The g Factor's overwhelming vindication of g, drawing on 15 years of new research, might seem likely to end the debate. It won't, of course, for reasons good and bad. More depressingly, few will grasp either its strengths or its limitations due to fundamental confusions rampant among American intellectuals about how to think about humanity. Their equal average IQ's scores aren't just an artifact of IQ tests being rigged to produce this result. Still, this example also shows that g , like any successful reductionist theory, has its limits.
Women are generally superior at short-term memory, perceptual speed, and verbal fluency.
Beyond cognition, there are other profound sex dissimilarities in personality, motivation, and physiology. All this helps explain the sexes' different patterns in career choices. Because Jensen's simple, single-factor model can detect intellectual equality between men and women, it can also detect intellectual inequality between whites and blacks, if that's what the facts are. Emphasizing the trade-offs necessary for achieving different goals, it makes toting up an overall winner look a little pointless. The diversity perspective has much to offer, but only when it's thoroughly understood that it's inherently less empirically egalitarian than Jensenism.