Why Men Are At The Top Of Society (and the bottom) - Roy Baumeister
In a Nutshell
Cultures flourish by exploiting men's greater expendability, risk-taking, and group-forming tendencies to build large systems, institutions, and achievements, while women excel in one-to-one relationships and emotional expressiveness—placing men disproportionately at society's tops (leaders, geniuses) and bottoms (homeless, prisoners, casualties) due to higher male variability in traits like intelligence and ambition. Evolutionary pressures drive men to extreme competition for mates via hierarchy, novelty-seeking (e.g., Coolidge effect), and sacrifice, contrasting women's safer strategies and lower ambition on average; modern feminism overlooks these trade-offs, eroding male motivation and polarity in relationships. Willpower functions as a depletable resource (ego depletion), improved via monitoring and practice like a muscle, with glucose aiding restoration—challenging replication crisis claims and unlimited-willpower myths.
These notes were generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies.
Cultures flourish by exploiting men. Men are more expendable than women for basic biological reasons. If a small group loses half its men, the next generation can still be full size. If it loses half its women, recovery takes a long time. Cultures risk men and put them to work to produce things. Most structures of society are created by men. Carol Hooven at Harvard mentioned a feminist who had an epiphany looking out the window: "The whole world is built by men. Look at the buildings and the roads and the cars." This includes the physical world and institutions like banks, schools, armies, governments, and marketplaces.
Women do plenty of wonderful things and are important partners in species flourishing, but creating large social systems is the men's job. Cultures compete against other cultures, mostly groups of men competing against other groups of men. Women have joined groups in many places, but institutional structures were created by men.
Men are overrepresented as builders cognitively, systemically, and physically because men do those things, and women don't. Socializing occurs one-to-one or in large groups. In social psychology, people said women are more social than men due to investment in one-to-one relationships. But men do things in groups much more than women, likely an innate tendency.
The most important biological relationship is mother-to-child, a one-to-one relationship. Women got particular men to form one-to-one relationships to protect and provide, enabling larger brains. Men do things in larger groups. Competition between groups is men against men, on the battlefield, in business, or scientifically.
Women don't naturally form large groups. Experiments with children: two boys playing accept a third boy into the game; two girls exclude a third girl, suggesting focus on one-to-one relationships, better for intimacy.
Psychological differences: women are more emotionally expressive, sharing feelings directly, ideal for one-to-one where the other understands and responds. In large groups, showing feelings is not useful—e.g., in economic marketplace, emotional reserve helps negotiate better. Men's emotional reserve suits large groups; women's expressiveness suits one-to-one like love and family. Researchers tell men to listen to wives on this.
This explains why women haven't organized in large groups—e.g., why didn't 50 women build a boat and sail off to explore? Men did this throughout history in larger groups.
Evidence in other great apes: Michael Tomasello's work shows groups of male chimpanzees battle or hunt together—not real cooperation, each out for itself, but more opportunities in groups. Females don't. Only cooperation among adult female chimpanzees: sometimes two join to beat up a mother, steal, kill, and eat her baby. Jane Goodall observed similar with gorillas: couple of adult females kill and eat babies as a snack, overpowering the mother—not productive cooperation.
Women do compete, often for love and affection of desirable men, sometimes by blackening reputations or spreading negative stories. Tanya Reynolds, former PhD student, studies female competition in evolutionary context.
Experiment: two women work on project; research assistant (pretending to be subject) says she feels bad, drank too much, hooked up with two guys last night. Then another real subject enters—does she repeat the gossip? Varied attractiveness: sexy/hot vs. messy/unattractive. When attractive, subjects gossiped, but framed non-maliciously: "I was really concerned about so-and-so. She hooked up with two different men last night. That must be bad for her." Negative info spreads about attractive rival.
Differences are overlapping distributions; average difference real but small compared to variety within sexes. Women less ambitious on average. Evolutionarily, descended from top males who reproduced most—in apes, polygamy (majority of history), one rich successful man with multiple wives/children, so many men get none. Drive to top from men who succeeded.
Great inflation in grades disengages young men: women want A, don't mind if everyone gets A; men want to be better—if everyone gets A, no point. Schools run mainly by women fail boys especially, as boys more hierarchically driven.
In 80s, women moving up in businesses: male hierarchies had seven levels; cut to four under female influence—women favor equality over hierarchy. Competition is about hierarchy.
Much male achievement driven by desire to attract women. Evolutionists say it drives everything—men want money to attract women. Female mate choice shapes male ambition. Ancestrally, ~40% men and 80% women reproduced—twice as many female as male ancestors. Plus competition, big group coordination, hierarchy preference creates pyramid.
Hunter-gatherers had equality, resisted hierarchy, but women knew best hunter, wanted him; everyone nice to him/family; best partner means less likely to starve.
Feminists complain men dominate top (presidents, governors, executives), but look at bottom: prisons, homeless, cannon fodder in battle—mostly men. More variability among men than women—e.g., height: more really tall/short men than women, despite average difference.
Intelligence: smaller average difference, but more males at extremes. Mental retardation research: from mild to severe, sex ratio skews more male. Same at high end: more men from mild to super genius. Lawrence Summers at Harvard: few women math/physics professors because super intelligence needed—more men there due to variability. Not saying men smarter, just more variable. Wouldn't rile if said more stupid men.
Pet theory: men XY, women XX. Mutation on X chromosome: woman has backup (50-50 chance it shows); man has no backup on Y, so more likely expressed. Adaptive to gamble with men—many don't reproduce, most mutations bad, flushed out quickly. Good mutations spread: women max ~dozen children, men hundreds.
Nature's playthings line about men.
Biggest differences in ability, especially throwing (includes dodging). Study controlled for practice/physiology using tennis ball cannon: males dodged all; females hit multiple times.
Spatial rotation ability. Ron Hippel emphasizes coordinated strong throwing key to human group traits—10 people throwing stones at lion scares it away; enabled scavenging by scaring lions from kills.
Boys innately pick up stones and throw, even now.
Chess: recent study, only one woman in top 100 or 50 by total ELO over time. Controls variables except cognitive/motivational extremes. Also measures stubbornness, obsessive competition.
Separate men/women chess tournaments despite no physical difference—due to distribution/ability/competition.
Scrabble: more women in clubs (verbal advantage), but top tournament winners mostly men—due to super high ability plus motivation (men drill, memorize words; women play for fun).
Motivation and ability go together; men/women crafted for different tasks in biological past.
You want to be motivated to do the things you're good at. Going back to twice as many ancestors being women than men, women are much more likely to reproduce than men. Odds favor women for producing children and grandchildren—playing it safe gets there, as most women reproduced. But most men did not, so playing along leaves men out. We're descended from ambitious men who rose to the top, including by taking chances like sailing into the unknown to explore. Bad things can happen, but you might return rich. We're descended from men who took chances and succeeded; many drowned, were killed, or got nowhere. In many species, males are riskier because they must succeed to be attractive and have children.
Joyce Benenson and colleagues at Harvard published a paper on safety concerns much higher in women than men—physical, medical, cultural, and social. Women don't like to take chances. Colleague Corrie Clark at Penn had a grant for adversarial collaborations: rivals with theoretical disagreements collaborate on a critical experiment. Men agreed, but Clark couldn't get women to participate. Of 30-40 collaborations, only one woman agreed, as the neutral third party to avoid being proven wrong. Women prefer excluding rivals rather than confronting with data. Male strategy is duking it out. Science now more about excluding and silencing, to science's detriment.
Imaginary feminist from Baumeister's book 15 years ago addresses conventional wisdom's internalized feminist watchdog: "you can't say this or that—misogynistic, unfair, sexist." Feminists disagree among themselves, so they dismiss critiques as not representing all feminists. Addresses everyone's automatic objection to gender statements, mostly silencing. Example: more stupid men than women is fine, but more brilliant men is unacceptable.
Modern gender discourse misses trade-offs. Social science often labels traits good or bad, pushing fixes without acknowledging new problems. Fix one, create another. Social scientists see work as improving society, ignoring changes making other things worse. Examples:
- Grade inflation: students happier with A's, but learn less, less incentive to study.
- Schools rated on graduation rates: pressure to pass everyone, producing uneducated people. Chicago schools with no pupils reading/math at grade level—nicer grades, but tradeoff of less work.
Feminist scholars reanalyzed hunter-gatherer data claiming women did as much or more big game hunting. Analysis showed data fuckery: one female contribution counted equal to male lifetime hunting, ignoring size differences. Soft bigotry of male expectations: assumes male activities (hunting, CEO) are desirable/prestigious, derogating female ones (gathering, alloparenting, HR). No celebration for equality in female addicts, homeless, violent criminals. Obsession with equality actually pushes sameness, slipping in misogyny by prioritizing male domains.
Hunting and gathering both important; gathering often more calories, more reliably. But protein from hunting has higher value for brain/muscle growth, higher prestige. Count calories minimizes difference; protein shows hunting superiority. Good hunter made man attractive for mates/children; women knew and wanted the best hunter. Modern hunter-gatherers: men gather too due to less big game. Women hunt small game—some overlap.
HR manages internally, doesn't improve bottom line; manufacturing, technology, sales do, affording HR. Prohibition on workplace romance may reduce marriages/mating. Protects women from abusive bosses (men hate those guys), but throws out babies with bathwater. Harvard woman noted many happily married friends' relationships (professor-student) now prohibited, often woman-initiated. Dating apps inadequate.
Modern feminism encourages women to embody dominance, assertiveness, independence, derogating nurturing/soft skills (unless in men). Lacks polarity—can't re-engineer out. Cultural commentators endorse non-traditional views publicly but live traditionally privately, saying no need for family, motherhood, submissiveness.
CCTV: woman attacked by knife-wielding thief for bag in Thailand/East Asia; her male partner hid behind pillar/bollard. Comments: "leave him, he's trash." Wish he'd protected her, but diminishes protector-provider role while training men women don't need protection/doors held/home safe. No training wheels for men to step up.
Older generation taught to protect women, hold doors, face danger. Warren Farrell story: at feminism conference, walking with top feminist, man jumps from tree (not dangerous); she ducked behind him, he stepped forward. Awkward talk blaming his "embodied misogyny/patriarchy." Baumeister doesn't believe in misogyny or patriarchy; no men hate women generally (only specific, e.g., ex-wives). If gender hatred, it's feminists hating men. Subcultures of men hating women now mirror militant feminism—incels upset at rejection/society.
Incel woman raped multiple times hating men understandable; incels similar but less sympathetic. Test: woman dates/sleeps with incel, hatred evaporates. In incels, ascending (escaping inceldom via attraction/sex) discouraged; if equals ascend, fatalism challenged—better misery without hope/disappointment. Researcher William studies incels. Incels not typical men—not powerful; powerful men have no shortage of women. Low-resource/status men.
If society stops rewarding male sacrifice, weakness. WWII: American men rushed to volunteer; unlikely today—men taught they're bad, women equal, America/UK bad, ignoring positives. Vulnerability, though wars ongoing (e.g., Ukraine: men—including trans—turned away at border, women/children leave). No intense selection pressures now allow role experimentation; extremes revert quickly. Male motivation collapse foreseen in 2010 book, now fruition.
Ego depletion: willpower limited resource, saps with use, needs recharge—one of social psychology's most successful findings. Attacked in replication crisis despite overwhelming evidence—thousand supportive findings, none opposite. Chance wouldn't produce one-sided results. Initial multi-lab replication called failure (publicized), but reanalysis showed it confirmed theory when depletion sufficient.
Ego depletion works more if you believe in it? Stanford work: strong pitch of unlimited willpower blocks initial depletion effects; serious depletion worsens effects. Analogy: believing unlimited physical energy helps early fatigue but backfires later.
My thought in the big picture is uh if it were true that believing in unlimited willpower
If believing in unlimited willpower gave you unlimited willpower, most societies would have that belief as a cultural meme due to the benefits for self-control. Yet most societies do not. Some in India may have the opposite belief, but it is rare. People know from experience that exerting control over a long period cannot be sustained.
Initially thought willpower was like a fuel the brain uses up and must recover. Critiques showed depleted people can perform well with big financial rewards, becoming extra depleted afterward. Shifted view: brain goes into conservation mode, similar to physical muscles. Lab studies: after muscle fatigue from pressing, $10 reward enables pressing as hard as initially. Willpower has an extreme depletion point labs do not reach.
Evolved under uncertain food supply. Linked to glucose, the chemical carrying energy from stomach to brain and muscles. Surprise finding: eating after depletion restores performance.
Striking curve in jail sentence lengths based on time since judge's last break. Sentencing harsher pre-breakfast or pre-lunch. Best court times: 1:45 p.m. just after lunch or 9:00 a.m. after breakfast. Hard to perfect with real-life data, but compelling.
Glucose in mid-task restores performance. Florida State lemonade study (double-blind, Splenda vs. sugar): sugar restored self-control, Splenda did not. People couldn't taste difference.
Glucose also fuels immune system unevenly. Fighting a cold requires bed rest to allocate energy. Evolutionary history lacked antibiotics; body conserves for potential infections, fevers.
Self-control brain sections vital for life success. Prolonged high glucose kills nerve cells (e.g., diabetics lose foot sensation, leading to unnoticed injuries). Post-self-control depletion may be brain cooling off self-control areas to avoid burnout from high glucose exposure. Plausible alternative; fits evidence, implies real depletion but protective mechanism.
Self-control ≠ willpower. Willpower is exerted energy; self-control also requires monitoring behavior.
Best Evidence-Based Ways
- Monitoring: Keep records (e.g., grandmother's advice: poor students track spending). Weigh regularly for weight loss. Public commitments (tell friends about exercise, report daily).
- Provides feedback, prevents fooling self. Impossible to regulate unmonitored behavior.
Willpower improves like a muscle via regular exercise. Meta-analyses confirm: practice in one area generalizes (test on different task). Australian studies: money-troubled students trained monthly in money management improved lab self-control tasks (unrelated, e.g., focus amid distraction), study habits, dish-cleaning post-dinner, healthier eating (despite costlier than junk food). Supports self-control as central resource.
Pornography's increasing availability reduces mystery/thrill of female nudity. Past generations: rare Playboy glimpses; no full nudity common. Now endless variety erodes novelty. Limited novelty supply; first time only once. Young men with early access miss later-life novelty.
Shift to multiple partners blazes through novelty vs. gradual exploration within relationship (e.g., bases over time). Friend's app-to-sex in days vs. past requiring engagement/relationship buildup. Step-by-step novelty (e.g., first bra unhook) strengthens bonds via shared experiences.
Speculation: multiple partners poorly prepares for 40-year marriage; predisposes cycling through women. Even slowing down post-high body count (e.g., second base only) less exciting due to Coolidge effect lifetime impact. Plausible after dozen partners.
From Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex book: wife with good sex life, husband later weakened. Tried first-time hand on genitals (per book); he got harder than in years. Sweet rediscovery after minimal variety.
A century ago, lifetime female flesh seen <1 hour of modern porn. Impossible now to study lifelong second-base avoidance due to permissive culture.
Normal porn → BDSM → educational videos: sexual frequency increased only on first (normal) exposure. Escalation needed for desire boost; vanilla after extreme showed no increase. Supports steady novelty escalation over time, dyadic and lifetime. Explosive 20s requires shepherding novelty later.
To sustain excitement over time in relationships, show at least a little care because you want to remain excited to do things long-term. Respect psychology, including the Coolidge effect, where variety acts as a stimulus. Ration excitement over time.
Use the disclaimer: "This is a treatment on men; a separate treatment will be needed for women, but we can save that for another time." For men, the refractory period shortens from one partner to a different partner, enabling quicker performance compared to repeating with the same partner.
Data on sexual novelty's effect on female sex drive is harder to obtain and less convincing. Novelty plays a role but is not as powerful a driving force as in men. A survey of first-year college students at a California university (e.g., Southern Cal) asked: "How many people would you like to have sex with for the rest of your life, assuming no constraints like marriage, laws, or disease?"
- Women's average response: 2.5 (a fling or two then settle down).
- Men's average response: 64 (with impressive outliers pulling the average down; many said 1, likely virgins hoping for their first).
Few women wanted sex with 100 men, unlike men.
Examples:
- UK woman (Lily Phillips) had sex with 100 men in one day; said she wouldn't recommend it.
- Bonnie Blue had sex with 1,000 men in one day (recorded, an endurance feat more than novelty-driven). She is the tail of the tail in socio-sexuality—like Michael Jordan, LeBron James, Tiger Woods, or Elon Musk of having sex. Extremely detached emotions from sex, not alchemizing childhood wounds (unlike much BDSM and kink, predisposed by childhood situations per Kathryn Paige Harden from UT).
Bonnie Blue was cordial in conversation, no signs of deception or trauma. The one who did 100 wouldn't repeat; the one who did 1,000 would.
People at extremes are fine if that's what they want; fun for the 1,000 men too. Hypothetically, pair her with incels to solve accessibility issues. Wife's view: Incels caught up in publicity, want only highly attractive women (unrealistic); suggests they date fat girls or less in-demand women at their level—traditional historically.
Researchers say young people's sex lives aren't as wild as portrayed; Hollywood version (beautiful people with money/status) is unrealistic. Advice to incels: Try dating less attractive women seeking attention, or insist on gorgeous ones and face disappointment unless big, rich, handsome.
Rob Henderson's recent article: Not a small number of men capturing sex from many women. Skew exists, but most people aren't having much sex; many have none. A small group has loads of sex with each other, challenging 80/20 discourse.
Confirmed 3-4 years ago by Alex Datesyke, re-reported by Rob Henderson. More men want to be in the highly socio-sexual group than women; most men who want in can't join (unlike women).
Average man wants more variety. Eli Finkel: One-night stands overstated, quite rare.
"Roy Baumeister, ladies and gentlemen."
Check Roy Baumeister's Substack: The Existential Contrarian. Subscribe, especially the series on sexual novelty.
Keep Chris Williamson in your library
Save the videos and channels worth coming back to, and find them again in one place.
