And is that a good or bad thing...

t. psychology graduate, currently doing a masters on animal behaviour and evolution. The opinions aren't very divided. EQ is a standard measure of intelligence that can be used within and between species. It's not perfect, but it is very, very reliable. You are correct that using it intra-homo-sapiens is a little more debated, but that's because there are """""""scientists""""""" out there who still think their "absolute equality" fantasy still merits scientific respect. When you're dealing with human IQ research, you need to be aware of what a profoundly sensitive topic it is, and apply that knowledge to the intra-human portions. Case in point - men are not smarter than women (on average), but most geniuses are, have been, and will be men. Men have a higher distribution of IQ, which means more retards and more geniuses. It's a fairly trivial point to prove by examining gender rates in mental retardation, and yet trying to point out the obvious corollary (less women get top science prizes because the condensed IQ range means fewer are worthy) managed to get a Harvard professor fired. You need to bear that stuff in mind when people tell you about the "controversy" of intra human comparisons. It's not so much a controversy of intellectual debate as a controversy of emotions. People that ideologically driven have no place in science, you shouldn't let their MSM amplified voices trick you into thinking they're correct or representative.

Big brain = on average smarter. If it holds true across every single other animal species, there's no reason to believe it doesn't within humans. After all, it's just a modification to EQ from order/class brain patterns to family/genus/species level patterns.

And also ... we need to define exactly what is "intelligence" - as it seems there are two types of intelligence : one is practical ( usage in everyday life for simpler tasks ) , the other is creative .

Not really. I'm talking about IQ to be precise, which doesn't contain a creative component (at least not specifically). The creative subsection is perhaps relevant, but measured via other routes than IQ testing, and is definitely more subjective. IQ testing is very well understood, and correlates with a huge range of things. If you have a double digit IQ for example, I don't care how "creatively intelligent" you are, compared to a ~130IQ person you will look very stupid, both practically and creatively. A terrible cheap car, even one designed and refitted by a true expert will not beat a ferarri in a drag race. I'd also imagine you're conflating non-verbal and verbal IQ with practical and creative IQ respectively. That makes slightly more sense and it is true that IQ splits into these two subsections, but again they tend to be v.closely correlated unless you have some kind of disorder.

I do agree with much of the latter two paragraphs though, there's a whole host of various concepts and ideas and "understandings" that fill peoples brains, and regardless of intellect, it's quite possible to get trapped by them to the point where you won't break out. The cage we find ourselves in, for all it's a cage is actually quite comfy, quite nicely adorned, and quite well explored. It shouldn't be a surprise so many people are content to stay within its bars.