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?"

Comments

Brain size vs Neuron density

[Baron_Yam]

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.

Re:Brain size vs Neuron density

[Life2Short]

The study was a meta-analysis of previous studies. Did you notice how small the sample sizes were for the original studies? About half had fewer than 50, it looked like. Not that that is a big problem, but how hard would it be to just go around to public schools and measure children's head size and gather their intelligence scores? Also, as always, causality cannot be inferred from correlation. No attempt was made to control for variables such as income, which might influence diet, health care, etc. 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.? For all I know, perhaps they are...

Re:Savants

[rpcxdr]

It is more likely the number of folds in the brain that predict intelligence, since folds imply a more complex wiring pattern.

This study would probably find a correlation between number of folds and brain size.

Re:Savants

[nkh]

German scientists already knew that the bumps on your head could demonstrate (with a very high accuracy ;) how smart you are. What we need now is something more "scientific" like: how our neurons act with one another or how wired the different parts of the brain can be...

I don't buy it.

[Antonymous Flower]

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.

WHAT rule?

[Chris Burke]

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?

Re:WHAT rule?

[dustmite]

and that races like Australian aborigines are inferior because they are smaller still? My guess is about... fifteen seconds.

^^^ Woah - hold it right there, this type of political correctness is the antithesis of science. While there will always be groups who abuse "science" to prove some racist point, that doesn't mean that all research that makes such claims are cases of abuse, and if you believe in science at all then you cannot just offhandedly dismiss the possibility that, until proven otherwise, it might actually be true that physically smaller races have slightly lower average intelligence. Has it been proven otherwise? No. Never. Yet somehow, you seem to already have arrived at the conclusion that it cannot be true. How can you know this? What is your reproducible research that proves it? Truth is the ultimate goal - science should never be censored or impeded for the sake of political correctness, as you are suggesting. If someone wants to study the intelligence of aboriginal races in a scientifically sound manner, and produced proveable results that you didn't like, should those results be censored?

I don't know why this study seems to offend you so much. It only talks about averages - it does not mean that someone with a small head cannot be intelligent, it's still possible, just less likely on average, if the results are true. (Is your head smaller than average?) This doesn't show that people will smaller brains are going to be less intelligent - just that there is a general correlation on average. The correlation be so slight as to even have no practically useful predictive power - doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Einstein's single case doesn't "prove the rule is garbage", that's the most scientifically and statistically unsound claim I've seen on slashdot in a long time. A sample size of one doesn't tell you anything - a first year stats student can tell you that.

I agree that the idea that this might be used to e.g. put small children into 'boxes' that pre-determine their supposed potential and destiny based on head size is highly noxious, and that this could very well happen. Schools already put children into such boxes all the time based on various factors. But none of that is a problem with the science. If there is a correlation, and science can show the correlation, then it doesn't matter how much you dislike it.

I don't see any of the circular reasoning you mention, since they don't claim that brain size causes "intelligence" (as measured by their "intelligence tests") .. merely that if the standardised tests they measure do actually measure intelligence, that there is a correlation between those test results and brain size. So what they've really measured, is a correlation between brain size and the results of 'standardised intelligence tests'. They haven't proven, nor have they claimed to prove, that 'standardised intelligence tests' do measure "intelligence". "Intelligence" might be a term that is too fuzzy to measure scientifically, but the fact remains that standardised intelligence tests are still one of the best predictors of future job performance. They have practical utility, even if the science is not sound.

Re:WHAT rule?

[Chris Burke]

Woah - hold it right there, this type of political correctness is the antithesis of science.

Whoa yerself. I'm not rejecting the study based on possible non-PC conclusions, I'm rejecting it because it is the same crap we've seen before that always suffers from the same logical fallacies. That annoys me.

The fact that there will be racist and sexist conclusions drawn from this study also annoys me, because it's the Bell Curve all over again -- crap science used to justify an "our preconceived societal prejudices are actually scientifically valid biological innevitabilities" conclusion.

it might actually be true that physically smaller races have slightly lower average intelligence. Has it been proven otherwise? No. Never.

Has it been proven true? No, never. Have people tried? Yes, repeatedly. Have the same mistakes been made resulting in the same self-confirming conclusions? Yes, repeatedly.

As long as we're talking about unproven hypothesis, how about this one: There is an inherent "intelligence" that can be measured as a single numerical value (or small number of values). This has not ever been proven. We don't even know what intelligence is. We know we have it, but like "consciousness" or "creativity" we can't define it in a way that turns it into a physical entity, much less a quantifiable physical entitiy. And so far there is no indication that this is even possible. But this study is predicated on this hypothesis being true.

I don't know why this study seems to offend you so much. It only talks about averages - it does not mean that someone with a small head cannot be intelligent, it's still possible, just less likely on average, if the results are true. (Is your head smaller than average?)

Quite the opposite. I have a large head, though I don't know how large my brain is. I think I'm pretty smart, but I know I'm very good at taking tests -- especially multiple-choice standardized tests. I have no doubt I'd fall on or above whatever curve they drew. I have no personal ego at stake here whatsoever. I'm a smart privileged white male (with a big head) -- these things always come out in my favor, but that doesn't make me less likely to view them as crap.

So why does the study offend me? Because first it is crap, and second because these studies are always commissioned, accepted (despite the flaws) and used by two groups of people:

1) Bureaucrats. Whether in business, education, or government, they want to be able to take a person and give them a single "goodness" value so they can just put everybody into a sort function and pick the top N. Instead of helping every student reach as high as they can, selectively help the "smartest" and let the inherently less smart prepare for blue collar jobs. Do away with annoying and subjective interviews; managers want a quantitative way to pick "the best". Never been proven to be possible, but it doesn't stop them.

2) Racist social conservatives. What looks like social injustice is actually just the natural order of things. Downtrodden minorities aren't really downtrodden, they're just in their natural place as inferiors as determined by our perfect and blind meritocracy. Women aren't discriminated against, they are rightly excluded from demanding jobs because they aren't as capable. These are biological facts that cannot be changed, so there is no point to social programs that attempt to address these issues.

McDaniel is clearly in the Bureaucrat camp, being as he "specializes in the study of intelligence and other predictors of job performance." He also claims, after stating several (unproven) aspects of the intelligence he is testing: "The use of intelligence tests in screening job applicants has substantial economic benefits for organizations." I have no reason to think he is racist or sexist, but I guarantee those who are will glom onto this study and refuse to let go.

This has been done

Re:Too bad this comes out now...

[James_Aguilar]

It seems like people will reach for any conspiracy rather than accepting that which forces them to update their view about reality.