Aug 5, 2026 04:47 PM
We can’t just lie about sex differences
https://www.skeptic.com/article/is-evolu...fferences/
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)
https://www.skeptic.com/article/is-evolu...fferences/
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)
