and wider distribution transform into an exponentially increased male-female ratio at the high end of the g distribution, and this largely explains male dominance in society.
Among adults,
the male advantage is 0.33d equivalent to 5 IQ points.
The results of our meta-analysis show that if these identifications are correct, males from the age of 15 years onwards have higher average g, fluid intelligence, and general intelligence than females by approximately 5 IQ points.
Sex Differences
Most standard tests of intelligence have been constructed so that there are no overall score differences between females and males.
We have described how genes on the X chromosome tend to create greater trait variability in males than in females, but why might the X chromosome be a location for such genes, for general intelligence, or for any other trait? At some level, it might seem obvious that the X chromosome would be involved in sex differences simply because it is one of the two chromosomes (X and Y) that determine sex. But for sex differences, it would be much more straightforward to have the genes involved on the Y chromosome so that they would then be expressed only in males. When such genes are on the autosomes or the X chromosome, something must act to turn them on only in males to result in genetically influenced sex differences. Despite this, the human Y chromosome is small and extremely gene-poor, whereas the X chromosome is much larger. This alone suggests that sex differences may not have been of primary importance in human evolution. Still, a gene locus on the X chromosome is at least three times more likely to be involved in sexual development than a gene locus on an autosome (Hurst, 2001), which suggests that sex differences have played some role. The same conclusion is indicated by the large literature on sexual dimorphism for size in humans (e.g., Lindenfors & Tullberg, 1998).
In this article, we reviewed the reasons that many geneticists speculate that the X chromosome may be involved in general intelligence and the often-observed differences in variability between males and females. We presented evidence that many genetic conditions that disrupt general intelligence involve genes on the X chromosome, which helps to explain the greater incidence of these conditions among males. We also, however,
presented evidence that there are genes on the X chromosome involved in special abilities that may affect general intelligence more generally (high and low) as well as sex differences in the specific ways that general intelligence is manifested. We showed that two very comprehensive data sets on sex differences in variability in general intelligence indicate that genes on the X chromosome are overrepresented among all the genes likely involved in general intelligence, but we also presented substantial evidence that such overrepresentation may exist. Finally, we pointed to epigenetic and genetic regulatory
mechanisms and genetic and environmental coevolutionary processes that might be involved in the evolution of both sex differences in patterns of abilities and sex differences in variability of general intelligence, and we noted that there is evidence that these kinds of mechanisms and processes are subject to rapid evolutionary change in response to environmental circumstances. This means that these mechanisms and processes are very sensitive to the environment.
Commentary on "A Role for the X Chromosome in Sex Differences in Variability in General Intelligence?" (Johnson et al., 2009)
Finally, we discuss the increasingly compelling evidence for the accumulation of genes on the X chromosome that have selective benefit to males, including those implicated infertility and some manifestations of intelligence.
We propose that these genes are involved in the development of cognitive abilities and thus exert a large X-chromosome effect on general intelligence in humans.
As outlined above, the X chromosome is enriched for genes responsible for the development of general intelligence in humans.
The data illustrated in Figure 16 suggest that, on average, males start having positive net
fiscal impact - their per capita tax revenue exceed the (allocated) expenditure they
receive - in their early twenties. Women, on average, do not pas this ‘break even’ point
until their mid-40s. This is due to a combination of lower workforce participation, higher
health and education spending, higher income support and lower direct and indirect
taxation.}
MASCULINITY The appeal of masculine traits is less clear. An early study using schematic faces indicated that masculinized male faces (thick brows, thin lips, square chins, and small eyes) were preferred to feminized ones(Keating1985),but more recent studies using photographic sex continua generally show a preference for feminized male faces(Penton-Voaketal.2004,Perrettetal.1998,Rhodesetal. 2000; but see Johnston et al. 2001). The meta-analysis confirmed that masculinity is unattractive when these manipulated faces are used (−0.47 ± 0.51, N = 12). Perrett and colleagues (1998) suggest that this preference may reflect the perception of more positive personality traits (less dominant, warmer, more honest and cooperative, and more likely to be a good parent) in less masculine faces.
Sexual Dimorphism Male and female faces diverge at puberty (Farkas 1988). In males, testosterone stimulates the growth of the jaw, cheekbones, brow ridges, center of the face (from brow to bottom of nose), and facial hair. In females, growth of these traits is inhibited by estrogen, which may also increase lip size (see Thornhill & Møller 1997 for a review). Because sexual dimorphism increases at puberty, sexually dimorphic traits signal sexual maturity and reproductive potential (Johnston & Franklin 1993; Symons 1979, 1992, 1995; Thornhill & Gangestad 1996).
Predator eyes are at the front, prey eyes are on the side, and ambush predators have their eyes on the top. As the meme goes, Elmo and the Cookie Monster are ambush predators.
Neurological differences:
Personality measures were obtained from a large US sample (N = 10,261) with the 16PF
Questionnaire. Multigroup latent variable modeling was used to estimate sex differences on individual personality dimensions, which were then aggregated to yield a multivariate effect size (Mahalanobis D). We found a global effect size D = 2.71, corresponding to an overlap of only 10% between the male and female distributions. Even excluding the factor showing the largest univariate ES, the global effect size was D = 1.71 (24% overlap). These are extremely large differences by psychological standards.
Gender Differences in Personality across the Ten Aspects of the Big Five
Men are 15% larger than women.
CMH method predicts the target height by adding 6.5 cm to the mid parental height in boys or subtracting 6.5 cm from the mid parental height in girls.
Men have a cardio-respiratory advantage
According to Sexual Strategies Theory (Buss and Schmitt 1993), men have evolved preferences for cues to youth, health, and genetic quality as these provide signals of a woman’s fertility status (i.e.,odds of conceiving currently) and potential reproductive value (i.e., number of children a woman could have into the future). Consequently, men are expected to desire physical features indicative of a woman’s relatively youthful age (e.g., neotonous face, full lips, clear and glowing skin, clear and wide eyes, small chin, lustrous and long hair, good muscle tone; Sugiyama 2005), to desire physical features indicative of high-fertility estrogen levels (e.g., high femininity in face, voice, finger lengths, and a 0.7 waist-to-hip ratio of body fat distribution), and to desire physical features indicative low genetic mutation load (e.g., facial and bodily symmetry). Additionally, men should preferentially desire attributes that indicate a woman would not be unfaithful in a long-term partnership (deleteriously affecting paternity certainty), has good parenting skills, and would have a compatible personality (Buss and Schmitt 1993).
Although the details vary from one setting to the next, culturally successful men have more to offer women and their children (i.e., they have higher reproductive potential) than do less successful men (Irons, 1979; Low, 2000). These are men who wield social influence and control the resources (e.g., money, land, cattle) that women would prefer to have invested in themselves and their children. When men invest resources in parenting, the mortality rates of their children often drop and these children are better prepared for the rigors of adult life (see Chapter 6, this volume). It is not surprising that women and their kin throughout the world prefer these men as marriage partners. This preference is expressed in social-psychological studies, reading materials, lonely heart ads, and other measures (Lippa,2007, 2009; Oda, 2001; Whyte et al., 2016), and in their actual mate choices (e.g., Borgerhoff Mulder, 1990, 2000; Hopcroft, 2006). In short, most women prefer monogamous marriages to wealthy, socially dominant, and physically attractive men (i.e., healthy men with good genes) and want these men to be devoted to them and their children. For most women, this preference is not achieved and they have to make trade-offs (Conroy-Beam & Buss, 2017). These typically involve trading his physical attractiveness for his cultural success. In some circumstances, women develop multiple relationships and secure social and material resources from each of these men (Scelza & Prall, 2018; Starkweather & Hames, 2012), but the underlying dynamic is the same: Women use men to increase the quantity and quality of resources available to them and their children.
Geary, David C.. Male, Female (pp. 213-214). American Psychological Association. Kindle Edition.
Ecological dominance results in the same pattern, as it is the ability to very efficiently extract biological resources from the ecology and manipulate the ecology in ways that reduce mortality risks and support subsequent population expansions (Hill et al., 2001; Kaplan et al., 2000). However, as the population expands beyond the carrying capacity of the ecology, the inevitable result is a population crash, as was argued by Malthus in 1798. The combination of ecological dominance, population expansions, and the elevated mortality that defines population crashes results in a fundamental shift in selection pressures. Darwin’s and Wallace’s (1858, p. 54) conceptualization of natural selection as a “struggle for existence” becomes in addition a struggle with other human beings for control of the resources that support life and allow one to reproduce (Geary, 1998). Social competition is, of course, endemic across species but becomes an especially potent selection pressure for species that achieve ecological dominance (Alexander, 1989). These species have evolved adaptations that reduce ecological constraints on population expansions, creating cycles of expansions and contractions, although overall population levels may remain relatively constant when averaged across these cycles. During contractions, social competition for diminishing resources necessarily increases in intensity (Malthus, 1798).
Geary, David C.. The Origin of Mind: Evolution of Brain, Cognition, and General Intelligence . Amer Psychological Assn. Kindle Edition.
How does the standardization of IQ construction equalize gender by emphasizing or minimizing cognitive domains?
How standardization in IQ test construction impacts gender equality by emphasizing or minimizing cognitive domains is a complex and sometimes contentious issue.
1. Balancing cognitive domains
Standardized IQ tests aim to measure a broad range of cognitive abilities, including verbal comprehension, perceptual reasoning, working memory, and processing speed.
Test developers strive for a balanced representation of these domains to avoid inadvertently favoring one gender over another, according to Cambridge University Press & Assessment.
Some research suggests that females tend to excel in verbal abilities and processing speed, while males tend to perform better on visual-spatial ability and crystallized intelligence.
Therefore, the emphasis or minimization of certain domains within the test battery can potentially influence average scores for each gender. For example, if a test overemphasizes spatial reasoning, it might inadvertently show a male advantage.
2. Gender equality in overall IQ scores
Many commonly used intelligence tests are designed so that, on average, there are no significant differences in overall IQ scores between males and females.
To achieve this, test constructors may discard items that show a significant advantage for one gender during the test construction phase, or balance items that show an advantage for one gender with items that show an equal advantage for the other gender.
This approach aims to ensure that overall IQ scores are not skewed by gender differences in specific cognitive domains, notes the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
3. Debates and critiques
Some researchers contend that the observed equality in overall IQ scores is a result of how the tests are constructed, suggesting that without this balancing, gender differences in intelligence might be apparent.
However, other studies indicate that small sex-based differences in general intelligence in school-aged children are linked to older tests, and current tests do not show statistically significant differences between genders.
The impact of test design on gender differences in intelligence remains an ongoing debate in the scientific community.
4. Beyond overall IQ scores
Even with similar overall IQ scores between genders, differences in specific cognitive domains may still exist.
Recognizing these domain-specific differences and ensuring they are not misinterpreted is important for promoting gender equality in various settings.
In summary, standardizing IQ test construction aims to minimize gender bias by balancing different cognitive domains. Despite this effort, discussions continue regarding whether this standardization fully represents the distribution of cognitive abilities between genders.
The standard deviation of 15 still applies to gender neutral constructed IQ tests.
It is widely understood in the field of psychometrics that the standard deviation of IQ scores is set at 15 for most modern intelligence tests, regardless of whether they are designed to be gender-neutral.
Here's why:
Standardization: Modern IQ tests undergo a process of standardization, where the raw scores are converted to a scale with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. This allows for comparison of scores across different individuals and over time, according to Fiveable.
Psychometric principles: Reputable intelligence tests adhere to specific psychometric principles including standardization, reliability, and validity, says Fiveable. The standard deviation of 15 is a component of this standardized scoring system, not an independent feature that varies based on gender neutrality.
Minimal Average Differences: While the standard deviation of 15 is a standard, studies on gender differences in IQ scores generally show minimal or negligible differences in average scores between men and women. Some research suggests greater variability in scores among males (i.e., more men at both the high and low ends of the spectrum), but this does not alter the standardized overall standard deviation of the test itself. In a longitudinal study examining sex differences in intelligence, the standard deviation for girls was 14.1 and for boys it was 14.9, and this difference was statistically significant.
In essence, the standard deviation of 15 for IQ tests is a part of their standardized measurement approach, ensuring consistent interpretation and comparison of scores for both males and females.
Intelligence and IQ
Intelligence is another abstract construct in assessment. It is usually summarized with a
single score known as IQ, which stands for “intelligence quotient.” It was originally derived
from a quotient that included an individual's test score divided by the score that would be
obtained by an average person of the same age (then multiplied by 100 so average scores at any age are 100). The most commonly used intelligence tests have been designed so that there are no overall sex differences in IQ scores (Brody, 1992). When items are selected for inclusion in standardized intelligence tests, items that show an advantage for either males or females are either discarded during test construction or balanced with items that show an equal advantage for the other sex. Hence, overall, there are no sex differences in IQ scores for the most commonly used tests. Thus, we cannot turn to standardized intelligence tests to determine if there is a “smarter sex.
