Hmm… (should I respond?) Maybe. Maybe not. I can’t decide. So I’ll give it a g

Hmm… (should I respond?) Maybe. Maybe not. I can’t decide. So I’ll give it a go:
There is no such thing as ’emotional intelligence’ since intelligence scales regardless of function – that’s why IQ ‘works’ as a measure. The measure was discovered precisely because all abilities scale in concert.
Instead, there are sex differences in cognitive bias from the empathic to the systemic, and each of us experiences the world somewhere on that spectrum of biases.
The empathic tends toward verbal and pictorial as well, and the systemic tends toward models and simulations.
This is, perhaps not so obviously the causal difference between the sexes: Now with small numbers vs Then with large numbers. Meaning that evolution used the division of the labor of conception of time and space to separate the sexes – which is obvious given their roles in reproduction and production.
So these cognitive differences are biases. It is true that at the limits of these biases we find the dominance of each by each of the sexes.
And we amplify our biases within the limits of our intelligence given our life experiences, of which trauma of any kind will produce an exaggerated effect one way or another.
If one was excessively empathic one would develop (a) solipsism (b) borderline psychosis if not psychosis, as is common in women at those extremes.
Intelligence can moderate these extremes just as it can moderate all behaviors.
So these are value biases not intelligence differences. They determine where we invest our intelligence.
Among intellectuals we see this bias expressed largely by the form of information they absorb. Fo example, I shared a recent podcast by Sam Harris with Peter Zeihan where Sam was … disabused of his belief in the power of ideas .. as are many people in the non-sciences when they are forced to confront the evidence. If you live in the written word you become convince of it’s power. If you live in data you are convinced of its absence. All human behavior is reactive, acquisitive and justificationary – depending upon what one seeks it is always an act of acquisition.
So while we have the obvious spectrum of cognitive paradigms:
|Paradigms|: Anthropomorphic > Mythological > Theological > Philosophical > Empirical > Scientific > Computational.
Where each in the sequence is less subjective in paradigm, vocabulary, logic and grammar than the previous, demanding more knowledge and agency than the previous, placing a greater burden on reason and information than the previous.
So this spectrum allows graceful ascent(incremental success) into precision and decline (graceful failure) on the one hand, and SPECIALIZATION in that ‘sub-spectrum’ of comprehension on the other. (Which is what happens).
We tend to see people specializing in disciplines but we also see people specializing in disciplines that satisfy their accumulated knowledge and knowledge in defense of their biases.

The reductive example is that there are no female einsteins (and never will be) and their there are a lot of male criminals. Women produce genetic stability, while men produce genetic experimentation. The novelties are produced by the Y and selected into the X.

I hope this was somewhat helpful.

Reply addressees: @whatifalthist