Take the 2-minute tour ×
Biology Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for biology researchers, academics, and students. It's 100% free, no registration required.

This question was considered unsuitable for Skeptics and I think it is more suited to BIology than Cognitive Sciences

I was reading this article which I found interesting. It is not supported with references but was an invited address for the American Psychological Association.

It makes the claim that men go to more extremes than women.

People can point to plenty of data that the average IQ of adult men is about the same as the average for women. So to suggest that men are smarter than women is wrong. No wonder some women were offended.

There are more males than females with really low IQs. Indeed, the pattern with mental retardation is the same as with genius, namely that as you go from mild to medium to extreme, the preponderance of males gets bigger.

[...]

Almost certainly, it is something biological and genetic. And my guess is that the greater proportion of men at both extremes of the IQ distribution is part of the same pattern.

[...]

Nature rolls the dice with men more than women. Men go to extremes more than women. It’s true not just with IQ but also with other things, even height: The male distribution of height is flatter, with more really tall and really short men.


Another notable example of a similar claim was Lawrence Summer's speech regarding the possible reasons for dearth of women in tenured positions in science and engineering at top schools.

Summers outlined 3 possible reasons, with a major kerfuffle erupting - resulting in his firing from the job as a Harvard University President - over his presented second reason [ quotes from Wiki ]:

The second hypothesis, different availability of aptitude at the high end, caused the most controversy. In his discussion of this hypothesis, Summers said that "even small differences in the standard deviation [between genders] will translate into very large differences in the available pool substantially out [from the mean]

Summers referenced research that implied differences between the standard deviations of males and females in the top 5% of twelfth graders under various tests. He then went on to argue that, if this research were to be accepted, then "whatever the set of attributes... that are precisely defined to correlate with being an aeronautical engineer at MIT or being a chemist at Berkeley... are probably different in their standard deviations as well".


QUESTION: Are there any studies or evidence to support the claim that men have more extreme variations than women (in other words, that the trait's distribution in males have fatter tails) in a variety of traits?

Possible areas of research can be:

  • Intelligence (general IQ or specific linguistic or spacial abilities)
  • Physical attributes (strength, height, weight)
  • personality traits
    • for lack of anything better, let's take the FFM's Five:
    • openness
    • conscientiousness
    • extroversion
    • agreeableness
    • neuroticism

In order for the answer to be "yes", the research needs to show fat tails in at least 5-6 traits from all 3 of the buckets above (intelligence, physical, and personality), although precise trait mix may be arbitrary and not necessarily limited to my examples, as long as 5-6 somewhat independent traits fit.

In order for the answer to be "no", at least 8 of the 11 traits above should have no fatter tails in men.

Anything else means "inconclusive".

share|improve this question

3 Answers 3

The biggest problem with this question, (not just here, but for everyone who asks it,) is drawing on our culturally constructed definition of maleness to look for mechanisms of genetic inheritance of what are considered "male" traits. We could measure frequency distributions of height, but we don't have a way to accurately probe any of the other qualities you listed on a genetic level. Since we can't make these mechanistic connections, any conclusions we draw would be confounded by the nature vs nurture debate.

That said, I don't know of any studies to this effect. So this isn't much of an answer to your question.

EDIT: I've been thinking about this question all day.

The sources of heritable variation within genders that could be attributed to gender differences are (1) X and Y chromosome mutations and expression profiles, and (2) heritable epigenetic gender differences.

(2) might be more difficult to argue, since the currently known mechanism for epigenetic inheritance is the same in men and women.

One way to make this problem tractable is to look at transcriptome analysis -- it's an indirect approach to this question that gets from genome to phenotype quickly.

A cursory pubmed search led me to a study in Drosophila that takes a different approach to this question. They sought out previously undetected levels of gender difference. Most current studies (and there are a lot of them, including for humans) look to quantify differences in expression between genders for specific tissues. This is a prerequisite for estimating this within-genders variation, standardized against the number of genes expressed.

share|improve this answer
    
+1 because I agree that there are too many confounding factors due to the environment/society for the specific phenotypes considered. –  nico Mar 27 '12 at 7:19
2  
-1 It's more a comment rather than answer. –  Marta Cz-C Mar 27 '12 at 9:25
    
@MartaCz-C: I think it is a good answer, as it points out why the question cannot have a correct answer for the specific characteristics listed (things like oppenness, or extroversion, are too ill-defined to link them to a specific genetic mechanism). –  nico Mar 27 '12 at 12:40
    
@nico And that would make it a great comment. Still it's not the answer. I'm quite irritate about amount of answers like "I don't know the answer but still I want to say something" on this site. –  Marta Cz-C Mar 27 '12 at 13:32
    
@Marta, I had put this as a comment, but I switched it to an answer because if I had left it as a comment, it would really be saying that I'm interested in moving to close the question as off-topic. I think it's not enough off topic to close. Besides, if the questioner doesn't know enough to know that the scope of their question is too narrow, a strict interpretation of the rules forcee all feasible answers into the comments section. I am reasonably certain that, as asked, this question has no good answer. –  Thomas Ingalls Mar 27 '12 at 16:52

At least for physical data (heigth, weight etc) you can have a look of the DINED Anthropometric database http://dined.io.tudelft.nl/dined/. Here you can find mean and standard deviation data for Dutch population studies on numerous anthropometric measures, and you can stratify the results by sex.

share|improve this answer

First of all for the first 22 chromosomes (and the mitochondrial chromsome) are the same between women and men. The X and the Y together are something like 1.5% of the total DNA in the human cell. The X chromosome is also in common, so it has the same chromosomal (genetic) variations the same as women and men.

While I am not sure about the differences you point out, its for sure there are lots of differences between the biology of men and women! The reason that women's traits might have different variances than men comes from the fact that in women there are 2 X chromosomes and in men there is only one, as well as the additional Y chromosome.

If there are any singular defects in the X chromosome a man carries, it will not be balanced out in the human male. (other organisms have different sex chromosome schemes). For instance because there is a cluster of genes that help the eye see in color, women's sense of color (i.e. from their cone cells) is sometimes better than men. With 2 X chromosomes there is even the possibility of a woman who has four different color receptors in their cones.

On the other hand, why men see better in the dark (i.e. greater sensitivity in the rod cells), is possibly due to an extra Blue Rod pigment gene that remains on the Y chromosome (see above reference). This is both an accident of genetics, but also an adaptive 'choice' that men would have different visual acuities than women.

Its also known that woman and men may have different epigenetic patterns, with some epigenetic modifications coming from the mother and others from the father. This is adaptive and also not the direct result of the XY chromosomes.

If you really want to blow your mind, it turns out that for the most part women's 2 X chromosomes are mostly mosaic. That is in each cell only one of the randomly selected X chromosomes are active. Recessive/dominant X genes are often not the case.

So in other words, I would say that many of the differences are adaptive (they were evolved to be that way) and not a genetic accident. Each gene or trait will have their own story in many cases. There is probably no single male/female genetic factor we can point to and say 'this is why men and women are different'.

share|improve this answer
2  
My question is not about the difference between the sexes, but the degree of variance. –  Sonny Ordell Mar 28 '12 at 0:24

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.