There are biological differences between the genders, but evo-psych is pseudoscience

I was recently asked what biological differences between genders I believed in as someone who leans towards socialization theory, and I thought it would make a good post.

I think there’s a lot of quantifiable differences, the obvious physical ones, hormonal differences leading most notably to higher levels of aggression in men. Some differences in brain activity!

From what I have read in studies that account for socialization, quantifiable “nature” personality differences point towards women in general being more interested in and adept in skills involving people/ socialization, whereas men in general find more interest in things/objects.

This study, a Nordic study showing greater male interest in stem fields, is often quoted by Jordan Peterson, his “smoking gun” to prove gender differences. Unfortunately he often uses it as a lead in to completely unsubstantiated theories about gender differences, quietly lumping them together and hoping no one notices.

Its probably worth noting that even the Nordic study differences aren’t dramatic, many men and women do not fall into these patterns ofc. If we began modeling our society after them it may not bode very well for men, who would by that logic be relegated to the trades as workerbees while women would be considered more suited to politics/arts/education, anything socially concerned.

In terms of dating, so many of the once taken for granted gender differences have been disproven. The women hardwired to prefer monogamy concept for one:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/02/women-get-bored-sex-long-term-relationships/582736/

Of course, not everything has a bunch of studies and surveys to learn from. Concepts we cannot yet prove or disprove are best considered by looking at what we already know: historical precedence, in both humans and other species.

For instance, I think it’s likely women in general have a stronger “nurture” instinct than men that goes beyond their own offspring, we see examples of that in other social animals like lion prides. I think nurture is often conflated with greater revulsion to violence, etc. that I think is a very misplaced assumption.

I think men likely have biologically higher sex drives and aggression, probably linked to testosterone. We see that all over other social animals, and interestingly even in species where the female is larger it is rare to see matriarchies in social animals! Likely due to heightened aggression in males. Where we do see matriarchies are almost always in social species where the females are able to work together to control the group, like in certain kinds of Hyyenas. In these instances aggression in males is a downside, as it hinders the ability to work together.

Anyway! This is getting very long winded, but the main point I want to make is that I look at

1. ⁠Studies in humans that account for socialization and
2. Historical precedence
3. Examples in other social animals

If I am deciding whether nature or nurture is likely to blame for a human behavior. This is an area it’s particularly important to apply the scientific method to as, like phrenology, it is full of concepts which are often used as a means to an end. When we consider historical precedence, bio-essentialism has a much poorer track record than socialization theory, and is very rarely proven correct when those means are invented. I hope this helps some in deliberating what “truths” to believe in.

Edit:

I’m not a scientist, and researching actual scientists opinions now it is becoming clear to me that they have much better reasons than I do for why evo psych is not a respected field as it stands. I encourage everyone in this thread to do some research about how scientists in similar fields feel about evo psych. There are some great threads on Reddit as well.

Evo psych is an extremely flawed field because it has no scientific method of testing, and on top of that it is a very convenient means to an end goal, often racism or misogyny. It’s really more like a religion than a science, as it cannot be proven or disproven and is most often used to make an agenda seem valid/unreproachable.