The leptokurtic distribution of IQ in women is due to sexual selection

OK.  I will translate that into plain English.  The academic article below has become immensely controversial because of foolish feminist attempts to suppress it (They have in fact assured it of widespread attention) -- so I will just try to translate the controversial part.

For a start, I disagree with the article.  I think it assumes what it has to prove.  It starts with what may be a true premise: That women in general are fussy maters.  They are much more fussy than men about who they will partner with long term. That's the "sexual selection" part.

And the "leptokurtic" part refers to the fact that female IQ scores tend to be bunched around the average, with few very dumb women and few very bright women when compared to men.  That's the bit that fires feminists up with rage. That there are fewer women than men at the top of the IQ range is totally against their ideology.  They are, however, barking at the moon in their rage -- because the leptokurtic distribution of IQ among females has been found repeatedly for around 100 years.  It is as firm a finding as any in science.  It is a fact and no objecting to it will make it go away.  So they are wasting their breath in condemning it.

But, given the finding, where do we go from there?  The theory below is heavily mathematical and I cheerfully admit that I am a mathematical dunce.  I get by but only barely. So, maybe I have got the theory below all wrong, but what I get from it is that women will only accept the upper end of male desirability.  Low desirability males will never find a reproductive partner.  The theory then goes on to assume that desirable men come from a more varied distribution and that mating with them will reinforce that varied distribution.

That seems nuts to me.  As far as I can see, the only effect of women discriminating heavily in favour of desirable men should be to raise the average level of desirability.

The authors below set out their basic premise as follows:

"In a species with two sexes A and B, both of which are needed for reproduction, suppose that sex A is relatively selective, i.e., will mate only with a top tier (less than half ) of B candidates. Then from one generation to the next, among subpopulations of B with comparable average attributes, those with greater variability will tend to prevail over those with lesser variability. Conversely, if A is relatively non-selective, accepting all but a bottom fraction (less than half ) of the opposite sex, then subpopulations of B with lesser variability will tend to prevail over those with comparable means and greater variability"

So I think their very starting point is wrong.  Where they say: "those with greater variability will tend to prevail over those with lesser variability", I would say that "variability will gradually decline".  I would be delighted if someone could explain where I am wrong.

So let me set out my own theory. It also has its difficulties, as we will see, but I think it explains more.  It seems to me that although some women are very picky -- to the point of not finding a mate until they are past childbirth -- they are very diverse in what they are picky about -- which is something of a Godsend for us men.  It gives hope to us all.

Although there are some things that are generally popular among women -- tall, well-built men with smooth skin tend to have an easy ride -- there is a variety of views in women about what is important.  Some women, for instance rather despise the "Jock" stereotype and go for more "sensitive" men. And a really big factor in mate selection is getting similar levels of IQ. Few women can tolerate a man who is dumber than them, for instance.  They mostly want one who is as bright or brighter. They may be unaware that they are looking for intelligence but the things they do consciously look for are often correlated with higher intelligence -- higher income, better education, better health  etc.  And lots of "defects" will be tolerated by a high IQ woman if that is the only way she can get a high IQ man.  That is my theory about how I managed to get married four times!

A man, on the other hand, is much more uniform in what he likes in a woman.  A lot of it is physical:  long legs, a slim figure, some bosom, long hair etc. If a lady with those characteristics is kind to him he will be in love.

So, in sum, my simple theory is that men are more diverse than women because women are more diverse than men in what they will accept in a mate. And a lot of women like a higher IQ in a man, whereas high IQ in a woman is not a big priority for men. It may even be a negative for some.

My theory would even account for men being taller.  If you have ever got to know short men to any extent you will be aware of how irate they are that most women look right over their heads.  That makes them determined that their sons will not be so "handicapped".  And the only way they can have tall sons is to get a tall woman as a mate.  So they go all-out for that, regardless of most other criteria.

It ends up that you often see a dapper short man with a rather odd looking lady -- but one with long legs.  If a woman is tall she will always be able to get a mate -- even if he is a bit short.  So there is heavy sexual selection for tallness in men.  Female long-leg genes get attached to whatever genes short men have.  Short men tend not to have short sons

But now we come to the difficulty I alluded to at the outset.  How do we account for the fact that DUMB men also proliferate?  Should not the female preference for high IQ cause such men to die out?

I think we have to conclude that dumb men are of some use to some women. How?  In all mate selection, what you will overlook as well as what you get is important. And some women will apparently overlook low IQ.  I suspect that it is a simple case of similarities attracting.  Low IQ women will be attracted to low IQ men even if the IQ levels are not exactly the same.  Low IQ women take what they can get in order to reproduce and low IQ men get some acceptance that way.  The very strong female urge to have babies drowns out other considerations. And that is in fact one thing we do clearly know about low IQ women:  They do have lots of babies.  And it is their babies that pump up the low IQ male population

So we have to look not only at what men and women like but also what they will do without.   I remember a related phenomenon well.  I have done a lot of things in my life and I once ran a large boarding house in a poor area.  It was very instructive in a number of ways, not all of them bad. 

And one thing I remember is the partnerships I observed among my clientele and their friends.  In particular, I observed that even pumpkin-shaped women had partners.  Fat is a huge social handicap so how did they manage that?  By being very tolerant, by overlooking a lot.  Their partner might be a boozy, smoky, scrawny loser but he was a male -- and the pair did seem to be reasonably supportive of one-another most of the time.  Both were aware of their low level of attractiveness and felt glad to have someone, anyone, in their lives of the opposite sex.

And in case what I have just said sounds too derogatory, I must also note that they were all fairly pleasant people, at least while sober.  They had a relaxed attitude to life that many smarter people could well learn from.

There is however a remaining difficulty in my theory. What I have so far proposed would seem to imply that the male offspring of low IQ women will take after their father while the female offspring of low IQ women will take after the slightly higher IQ of the mother.  But it doesn't work like that.  Children can take after either parent.  So am I back to square 1 in explaining the lesser variance in female IQ?  It looks like it.  My theory accounts for a lot but something more is needed.

Abstract only below.  Full article at the link


An Evolutionary Theory for the Variability Hypothesis

Theodore P. Hill

Abstract

An elementary mathematical theory based on “selectivity” is proposed to address a question raised by Charles Darwin, namely, how one gender of a sexually dimorphic species might tend to evolve with greater variability than the other gender. Briefly, the theory says that if one sex is relatively selective then from one generation to the next, more variable subpopulations of the opposite sex will tend to prevail over those with lesser variability; and conversely, if a sex is relatively non-selective, then less variable subpopulations of the opposite sex will tend to prevail over those with greater variability. This theory makes no assumptions about differences in means between the sexes, nor does it presume that one sex is selective and the other non-selective. Two mathematical models are presented: a discrete-time one-step statistical model using normally distributed fitness values; and a continuous-time deterministic model using exponentially distributed fitness levels.

SOURCE