{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020491803278688523, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.405247813411079, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 4, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Human Sex Differences: Distributions Overlap but the Tails Sometimes Tell a Tale

We agree with Stewart-Williams and Thomas (this issue) that the males-compete/females-choose (MCFC) model does seem to be accepted by some academics and members of the public as an accurate portrayal of either (a) human sex differences, or at least (b) the way in which these differences are conceptualized by evolutionary psychologists. Moreover, we also agree that both kinds of acceptance are problematic, because both are based on inaccuracies: The strict MCFC model is a misleading caricature of human sex differences that describes neither the reality of these differences nor the way in which these differences are regarded by most evolutionary psychologists carrying out primary research in this area. The large majority of such researchers assume that behaviors that are inconsistent with a strict MCFC model—such as strong male mating preferences, intrasexual female mating competition, adaptations for pair bonding, and (under many conditions) high male parental investment—are all fundamental aspects of human nature. The target article serves as a helpful corrective for anyone inclined toward believing otherwise. In light of this, the target article has also led us to wonder, who is responsible for propagating the MCFC caricature of human sex differences, and the view that most evolutionary psychologists accept this caricature? Is it the fault of the scientists who are doing primary empirical research on sex differences, or are others responsible—such as other academics reviewing and discussing this research, members of the press, and popular science writers—for mischaracterizing this research for whatever reason? We believe that all of the above may be at fault to some extent, but here we focus mainly on how the manner in which results are reported by evolutionary psychologists might interact with people’s tendencies to see the world in categorical terms so that, although scientists often report mean differences between the sexes on psychological or behavioral dimensions, these results often end up being perceived as categorical distinctions such as “females do A and males do B.”