"Unfortunately the nature of uncertainty is such that one has little idea which risks will pay off and which will simply extract a downside cost. ... Variation in human personalities is probably beneficial in an aggregate sense when it comes to human progress. "
Am I missing something here? Razib knows better than I do, that a wider gaussian distribution, though it has the same average as a narrower distribution, leads to a higher numbers of winners on the right side of the tail. The standard explanation for the dominance of men in the highest IQ professions, post-Summers, after all?
At the societal level, I propose that while the left end of the tail leads nowhere, except an economic downturn now and then ;), the advantage of a larger tail, i.e. increased risk taking, is qualitatively always preferable and leads to a better society.
If a larger number of men take larger risks, some will win more, and some will lose more. But the average fitness of a man does not change, because the number of offspring a succesful man (whose risks paid off) can potentially have is so much larger than a women's. See Genghis Khan for example. Interested in Razib's reply.

If a larger number of men take larger risks, some will win more, and some will lose more. But the average fitness of a man does not change, because the number of offspring a succesful man (whose risks paid off) can potentially have is so much larger than a women's. See Genghis Khan for example. Interested in Razib's reply.

see my last example on the two people with CIS degrees. i'm not even talking about IQ here. there are high IQ people who are risk averse and high IQ people who are risk taking.

The standard explanation for the dominance of men in the highest IQ professions

i believe that the CTY study showed that controlling for IQ women tended to enter the high IQ professions where high incomes are guaranteed, but also tend not to be scalable. phd computer scientists have a median income less than medical doctors, but if they go into business there is a small chance that they could get SUPER RICH & FAMOUS. very small. but there are plenty of people who are willing to wager that.

the advantage of a larger tail, i.e. increased risk taking, is qualitatively always preferable and leads to a better society.

that depends on your norms. if you read science fiction note that the robots engineered plagues to make humans dumber in the foundation novels written by brin bear and benford. why? in any case, you don't have to dumber, but the risk averse might serve as dampeners in the social oscillations so that culture doesn't change so fast that it "overheats." you can read some history too and see that those who advocate new thinking can end up sinking the ship.

again go back to an social economic analogy. in a corporation you want different personality types so as to allow it to tread the fine line between innovation and maximizing efficiency in the current cash cows. of course overtime it seems corporations shift as the risk averse come to dominate.

Michael D A

IQ is to a first approximation univariate and higher values are generally more beneficial for advanced society.

Personality is multivariate and it is not clear that uniformly high values of (say) extraversion or introversion are better than a mix of both.

It would seem to me that both males and females must be prepared to take risks in pursuit of their goals and life strategies.

It also seems clear that males must take physical risks, by en large, while it seems more likely that females will take social risks (and mate choice risks).

Women produce only acetylcholine, and not adrenaline at all? Is this a qualitative difference? This sounds really odd to me.

I thought most sex differences (such as differences in psychology) differed only quantitatively and overlapped in distribution with no hormonal responses being exclusive to one sex (aside from reproductive and pregnancy/birth related differences).

"What's important seems to be the environment that isn't shared by siblings in the same family"

Frankly, I don't understand this. Can someone enlighten me?

"Frankly, I don't understand this. Can someone enlighten me?"

I can give it a try. Some of it is pure chance. One twin brother was sick during baseball tryouts, and didn't make the team. The other one did. Or maybe an older sister had a great chemistry teacher and went into the field. Then the teacher retired, and the younger sister had a bad one. Birth order matters a bit. The oldest child doesn't have quite the same environment as the youngest child. There is some research on average differences between the oldest and younger children.

Also, I think that a good portion of non-shared environment is actually hidden genetic influences. My brother and I had different types of friends, and that counts as non-shared environment. However, we didn't get randomly chosen friends; we chose them, partially according to our genetic predispositions.

Best graphical illustration of the impact of random noise is Galton's quincunx:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bea...ki/ Bean_machine

Imagine two twins as two of the "exact same" balls started at the "exact same" position with the "exact same" initial velocity, and then note the vagaries of random chance.

Neither twins nor balls can be "exactly" the same in every respect and their divergence may be greatest on those biological processes which are characterized by positive rather than negative feedback. Hmmm.

Thank you for the enlightenment. So easy to understand now!