ETA: This example points up the difference, I think, between "PG" and "prodigy." DD is quite likely the former (I could provide a lot of anecdotal support for the claim that her reasoning ability was that of at least undergraduate level when she was 4-7yo)-- but clearly not the latter. COULD she be in the right domain? Perhaps, but we've certainly not seen anything that lights her fire that way long-term. Mostly, she inhales information and is then 'done' with whatever it is, or dabbles periodically over a longer period of time.
I think males are more likely to develop obsessive interests and thus harness their talents to become prodigies. It's not clear that if as many women were obsessive as men that things would be better. To make a good living it suffices to be very good at one thing, but a parent must play the roles of teacher, dietician, psychologist, and doctor, among other roles. Maybe females have evolved to be more well-rounded and less obsessive because their domestic roles have required that.
And to follow onto UM's post above--
my DD is not an example of "less obsessive" in any way, actually. She's serially obsessive about whatever interest she has which is new and shiny.
This is the entire reason why I've been reluctant to call marksmanship anything but a current interest. She was
at one time this way about almost everything. It's just that she's so clearly got prodigy-potential in this domain.
Also laughing a bit at the notion that this particular skill set could have been shaped for some care-giving/domestic need by evolution. LOL.
It's worth noting that far too many EG/PG people are distinctly androgynous in their interests and strengths to make gender-based statements about them. IMO, I mean.
