This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies. Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility: Psychologist Steve Stewart-Williams' third book about evolutionary psychology, a controversial field often drawn on (and distorted) by the manosphere, is A Billion Years of Sex Differences: How Evolution Shaped the Minds of Men and Women. It's primarily interested in three questions.
What are the "standard-issue" psychological sex differences? He argues there are reliably observed differences in sexuality, our preferences when it comes to choosing a partner, antisocial behavior and parenting. There are also, he says, robust sex differences in our choices when it comes to the jobs we do and the toys we play with as children.
How much of these differences are due to "nature" versus "nurture"? He believes nature is "the dominant player"—or at the very least, just as important as nurture. Finally, why has nature created these sex differences?
Because "the mind is a collection of drives and devices 'designed' by natural selection to help us stay alive and have offspring." And, when it comes to the mission of reproduction, despite the evolution of paternal care and pair bonding, "the best way to have more children sometimes differed for men and women." This led to some of those drives and devices being somewhat differently designed in male versus female minds—like a male tendency to incorrectly think women are sexually interested in them, so as not to miss out on any potential sexual opportunities. Stewart-Williams presents his position as the Goldilocks just right account. He contrasts it favorably with mostly unnamed "sex differences minimizers" (who play down the existence of psychological sex differences, and the role of sex-linked biology in creating them), and "sex differences exaggerators" (who do the opposite).
But actually, his view falls at the extreme "nature" end of the scientific spectrum. Stewart-Williams takes care to draw attention to similarities between women and men. He also disagrees with traditionalists who want to coerce everyone into old-fashioned gender roles.
However, his book should not be mistaken for a balanced guide. I think we all agree our minds are not blank slates, genetically endowed with nothing more than general-purpose learning abilities. But Stewart-Williams assumes much more built-in content than many other scholars interested in the evolution of human minds and social life.
Extract — continue reading at the source.
