+- Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum (https://www.scivillage.com)
+-- Forum: Science (https://www.scivillage.com/forum-61.html)
+--- Forum: Anthropology & Psychology (https://www.scivillage.com/forum-86.html)
+--- Thread: Article We can’t just lie about sex differences (evolutionary psychology) (/thread-21028.html)
We can’t just lie about sex differences (evolutionary psychology) - C C - Aug 5, 2026
We can’t just lie about sex differences
https://www.skeptic.com/article/is-evolutionary-psychology-pseudoscience-sex-differences/
INTRO: In this conversation with Timur Sevincer and Nikil Mukerji, Steve Stewart-Williams, author of the new book A Billion Years of Sex Differences, discusses what evolutionary psychology actually claims, how the field can deepen our understanding of human nature, where the field has gone wrong, why the charge of pseudoscience misses the target, and how skeptics should respond when real science becomes politically unwelcome.
EXCERPT... Nikil Mukerji: Some findings in evolutionary psychology are bound to annoy people, especially in certain political milieus. Are you concerned that this kind of science might play into the wrong hands? How do you deal with the ethics of communicating sex differences?
Steve Stewart-Williams: Claims about sex differences can certainly be misused if people exaggerate the size of the differences, or if people infer that, because a difference has an evolutionary basis, it’s therefore good or should be preserved. That can do harm. If we exaggerate differences, we may lower our expectations for one sex in certain domains.
To this issue I have two responses. First, the sexes do differ on average, and I think there’s an evolutionary contribution to some of those differences. We can’t just lie about that. The right response is to tell the truth carefully and responsibly.
That means emphasizing that most human sex differences aren’t huge. There’s a lot of overlap between the sexes. Everyone should get a fair chance. And the fact that something is natural, genetic, or partly shaped by evolution has no direct moral implications.
Second, denial can also do harm. It’s not the case that exaggerating sex differences is dangerous while minimizing them is harmless. We can get this wrong in both directions... (MORE - details)
RE: We can’t just lie about sex differences (evolutionary psychology) - confused2 - Aug 6, 2026
Women I've worked with .. I can't say I've noticed any difference over the course of a month. Girlfriends .. yes.
In fairness some play up being female (Elena (below)) is an actress .. and some play it down.
BBC yesterday(!)
What are the 'luteal uglies'? And how they're affecting women..
Quote:Elena, who works in hospitality and as an actress in London, says she feels lethargic and "completely unmotivated" during her luteal phase.Probably best if Elena isn't an airline pilot.
"I feel like my brain is working in slow motion, I tend to become clumsy and way more forgetful," she says.
More-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy0jk6wjkn0o
RE: We can’t just lie about sex differences (evolutionary psychology) - Yazata - Aug 6, 2026
(Aug 5, 2026 04:47 PM)C C Wrote: And the fact that something is natural, genetic, or partly shaped by evolution has no direct moral implications.
Very true.
I think that one of the reasons why most feminists and their political allies hate that idea so much is because, if something is natural, genetic or partly shaped by evolution, then it can't be blamed on somebody else - attributed to "sexism" or the evils of "the patriarchy". It also suggests that it might be resistant to easy change by political activism.
Quote:(MORE - details)
The fact that the Skeptic would even host a discussion of a topic like this, one that might get some people's backs up, is an illustration of why this is the better of the two 'skeptic' magazines (the other being Skeptical Inquirer). The Skeptic seems to me to be the less doctrinaire of the two, the one more willing to subject the comfortable orthodoxies of the left to a little skepticism as well.