## 2.c.4) Woman and man intelligence

At this point, I wanted to embark on a delicate subject, that of the possible sexual differentiation in intelligence between woman and man. I would say that there is a general consensus that great differences exist between female and male sensitivity. Consequently, the groups of basic relational functions that support these sensitivities should be somewhat different.

From there, if a determined test of intelligence is used that collects, to a great extent, the feminine sensitivity of men and women, we would have to wait for women to obtain better results and vice versa.

A curious act is that, to some extent, all of us memorize a representation of others where, on top of their image, we include some characteristics, needless to say, from our point of view. Among them is an intuitive estimation of that person's intelligence.

As this approximation is carried out on a personal scale, it should not be surprising that many women are completely convinced that they are much more intelligent than men, and vice versa. In fact, all men and all women are right from their point of view or scale of reference.

An example of how complicated the subject of sexual differentiation in intelligence between woman and man is would be to speak about the beauty of intelligence and the intelligence of beauty. In a certain respect, both affirmations are correct and, therefore, elemental relational functions that support them should exist. In relation to this subject, without wanting to go any deeper in it, we can cite the existence of certain symmetries.

Another example could be the different results that come out of complicated mathematical calculations if we are working with variables rounded to whole numbers or with decimals. Sometimes one way is better and other times, the other way; but, if the program is very complicated, perhaps both should not, or would not be efficient if maintained simultaneously.

In the calculations used (that were complicated due to their quantity) in the demonstration of the heritability of intelligence, the variables are ordered with different criteria, and the results may sensitively vary depending on the criterion of organization prior to the last variable used.

If the absolute scale cannot be discovered, a good solution is to use a neutral scale in respect to gender for pure convention. This is what some of the most important tests of today do as far different batteries of forms or questions are concerned; through adequate ponderation they achieve that the overall evaluation of the tests to be neutral.

In some cases, the values are corrected with a different scale according to gender; the TC1 test is an example that is based on a series of dominoes.

In other cases, the results are corrected according to age. For ages above 30, the result is compensated considering that there is a fall in performance although not in potential.

In short, it deals with obtaining equality by age in a conventional fashion. It could also go the other way, that is to say, theoretical inequality. For example, the youngest may be more intelligent due to evolutionary reasons; the statistical work in the annex obtains better adjustments in the studied correlations for an average 10% improvement in each generation.

In short, the interpretation of statistical data is not only risky but also this data can be incorrect.

An example of the difference between men and women which is accepted by both men and women with a good sense of humor is the following. Men prefer women with lateral symmetry of 90-60-90 and women prefer an exponential growth of 10-23-1023 in their man, that is to say, a 10 in intelligence, … and a 1023 in \$.

Continuing with the differences and humor, if men had to define a single measurement that encompassed the three previously mentioned parameters, they would use the mean squared error, and women… the sum.

Now that differences are admitted, let us see how we can contribute to some observed differences from a scientific point of view:

• Human life expectancy

Women have a higher estimated life expectancy between 5 and 10 % than men in most countries. In Spain, this supposes approximately seven years (84 years in women versus 77 years for men). It seems clear that there must be something better in women’s constitution apart from the existence of other factors such as a lower rate of tobacco consumption among females, different types of work, etc.

According to the General Theory of Conditional Evolution of Life, the main function of the sexual differentiation is to serve as a genetic filter between the information received from the male and female progenitors. The above mentioned theory also affirms that women provide an intact copy of the genetic information, with the advantage of having its phenotypical viability guaranteed.

Consequently, the filter of two X chromosomes should result in a more stable structure than the one made up by the XY chromosomes. The same argumentation can be used for the rest of the 22 pairs of human chromosomes and to those of other animals with sexual differentiation. It would not be surprising that it resulted in a higher female longevity; explaining, at least in part, the observed reality.

• Gender differences in human intelligence in the lower threshold

An interesting issue will be the stability effect mentioned in the previous point about human intelligence in the lower part of the typical bell curve of Gauss.

The EDI Study – Evolution and Design of Intelligence detects, in one out of five cases, what it denominates genetic accidents in the evolution of intelligence which are very relevant in quantitative terms.

It would not be surprising either that the important decreases in human intelligence due to said accidents would occur more in men than in women.

• Gender differences in human intelligence in the upper threshold

As in the aforementioned case of the dominoes series.

Following the General Theory of Conditional Evolution of Life, the Global Cognitive Theory and the empirical results from the EDI Study, since women do not modify their genetic information and most of the elemental functions which make up intelligence have a genetic nature, the X chromosomes would have at least a generation behind in evolution with sexual differentiation and two backward generations on average. Unless the X chromosome may pass 100 % updated to the following generation every time it coincides with the Y chromosome, this fact could explain the low female participation in highly gifted associations, in nominations for the Nobel Prize, the few inventions made by women, a lower rate in management positions, etc., without any necessity of restoring to an historical specialism of jobs or being particularly negative towards men accusing them with no scientific evidence of gender favoritism.

In a social way, curiously enough, it seems that this mentioned gratuitous accusation is not rude, although the possible scientific explanation to some specific characteristics of human intelligence, even though it could be real, actually is.

Even though I consider that the scientific nature of the General Theory of Conditional Evolution of Life, the Global Cognitive Theory and the results of the EDI Study are clear; due to the social sensitivity regarding the matters discussed, it should be desirable to carry out a new EDI Study -2 on the evolution and design of human intelligence with a bigger sample which may confirm the results hereinabove mentioned and obtain a higher sensitivity and significance of the model for this specific aspect of the update of the X chromosome.

In the page about the Evolution of Intelligence included in the book General Theory of Conditional Evolution of Life, the new Darwinout experiment, which has not been carried out yet, is herein presented to confirm the results of the EDI Study with a very easy methodology.