I recently responded to this comment:
The most reliable store of value is the ingenuity to turn less valuable materials into more valuable consumable goods. IQ is the most scarce resource we have that we’re not making more of, assuming IQ as a proxy for ingenuity.
It’s not a bad proxy, but not perfect either. I figure ingenuity is around 70% due to IQ. The rest seems to be a small dose of crazy (5%) and a stubborn streak that approaches retardation (25%).
This is really just a restatement of Paul Cooijmans’ formulation- intelligence, conscientiousness, associative horizon- with less esoteric vocabulary and weights attached that happen to feel sorta right to me. The spirit of rho’s comment is essentially the same as my own: using economics to communicate the devastating scale of the losses incurred by a civilization that aggressively retards and destroys genius.
Using this as a starting point, why would testosterone be so important for genius? I say it is because it contributes to the boneheaded stubbornness component (25% conscientiousness).
Although they are less common than males, it is not difficult to find females with IQs roundabout the 165 mark, which appears to have been more or less the sweet spot for genius for the last millenium or so. It is similarly facile to find psychotic/creative women with endogenous personality types, although these are similarly much less common at the extremes. This intersection would already predict a very small fraction of female geniuses to male geniuses, perhaps 1/100, but we actually observe that the number is so vanishingly small that it can be counted on one hand per century. We’re talking less than one in a billion women.
A small tangent, consider the phrenological differences between Ayn Rand, for all her faults a proper genius…
…and Joy Davidman, who was not a genius.
Both women were very high-IQ, Eastern European Ashkenazi with extremely similar features. The only real difference is that Ayn Rand has an extraordinary amount of testosterone for a woman, which is expressed as a squared jaw and hollowed cheeks that don’t store fat. I’m surprised she was heterosexual, even if she happened to be the original aggressive lawyercunt who wouldn’t mind discussing her husband’s penis size on national radio.
In my own life, I have noticed the subjective effects of testosterone are heightened energy, sharpened focus (often obsessive), and a curious blend of extreme impatience and lengthened time preference. Further, I propose that single-mindedness and boneheaded stubbornness are the two primary stereotypically masculine trait. They only become more pronounced with greater testosterone and masculinity.
A quick note about math:
A new study into causes of the scarcity of women in technical and scientific fields says that it is not discrimination by men in the field keeping the ladies away. Nor is it a repugnance felt by women for possibly dishevelled or unhygienic male nerds.
No, the reason that young women don’t train in Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths (STEM) areas – and thus, don’t find themselves with jobs at tech companies, in IT etc – is quite simply that they mostly don’t know enough maths to do those courses.
“It is all about the mathematical content of the field. Girls not taking math coursework early on in middle school and high school are set on a different college trajectory than boys,” says economics prof Donna Ginther.
Ginther and a colleague, Shulamit Kahn, examined statistics on young women’s maths qualifications and mathematical requirements for college courses in America. Put simply, they found that absence of women studying a given course can be accounted for simply by the fact that most young women don’t know much maths.
Fact is, most men really aren’t much interested in math qua math either. It’s pretty rare. The difference is that men are often really interested in things that require math, like rocketships, and they have the boneheaded stubbornness to figure it out. It’s like stairs. People run stairs for exercise, and you need them to reach stuff at a higher level, but it’s pretty freaking rare to find somebody who actually enjoys going up stairs. A man might develop an associative fondness for stairs that consistently lead him to the apartment of his paramour, and a man might fall in love with his tools because he loves working on his car, but it was never really about the stairs or the tools.
Still, you need math to answer the most interesting questions, like “Can we go into space?” So it’s almost a prerequisite for being a genius. Think of it as a language for geniuses to talk to each other and geek out about the natural world.