Salomé
meh
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2008
- Messages
- 10,527
- MBTI Type
- INTP
- Enneagram
- 5w4
- Instinctual Variant
- sx/sp
I'm aware of the "flying without a co-pilot" fact (I think the sex difference in incidence of colour-blindness is the most common and easy example to cite) and perhaps my wording of "more" was a little sloppy, but I fail to see how the very thing you're asserting isn't actually proving my point: women aren't gambling with as few chances as men are. The male's lack of an alternative option means he's playing with different odds. Women are far more likely to come out "safe" but men are far more likely to "go big or go home." If one assumes any correlation between genetics and intelligence (given how biological v. adopted children score relative to both sets of parents, it's likely there's a genetic component somewhere) they can also assume it will follow the same trend as stated above.
All that aside, it's illogical to assume that when you're adding multiple variables (differences in genetic material, differences in hormones which is brain chemistry, sexual characteristics, overall metabolism and everything else) the single differentiator is purely sociological.
I'm sure you've also learned that it's never just environment and it's never just genetics--there's always an interaction.
Yes to most of the above, however, there is no data to suggest that intelligence is in any way related to genes on Y. Otherwise all women would be thick as sh*t (instead of just 90% of them). Like you said Y is short - it doesn't do much. And women are gonna get the most favourable genes on X because of the built in redundancy. Therefore, the argument about extremes of intelligence being related to sex chromosone diffs doesn't hold water.