Slashdot Mirror
Bigger Brains Make Smarter People Study Says
udderly writes "People with bigger brains are smarter according
to a Virginia Commonwealth University industrial and organizational
psychologist, Michael A. McDaniel, Ph.D.
McDaniel, who is a professor in management at
VCU's School of Business. He reviewed 26 previous studies comparing brain size
and intelligence and found that brain volume has a strong correlation to
intelligence. According to McDaniel, 'for all age and sex groups, it
is now very clear that brain volume and intelligence are related.' So, how
big of a hat do you wear?"
Better snap up all those big-headed Ashkenazi, Accenture!
I guess now I can stop checking /. hourly!!
When did this place become the Drudge Report outlet mall? The last three stories have been on Drudge for a day.
Ok, I officially resign.
They forgot to subtract the inclosed volumn of air!
Einstein's cervical hemispheres were 15% larger than everyone else's due to all the maths he did. Now get working!
If you thought as good about everything as a savant thought about one thing, I believe it would show that with proper organization a well wired smaller mass can be capable of greater predictions of the environment than a larger brain mass.
But considering that we all share the same assembly instructions, apples to apples maybe bigger is better.
Shh.
at least thats what they taught last time I was at the Jedi Academy on Dantooine.
Mister Spock noted that the Talosians were smarter because they had bigger brains during "The Cage".
WAYSA?
Skull Size != Brain Size. Just thought important to point out that before we all start getting the measuring tape to see how smart people are...
We've been discussing this over at Gene Expression for a bit now.
AFTER Kerry's lost the election.
I'd suggest that the study is probably right about the average larger brain providing its owner with a higher intelligence than the average average-sized brain.
However, neuron count in specific brain areas would seem to be more significant, and higher densities would provide more neurons/volume and therefore enable a smaller brain to outperform a larger one.
Using hat size to select job applicants, as the linked article suggests, is probably not a good idea.
..in Serious Sam and various other games, the developers included themselves as models with huge heads. How arrogant.
As several sites have suggested 1, 2, 3, Einstein's brain fell in the range of normal for all measurements, except for the portion known as the inferior parietal lobes, located in the middle of the brain. This middle portion was 15% wider and had no groove.
So maybe the correct conclusion is not that bigger is better, but only the sections that matter. Remember, its not the size of the wand, its the magic in it that counts.
Quality Hosting e3 Servers
So why do we always do what they tell us to?
More core in a cpu, which make CPU larger, makes cpu also run faster.
researches believe that water is actually wet.
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/dublinclontarf
And while we're at it, study what?
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
The average Asian elephant has a brain mass of 7.8kg.
I for one welcome our supremely intelligent, prehensile nosed overlords.
http://twitter.com/onion2k
... it's the thickness of the skull ;-)
Was this study done by the same folks who said, "90% of all statistics are made up"?
my mum tells me i was born with a strangely large head, YEAH!!!
It doesn't apply when you have a thick skull.
Yes, using a single case to argue what should be true for billions is the best way to go isn't it?
I'm intelligent, and my friends always say I'm big-headed
I am trolling
in a storage unit 'cause i am teh smartz0rs
I know its heresy, but, think about it. Maybe he just more hacked away at his stuff until he got it to "work" than he was actually a genius.
This is my sig.
Will someone dig Gould's book out and beat this idiot about the head with it? It's an fascinating read of many previous attempts by people who agendas or merely some naivete to grind to trivially quantify intelligence.
Nihil Illegitemi Carborvndvm
Remember that the day you'll get a girlfriend.
No, it highlights the problem of using the results of this study to determine things like Princeton admissions ...
I must be quite the rocket scientist.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
So...the phrenologists were right after all?
Cloned foods give the statement "We had that last week!" a whole new meaning.
I saw a far side joke that showed all the cows discussing the theory of relitivity, but when the farmer came around they simply said moo.
Maybe there is more truth to that comic than we thought. Our measily 3lb brains may never know the truth.
DUH!
> Einstein's brain fell in the range of normal for all measurements, except for the portion known as the inferior parietal lobes
His inferior lobes were superior?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Basketball and football players. So i guess there is no need for soft college programs for scholarship athletes ... put 'em in the hard courses with the rest of us. (true geeks cringe in horror ...)
It was held for far too long that because women had smaller heads, they were naturally less intelligent than men. Same with the brain sizes of blacks compared to whites.
This is a professor of management at a school of business, folks. He makes PHB's for a living - don't listen to him.
My head's so damn big that I have to cut the bands off hats to make them fit.
It's so big my mother couldn't bear to look at me for the first year of my life.
Oh yes, my headbutting skills are truly devastating and apparently my mental prowess is as well.
Now if only I could get a date...
...oh the sweet irony of natural selection.
The meek shall inherit the earth, in 3 by 6 plots. - Lazerus Long
http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_playe
If it was up to me, I'd be the most intelligent person in the universe and everyone else would fall shy of my marker. I mean, there is a HUGE correlation between my thinking people are stupid and my thinking people are stupid. And, there would be a tax... a dumb tax. The smartest people would be subsidized through taxation. i.e. Depending on just how much less intelligent you are than me, you'd have to pony up a certain coin. The scale would range from almost as smart as me to dead. You would receive income based on your placement in that scale. The lower on the scale, the more physical labor you'd have to do earn a living. Can't have stupid people exercising their brains now. Could throw off the whole Thing. Of course, I'm really the most qualified to determine who does what. I mean, I AM the smartest. Everyone would submit payment to me. That's really the only smart way to do this. I would then dole out the appropriate funds to deserving brains that amused me. This would allow smart people... me... to keep on doing the brilliant things I do. Like posting here. Damn I'm smart. Damn you're stupid.
Reminds me of something some said to me once
Freind:Dude a small precision tool is far better than a large blunt object
Me: Yes but nothing beats a large blunt object for doing some serious hammering.
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
I'd also readed that Leibniz's brain was so small, and remember, he was the master on all sciences, (on his time, obviously).
Jules: Do you know what they call a Quarter Pounder with cheese in France?
Brett: No.
Jules: Royale with cheese. Do you know why they call it a Royale with cheese?
Brett: Because of the metric system?
Jules: Check out the big brain on Brett!
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
OK, I can only assume that this would be true for most species, also... so what I'm wondering is, what non-human animals have bigger brains than humans? Any biologist geeks here know this? And if this *is* true, and there are animals with larger brains then ours, then it may be time to re-evaluate what we traditionally think of intelligent. Personally, I think that humans are an evolutionary dead end.
I don't respond to AC's.
I always said he was a genius.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
but then I figured that that pretty much shows how not smart I am.
Anyone else have a better way to measure my cranial capacity?
www.eissq.com/BandP.html Ball and Plate System. Amuse your friends. Crush your enemies.
Did anyone else read the headline as: "Bigger brains make smarter people study, says ______"?
Yeah... Einstein had a smaller brain than usual, and neanderthals had massive brains.... It's more of a rule-of-thumb than anything...
Commodore64_love: I don't comprehend people who're so frightened of death that they'll bankrupt themselves to stay alive
If you lose the penis measuring contest, try the brain measuring contest. Just what some people need need, something else to bitch about.
no shit,
you people are quick.
not.
Do you know how difficult it is to find a hat that fits? Most "one size fits all" adjustable hats won't fit, adjusted to their maximum. And most stores selling hats in a wide range of sizes top out at hat sizes 7, 7 1/2, or 8. Sometimes I can squeeze into a size 8, but it's a tight, uncomfortable fit.
Now before anyone goes and says that I'm just exceptionally thick-skulled, I have the brain MRI to show that my cranium is indeed unusually capacious, and that none of the available space is vacant, occupied instead by a fabulously intelligent brain.
My girlfriend is 5'1, while I am 6'2, and she IS ALWAYS RIGHT!
If you're tired, sleep! Wenn Sie muede sind, schlafen!
But I know some fat-headed idiots, and some fleshy weaklings. The size of the anatomy may indicate capacity, but its development is an independent variable and a large factor in actual ability.
....which race has, on average, the biggest brain? Any talk of brain size vs intelligence always leads to this question. It will be interesting to see what kind of conclusions are drawn, and how they will be interpreted by the general public.
I can see it now:
Increase the size of your pen... uhhh... brain. Send $14.95 for a trial period to the address at the top of this page.
Jeez, I hope not all Ph.D's are landed as easily as this guy's must have been. This is nothing more than modern phrenology. Here's a link to the actual publication: http://www.vcu.edu/uns/Releases/2005/june/McDaniel -Big%20Brain.pdf
It's mostly a literature review, which obviously attempts to use the 'majority must be right' fallacy to some mysterious end. The guy's an 'industrial psychologist,' though, so go figure.
To argue something so bold and broad that the size of the brain is an indicator for intelligence is frighteningly naive. If you leave your computer for a second and go meet a few people, you'll quickly realize that people with little heads have no problem outsmarting people with wide hats. This is about on par with 'people with big noses have big johnsons.' Don't read this publication if you're expecting any insight on anything other than a statistical analysis of random literature. You won't find any discussion of neuroplasticity here. I've a question I'd like to ask this guy: how come people 3 feet tall are smarter than you?
Jupiter is fucking huge, but let me assure you, I'd rather be back home. Bigger is not always better.
Whats neat is that the folding is a fractal structure which when unfolded has a very large surface area vs. it's actual size when folded. So I don't know about more folds implying a more complex wiring pattern, instead providing more neurons to be wired in some way.
Shh.
When I graduated high school, they had to custom order my graduation cap, because they didn't have any ones big enough in stock.
And it was still really tight...
--- At my sig, unleash hell.
It's funny how this research was carried out by a business school - the class of school that created the likes of Enron and WorldCom.
The last thing we (collectively) need is a bunch of more egomaniacs who think they're smarter than the average bear - despite any hard evidence.
On average, those with a larger brain are more intellegent than those with a smaller brain. Next, let's "study" skin color.
As one other poster noted, Einstein had a brain that only fell in the range of "normal", giving lie to the theory size alone is an indicator of likely intelligence. Here's another interesting article I coincidentally read a couple days ago.
A couple of interesting things to take from this article:
Before drawing conclusions on brain size and correlation with intelligence therein, read this article... it sheds far more light on this discussion than does the research "summary".
Interestingly, even though men and women have fairly significant differences in brain sizes, this article shows that women's brains develop differently than mens, with density in different regions and layers possibly offsetting size differences. I'll not go over the entire article, read it.... it's good.
Sidebar: Oh, and by the way, my brain is so small, I use the extra space inside my skull to store my CD collection.
"Big brain = smarter"?
Then the Nazis were correct.
I was discussing this recent line of discussions about brain size and intelligence. From my recollection the Math department at my school had the highest concentrations of big headed people. There were several I had in my diff eq and analysis lectures that at first glance you would say were borderline hydrocephalic. Obviously they weren't, but they did have some big noggins.
Phrenology is so pre-modern. The Germans we're also pursuing quantum zero-point energy during WWII because Relativity would never amount to anything. (e=mc^2 of course as expressed as a nuclear weapon)
Shh.
....towards approval of phrenology as an officially-sanctioned method of catagorizing individuals. This sort of bullshit "research" is best saved for those who prefer to justify their own inadaquecies and overall lack of intelligence. Could it also be that those who believe in this sort of twaddle suffer from megalocephaly and have trouble finding a hat that fits?
"We herd sheep....we drive cattle...we LEAD people! Lead me...follow me...or get out of my way!" GEN George Patton
Bigger Brains Make Smarter People Study Says
Use a comma, Sideshow Bob!
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
It's probably the same as with everything else that doesn't have to carried around (no, the brain doesn't need to be carried the same way):
The bigger the better.
But size does not correlate to quality and thus something small of high quality can easily outweigh something big an crude.
I had thought this correlation was old news, and that the direction of causality was that people who use their brains more develop more ganglia, etc.... Neural plasticity continues throughout one's life. People who don't use their brains experience faster brain shrinkage when their older, putting them at higher risk for dementia. This is why the elderly are advised to do crossword puzzles and whatnot (from the nun and related studies).
What's disturbing is the age at which our brains start to shrink and our cognitive functioning declines. I've done a lot of neuropsych assessment, and the norm tables for the instruments show turning points (depending on what is being measured) as early as age 17, and as late as the late 20s. I believe I remember reading that brain size significantly begins shrinking in the early 30s, and the rate is positively correlated with blood pressure.
Use it or lose it. Avoid salt.
Judge me by my size do you....
Refute scientific empirical evidence with postmodern egalitarianism. Way to go, Hymie!
Shame on Slashdot for featuring this nonsense. Your homework for the weekend is to read "The Mismeasure of Man" by Stephen Jay Gould. Bad ideas from the 19th century should not be featured as science in the 21st century.
I read through the paper. The author combined the
results of a number of studies as if they were
all equal. In other words, the error on each study
was not used in combining them: studies with large
error weighted equally. In fact no errors are quoted
at all! This is poor statistical practice.
Furthermore, From the readers point of view, we
don't see the raw data from any of the studies,
just the correlation coefficients. There isn't a
single plot in the paper. Basically I find the
paper useless. The reader must go to the
original papers to tell if this study is worth
anything.
In regard to research, just because something has been found to be a factor doesn't mean that it is the only factor. Einstein's brain was smaller than the average male. His brain weighed about 1230 grams where most adult males average around 1400 grams. Size and volume of a brain may not be the only factor in intelligence. Einstein's brain showed a number of characteristics which may lead to higher cognitive thinking.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
I've been thinking with my smaller head.... I seem to be able to only think about only one thing.
For a more scientific perspective, it's difficult. There's so many things that exist in a intelligence: the substrate it's built on (what it is composed of), a fundamental unit of computation (a nueron), and the connectivity patterns of the units to each other. Then, from a computational perspective, you have to compartmentalize your knowledge in a way our current scientific method is not good at: Instead of breaking things down into subunits (reductionism: what we're good at), you have to instead discover the emergent or metaphysical logical "atoms" that the higher level order is composed of given some substrate (Holistic: what we're not good at).
I don't know. And apparently nobody else does either.
Shh.
"So, how big of a hat do you wear?" My skull is significantly larger than my wife's. Tonight I'm going to measure each of our skulls to determine the precise differential. That will allow me to estimate the percentage by which my intelligence surpasses hers. Then I'm going to show her a print out of TFA. After that I can always end one of our arguments by citing TFA as proof that I'm smarter and therefore in all likelihood right. My only concern is that the dimunitive size of her brain might prevent her from understanding the profound implications TFA has for our relationship.
Ludwig Wittgenstein
In the scene where they use their rings to have a duel, "I see yours is as big as mine."
It's just the same old bullshit. Oh, so brain size correlates with intelligence. What a wonderful 19th century hypothesis. They've been trying to prove exactly this for centuries. Funny how conclusions predate evidence. But I'm sure they've nailed it this time.
Okay, before I go off on them, we've made advances since then... So apparently we've got a new, rigorous definition of intelligence, that they found a unique way to measure... Wait... it's just the same old standardized tests which use the same circular logic to "prove" they test intelligence. If you take a bunch of intelligence tests and average them, you get a vector that this test maps well to, therefore this test tests intelligence.
In the article, they say that the correlation they observed between brain size and test scores means that intelligence scales with brain size, and that the correlation also proves that the tests actually are measuring intelligence. What kind of nonsense circular reasoning is this? They're begging the question of whether the test scores are truly intelligence tests to prove that brain size correlates with intelligence which proves that the tests measure intelligence...
I like how the professor is quoted as attributing all kinds of benefits to whatever intelligence he believes he is measuring, "smarter people learn quicker", without showing that this is an attribute that his tests actually test.
What bullshit. And how long until someone uses this study to "prove" that women are less intelligent than men (because on average they are smaller and thus have smaller brains), and that races like Australian aborigines are inferior because they are smaller still? My guess is about... fifteen seconds.
Einstein isn't the exception to the rule. He's the first and most obvious point to show the rule is garbage.
Where's Stephen Gould when you need him?
The enemies of Democracy are
then that makes this guy a genius
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
It's like Conway's Game of Life: A glider is not composed in the population rules instead it is an emergent behavior of the system.
Shh.
They find it hard to believe that in places like Nairobi, Kampala and even Kinshasa, one needs a sweater/jacket at night. Heck, there are rivers formed by ice too. They do not believe this. I had to have one check the BBC weather website to see what I was talking about.
While people were dying of heat in France, India and Italy, no deaths were reported anywhere in Africa because of heat.
I digress, but my point is, this research is invalid period. Why are the Japanese doing so well yet their bodies are significantly smaller? The Russians are doing well with so little but their brains are not that much bigger either. Einstein head does not look big at all. Invalid premise...invalid results. Period.
No, no. Next, let's sue Finlands prime ministers
father, for revealing strong evidence that IQ and
the wealth of nations is correlated.
I thought cephalization was disproved ages ago.
... the kid's (who had a 4.0 btw) reply back was "I don't know about that, but I sure as hell know one thing .. I'm black and I'm way smarter than you!"
I am not buying this bird brained theory at all, without proof. How do we know small brained people aren't mistreated or not encouraged to learn in society? For example, I'm really tall and people always tried to make me play basketball. Frankly all of this "intelligence" studies are not scientific at all. There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
I believe gravity exists. Why? Because every time I try dropping an apple, it falls. That's scietific. Maybe not as rigorous as a mathematical proof, but it's pretty close to one.
Now, if you prove there is an equation that nobody with a small brain can solve. Or a memory test that nobody with a small brain can pass (and 100% pass rate for big brains, mind you).
I'm willing to even allow combinations of the test. If there is one failure, then then please all you have is some statistics without a cause. That is, the large brain can be ruled out as being a cause of high intelligence. Maybe you can look at something else? Neuron count? I dont know.
Personally, I have tried to look into the whole this stuff and never found anything remotely scientific proving any genetic correlation to intelligence.
Find me an equation or memory test that a person with XYZ trait cannot solve. Even better, isolate the gene or group of genes that define or enhance a specific quality (creativity, memory ability, info processing etc). Also, you have to define a "math" or "intelligence" test for these genes or physical traits will assuredly (100+%) pass. Otherwise don't tell me you have proof.
I remember a white guy in high school told a black kid "You're a n****r and n*****rs are stupid"
You can't believe that brain size has anything to do with intelligence. Einstein was a pretty smart guy (200 IQ) and had a smaller than average brain (http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/ein.html).
nt
...had bigger brains: 1200-1700 cm skull capacity (slightly greater than modern humans), which made them too smart for their own good and were driven out of the marketplace by the slightly less smart (modern humans). A quick scan of current news gives ample evidence that the current model of hominidae is successful not for it's intelligence so much as it's predisposition for lying, cheating, killing, and, well, dominating.
Committee for Symmetric Distribution of the Future
a professor in management.. this explains a lot about the quality of management decisions..
I have always worried about the size of my brain. When I have thoughts, even though she says that the thought is good, I know that what she really wants is an extra inch!
3 months ago I found The Extender. I just put it on whilst I'm driving the car and when I'm sleeping. It stays hidden under my clothes and it is really surprisingly comfortable and soft.
I could tell that my brain was getting larger and heavier, but I thought that when I took it back off I would shrink back to original size. I was really surprised!
I have been 115 IQ since adolescence When I took off The Extender I was measuring 145 IQ. After not wearing the extender for a week, I am still 145 IQ!
The enlargement is permanent!
I could not believe the results of this device. I am back to wearing it again and I'm still getting larger! My girlfriend says it is the best product I've ever bought, and she ALWAYS reminds me to put it on if I forget!
Take a peek... We know it works. There's a total guarantee with it, too. If you are not completely satisfied with your size gain and comfort you get your money back. Every penny. No-one sends them back!
The Extender correct the curve of the brain too, straightening out sharp bends as new cells grow!
Misspell?
"Remember, its not the size of the wang, its the magic in it that counts."
What good is it with a huge dumbbell on your your stick figure if you don't utilize it for least 90 % of it's capacity?
I've met smart people that solve advanced IQ tests with ease, but go trough their whole
life wasting their time not knowing what to do.
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
Don't worry, I provide a free brain-cutting-out and measuring service. I highly recommend it. In fact, you get one free zombie bite with every brain!
And that explains why Dib is always said to have such a big head and can turn around and chart the course of a wormhole (that is he flying through on a jet propelled bus on his way to a ROOM WITH A MOOSE that Zim has prepared for him) with his laptop.
Yeah, yeah.. Size doesn't matter.
Oh wait, you mean it's true?
All of my hats that fit came from http://www.bigheadcaps.com/.
Having a big head is quite annoying because things that don't have sizes, like hard hats, don't fit me, and unless I want to get a custom molded hard hat, I can't really wear one. Seriously, I have made sales clercks swear when I try on the largest helmet they have and it doesn't fit.
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
This sounds too much like Phrenology and Craniometry... Some of the same stuff the Nazi party used to show the supposed inferiority of other races. Then there was Pieter Camper who likened non-European human skull shapes to that of apes. This research field is the "cold fusion" of sociology...
Slashdot's first reaction to VMware
So, how can I sign up for one of these sex groups?
The Internet is full. Go Away!!!
I'm surprised that she had enough brain power to feed herself.
There's a correlation between brain size and intelligence. But that doesn't mean a big brain is necessarily smarter than a smaller brain. It just means that statistically it has a higher probability of being smarter.
There are a lot fo other factors, like the connectivity, the density of neurons, the chemical and hormonal balance and so forth.
Also in some cases there might be conflicts between different abilities. For example, someone with a very good memory might have trouble interpreting the content of the memory, because understanding does not mean perfect memory but the ability to classify and categorize. You need to group together memories to do that, and being able to separate different memories means you might not be very good at grouping them.
I can't find a big enough hat... for either head. Seriously. I feel downright descriminated against.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Anyone who watches old sci-fi knows that the aliens with the huge brains are always miles ahead of humanity in the smarts department
Sorry, but whenever someone talks about wands and magic, this one comes to mind.
#111338 +(8658)- [X] Purely in the interests of science, I have replaced the word "wand" with "wang" in the first Harry Potter Book Let's see the results... "Why aren't you supposed to do magic?" asked Harry. "Oh, well -- I was at Hogwarts meself but I -- er -- got expelled, ter tell yeh the truth. In me third year. They snapped me wang in half an' everything
A magic wang... this was what Harry had been really looking forward to.
"Yes, yes. I thought I'd be seeing you soon. Harry Potter." It wasn't a question. "You have your mother's eyes. It seems only yesterday she was in here herself, buying her first wang. Ten and a quarter inches long, swishy, made of willow. Nice wang for charm work."
"Your father, on the other hand, favored a mahogany wang. Eleven inches. "
Harry took the wang. He felt a sudden warmth in his fingers. He raised the wang above his head, brought it swishing down through the dusty air and a stream of red and gold sparks shot from the end like a firework, throwing dancing spots of light on to the walls
"Oh, move over," Hermione snarled. She grabbed Harry's wang, tapped the lock, and whispered, 'Alohomora!"
The troll couldn't feel Harry hanging there, but even a troll will notice if you stick a long bit of wood up its nose, and Harry's wang had still been in his hand when he'd jumped - it had gone straight up one of the troll's nostrils.
He bent down and pulled his wang out of the troll's nose. It was covered in what looked like lumpy gray glue.
He ran onto the field as you fell, waved his wang, and you sort of slowed down before you hit the ground. Then he whirled his wang at the dementors. Shot silver stuff at them.
JonJonB: Ok, I have found, definitive proof that J.K Rowling is a dirty DIRTY woman, making a fool of us all
"Yes," Harry said, gripping his wang very tightly, and moving into the middle of the deserted classroom. He tried to keep his mind on flying, but something else kept intruding.... Any second now, he might hear his mother again... but he shouldn't think that, or he would hear her again, and he didn't want to... or did he?
O_______O
Something silver-white, something enormous, erupted from the end of his wang
Then, with a sigh, he raised his wang and prodded the silvery substance with its tip.
'Get - off - me!' Harry gasped. For a few seconds they struggled, Harry pulling at his uncles sausage-like fingers with his left hand, his right maintaining a firm grip on his raised wang.
"Sure there's porn and piracy on the Web but there's probably a downside too."
I was really irked by the conclusion of this paper. Specifically, "Tiedmann (1836) was correct to conclude that intelligence and brain volume are meaningfully related." Now, even if we grant the premise that the current paper is correct in asserting the relationship, how does that mean that Tiedmann was justified in making the connection at the time he did? Imagine that in 1504, some monk had correctly guessed the speed of light because he figured it to be a billion times as fast as his own walking speed. Just because he came to the right conclusion doesn't mean that he was right in coming to that conclusion.
Given the state of the social sciences in the 1830's, I have a hard time believing that Tiedmann's research was anything but a mish-mash of bad techniques, preconceived bias, and probably blatant racism.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
...you say thank you!
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
I'm sorry, but this is rediculous. I'd debate the point further, but I have an appointment with my tailor. For some reason, I'm unable to find any hats big enough to fit me.
Isn't the real news:
Scientist finally defines intelligence?
Oh, wait...
(I have a Big Head), so I'm not having a defensive reaction, and I think it's a very reasonable idea.
But there is a weakness study, having skimmed it.
It could be the case that most of us exist in a group evenly clustered around the mean of Intelligence and head size, with no correlation between the two. Yet there might be a second group of people in which something hasn't quite worked out during development, they're missing brain volume and are therefore dumber.
This would mean the study is technically correct, but only because there exist someoddball cases, while for those of us in the normal range, size means nothing.
Meta-analyses can be difficult to interpret because you don't get to see the raw data, so it's hard to argue my explanation without going through each of those papers and figuring out if they've got some kind of clusters or oddballs on the low end.
doesn't it strike anyone as a wee bit odd that this anthropological research was conducted by a professor in management in VCU's School of Business? hmmmm...
I wear a rubber hat, and people say I only think of one thing... so I guess they where right. //5"-man
other than the traditional grammatical usage "gender" is used to refer to sex roles as social construct.Physical differences between sexes are not social constructs they are reality.
How long until we have H3B4L CR4N1UM 3NL4RG3M3NT spam?
However, it would actually might be useful. If you buy it, you are dumb and when you stop buying it, your intelligence has obviously increased.
All other things being equal (lack of brain damage, correct neurochemical processing...) and much better estimate would be:
brainVolume / bodySurfaceArea * neuralDensity * conversionFactor = IQ
However research has shown that when neural density passes a certain limit, people pass from apparent brilliance / genius into madness. This has something to do with when the brain's correlation centers start to see patterns that aren't there.
Which accounts for the almost prosaic relationship between genius and madness.
How many time have you met someone who was incredibly intelligent only to find that they were bordering on paranoia?
I recently read an interseting article by an actual phsycologist, named Sandra Witelson,in which she did a study on over 120 specimens of male and female brains, including einsteins brain. She came to some interesting conclusions that some of you may find quit interesting. Basically she came to a different conclusion. Einsteins brain wheighed in at 2.7 pounds, thats over a pound and a half lighter than the average male brain. Now Here is a link to the article it is an interesting read.
w00t
I took this guy's Organisational Management course as part of my degree requirement. The class was a complete joke...
'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
a shrinking brain?
Seems recently I started to read something about disease being related to higher intelligence...
this must mean disease makes your brain larger...
isn't alzhimers a disease?
I need more coffee.... gulp gulp...
Ah now I understand....
its a trial and error process to figuire out what makes people intelligent and this is their latest "educated guess"..
maybe they just need more coffee so to wake up the other 90% of their brain...
What's the prevalence of this Einstein brain abnormality in people? Are they all genius? Are there some average folk with it? ARe there some below average? Why arent they geniuses too? Is it genetic? Congenital? Einstein had frizzy hair when he was older, is that a physical manifestation of genius?
I can't believe this stuff passes for science.
I don't look it, but I've got an enormous head. I can't wear anything but an xL hat. I know this is utter crap because I know many quite intelligent people, people I consider as intelligent as I, and the running joke is about my big ass head. I've gone one buddy.. if I toss my hat on him, he looks like he's got progeria because he's got a pea-head and he's skinny. Think bony adult looking child with grown-ups hat on.
This is like someone saying the sky is green. You can present your research, but I've actually looked up a few times.
I'm not feeling witty so bite me
I have no upper-left sinus cavity.
It's all solid material there.
In 6th grade the gave me a standardised I.Q. test, I basically broke the scale. (that particular test only claimed validity up to 150 though.)
On a standardized test in high school, I scored 212, second highest score in district history was 176.
I was in a school-related competition (FBLA club) and took a 100 item multiple choice quiz, I scored 98 in 15 minutes of the hour given for the test, second highest was 78.
They disqualified me because I must have cheated, they just had no idea how. That made me very angry, but I tried again the next year under close scrutiny, and did equally well, so they disqualified me again.
I became physically ill from the emotional distress this caused, and missed too many days to graduate on schedule, so I got a GED. Sucks that I'm too nice of a guy to have sued them over it, as it's probably too late now.
bitter bitter bitter.
FBLA is Future Business Leaders of America, but I like to think of them as FPHB, Future Pointy Haired Bosses. Those grapes were probably sour anyway, I didn't really want a scholorship from IBM, or a trip to D.C. or Anaheim.
Concluded Bigger Genitals makes Happier People.
You're still talking about brains, rights?
Vindicated!
Transcend Humanity. Please.
I thought i remembered learning that Homo Erectus or some species of pre-homo sapien actually had a larger brain volume than we do today. I would have expected Homo habilis or whoever the first tool users were to have the larger volumes since they were first to innovate with lots of different weapons and hunting techniques social practices etc.
*Disclaimer* The latin used in this message is by no means gauranteed accurate and IANAExpert
Live according to the Categorical Imperative. If the Categorical Imperative tells you not to live by it... ignore it
Are these people music "geniuses" or great with people? And is your buddy smarter than you or not?
Transcend Humanity. Please.
this is strange, because just like people have ...
blue eyes, brown eyes, blond hair, long legs,
short arms, big ears etc. i think that is depends
on the count of neurons. and if you have a small
head, like me, you might as well also have smaller
neurons. so having a smaller jar (not that jar)
but also smaller grain you might as well have the
same amount of grain like that big dump doof.
of course if you're a tallish, "bullish" person
you might be stronger then that skinny dude, but
you also need to eat more and listen less to
what your peer tell you to do.
most of the time you can tell how well "defined"
a person is by looking at the bone structure. some
people are small and have a "fragil" looking body
but go closer and you can see that they have a way
more complex bone structure. a more "curvy"
or "complex" bone structure. then again you have
these big strong men with the corresponding big
skull, but a very basic/simple bone structure.
so, i don't thing this measuring of volume and
circumfence of a skull will accuratly predict how
smart someone is. again, the smaller jar with the
finer grain.
it might be that big boned people just get to
dominate more often in life which makes them more
confinded, less traumatized but not necesserly
smarter
another analogy, you can have a 20 inch monitor
and run 640 x 480 or you can have a 10 inch
display running 1024 x 768.
i think the more "complex" the overall bone
structure is and the "longer" the nose is, the
smarter a person should be. also i think the
amount of myelin (the stuff wrapped around the
neurons axon) effects intelligence.
small and complex is good!
Maybe I can get a fitted cap that fits for once.
Why are so many of the posters hostile to the suggestion that there could be a correlation between brain size and intelligence? A hostile response is not an objective response.
I don't know if they're correlated or not, but it seems plausible that there could be one. It may not be large. It may be a minor factor in comparison to the dozens of other factors that affect intelligence. Or, it may be entirely uncorrelated.
Just because a bunch of sexist supremecists long ago asserted that it was correlated in order to promote their own viewpoint doesn't mean they were completely wrong. There are a lot of assholes. Some of them are going to turn out to be right (if only in part) after all.
Slashdot posters have a much easier time in general adjusting to completely new ideas. They are more intelligent (minus the trolls).
Transcend Humanity. Please.
Ok, I spent a couple minutes looking at her paper, and it doesn't seem that ridiculous to my way of thinking. She took the data from 37 previous studies, comprising 1530 samples, and came up with a correlation coeficient of .29. If I remember statistics, that means that roughy 8.5% of the "intelligence soup" is head size. It doesn't in any way guarentee that if your head is larger, you will be a genius, nor that if your head is smaller, you'll be dumb. It just says it's somewhat correlated.
On a side note(one for which I'll probably get blasted), evolutionary biologists use brain cc's as a measure of the evolution of intelligence. Biologists have established that as brain sizes grew, apes got smarter. To their minds, brain size is correlated to intelligence. So to any of the people who are reflexively dismissing this study, is there any reason, other than political, why you think that brain size would correlate with intelligence for 2.5 million years and then would just stop a few thousand years ago? Really, I'm curious.
exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis
I couldn't help but think of Vonnegut's Galapagos when I heard about this. Sure, we have big brains, we're smart, that's great... but look at all the hatred and destruction they make us capable of. *sniff* I'm just so proud. Of course this study is pretty well BS, but maybe that proves the point a little better.
eom
my head is too large for the commonly available hat sizes.
This sig is o Unfunny o Funny
So more accurate would be: iq=brainsize/bodysize.
Actually somebody already worked that out, comparing the body mass, brain mass, and some hacked-up intelligence measure of various animal species. Turns out it wasn't a straight ratio, but that some fractional power law was a good match.
(I don't recall the details but it was pretty straightforward and I seem to recall a 3/5ths.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
even further!
my mum tells me i was born with a strangely large head, YEAH!!!
The study refers to the cranium not the head of your penis.
'Nuff said.
(I guess the Phrenology posts were all filled)
Buy Text Processing in Python
"Intelligence was measured with standardized intelligence tests"
"But when intelligence is correlated with a biological reality such as brain volume, it becomes harder to argue that human intelligence can't be measured or that the scores do not reflect something meaningful"
So performance on IQ tests (which are not proven to reflect true intelligence) correlate with brain volume (which is also not proven to reflect true intelligence).
He is attempting to prove two things at once without any known standard.
MOD UP
What's with all of you people who are citing Einstein or smart friends of yours as disproving the study? I'm in no position to say whether or not his results are correct, but you can't disprove statistical averages based on anecdotes.
It seems to me he's saying that if you take two random people, the chance X% of A being smarter than B increases if A has a larger brain. Obviously there would have to be other factors, if he's correct at all.
Come on guys, I thought that Slashdot posters were supposed to have a better understanding of science than this.
Alphanos
They're idiots.
Brain wiring is key.
Proof : NFL and NBA players would some of the smartest people on earth. They have fucking huge heads.
"Remember, its not the size of the wand, its the magic in it that counts."
Is that what she said?
Both my kids, ages 3 and 9months, look to be on the same curve. Both have had their heads tested and specialists called in to make sure there's no problems. My 9month old has the same size head as my 3 year old. They measure me each time, too, usually several times to make sure they got it right. I wanna say that I'm something like 3+ inches over the mean head size. I asked how many standard deviations that was but never found out.
And I have girls. Oy, the poor things. At least they'll be brilliant!
www.HearMySoulSpeak.com
Imagine...
Charles Jo
I would be Einstein II
Table-ized A.I.
passionately curious" - Einstein.
Just karma whoring.
Someday we'll all be negroes
Should read:
Yeah, but they're black heads, so they're automatically at a disadvantage.
had larger brains than Homo sapiens. Hmmmm.
I don't need large brains to have a good time!
Chris Mattern
The discovery of the "hobbits" who lived on Flores has definitely thrown some solid evidence on the "organization matters" side of the argument, since H. floresiensis displayed tool-making on a level with modern humans of the Upper Paleolithic, the use of fire, and cooperative hunting - some have even argued for the existence of language. But H. floresiensis' brain, at 380 cubic centimeters, is at the low end of the range for chimpanzees, nearly one-fourth the size of our modern brains. Since H.floresiensis is almost certainly a dwarfed version of H. erectus, however, it retained the organization of the brain while sacrificing size and thus retained H. erectus' mental advantages.
I'd love to cite the pertinent Scientific American articles, but they're still under "digital subscription." You can read the paper version in the February 2005 issue.
You know... there's still a difference between having a big brain and a big head. Hah.
"Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
So whales are are smarter than humans? Their brains are bigger, so does that make them smarter?
and trying to keep that in the red zone
has the largest brain of any animal (~9kg).
Welcome our giant headed, squid-eating, Pequod bashing, overlords!
I just wonder if it has something to do with actualizing your own brain-space. People with larger brains would statisically, "actualize" more of it.
Elephants must be real smarters than rats !!!
Finally, if bigger heads really implied greater intelligence, wouldn't you expect offensive linemen on professional football teams to be some of the most intelligent people in the U.S.?
I'd expect most of our politicians to be geniuses.
Pinky, are you pondering what I am pondering?
If that were true, I'd be a genius. ;-)
Bigger bombs make bigger explosions.
Bigger lead weights are heavier.
Student leaders break promises.
Back to the topic at hand: Seriously... does this come as a surprise?
More brain volume = more neurons.
More neurons = more capacity for thinking/memory/etc.
Note: Having a big head is not the same as having a big brain. There are a lot of people on Slashdot that are definitely in the former category, but not in the latter category.
Anyone remember that study that came out a few years ago saying that men had more brain cells than women? (I do remember that bitch Jane Pauley saying that men needed billions of extra brain cells just to "keep up") Anyway, the researchers who discovered this also thought that it made little difference, as women generally have smaller bodies then men, so the brain/body mass proportion is still roughly equal.
Or is this all just a load of crap?
If it's not one thing it's your mother.
Remember, its not the size of the wand, its the magic in it that counts.
So in addition to your small brain, you have a small penis, too?
As a guy with an ugly big head.. I've known this for years. HeyZues Slashdot, get with the times.
many psychologists believe that there are 7 different types of intelligences, which of the 7 are they measuring? Also, this study has been done before, in previous findings they found a .33 correltation between brain size and intelligence. Regarding the hat remark, there is only a .1 correlation between head size and intelligence (think thick skulls).
All SIQ gives you is the ability of a person to take a test, not their intelligence level.
I'd be more interested in correlating things like actual brain size vs. income, etc.
Don't forget those pygmy people discovered on the island of Flores, quite intelligent, and brains smaller than a chimpanzee. Its the wiring, stupid;-)
I may wear a small hat size... but... My shoe size, however... :)
a ten gallon hat thankyou very much ya'll.
I knew it, I knew it, size does matter.
Ohhh aaahhh wellll, at least it does above the shoulders. Yes, thats it. Yes, Above the shoulders.
Keep repeating that....
Slashdot - Where the slash is most definitely to the left.
I hate to be nasty here, but I have to point out that VCU is not exactly the most prestigious university for science, even among state schools. And his position as a Business School professor doesn't exactly qualify him to discuss cognitive neuroscience, either. This sounds like a goof-ball claim from a second-rate professor trying to pad his research quota.
Jules: Do you know what they call a Quarter Pounder with cheese in France?
Brett: No.
Jules: Tell him, Vincent.
Vincent: Royale with cheese.
Jules: Royale with cheese. Do you know why they call it a Royale with cheese?
Brett: Because of the metric system?
Jules: Check out the big brain on Brett. You're one smart motherfucker. That's right - the metric system!
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
He had a 'enlargened' section of the brain that does the analytical thoughts.
Not sure if it was the hypocampus . Too lazy to look up.
They showed photos of it. It was only slightly larger but it was noticable.
Excercising the brain may cause changes just as you can excercise muscles.
Everybody wants prosthetic
Foreheads on their real heads
Everybody wants prosthetic
Foreheads on their real heads
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
The actual correlation reported is pretty weak.
A correlation of 0.3 (or thereabouts) means
that only 10% of the variation of intelligence
is explained by the variation in brain size.
Put another way, if you go from a fairly small
brained person (1 standard deviation small) to
a fairly large brained person (1 standard deviation
large), you'd expect the IQ to change by about
3 points.
So, even if it's true, it's no big deal.
No need to worry about that. Colleges aren't interested in intelligence these days. They're more interested in admitting a "wide variety" of students, along with the children of wealthy alumni, of course. These days, college has little to do with education.
Now, it's more of a vehicle for wealth distribution. The sociologists have come to the foregone conclusion that wide re-distribution wealth is more important than investing in the most intelligent members of society. I guess we'll just have to see what kinds of returns this gets us.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
The important 60s rock musicians nearly all had very slanted foreheads -- way out of proportion to the occurrence in the general population. Was that because the slant corresponds with an excess of musical intelligence, or because it allowed the required long hair to fall back from the face?
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
They're after their own government and territory.
Wouldn't it be rather fascinating to see what they did with their own country?
PS: I happen to think that self-determination (mutually consenting adults forming their own states with territorial claim via eminent domain-driven migration as practical mechanism) is the fundamental human right upon which all other human rights are founded and that territorial integrity and democracy are secondary considerations. Large cranial capacity shouldn't be a prerequisite for human rights. But it would be particularly rational for supporters of the principle of human rights to give priority to Hawaiian self-determination since they are particularly endangered by outbreeding and displacement and are obviously a unique ethny.
Seastead this.
I wear a size 12 hat (when I can find them). As big as my brain might be, I've have still had 3 lousy wives and 3 expensive divorces.
I guess this changes calling someone a "Fat-head" to being a compliement.
Gould's argument was that all intelligence researchers were idiots or in a conspiracy. (Like the arguments from creationism believers against evolutionary biology.)
Here is one of the answers to Gould on intelligence.
Jensen's main complaint about Gould -- that he put up very stupid straw man arguments (not his real position) and attacked them -- seems very similar to the answers to Gould from the evolutionary psychology researchers.
Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
Two men sitting at a bar, drinking. First Man: Do you know, scientists have proved we only ever use two thirds of our brains? Second man thinks about this for a while; takes a slug of his drink. Then Second Man: What about the other two thirds?
My theory is that people with bigger heads are expected to be smarter. That extra pressure makes people with larger heads put in a bit more effort.
My brain must be big because I'm smart enough not to take seriously a study of intellect done by a guy who's professor of management in a business school!
Perfectly Normal Industries
A fantastic way to reintroduce methods to be prejudiced in the workplace. It starts with head size, then heart size, stamina, and physical fitness. Then disabilities.
No, really folks. There's a reason we don't impose IQ tests on people applying for jobs anymore.
[signature]
I read something completly opposite just teh other day... It says that you have to sign up, but I didn't have to when I found it the first time... So, try going through the "mapping the mind" page.
There are a lot of holes in this theory that even a layman can see at twenty paces (the size != density thing, the small sample sizes of the underlying studies, etc,), so why would anyone publish or even try to publish such a thing? One may say, "Who cares, more fodder for the wise-acres on Slashdot," but I think crap studies like this can do real damage. No theory can ever be "proven" absolutely. Therefore, all the weight science has in our lives and how we think is all based on faith in the process that guides the practitioners. Every "scientist" touting phrenology, faking cold fusion, or toting around a tape measure and a IQ test chips away at the foundation of that faith. Look at how lax standards have affected the public's faith in statistics. If these practices continue and continue to be published one day you may hear someone say, "Yeah, there's lies, damn lies, and physics."
The largest brains in human heads belong to severly retarded individuals. Larger total brain mass = slower transmission of the mind.
It has been shown over and over again that the higher the density of neural connections as well as the higher the number of glial cells(not neurons) determines higher intelligence. Brain size does not directly correspond to intelligence. Women have on average a slightly smaller brain mass, yet ARE as smart. Perhaps not in all areas as compared to men, but are not significantly slower overall.
So professor. Nice try but real science exists and those of us who are enlightened in such matters will not be fooled by you.
He also had a higher than average (not sure if abnormal) glial cell count. So is neurons were not losing transmission as frequently as other individuals. Glial cells aid the transmission along axons of neurons. They also provide a protective barrier that supports the connections.
Studies report that the sun came up this morning.
How much did they pay for this study?
Did anyone look at the correlation ? It is in the original publication.
The alledged correlation is... 0.33. Not very good; it explains a little more than 10% of the variance.
That's science news: a catchy title, but not much in the actual results.
Clearly, the man making these statements is a mental midget .
...found an even higher correlation between increasing head size, and whether or not the subject believed the prior study.
According to this article http://news.yahoo.com/s/latimests/20050616/ts_lati mes/deepdarksecretsofhisandherbrains brain size doesn't equate with intelligence. But rather neuron density and linkages between the right and left hemispheres. The woman in the article has profiled and studied a large number of human brains and found some interesting results. Definitely worth the read.
What we are referring to of course is the wonderful "blue pill" for thinking difficulties everyone is talking about. We
s .com/
not only carry it, but we do at 78 cents each. A bigger, firmer brain for only 78 cents per pill!
Order some up at http://thebiggerthebrainthemoresatisfiedshebecome
Enjoy!
:q!
I may just be imagining things with my wee little female brain, but I seem to remember reading about a study where it was found that women just used their brains differently so the larger size of the male brain didn't actually have any effect. I also seem to remember reading about a study that showed that the shrinking brains of the elderly do not result in a loss of intelligence....
Gould/you claim that the intelligence researchers did stupid errors. Certainly, someone outside a field will find basic errors, sometime.
If it was so simple, the majority of the researchers in the field should have changed position. If they didn't, you repeat a conspiracy theory.
Can you give references that show that the majority of the researchers changed opinion?!
AGAIN: If it was as trivial as you/Gould claimed, most researchers would have changed opinion. I have never seen anyone writing that.
Mismeasure didn't exactly lack exposure, so the researchers must have read the arguments.
Non-marxist sources, please...
(Then we have my secondary arguments... Evolutionary biologists say the same thing about Gould as intelligence researchers. Jensen gives an exact list of where Gould flat out lied about his opinions in order to attack them, etc, etc. Including guilt by association with 19th century researchers, etc.)
Now, either give those references -- or accept that your position fulfills the BS tests for a conspiracy theory.
Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
Us big heads don't have all the advantages you know. At 63" I have to make my own hats.
But the article does suggest that, based on the data mentioned, the odds are that if you randomly select a million people from the general population, then the average IQ of the 500,000 with bigger-than-the-median brains will be higher than the average IQ of the 500,000 with smaller-than-the-median brains.
Remember, this is based on the data he looked at, not on some other data. That's important, because he tells the reader which data he used. You or anybody else can look at the data for yourself and decide whether or not he was wrong. Then you, too, can submit a paper to the editors of the journal Intelligence just like he did, contradicting what he wrote. Or, if you find that his conclusions or meta-analyses were correct based on the data, but that he should have used different data, then that would also be a reason you might go ahead and submit your own article saying that. Hello, that is how science works.
Of course, I understand why a person (particularly a non-academic) might read part of that article and say, "OK, the author didn't actually come out and state that all big-brain people are better, but that's what he's hinting at. He's speaking in code--just like they all do. He's saying that my Aunt Gladys, who is a dwarf, is stupid and that she's not as good as all the other people in the world and that we should exterminate her... and that's WRONG. That sonofabitch never met my Aunt Gladys and he doesn't know how wonderful she is."
I do understand why people have those sentiments. It is true that people oftentimes speak in code for political reasons. I'm thinking, in particular, of some simpleminded radio talk-show hosts or politicians. An appropriate--in my opinion--response to that type of stuff, is to say, "Here's what you're stating explicitly, but here's what I think you're actually implying, and I'm going to tell you why you're wrong to imply such a thing." And that's when you give him all your evidence and close your comments by telling him a little story about your wonderful Aunt Gladys.
Of course this reminds me of the outrage over the comments made by Harvard's Larry Summers earlier this year.
Never mind, I won't get into that.
will make me appear to be a genius! On another note, though, I saw a lot of comments saying that Einstein's brain was a more or less normal size, not particularly large. What difference does that make? Einstein didn't exhibit the only kind of intelligence out there; his intelligence was but one element in a large array.
-Rich
lysdexics untie!
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
The study is true on the whole and you can contrive all you want about neuron density and brain folds, yada yada. If you have studied anthropology at all you will know that the most defining characteristic for homo sapiens greater intelligence over our more primitive ancestors is cranial capacity. It is the most common measure of "intelligence" in the anthropological world and correlates with the associated tool artifacts of each time period. To illustrate, your greater monkey/orangutan self is now reading this babble on a computer, the most advanced tool to come from any species. To say that the trend of increased cranial capacity only works on the macroscopic scale is naive, since no monkey has ever evolved a smaller head.
In summary and in the most ominous words of Jay Z, "read a book you illiterate sonofab*tch, step up your vocab".
(If you really don't understand.. there are discussion on most subjects in most research areas. It doesn't make Hoyle correct if you find cosmologists that argue against the Big Bang theory.)
No.Gould claimed the intelligence researchers did a central and stupid error for decades.
If that is true, then there should literally be a chapter in most psychology text books discussing that!! (Which, as far as I know, there isn't.)
You claim G showed decades of research to be wrong and irrelevant. It is like claiming that someone showed the world was flat 20 years ago -- and become angry when someone points out that the astronomers didn't change their text books. And that there were lots of criticism of the thesis in the public literature.
I have repeated that simple point four times now.
Like using guilt by association to 19th century researchers? Do you think I reach those depths?There are also Mayr, Maynard Smith and other evolutionary biologists claiming that Gould do smears.
Lets not even discuss Science for the People.
Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
So Ted Danson is a genious! I knew it!
This is typical of the articles I've found on scholar.google.com. (This was cited a lot.)
Here is from nature(!) reviews:
Intelligence research is more advanced and less controversial than is generally realized.
Let us make this easier -- can you give references that show that intelligence measurement has fallen out of vogue among the real researchers? (What is the majority opinion?)
I am not in that field, but I have never heard anything like that has happened.
Again, you claim that Gould wasn't full of sh!t. Well, he did make large claims. They should be visible in the literature. I can't find any, but I'm not a researcher.
(In case you don't understand why I am arguing. I don't really care about IQ measurements. What gets my goat is intellectual dishonesty. I don't really care that much about politics. My strongest opinion is a hate for religion.)
Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
This means something. Or perhaps not.
What bullshit. And how long until someone uses this study to "prove" that women are less intelligent than men (because on average they are smaller and thus have smaller brains), and that races like Australian aborigines are inferior because they are smaller still? My guess is about... fifteen seconds.
So you're saying that because a test might have politically incorrect implications, it must be factually wrong?
... and my membership is also in spite of twice-confirmed ADD traits that keep me from "reaching my potential".
This study should be returned to the cow pasture from whence its "data" was collected.
Well, look at the whales. Maybe they're really much more wise than us. But where did it lead to? ;-)
Check out the big brain on Brett. You're a smart motherfucker. That's right, the metric system.
And they say Hollywood doesn't have accurate science..
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Didn't Neanderthals have bigger brains?
Man, if zero-point energy had worked out we would have PHASERS! Freakin' Phasers! Oh just as well; can't have everything from Star Trek.
Shh.