Flygirl and Miss B,
I am not talking about male superiority or female inferiority. To assert such a thing is absurd and foolish. What I am saying is - females lack the NECESSARY INTELLIGENCE to be independent - meaning: the intelligence of relative importance.
But you are right on one account - BM on average have lower IQ's then WM. I am not disputing that FACT. How can I - when ALL scientific evidence will say so? But that is only on AVERAGE. The average IQ is one standard above deviation - which I believe is 85-100, someone please correct if I am wrong.
You should also know, higher levels of intelligence is an social construct, it is difficult to argue that cultural, environmental, gender, socio-economic, or educational discrepancies will not affect your level of intelligence. Which will explain why BM and women will have lower IQ levels then WM and Asians. It is also absurd to think BM and women do not have above average IQ or into the genius levels of comprehension. Men and women of first class education such as Miss B and Myself is where you the separation. For every women with an IQ of 126 there will be 2 men. For every women with an IQ of 155, there will be 5 men. For every female with an IQ of 165, there will be 10 men. Again, this not to say females are inferior to men. It is just the FACTS. Any women of high intelligence will pursue Independence as a man would - aggressively, cutting off emotions and attachments, and the like. I sustain, this is not attractive to men, it will never be seen as feminine in the eyes of men. The idea of femininity to men is different then that of the women's and always will be. To aggressively pursue independence will land you single at the age of 40+ - that is another FACT society has a hard time swallowing. You can not separate the two - being loving, nurturing, and supportive because achieving Independence constitutes you shutting off those emotions. Another FACT!
As Miss B mentioned there are different 'types' of intelligence. Linguistic intelligence ("word smart"), Logical-mathematical intelligence ("number/reasoning smart"), Spatial intelligence ("picture smart"), Bodily-Kinesthetic intelligence ("body smart"), Musical intelligence ("music smart"), Interpersonal intelligence ("people smart"), Intrapersonal intelligence ("self smart"), Naturalist intelligence ("nature smart"). But the constituent of these 'types' derives out general intelligence, which men, will edge out women as the level of education rises. It should never be mistaken as to be superior because there areas of these 'types' where women edge out men and always will. Multi -tasking and the sheer resilience to endore pain and suffering is almost unmeasurable in a female and men will never come close. But as I stated, we should NEVER confuse the nature of men and women; because it is as nature intends it and always will.
There are two distinct schools of thought on the nature of intelligence. The proponents of one general intelligence have a theory that explains the biological reasons for intelligence. Given that they see neural processing speed as the root for intelligence, their theory has an effective causal explanation. On the other hand, the theory of one general intelligence does not encompass all peoples. In the example with the Brazilian street children, they would most likely score poorly on an intelligence test, and be labeled with a low general intelligence. However, they are intelligent enough to be able to do all of the math that they need to know how to do. A drawback to the general intelligence school of thought is that it is heavily dependent on psychometric evaluations. Consequently, it cannot take into account the vast array of different talents that people have.
As for multiples intelligences, there are many theorists in that school of thought as well. Some of the theories presented by the proponents of multiple intelligences are excessive and have too many constructs to measure for example, Guilford's theory. But there are reasonable explanations of intelligence put forth by those from the school of multiple intelligences. Gardner's theory has a very clear causal explanation for intelligence, like the explanation of one general intelligence. But, unfortunately, it is very difficult to pinpoint and confirm Gardner's hypotheses experimentally, because of the delicacy involved with the human brain. Sternberg's theory does not have a biological basis to it, and that detracts from its validity. But that may also be its strength. The theory does not focus on the brain and biological functions, but on different social situations. Therefore, the theory applies to different social situations and environments, as none of the other theories does.
But, given that there still is a substantial debate about the nature of intelligence, and no one theory is accepted by all, there is still room for improvement on any given theory. This is why I believe to understand General Intelligence is inconceivable by Humans. There are too many people who believe there can be NO ABSOLUTE TRUTHS like you two - FlyGirl and Miss B. But I do not blame the position you take, given your nature as a women.
