On Jun 29, 2009, at 6:07 PM, Udhay Shankar N wrote:
Um. Interesting take. Comments?
Two comments:
First, on the economic policy matters the article is simplistic
twaddle and specious reasoning. Some economists argue that aggressive
risk elimination for its own sake is a "social good" that outweighs
the damage it causes to economic growth and adaptability, but that
recognizes the dangerous tradeoff in doing so whereas the article
seems to imply that this would be almost all upside. Risk is a
property intrinsic to economic transactions; lower risk-aversion may
be correlated with males, but women who are productive and successful
in important high-risk parts of the economy will have a similar male-
like risk-aversion.
Second, from reading the article you would think that there were not
reams of literature in evolutionary psychology on these types of
topics. The author is selectively ignoring some generally accepted
scientific results that would inform his conclusions. There are many
other consequences to the scenario that are glaringly absent in the
construction of this perspective despite extensive treatment in
literature, notably the behavior of women under the circumstances
posited. This is a major oversight.
The observation of adverse impact on males within current economic
policy frameworks is reasonable and even derivable, but the author's
contribution is mostly confused. It reads like an example of the
dreck that gives the social sciences such a poor reputation as
"science". It is arguably an important topic that deserves more
rigorous treatment.
Cheers,
J. Andrew Rogers
