>>13079567>I stated that the field of Psychology has a very poor understanding about what Intelligence is supposed to beYour statement is utterly wrong, psychogists have a pretty good grasp of the questions you asked. I've explained it briefly, and I've told you to read two books that go into this in detail. Your belief that psychologists don't know anything about intelligence is unsubstantiated, you have failed to provide any references that show psychology doesn't have the answers to your questions. Where did you get this idea from? I've asked you this earlier but you utterly failed to answer this.
>Psychology doesnt have much of a clue how the brain worksSince the mechanism by which the brain functions didn't satisfy you as an answer, I am now requesting a more elaborate question. You have to be more concrete if you want a more concrete answer than the one I've given you so far.
>It does not know what intelligence isYou are flat out wrong here. We do know what intelligence is, as I've already demonstrated what psychologists understand intelligence to be. If you think there is something more specific about intelligence that psychogists do not know, you have to specify this, but you haven't done so. You're hiding behind ambiguous language because you're wrong.
>What it consists of; how it works, functionallyAlready explained this to you and you have been unable to defend the claim that psychologists don't know. Again, your question has to be more concrete if you want a more concrete answer.
>or how it manifests and relates to the human biologyThis is actually a concrete question which I have shown you several examples of. You ask how intelligence manifests and relates to humab biology, and I've explained to you how it manifests and relates to human biology in several ways. It's over, you've reached the end of the line.
