In 2040, will expert consensus suggest there are strong innate psychological differences by biological sex?
1.2k
2041
58%
chance

In 2040, I will spend some time reviewing the current state of expert discourse regarding innate psychological differences by biological sex. This review will consist of light-to-moderate internet reading, browsing studies that have been completed, and requesting the assistance of any personal acquaintances that can best help inform me.

I will make a subjective judgment regarding the "experts" on this topic as of 2040, which will likely be a list of individuals who I (with the help of light research) consider best-informed in that future period.

There needs to be expert "consensus" for this market to resolve. If there is no consensus, I will update the market close timing to be 5 years in the future. I will continue to push out the close date until there is expert consensus. A rough approximation of consensus from my perspective is ~80% of experts voicing roughly the same thing.

I will interpret "strong" subjectively. I don't have a great threshold in mind, but I can try to respond to questions in the comments section if helpful.

By "innate" I am referring to the nature/nurture question (i.e., without regard to societal priming).

I am referring to "biological sex" at birth - not gender.


I'm not particularly knowledgeable about this subject as of market creation, but my rough understanding is that - as of market creation - there is no expert consensus on this question.

I may "n/a" and/or "unlist" this question preemptively if it becomes a comment cesspool or if my quality of life decreases for having created the market.

Get Ṁ600 play money
Sort by:

I think general personality differences between men and women are overstated, with the notable exception being attitudes towards sex and relationships. I think a lot of the perceived general differences are downstream from the fact that men and women often have their most intimate experience with the opposite sex within those contexts.

I'm curious what "strong" means in this context? Like, across very large populations (e.g. the sexes) it's possible to have solid statistical significance for relatively small deltas. Is "strong" about the evidence, or the magnitude?

Following question is quite similar with still large discrepancies, perhaps use for arbitrage. https://manifold.markets/CarsonGale/will-expert-consensus-suggest-there?r=R2VyaXBlcmk

Will expert consensus suggest there are strong innate psychological differences by biological sex? (Excluding: sex desire)
38% chance. This is a copy of this market, but excluding desire for sex as a psychological attribute: (https://manifold.markets/embed/CarsonGale/in-2040-will-expert-consensus-sugge)I will periodically spend time reviewing the current state of expert discourse regarding innate psychological differences by biological sex. This review will consist of light-to-moderate internet reading, browsing studies that have been completed, and requesting the assistance of any personal acquaintances that can best help inform me. I will make a subjective judgment regarding the "experts" on this topic as of 2040, which will likely be a list of individuals who I (with the help of light research) consider best-informed in that future period. There needs to be expert "consensus" for this market to resolve. If there is no consensus, I will update the market close timing to be 5 years in the future. I will continue to push out the close date until there is expert consensus. A rough approximation of consensus from my perspective is ~80% of experts voicing roughly the same thing. I will interpret "strong" subjectively. I don't have a great threshold in mind, but I can try to respond to questions in the comments section if helpful. By "innate" I am referring to the nature/nurture question (i.e., without regard to societal priming). I am referring to "biological sex" at birth - not gender. Any psychological differences that regard one's desire for sex do not count for purposes of this market. I'm not particularly knowledgeable about this subject as of market creation, but my rough understanding is that - as of market creation - there is no expert consensus on this question. I may "n/a" and/or "unlist" this question preemptively if it becomes a comment cesspool or if my quality of life decreases for having created the market. Apr 3, 7:11am: Will expert consensus suggest there are strong innate psychological differences by biological sex? (Ex: sex desire) → Will expert consensus suggest there are strong innate psychological differences by biological sex? (Excluding: sex desire)

.

"I'm not particularly knowledgeable about this subject as of market creation, but my rough understanding is that - as of market creation - there is no expert consensus on this question."

The expert consensus is that there are. The consensus already exists, so if the author does not recognize it now, it is likely they will not recognize it in 2040.

@DavidBolin or the author (me) isn't familiar with current expert consensus as stated in the description

Don't they agree already? Surely the public is manipulating the understanding of the consensus for the sake of political correctness and wokist ideologies. Sex hormones suffice to cause huge differences.

@SamuelNIHOUL so if you can't see that today, why would you in 2040, by the way? Perhaps I am wrong and it's the scientists themselves that have gotten so deeply corrupt?

@SamuelNIHOUL The consensus already exists. My assumption is that the market author will not recognize this in 2040, just as they do not now.

@DavidBolin I doubt it, @CarsonGale seems like an intellectually honest and open-minded person.

Most people on Manifold are

bought Ṁ10 of YES

I'm not particularly knowledgeable about this subject as of market creation, but my rough understanding is that - as of market creation - there is no expert consensus on this question.

Maybe that depends on who is counted as experts. Sometimes a clear consensus on obvious questions can be prevented by ideology (as with e.g. Lysenkoism).

From my perspective, the question of whether there are average differences in various personality traits for biological reasons is extremely overdetermined (both based on existing research and based on "common sense").

Although I see it as overdetermined if asked as a yes-no-question, I think there is a lot that we have yet to learn if it's asked more as a question of degree.

I'm adding a screenshot from here (although admittedly, the sample size of the studies that are referenced isn't great).

The market creator hasn't defined how they'll interpret "innate" but here's my proposal, based on observed sex differences (not innate necessarily, but based on what we observe of then after encountering culture)

Animals raised in groups have sex differences. Raised alone they do too.

Same for apes.

Animal sex differences are clearly biological, since they occur with it without contact with other animals.

Humans in ALL societies have characteristic behavior differences by sex. Many societies have tried but none have erased the differences. None have flipped the roles for major things either such as crime, violence, childrearing focus. These go the stereotypical way in ALL societies.

So in sum: there's no biological reason to expect the sexes to be the same, and there's no evidence that behaviors can be equalized or reversed despite lots of people trying. We observe sex differences in animal and human groups. So obviously the claim is false.

If you disagree tell me when and why evolution changed apes, who have sex differences even when raised alone, to lose them.

Also explain how evolution balanced human biology to have this trait even while humans were involved in intensely sex discriminating cultures the whole time.

So even if evolution were aiming for equality of outcome, under those circumstances it would have no way to know what was innate vs the result of nature+nurture since everyone was raised within cultures with sex based cultural rules.

predicts YES

"there's no evidence that inbuilt behaviors can be equalized or reversed despite lots of people trying"

Counterexample: Murder rates. Men commit more murders than women, probably for innate reasons (presumably the reason men are way stronger than women is to win physical fights with other men). I think in nature, human murder rates are orders of magnitude higher than in civilized countries, so in absolute terms if you take the average number of murders a hunter-gatherer male commits and subtract off the average number of murders a hunter-gatherer female commits, you will get a result that is way bigger than if you take the average number of murders a danish male commits and subtract off the average number of murders that a danish female commits.

predicts YES

@tailcalled So I think civilization can eliminate most of the sex difference in murder rates.

@tailcalled we're talking about psychology here right? The claim is that men respond with physical violence in characteristic ways different than women. Sure global murder rates can change (due to police, medical science etc) but that doesn't change the fact that mens psychology still is systematically different than women's.

If your example were "imagine a super high tech society with perfect medicine; all murder victims are immediately healed by it." Would that show men are no longer different? No, I think it'd just be treating the side effects of that difference.

predicts YES

@StrayClimb By psychology you mean stuff like behaviors, beliefs, plans, values, perceptions, etc., right?

I think if you had an invincibility field that perfectly prevented murder then that would obviously have effects on people's psychology, because they would stop planning to murder people.

@tailcalled I agree it would affect psychology. Many aspects of tech and culture affect psychology. None so far has ever removed or reversed sex differences, however.

predicts YES

@StrayClimb If incentives by the police can reduce the murder rate by men from 0.02 to 0.002 and the murder rate by women from 0.002 to 0.0004, then surely the reduction from a difference size of 0.018 murders to a difference size of 0.0016 murders counts as a reduction in the sex difference of 90%, no? Which is most of the way to removing the sex difference. (Hypothetical made-up numbers because I once heard that hunter-gatherers have a murder-rate of 0.02.)

predicts YES

@tailcalled Oops in retrospect I meant to write men going from 0.02 to 0.002 and women going from 0.002 to 0.0001 for better nonlinearity realism, but I put the nonlinearity in the wrong spot by accident. The qualitative point still stands but you may want to recompute the numbers.

@StrayClimb the market is about innate sex differences in psychology though. There are lots of ways to differentially impact later, non-innate outcomes such as by putting all men in jail from birth to reduce murder but by definition that doesn't affect innate differences.

@StrayClimb the reason I made my argument is that among children of capitalists, anarchists, Buddhists, Jain, christians, ancient Romans, modern zoomers, etc etc In every case boys punch each other growing up more than girls and adult males attempt murder more. In every culture ever recorded. That's why I'm suggesting it's an argument for innate.

@tailcalled by your argument, since in absolute the gap between men's and women's athletic scores has decreased, the gap will eventually close. This was a common argument in the 80s but has failed and there is still no prospect that female sex 100m runners will ever be faster than male.

@tailcalled agree. But it wouldn't affect their innate psychology which is what this market is about.

predicts YES

"agree. But it wouldn't affect their innate psychology which is what this market is about."

@StrayClimb Yes but I wasn't responding to that, I was responding to the claim that we haven't equalized any sex differences. Whereas we actually have mostly equalized murder at ~0.

"by your argument, since in absolute the gap between men's and women's athletic scores has decreased, the gap will eventually close."

I don't follow?

"This was a common argument in the 80s"

I have a hard time believing this.

predicts YES

@StrayClimb Paywalled, so I can't tell whether it shows that it is common, or if it is just some rare extreme viewpoint. The fact that it says "2" suggests to me that it is just some rare extreme viewpoint tho, since there were orders of magnitude more than 2 people in the 80s.