So I have this theory.
Read a little of a paper we’re doing for USS, and in it they discuss the two stances regarding the double-X female chromosomes. A brief background, the sciences discovered that females in fact have a larger sex chromosome and are ‘biologically superior’, citing a few biological strengths they have and also that girls outperform boys in their early school years. And then there’s the opposing camp that believes the single X chromosome of the male provided the ‘biological mechanism for superior male cognition’.
Here there is the underlying assumption that intelligence = biological superiority, which of course makes perfect intuitive sense. But is it true? I have a theory and following it, it would be possible for both claims – that females are biologically superior AND that males are more intelligent – to hold true.
Ok my theory is this. There’s a peak for mankind’s intelligence, after which we will start favoring other evolutionary tools to further humanity. Things like emotions and empathy and the ability to form meaningful human connections, basically. This adheres to the theory of evolution and adaptation, because with AI we have less of a need to exercise our brainpower. Intelligence kind of becomes the extra limb we needed to paddle in prehistoric ponds for sustenance.
In simpler terms, we have reached a point of evolution where we are so intelligent, we have built intelligence to replace our own need for intelligence, and as we evolve further we will become less intelligent because we don’t need to be it anymore.
Given that what I’ve posited above does hold, then we no longer measure biological superiority with intelligence. Let’s say that females are indeed more empathetic, emotional and able to form human bonds (Can we say that? Or is it still a contentious issue, idk). That’s because they are a step ahead on the evolutionary ladder. Since our fundamental needs for survival are met, we begin to develop tools needed to further humanity in a more post-materialist sense.
What if the very nature of this advancement – of feeling and feeling for others – necessarily reduces the straight path to making the most intelligent decisions, choices and actions? Intelligence holds with it certain assumptions that you make choices that enable your own survival. If you see it in certain ways, doing things that inconvenience yourself in order to benefit another – while a humane thing to do – is also logically not intelligent at all.
In technical terms, the female species are biologically superior and more advanced in terms of evolution. But it is precisely because of that that they are less intelligent than the male species (ok here comes the feminist outcry). In the trade off for humanity to have more meaningful human connections, intelligence is necessarily compromised. Tell me that emotions and empathy doesn’t many times require the forsaking of logical sense – and pure logic is the basis for intelligence (at least in the conventional sense).
That may also explain why girls outperform boys in early school days: because at that point the emotional development for both genders are level. Perhaps then, innately, females are more intelligent given their biological advantage. But they are also innately wired to feel, and feel for others more. And with time as that innate trait develops, it often replaces logical sense where logical sense would have been.
This can go both ways. Females reading this can realize that I’m recognizing them as biologically and intellectually superior, but that the biological superiority is the very reason for their intelligence being compromised, or they might go berserk because I just called them dumber than males. Go ahead.
Q 