How about this for a thought: you’ve probably got more female ancestors than male. Before you say it’s impossible have a look at this report from John Teirney. The plain fact is that women are more likely to have children than men are. Historically (and it’s still true to some extent now) for men to have children means that they’ve “won”, beaten the other men to the fertile women in that society. But just about all fertile women who wanted to have had children (as well, no doubt, as many who didn’t want to). Thus, while it still takes one man and one woman to have each specific child, some men are the fathers of many more children than others and thus turn up in the family trees much more often than others. It’s said, for example, that Ghenghis Khan has over 16 million descendants now: even after 800 years that would not be possible for any one woman.

Too much can be made of such things in trying to explain human behavior: as with our EQSQ personality tests such is a spectrum, not a rigid divide between male and female behavior. So saying that people will, purely by virtue of their genes, be on one side or the other of the outcomes of such personality tests would not be true: just that there are probabilities. But this difference in the likelihood of having children (and thus “winning” the Darwinian race) does help to explain some aspects of modern behavior: why men are always competing with each other, for example.