Pinging you FR geniuses...
I know when I look at your stereotypical geniuses (Bill Gates, “Big Bang Theory,” “The Social Network,” etc.,), the first thing I think is: Yup, we’re just too damned manly.
Infants in the uterus are remarkable things. Surgery done in the uterus doesn't leave a scar. It just leaves a little red mark the body because those little things heal so fast and so perfectly.
If this study is correct, the genius would show up more on the male side rather than the female side. It would take a lot more testosterone to damage the female brain. They have very little of their own to start with.
I disagree with their theory.
While hormones are part of the process, they are not the ultimate director of such processes.
The terms ‘genius’ and ‘very bright’ are not exactly measurable quantities, and not necessarily the same thing.
It is my belief, based on looking around me, that those who are tagged as ‘genius’, usually are deficient in other areas (mentally).
They either have a physical reason to focus (Steven Hawking) all their mental abilities into one channel, or they achieve focus in one area, by not using it in any other area (absent-minded professor, weirdo geek, etc)
Then there are those who are autistic. Very bright, highly non-functional in society. The cause is a toss up, but the methodology is the same. The mind concentrates it’s power in a limited area permanently, by abandoning others.
There are plenty of highly intelligent (say...based on MENSA scores) ‘normal’ people out there, who COULD be ‘geniuses’ if they focused all their attention to one thing, at the expense of the others. But, they don’t.
To conclude, Hormones may be an ingredient of the ‘cause’, but it is only one among many.
Score numbers mean nothing. Standard deviation and percentile are the metrics. This seems like an opportunity to burn research money and publish only. This demonstrates to me that these people don't have a clue.
I can answer this in the other direction. Sometimes when observing the effects of female hormones I get a little stupid.
Little known is that Einstein’s mom was the bearded lady in a circus.
To test how much exposure you had to testosterone in utero you can look at the length of your fingers (true for men, not sure for women). If the ring finger is longer than the index finger then you got a lot of testosterone. If the index finger is longer you were lacking. Strange but true.
I believe there is a link between extreme nearsightedness in some people and genius. The gene is dominant. So in a family with four children, when one parent has the gene in full force and is both very nearsighted and a genius, there will be, statistically, two very nearsighted geniuses, one somewhat nearsighted half genius, and one nongenius who is not nearsighted at all. I happen to know a family with exactly that pattern. When you think of it in evolutionary terms, it makes sense, as the intelligence compensates for the poor eyesight. These things are always more complex than this simple explanation, I should add.