There's a theory that men are more extreme in many ways, so you'd expect them to be overrepresented at both the top and the bottom.
This mostly seems to get used to excuse obvious sexism, when it could be spun the other way, women may be the safe choice and we should expect some men to be poor and useless and there's nothing we can do to help them.
In this specific case, I think the commenter is technically correct, but also wrong on the big picture.
> There's a theory that men are more extreme in many ways
Maybe a bit off-topic, but when i read on X-linked gen defects, i found they are not symmetric between the sexes. There are things like red-green blindness that almost exclusively affects men, while women are conductors (in their genes but its not affecting them). Haemophilia is another example. So there is a class of properties that predominantly show up in men, and this might also include properties that result in greater or lesser intelligence or abilities.
This is such an obvious explanation for the greater male variability hypothesis that i think i'm making some dumb mistake here. I'm not a biologist after all. Do we have someone here that can do a plausibility check on it?
The worlds top 62 richest are all outliers. Little can be drawn from them that represents the general population. As men are distributed more to the extremes you'd expect to see more men here. This excuses nothing and explains nothing.
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/englis...