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

Drudge Report

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Airheads?

[6800]

They forgot to subtract the inclosed volumn of air!

Re:Airheads?

[game kid]

I FEEL LIEK, SO0O OFENDED BAY THAT!!1 LOL! --hold on, so I have, liek, air in my bran? Is that liek chicken or fish? ...and, liek, wats this brane anywayz?

Savants

[headkase]

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.

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...

Re:Savants

[anothy]

i had a philosophy professor who, in an effort to illustrate some point or other, announced to the lecture hall that the grading system was being revised such that, rather than being based 35% on exams, 35% on papers, 20% on regular assignments, and 10% on attendance, it would now be graded 100% on phrenology. he and the TAs had discussed this at length, he explained, and while none of them actually believed the "science" was valid for predictive or investigative uses, they thought it was "kinda fun". while their decision was final, reaction from the class was solicited.

my response? i was thrilled. i told him that most of my professors seemed to be grading based on random elements unrelated to class performance, and i was excited to have one actually admit it.

Re:Savants

[Tenebrarum]

I'm a savant, in fact I was a "low functioning" autistic while I was younger. Fortunately, a really loving group of friends accepted me the way I was, I got support, a psychologist, love ... I spent two years gradually entering the minds of those around me, now I understand (mostly) the whole social regime. I'm called a genius by many (I resent that), that I never get anything wrong ... Is it wrong not to get facts right? Is it so awful to think perfectly objectively? I feel extremely lucky to be able to be autistic, help maintain http://wrongplanet.net/ & also enjoy the social aspects of life, which are beautiful, fascinating, & above all so much fun. My brain (or rather EQ should I say) is larger than "normal", as shown by a CAT scan, so I suppose that supports this study ... Great findings. I love autism, I'm going in for clinical psychology myself. I hope that didn't drift off topic to a large degree ...

Re:Savants

[venicebeach]

There is actually tremendous variablitiy in the folding patterns. No two are a like. While pretty much everyone has a STG as you say, its shape and trajectory vary considerably. There is actually a book that tries to detail all the major sulcal variations, but I know for example that my brain has some variations that are not even in the book.

Re:Savants

[Ungrounded Lightning]

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.

On the other hand there is an experiment that seem to indicate that cognitive ability is largely a function of number of instances of some simple pattern:

Experiment was run in a Y maze, i.e. subject placed in one end, food reward at one of the other two ends. Three subject types: Particular breed of fish, turtles (with about twice the brain mass), and a third I'll get to later.

Initially food is always on, say, the right at first. Subject learns to turn right. Once this learning is established, the maze is reversed. Subject must UNlearn "food on right" and learn "food on left". Measure number of trials to do this. Repeat.

With the fish it takes a while for them to figure out the food is now on the left. And then takes them about the same number trials to learn it's back on the right. You can do reversals until your grant runs out and it still takes them about the same number of trials to figure out that it's switched.

With the turtles, after a few reversals they suddenly get the concept of reversals. After that they catch on very quickly that the maze has swapped again.

Now the interesting part: Take embryos of the fish species. Remove the prototype brain tissue from one and insert it into another. Let it mature. Result is a chimera fish with a double-mass fish brain of apparently the normal organization - and about the size of the brain of the turtle.

Run these through the test and they learn reversals just like the turtle did. They "get it" with what is apparently just more-of-the-same rather than anything special.

With respect to savants: It's pretty clear that different areas of the brain are specialized for different things. So savants having normal-sized brains and being exceptionally good at one thing is not at odds with the idea that it's more neurons that make more smarts. They could as easily have given over more of their brain tissue to processing that specialty - possibly at the cost of starving other functions of neurons.

On the other hand, that doesn't eliminate other possibilities, such as better organization of that part of the brain, or more attention given to the subject in a more general-purpose system. The big-brained fish could be expected to have more of any specialized processor sections, as well as more "general-purpose cpu resources" to distribute (as "attention") to tasks like cracking the maze problem.

Re:Savants

[kai.chan]

Intelligence is the ability to learn and acquire knowledge. You can be the most "intelligent" person being able to solve any puzzles thrown at you, but if you can never grasp how to paint a picture or shoot a basketball, that means your ability to learn these skills are poor. Intelligence most certainly is not based fully on logic and mathematics.

Uh....this isn't new news

[Anonymous Coward]

Mister Spock noted that the Talosians were smarter because they had bigger brains during "The Cage".

WAYSA?

Re:Uh....this isn't new news

[deutschemonte]

Only on slashdot would this be presented as an actual previous scientific proof.

Too bad this comes out now...

[Nimloth]

AFTER Kerry's lost the election.

Re:Too bad this comes out now...

[MyLongNickName]

Brain size... not chin size :)

Re:Too bad this comes out now...

[minairia]

Well, you all do know that Bush had better grades than Kerry at Yale?

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.

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:Brain size vs Neuron density

[Baron_Yam]

It's interesting you should mention dual cores - the human brain is effectively a collection of specialized brains working together as one machine.

The best example I can think of is vision, and the section of the brain that handles processing that is actually broken down further into motion detection, shape recognition, & color identification, and probably a couple of other items I've forgotten.

There's also hearing, language, emotion, memory, autonomic functions, touch, voluntary motor control... each with a dedicated 'processor'.

What is really interesting is that some minor damage can destroy these functions almost entirely, yet in some rare cases of massive damage, the remainder of the brain successfully picks up the slack - which indicates a certain amount of functional plasticity.

Re:Brain size vs Neuron density

[kfg]

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.

People with small brains (PHBs), however, are going to either ignore or misunderstand the fact that the "study" explicitly refers to averages.

I remember when sports physiologists first started using oxygen uptake data to predict endurance sport performance. A journalist was being shown the data for the American National Cycling Team and noted that the figure for Paul Deem, the workhorse member of the team, was only average.

"Well yes," said the physiologist, "but that's just Paul. He wants it more than anyone else."

This study isn't even a study, in the sense that no actual new research was carried out and thus it provides no new data.

It is a meta-study. A conglomeration of already existing studies, and thus is really only as valid as the least valid of the studies upon which it is based.

Garbage in, garbage out.

And it is pathetically easy to pump all sorts of garbage into a meta-study to derive any garbage you want by careful selection of the studies you "study." One good study is worth more than a billion bad ones.

Which brings up the question of methodology. A meta-study is only valid to the degree that it congolmerates similar studies. Differences in methodology of the included studies alone can completely invalidate the meta-study prima facie, because this fails to properly isolate the phenomenon being examined.

At best a meta-study is really only good to provide a clue as to where more study might be valuably directed. At worst they have absolutely no value at all other than getting the author published while pushing his agenda.

KFG

Re:Brain size vs Neuron density

[Pollardito]

as a service to the reader, i'll help you decide for yourself if the author is biased

Re:Brain size vs Neuron density

[Velox_SwiftFox]

Ah, but the dolphins lack a whole layer of cortex, which reduces the data processing capability considerably.

Einstein: The exception to the rule?

[WebHostingGuy]

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.

Elephants

[onion2k]

The average Asian elephant has a brain mass of 7.8kg.

I for one welcome our supremely intelligent, prehensile nosed overlords.

Re:Elephants

[Eric604]

Ofcource I don't have to tell you that a larger body requires a larger brain. So more accurate would be: iq=brainsize/bodysize. Size could be mass, volume or area and may not be linear.

To verify this I will conduct an experiment: I will amputate my feet and measure my iq before and afterwards.

Re:Skull Size != Brain Size

[kfg]

Having a large brain, but a small skull, carries certain disadvantages, however.

You hear about the acid head who quit going to his shrink?

He was afraid to have his head shrunk and his mind expanded at the same time.

KFG

Makes sense

[m50d]

I'm intelligent, and my friends always say I'm big-headed

Maybe Einstein Really Wasn't All That Bright

[tjstork]

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.

Re:Einstein: The exception to the rule?

[Titusdot Groan]

No, it highlights the problem of using the results of this study to determine things like Princeton admissions ...

Re: Einstein: The exception to the rule?

[Black Parrot]

> 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?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Smarter People Study?

[kiltedtaco]

Did anyone else read the headline as: "Bigger brains make smarter people study, says ______"?

So the next question is obviously....

[TrentL]

....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 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.

Folding

[headkase]

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.

too simplistic a theory

[yagu]

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:

• brain size relates closely to gender
• there are notable physiological differences in brains along gender lines
• however, there are not noticable differences in intelligence between genders
• but, there are differences in how intelligence manifests between the genders.

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.

Re:too simplistic a theory

[Guppy06]

"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."

Einstein is just a single data point, and possibly an outlier.

Eggheads

[glrotate]

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.

Brrrraaaaiiiiinnnnnsssss

[InstantCrisis]

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.

Re:Einstein

[bman08]

Wasn't Oliver Cromwell's brain something like twice the size of a normal man? Wasn't that info in an article in Scientific American about four months back that said that new studies showed brain size to be irrelevant? Clearly, my pea brain is too small to hold the info, but if someone with a few ounces more grey matter is capable of looking it up...

Nonsense!

[HooliganIntellectual]

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.

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?

[StarsAreAlsoFire]

...until proven otherwise, it might actually be true that physically smaller races have slightly lower average intelligence. Has it been proven otherwise

Actually, I think the answer is yes. Intelligence of animals has been found to relate to the brain-size to body mass ratio.

As to dismissing scientific results on the grounds of 'sounds like BS' -- well, you are kinda right, it should not be done... unless you are reading the ACTUAL research paper, and not some science writers interpretation thereof.

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:The Mismeasure of Slashdot

[An Onerous Coward]

Actually, Gould's book wasn't that good. He frequently misrepresented the people he was criticizing. He heaped particular scorn on Arthur Jensen, who responded to the criticisms.

I especially remember a passage where Gould tries to make Jensen look like an idiot. In one of his books, Jensen makes a rather straightforward claim: that some critters are smarter than others. But when Gould gets through with it, it sounds very much as though Jensen believes that humans evolved from dogs.

I'm all in favor of looking for preconceptions and biases in the current understanding of science. But as I remember Gould's book, it amounted to little more than trying to smear modern researchers by linking them to the blatant racists who did the earliest work in the study of human intelligence.

Gould did little to disprove the correlation between brain size and intelligence. Sure, he went over the early (1800's era) studies with a fine-toothed comb to show their pitiful accuracy. But he didn't deal with more recent attempts to measure the correlation.

For the sake of making my own biases clear, I do believe that IQ tests do a passable job of measuring something. Also, my hat size is 7 5/8. Bow before me!

Neanderthals ...

[Pandemis]

...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.

Spam of the future...

[hugesmile]

Finally!

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!

Stopped clock syndrome.

[An Onerous Coward]

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.

Enlargement?

[Diamon]

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.

Ob Pulp Fiction

[fbform]

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!

TMBG

[Jodka]

Everybody wants prosthetic
Foreheads on their real heads
Everybody wants prosthetic
Foreheads on their real heads