Slashdot Mirror
Why size mattered for Einstein
Stephen Williams writes "Have a look at this BBC story. Examination of Albert Einstein's brain has revealed that a section of it is larger than average. "
Kinda a fluff piece, but it is friday and
this is kinda interesting. And I think its the first
time that we've used Einstein's mugshot there on a story about
him. The section in question is the parital lobes, behind the ears. Apparently they were larger then normal from a young age on. As well, his brain was about 15% wider across then average.
Isn't one of the main factors in determining intelligence the
number of connections between neurons, not the number of neurons (or
brain size). This has the nice side effect of explaining why big
brained species (see elephant below) do poorly on standardized tests.
I believe it has also been shown that individuals who excel in one particular
area or another have more connections in related parts of the brain.
The rest is overhead for the operating system.
--
Fourth law of programming: Anything that can go wrong wi
Right, but the idea was that since the skull contains the brain, the bumps on the skull would indicate more gray matter on the inside, and depressions would indicate less gray matter. It was considered an indication of cranial capacity.
To me, it seems like measuring how much leftover meatloaf you have by seeing how big your tupperware container is, but maybe it's more like wrapping it in aluminum foil, what do I know. Anyhow, it sounded like a good idea 100 years ago, but now we can actually get inside and look at the brain.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
The Jesuit priest who prepared Napolean's body for burial chopped off his peter, which was rather small. It was sold in the 70's (I believe) for $40,000 at auction at Christie's. Can't find my sources for this, though.....
And besides, why would anyone waste his time on women when he could change the fundamental paradigms of physics instead.
"For anyone to think that these differences are of no import is inane. "
Why?
What reason do *you* have to believe they are significant?
"You can't say 'blacks are the same as whites' and then support affirmative action."
The hell I can't! You think racism doesn't exist in this society? You think we're each born with the same oppurunities? Affirmative action has *nothing* to do with helping out people whose inborn talents are sub-par. It has everything to do with giving people who are vastly overrepresented in the poor sections of our population a chance out of their situation. I don't always agree with Affirmative action, I don't think it's a miracle tonic for society's ills, but you seem to have a terrible misunderstanding of its purpose.
Napolean had help -- he had only one testicle.
So much for Einstein's "feelings" -- or yours or mine, for that matter. Everybody's a fool outside his own field, and Eintstein was not a biologist. As demonstrated by my subject line, Einstein was even capable of developing blind spots within his field, on occasion.
Einstein's theories aren't credible because "Einstein was a genius"; we consider him a genius because his theories are credible on their own merits. If theories A through G (relativity, etc.) are credible on their own merits, it does not necessarily follow that theory Y must be credible, nor does it imply any justification for blowing off proving that one just because we liked the others so much.
"Once a solution is found, a compatibility problem becomes indescribably boring because it has only... practical importance"
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
>Let's sum this up then.
Sure.
>You respect some one like Bill Gates as >intelligent. Why? Because he's rich and takes >advantage of people.
Right and wrong, ethics and morality have nothing to do with intelligence. Accomplishments do. BG has accomplished what he has by being smart enough to figure out how. In that respect he shows more originality of thought than most. I could make the same arguement about Michael Dell, J.P. Morgan, and many other people.
>You don't respect someone with an advanced >degree despite the work and intelligence that it >obviously takes to get one.
It is NOT obvious that it takes intelligence to get one. I've worked in a Molecular Biology research lab. I've seen the people that get these degrees. Not every school has Harvard standards for the work they do or the people they allow through the system. Schools are out to make money and justify their position in life the same as any business. They do this by promoting the fallacy that a degree makes you something more than you are. That they exist to promote an exaulted ideal is secondary.
>You make sweeping general statements about huge >groups of people you've rarely encountered.
I was in a Bio lab for 4 years at Texas A&M. There were 50 faculty and >120 graduate students there. Add the people from the Biochem and Genetics depts. and I figure I know enough of them. Did I say ALL? No, go back and read. I do know enough people with PhDs to say that _just_ having a degree != higher intelligence. In fact, quite many of the profs their would say the same thing. Therefore, I reserve my impression of their intelligence for what they say and do, not just a piece of paper.
>Hey, I'm glad I'm not smart like you because you >are obviously a brick short.
I'm glad I have the ability to back my opinion up and the courage to put my name to it. So far the only thing to back your opinion is a girlfriend whom you claim to be smarter than you. If she is really so smart, why is she dumb enough to hang around with you?
Do really dense people warp space more than others?
Hmm,
I am not sure how that fits in, but I am mildy Dyslexic. I was terrible at math until my high school algebra 1 teacher noticed that I had problems with numbers...I wrote down numbers exactly reversed...not words just numbers, and read them as they were on the paper. Darn, before that I had to work my butt off to get a passing math grade (and science was tough when it involved math). Once I was aware of the problem...I just always wrote down numbers in "reverse"...which in effect means I started writing them down correctly...still do but I don't even think about it anymore, its automatic now. I made almost perfect grades right on though high school math, computers and science, and graduated salutatorian of my class. In college aced all physics, math, and theory, I graduated in electrical engineering (with computer minor...which now it called computer engineering...no such thing then) with honors and aced all physics, math, and theory (and partied all the time and never studied). So maybe his problem just made him have to work harder like I did early on, so later it was a beeze...maybe the rest they see is just what caused his Dyslexia.
Anyway, I think it's probably safe to say that Einstein was more than 15% smarter than the average person, even though he admitted to great difficulties with mathematics (probably becauase he was working with diffucult math). I think Einstein's gift was not necessarily mathematics, but rather insight and intuition.
Oh, I see the problem. The original post about my girlfriend was merely a quick response to the original post (now moderated) that stated that men are smarter than women because they are bigger. I was merely trying to point out that that is not necessarily the case because a small woman can be smarter then a large man, it was not a blanket statement about the intelligence of people with degrees at all.
Perhaps you should go back and read the original post before you start getting all huffy and start calling people names.
I myself am not so sure that the size of a brain would make it more sufficient or smarter. For instance, look at some old XT hard drive, its substantially larger than my quantum 8.5GB im using now, and store and speed are horrible in contrast. Plus, a friend of mine has a HUGE head, and a large brain. Good 'ol BigHead just never learns though, and is a pain in the ass, and not the smartiest kid ( although he acts like he is ).
Your Momma's so fat she makes emacs look like nano!
second, the central nervous system is the most energy demanding part of our body, and we wouldn't have a chance to achieve sufficient cooling if a larger part was in use at the same time -- we would overheat, and nerve cells really doesn't take heat well, so we'd literally think ourselves to death :)
I'm thinking a heat sink like a mohawk.
Style & function...the perfect geek combo.
I'm surprised no one has harped on this a bit more, but brain size doesn't necessarily mean greater intelegence. Neanderthals had brain cases that were roughly 1400-1700cc, which on the average is a bit larger than human brains. As someone else mentioned, whales also have bigger brains than we do. Whales though, have very large bodies, and a large amount of sensory input to monitor and process. What might be a somewhat better, if not totally accurate measurement would be brainsize in relation to body size, also taking into account the amount of processing the brain has to do for other tasks. It reminds me of how well the amiga (2000) could do with a 7mhz 68000. It wasn't a fast chip by 386 standards, but the system could run just about as fast, because it had optimized code, and other processors helping it along.
Nite_Hawk
I don't know about that. I am comp sci geek, but a physics groupie. Aall that sexy math... just gets me all... quivery. ;-) I have several friends who work down at Argonne National Labs. Visiting the lab has always been a fun time. Makes me wish I had my own research reactor to play with.
Thad
The Bolachek Journals
>Kennedy, was said to be LD. Did anyone weigh his brain?
Kind of hard to weigh it after it's been blown to pieces.
Kennedy? As in Jack Kennedy? Not sure weighing it would do any good... it was kinda spread all over the car.
--Rae
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. set my mind in motion.
It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed.
Blah I can't get my sig to work, it won't fit.
Interesting... I usually read his biology more for entertainment, not being a biologist, I would not know the difference between logical and well stated biological fiction and logical and well stated biological facts.
His statistics are more interesting to me, not so much that he proposes anything radical, but in that he takes into account human paradigms as a continual source of bias in interpretation of statistics (for example the age old view of evolution as a ladder leading to humans, when it is at best a bush).
If you don't believe that human perceptions cloud our view of statistics, go find out how much the average casino pulls in a month...
Likewise, I can't tell you how many times I have been CONVINCED that the solitare game on my Palm Pilot has something personal against me!
We are pretty far off topic, so maybe we should take it to email, but I am curious... what is the accepted engine for punctuated equilibrium if not the radical global changes described by Gould?
Also, I really enjoy the "pop" biology and natural history (something I can read, not something I have to study). Are there any other authors you can recommend that are accepted as more accurate?
Bill "Waaaayyyyyyy off topic... somebody moderate me down" Kilgallon
Mathematically impossible requirements are technically not against policy.
I've got an enormous gulliver, but I'm dumb as dirt! What gives?
Bet you he could have even gotten his WinModem to work!!!
Ok, the AC stuff can cause confusion with which AC said what. I take back the names and give you the benefit of the doubt on the 'brick' thing.
Do really dense people warp space more than others?
Time to face the facts, Mrs. Peabrain.
Why do you assume she's married?! Ha! Sounds like you're making your facts up as you go along, Mr. Oh-I'm-Such-A-Damn'-Clever-Troll-I-Just-Can't-Bel
So's yer muther, anyway.
I heard this on my way to work on NPR. The reporter also said that Einstein would have preferred not to be remembered for his body.
Of course, I can see it now. No more need for IQ tests. Just measure parts of a person's brain. Of course, they'll have to remove it first, but anything for progress!
--
"May I have ten thousand marbles, please?"
There was something like this a few years ago, when certain glands on the underside of the brain were found to be smaller in homosexuals. The researchers involved were very up-front about the fact that the causality was an unknown and that we shouldn't jump to any conclusions that smaller glands cause gaiety...that it's just as likely the other way around.
Weird, I just read the exact same story in my local paper two seconds ago. I remember reading a story a few years back about the one of the men involved in the study. For a while there wasn't really much interest in researching Einstein's brain, so the man kept the pieces in his apartment. I guess Einstein's family didn't really like the idea, so they moved it to the University. Eh.
The toastman always rings twice.
Heh.
"Sour grapes" and all that.
Girls are fun, trust me. Just wait a few years. You'll find out.
This is in today's paper.
Goes into a bit more detail and background than this thread's linked article.
--The more you know, the less you know.
Well, look at the big brain on Einstein!
read this:
Einstein's thought process described by himself:
"Words do not seem to play any role," he said, but there was "an associative play of more or less clear images of a visual and muscular type."
Now add to this words the fact that the parts of his brain that handle visual thinking was larger than average. Then read the books "Mind's Eye" and "The Gift of Dyslexia".
Linux, coming to a desktop near you!
The researchers hope that the study will encourage the donation of brain specimens from other gifted individuals.
it'd be somewhat ironic if einstein's brain just turned out to be a fluke. what would they do if feynman or hawking turned out to have 'average' brains?
"onward!" cried the copper man, little knowing brass corrupts...
Wow. More hideous reasoning. (1) Correlations alone tell you nothing about causation. Indeed, most of the correlations that you can find in the world are spurious. (2) The sample that your correlation was drawn from, I'm sure, was all male. Pick some female Nobel Laureates in the various sciences and talk to me about their testosterone levels. (3) Even if you want to talk only about lusty males, only someone with a pretty blighted worldview would think that the only source of drive and energy in males that could be scultped to a "higher pursuit" is freaking glandular.
What I've learned from this thread? That way too many slashdot posters are scrambling for any feeble justification for their mysogyny.
The idea that Einstein's cranial differences are somehow responsible for his genius diminishes what he accomplished and how he accomplished it---he worked hard and devoted a level of attention to physics that most of us are unwilling to devote to anything but television.
As a final caveat, we've all heard that humans only use 5% of their putative mental capacity---so why would a 15% increase in "processor capacity" make a difference? It would be like the difference between 2GB and 3GB of RAM on an Apple ][+!
P.S. If you have a 3GB Apple ][+, let me know---I'm a buyer for sure...
Carefree highway, let me slip away on you.
THAN! The word is THAN!!! T-H-A-N "Then" is a point in time. "Than" is used to compare things. Sheesh! I can't believe how widespread this misuse is getting to be.
From what I heard Einstein had to have his
mathematian friend formulate his theoretical ideas
into mathematical equations. Although I definitely
believe many people are born with special
abilities for math, science, computers, etc. this
movement to scientific phrenology worries me.
'd be neat if there was enough intact DNA to inject into a calf egg and grow an Einstein clone w/ large hat size - Then maybe he can figure out why my NT drag&drop is broken.
Seems there was a 'Wired' cover of Richard Dawkins with the projected head size humans will have years hence.
Chuck
The only thing free are the commercials
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
"This is a completely bogus etymology. The word `history' derives from greek, in which it bears no relation to the greek phrase meaning `his story."
????
Root derivation or etymology is not the only consideration in language analysis.
"The coined phrase 'history' says it all really. History is a man made construction. Tales of men by men."
I'm sorry but I did not see this cited anywhere as an etymological description. What about the equally valid forms of language analysis: lexography and linguistics? It is all semantics. Language IS a social construct. It both shapes and is shaped by political forces. There are other factors to take into account apart from the original root derivation. Because the greek derivation did not imply gender does not mean that it was not readily adopted and integrated into language and became so.
One does not run clutching for etymons when analysing "red herring" for example.
What is good for the gander is good for the goose. Irrelevant of size or disposition.
Maybe this study was well done -- since fluff pieces seldom have "methods" sections, I don't know -- but clearly this should have been done blind. That is, researches should have examined all the brains wihout knowing which was Einstein's. Number 17 has a bigger this, 19 has a diminished that, etc.
I suspect that a blind study would have revealed 20 language geniuses, many manual dexterity geniuses, people with fantastic spatial perception, etc. I doubt Einstein's deformity would have stood out much from other peoples' deformities.
We find what we set out to find.
On the other hand, as a culture, we religiously protest the idea that brain size/shape differences might mean anything at all since there are racial and sexual differences. To say that shape or size means something is to empower us over one another by HEAD SHAPE. But while there's excellent evidence that there's no corelation, there's a knee-jerk component in saying "NO. NOPE. UH-UH." to anything about this.
If they actually picked Al's brain out of a line-up of a hundred brains, I'd be impressed.
But they wouldn't.
Only if "supports this conjecture" means "makes vagues sense to someone who doesnt know what he or she is talking about."
You might want to review women's contribution to science. You might also want to review the various social constraints that historically barred women from study. Or you might want to review elementary logic and see why your attempt at causal explanation fall painfully short of the mark.
I reckon that it's more to do with the fact that, in Western society (and maybe others, but I'm no sociologist), women have been treated as second-class citizens for much of history, and only in very recent years has true equality begun to surface. Before this century, women were generally treated as unpaid cooks, domestic servants, nannies and whores. There have been a few exceptions, of course, but history has generally been dominated by men because men have exercised all the power. In past centuries, women were denied proper education. I think this has a lot to do with the apparent absence of female geniuses. Even in today's world of equality, men far outnumber women in the field of science. We have a long way to go before centuries of social conditioning are undone.
Phrenology is the 19th century method of character
analysis by looking at skull bumps.
Now with autopsies, brain injuries, and MRI/PET
imaging we can localize some brain functions,
but we really don't understand how it works yet.
The danger is someone could be diagnosised "abnormal" and denied insurance or forced therapy
if they exhibit a "wrong" pattern.
I still advocate continued R&D for human mental
understand and new therapies.
...if people with supposed "photographic memory" or really good memory have enlarged hypothaluses or just very active ones with lots of connections.
"Dogs and cats, living together...it's mass hysteria!"
Rushing to a snappy reply really makes you look dumb. The study was *not* about Einstein's overall brain size, it wasn't even just about the size of one particular area, and his was *not* the only brain studied.
ObSheesh.
This is like trying to figure out why someone is a great driver by examining his car. You are what you are - the body is irrelevent.
Oh, I think your argument alone would quite well prove otherwise. (Unless you have a really small head or are a woman.)
The engine is exactly what Gould said it was.
. html
There are known cases that work exactly as
he said. See
http://www.best.com/~dlindsay/creation/punk_eek
Hint: if you have nothing to contribute, please do so.
Do you have anything resembling a point? Instead of boring me to death in an effort to convince me that Einstein was an idiot, why not just address the matter at hand: Can you point us to _any_ woman who has made a significant contribution to theoretical physics that approaches the works of Einstein, Newton, Maxwell, Heisenberg or just about everyone else whose name is still being taught at universities today? In the meantime it's safe to assume that Einstein knew what he was talking about when he referred to women as unsuited for theoretical physics, considering that he was in contact with all the important physicists of his time (including Marie Curie btw).
Bullshit. It's not a broken theory. The
strongest intelligent attack on his theory
was by George Gaylord Simpson, who commented
that everyone already knew that.
Look, it is the case that you are completly
ignorant. Please stop trying to spread this
ignorance.
What we've learned from you posts is that you take this stuff waaaay too seriously. Maybe your brain is missing the humor processing parts? Why don't you donate your specimen for scientific research?
Actually, Einstein was rumored to have fathered several bastard children... My neighbor (odd lady. She's an artist.. Almost looks like Einstein too, but..) is almost sure she is related to Einstein. She has an autographed picture of him too...
just curious... :)
Who am I?
Why am here?
Where is the chocolate?
What is your Slash Rating?
At the time that Einstein was doing his most important work (the papers which were recently republished) hardly anybody thought women had adequate intelligence for anything more taxing than reading a recipe book or a fashion magazine. My grandmother, roughly a contemporary of Albert's, went to university but that was highly unusual at the time. Women didn't even have the vote (in Switzerland they still don't) Without higher education, it was unlikely that any women were about to change his culturally ingrained view. Today it might be different........
Anyway, the thing about Einstein's brain was not just the measurement of the inferior parietal lobes, but the lack of a sulcus (groove) there which probably meant that connections were made in his brain that most of us physically couldn't make. My newspaper said this was unique (but how could they know? unusual is what they meant).
PS Anonymous Coward - in an April posting "Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?" Henry II, talking about Thomas a Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury - interesting (in view of your dyslexia) that you remembered the meaning so clearly but not the actual words.
Stephen Jay Gould has a very good book on this topic called _The Mismeasure of Man_.
One thing I remember reading in this area was that Thoreau had an abnormally small brain, but is still considered one of the great Western thinkers.
The old adage "It isn't size, but how you use it that matters" (or something like that) seems true here.
Do you have anything resembling a point?
Yes, and I made it quite clearly. If you're too stupid to grasp it, that's not my problem, but here it is again: The mere fact that Einstein said it, doesn't make it true. Einstein himself would back me up on that, by the way. He was a theoretical physisict, not a priest. He wasn't into "revealed truth". He was into proof. The argument from authority is not proof.
it's safe to assume that Einstein knew what he was talking about when he referred to women as unsuited for theoretical physics, considering that he was in contact with all the important physicists of his time (including Marie Curie btw)
At that time most universities would not accept women as students. So how were they to get into the field? At that time, women were considered "incapable" of doing a great number of things which they have since started doing in large numbers, and quite successfully. At that time, there were surgeons as eminent in their fields as Einstein was in his, who declared that women weren't capable of doing surgery. Well, we've since found that that was a total crock. This is also true of any other profession you can name. In the eighteenth century and earlier, women were considered incapable of producing literature. By 1875 that particular notion had been laughed off the face of the earth.
Incidentally, are you trying to claim that Curie was incompetent? Or what?
Basically, you're drunk either way.
Instead of boring me to death in an effort to convince me that Einstein was an idiot,
You have successfully convinced me that you are an idiot, and that facts and logic bore you. Read my post again. I said that Einstein rejected Heisenberg's conclusions for emotional reasons. He did. This is a fact. Nobody said that Einstein was an idiot. I said that Einstein was fallible , which is, in fact, true. To back myself up, I provided a well-known example.
Can you point us to _any_ woman who has made a significant contribution to theoretical physics that approaches the works of Einstein, Newton, Maxwell, Heisenberg or just about everyone else whose name is still being taught at universities today?
Can you tell me why that would be relevant? (I know you can't -- it's a joke, see?
In other words, anecdotal evidence isn't worth much -- but you have anecdotal evidence which is completely tangential, while I have anecdotal evidence which is very much to the point. Get it? No, you don't get it. You don't get much, do you?
It's a commonly observed fact that people who brag about the accomplishments of "their" group never seem to have any accomplishments of their own to brag about. Gee, what an odd coincidence. If your failings in logic and reading comprehension are anything to go by, you're a perfect example.
"Once a solution is found, a compatibility problem becomes indescribably boring because it has only... practical importance"
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
The point that several previous posts seemed to be angling towards, but not quite saying directly, is that crud like this is unscientific at best. The article claims that Einstein's brain was compared with that of 35 people of "average" intelligence. Putting aside the very basic idea that average is not definable here, this is still a pretty small case study. This just ain't front page news.
Someone earlier mentioned Mismearure of Man, where Gould has done a rather amusing overview of the cranial capacity of some of the world's great thinkers. Very wide spread. No clear definition one way or the other. In fact some of the greatest proponents of this type of phrenology were pretty distressed to find their own capacity hitting a little below the mark...
Silly stuff.
I remember watching a BBC documentary about a Japanese "researcher" who was on a quest to find out what happened with the brain of Einstein.
The Japanese guy was a bit potty, and the only English he knew was "Am looking for Einstein brain". He kept asking that to anyone the BBC got on film. He went completely out of his mind when he finally got hold of a little bit of brain material. Apparently he was some kind of professor but I didn't really get a scientific impression of him. In fact, I thought he was a loony...
The documentary did make clear that some *very* strange things happened with Einstein's brain, as somebody else already noted...
-------
Warning: Slashdot may contain traces of nuts.
Excuses, excuses. I know it's politically incorrect to even suggest a biological difference in mental capacities, but neither your comment nor years of Women's Studies have been able to disprove said conjecture.
I know this is sheer pedantry, but the 5-10% brain usage thing is a misinterpretation of a finding of a myth. It's utter shite - the 10% that the researchers found in the 60's was only what they could measure using electrical probing. It's like saying that the cake is baked because the top is burnt. More recent research using MRI and PET scanning reveals that most of the brain is being used most of the time - and not all in the same regions. Like a giant state machine. (sorry, ranting!)
So the 15% increase in a human compared to the old Apple box isn't a fair comparison. I'm not saying that the 15% *is* a valid explanation - I don't know. And I agree that hard work had a lot to do with his acheivments.
Ohh my bad wronge subject.. hehe
I'm surprised that the BBC actually printed that Einstein "discovered the theory of relativity."
My girlfriend has a Doctorate and you obviously don't. Gees, there goes your argument.
Brain weight correlates with body weight.
Does anyone believe that heavy people are
usually more intellegent than skinny
people?
(Reality reasserts itself sooner or later.)
He donated his whole bodie to science. And the government gets to control it because when you sign that paper that donates your bodie guess who's paper it is?
>>
From CNN.com:
"Furthermore, they found that the groove that normally runs from the front of the brain to the back did not extend all the way in Einstein's case...'That kind of shape was not observed in any one of our brains and is not depicted in any atlas of the human brain,' said Sandra Witelson,a neuroscientist who led the study, published in this week's issue of The Lancet, a British medical journal."
i'll refrain from making comments of my own, since i'm not really a "nerd" (alas..) and therefore don't really belong here.
The mere fact that Einstein said it, doesn't make it true.
The mere fact that you keep repeating that Einstein was wrong doesn't make that true either. The difference being that you can't even argue from authority, little louse.
Incidentally, are you trying to claim that Curie was incompetent? Or what?
In a way, yes. I was arguing that Einstein was acquainted with a woman who could be considered the most talented female physisist ever, yet Einstein still maintained that women are unsuited for theoretical physics. You might say that he didn't argue from authority but from personal experience.
You asked why it would be relevant if you could point us to a woman who has made a significant contribution to theoretical physics. Let me guess - maybe it would help you disprove the Einstein conjecture? Since you're obviously incapable of naming such a person you've resorted to all sorts of name calling. I wonder if they teach that in Rhetoric 101 as well. Try taking Logic 101 next.
It's a commonly observed fact that people who brag about the accomplishments of "their" group never seem to have any accomplishments of their own to brag about.
Are you talking to me? I never bragged about anything, least of all the accomplishments of my 'group' (assuming you're talking about males vs. females), especially considering that you seem to be part of the same group, which, I admit, comes dangerously close to blowing Einstein's argument of male superiority out of the water. But since you're not a theoretical physicist (your incoherent drivel is a dead giveaway), his conjecture seems to be safe for now.
A parting word of caution: Don't even dream that you might stand a chance of arguing me into the ground, little louse. I haven't even unpacked the insecticide yet.
But any correlations with size, SA, convolutions, etc are only vaguely valid at the species level. The skull size and brain cell count (size, SA, etc equivalent) are not genetically coupled. In other words you may inherent 50% more brain cells squished into a 15% smaller skull. Same with folds, etc. Brain size, shape, weight, on a per instance basis (joe vs. frank) probably means nothing.
Actually, in this case the smaller skull may give an advantage in reducing signal path lengths. We just dont know yet. Less may be more in many ways, for example, Einstein's missing gap/fold may have helped him in math...but did it tradeoff something else?
I don't think that this is probably very relevant - a good number of excellent thinkers had very small brains - Leonardo, for example, had one of the smaller brains ever discovered in a fully functional human being. Also, those who have very large brains tend to be mentally retarded. Besides, if you're only using 10% of your brain anyhow, how is some more of it going to be helpful?
-lx
really when discussing brainsize get the spelling rihght eh? -us foreigners might think you people mighty ehhh. ........ or something when you can't discern between "then" and "than"...
Just my 2 cents worth of B.S.
*y2k -Azathoths minions had it coming*
Have you ever heard of Marilyn Vos Savant? She has the highest rated IQ ever measured for a man or woman. I'm not sure how big her brain is but she is a woman.
Do really dense people warp space more than others?
I somewhat agree - I have personally come across one example where Gould wasn't exactly wrong, but he certainly neatened some actual untidiness for the sake of his essay. It was on the evolution of insect wings, and Gould wholeheartedly embraced the theory of thermoregulatory benefit as if it were established and respected fact. (It is *not*. It is simply one of a number of theories on the subject, at least it was a year or two ago...certainly it was when Gould wrote the essay.)
The other example came from another essay on the evolution of QWERTY, where Gould simply wrote up the popular myth (which has since been debunked by *gasp* real research, see a prev slashdot article on the subject).
Yet I did very much enjoy Mismeasure of Man and thought it made some excellent points about statistical bias and keeping a proper perspective on historical scientific findings. I wouldn't have said con-man, and I wouldn't go so far as to say that he is a complete fraud as a scientist. Grain of salt...
"It's been proven time and again that he falsifies his results in order to get published. Just because he shouts the loudest doesn't mean he's correct," states an Anonymous Coward.
Would you please provide evidence to back up your claim of falsifying results? Because that's one hell of an accusation. Personally I think Gould is one of the great thinkers of this century. Plus he's an outstanding writer for the intelligent layman interested in all things biological, paleontological, and geological. The only other popular science writer on the same level was Carl Sagan. And for heaven's sake, when has Stephen Jay Gould ever shouted? His writings are the touchstone of subtlety and taste. I, for one, suspect you haven't read him. Sorry, but you've stepped on the toes of one of my heroes.
To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk. --Thomas Edison
They said they were looking for brains from other gifted individuals. :) No really though, that's an interesting peice. I wonder if the findings found are the real reason for him being so smart, or if he just was naturally smart.
I, for one, do. I'm heavy, and I'm a friggin' jeeniouss, so there must be a correlation.
--Corey
Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
This probably isn't worth my time to reply to, but why not.
It's been proven time and again that he falsifies his results in order to get published.
IANAL, but this sounds like slander to me. Proven time and time again? By whom? Where is this "proof"? Why does Gould continue to be published in reputable, peer-reviewed journals if he is in fact a "con-man"?
On the other hand, Gould is a favored whipping-boy for proponents of Creationism, so perhaps your agenda is religious, not scientific?
Oh, now I see hardwork, dedication, and perseverence are signs of stupidity. Silly me. I didn't realize all of the really smart guys were down at Willy's Bar and Grill pounding shots.
WOW! I did not know that Gary Coleman made theories of relativity. I thought he was just an actor. But know I know the truth. "Whatcha Talking About Willis!" is actually his theory of relativity spoken backwords, right?
It'd be hideous if researchers were using his brain without permission. And just who gets access to it anyway? This all sounds like a bad B movie plot.
as are most (religious) human beings. He is scientific when science agrees with his beliefs. When science does not support his beliefs, he tends to ignore the science or he expects an excessive burden of proof from science.
In all seriousness:
Imagine a huge hollow brain -it might have a huge surface area. (and a similar actual mass to a normal size brain) but it would be close to spherical. the brain power comes from the "foldality" of the brain. To accurately measure IQ you have to compare the Foldality of the brain in question to the edge of a mandelbrot set - if the quotient is higher then the person is much smarter than average.
Dude, the comment was about WOMEN in GENERAL, not about your girlfriend. It would be safe to say that the # of Doctors represented by males is WAY larger than of their female counterparts. Given that in accordance with your assertion that a PhD means someone is smart, females are still hopelessly lagging behind. Females are smart enough to take advantage of men, but as for science, give me a break, some are, most are not.
Last week I watched a video presentation of a seminar discussion -- the subject being "music" and "learning". The speaker, Dr. Michael Ballam at Utah State University, related that part of what solved Einstein's early learning difficulties was that his mother purchased a violin for him, and as he began to learn to play, his learning abilities improved as well. Dr. Ballam also mentioned (quoting from biographers) that later in life Einstein thought of physics in nearly "musical terms."
Big laugh, right? Not really. According to neuroscientists, the parietal lobes of the brain seem to be the "interpreters" for sensory signals from other places in the brain: (vision, HEARING, motor, sensory and memory). [Thick quote alert... highlighting, mine] (from American neuroscientist Gerald Edelman's book Bright Air, Brilliant Fire):
- "Whatever the skill employed in thought - that of logic, mathematics, language, spatial or musical symbols - we must not forget that it is driven by the Jamesian processes, undergoes flights and perchings, is susceptible to great variations in attention, and in general is fueled by metaphorical and metonymic processes. It is only when the results of many parallel, fluctuating, temporal processes of perception, concept formation, memory, and attentional states are "stored" in a symbolic object - a sequence of logical propositions, a book, a work of art, a musical work - that we have the impression that thought is pure."
A final thought. Einstein was somewhat dyslexic, which is, in essence, where the brain is not correlating the senses correctly. Dr. Ballam's discussion showed how many times music is the great HARMONIZER that often makes the difference.(Small bio note here: I am ADD (attention deficit disorder), but survived and even did well in school, so long as I was also involved in music because my spatial awareness went way up.)
Interesting stuff, eh?
P.S. I'm trying to see if the text of Dr. Ballams' seminar is available online, and will post a link if I find it.)
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
There's ample evidence that Einstein himself thought that women had inadequate intelligence for theoretical physics. He has made many remarks to that effect.
So, in a nutshell, they were proposing that it was the amount of excess brain that lead to greater intelligence.
so that's why you geeks are all scrawny.
> Lord save us if we ever see a squadron of flying elephants....
Yeah, like in Niven&Pournelle's -Footfall-? Those flying elephants sure caused a lotta trouble.
If the scientists are looking for brain donations, I'm sure we can get a half dozen or so from the management around here. They arent using them for much anyway...
From a news article I read, it did not say anything about size, but they did say that it was because one of the grooves in the brain was incomplete, unlike in most humans. This incomplete groove was present on both sides of his brain. This allowed faster communication between two different regions in Einstein's cerebral cortex. Also, the large groove down the center of Einstein's brain was also incomplete, which would have directly connected both halves of Einstein's cerebral cortex.
DES Khaddafi KGB genetic jihad Uzi Rule Psix Qaddafi cryptographic Peking Mossad Legion of Doom Albanian Serbian Saddam
Okay.
I read through some of those comments... I've gotta back Talisman up. We might not like it, but there ARE racial/ethnic differences that show up in other aspects of people's lives.
To give a few examples - (I just know I'm gonna get flamed) GENERALLY:
Asians tend to be better at math/science
Africans tend to be better at athletics... what percentage of the world's great basketball players are black? Runners?
The list goes on, and I'm not really qualified to enumerate more. But the trend is there.
Affirmative action is pointless. As is some types of welfare. The American assumption is that, given equal opportunity, everyone will succeed. Granted, not everyone has equal opportunity. But success isn't just about giving everyone the same starting point. Certain people excel in certain areas. Certain people don't. It is a fact that we will all eventually have to accept and appreciate instead of turning a blind eye and punishing those that excel, while spending resources trying to help those that don't. I agree that the unsuccessful should be helped to live, but definitely not at the cost of others. Why should I be discriminated AGAINST when I apply to college simply because I am Asian/White? Or, why should I be picked out simply because I am Black?
While we shouldn't discriminate against people for race/gender/ethnicity, we must recognize that differences exist.
Jonathan Wang
Despite Einstein's wishes that he be cremated in his entirety, Dr. Harvey removed the brain from his cranium, took it home and was fired from his hospital job when he refused to give it back. The whereabouts of Einstein's organ have been the subject of speculation and macabre rumours ever since his death 42 years ago at the age of 76.
Frist off aplogys in advance if this has already been mentioned. One would think that after sitting in persirvitave for such a long time that the brain would be changed from its orignal state. The effect of perservitive on the brain isn't really knowen until we do a good study on it. Hope I made at least some sense! -Jon
I was arguing that Einstein was acquainted with a woman who could be considered the most talented female physisist ever, yet Einstein still maintained that women are unsuited for theoretical physics.
If you want to evaluate Marie Curie's competence as a theoretical physicist, there is one and only one valid way to do that: Learn theoretical physics, read her papers, and base an informed opinion on the actual quality of her work. Not her chromosomes; her work. I doubt that you are capable of doing that; if you were, you wouldn't need logical fallacies to "prove" your point. You'd have the facts.
It may well be that Einstein, like you, had an emotional problem with recognizing the value of work done by women; as I demonstrated at the beginning of this thread, even somebody as bright as Einstein is capable of having blind spots. He was a human being just like the rest of us, except for the fact that he had some very profound insights into the nature of how things work.
You might say that he didn't argue from authority but from personal experience.
Where did you learn to read? Did you learn to read? You are arguing from authority. Not Einstein, you. You are telling me that "Einstein said it, so it must be true". You're wrong. If Einstein said it, it might be true, or it might not; the proximity of Einstein's name does not impart a quality of "truth" to things. Had Einstein taken the trouble to try to prove this, then we could look at his proof and evaluate that. But he didn't. He just shot his mouth off.
You asked why it would be relevant if you could point us to a woman who has made a significant contribution to theoretical physics.
Again, your reading comprehension is shockingly poor. I said that it was irrelevant that you could not point to a woman (other than Curie, who demolishes your entire thesis) who had made a "significant contribution to theoretical physics". I provided a very close analogy: When women were rarely taught to read, they made very little contribution to literature. If you had been alive in 1800, you would be yammering with equally self-assured illogic that women were incapable of writing novels. In 1800, the evidence for "male superiority" in that field was identical to your current evidence for "male superiority" in the field of theoretical physics. You're a regular warehouse of logical fallacies: "If it didn't happen yesterday, it can't happen tomorrow". I'm sorry, but that's pure nonsense, of the "man was not meant to fly" variety.
I never bragged about anything, least of all the accomplishments of my 'group' (assuming you're talking about males vs. females),
Your entire thesis could be stated as follows: "Nya, nya, nya! Boys are smarter than girls". Which is just plain pathetic.
especially considering that you seem to be part of the same group,
I am (I'm also white, middle-class, well-educated, and from the Northeast -- the whole nine yards
But since you're not a theoretical physicist (your incoherent drivel is a dead giveaway),
You're really addicted to that fallacy, aren't you? Heh. Since you can't effectively dispute anything I've said, you're desperately trying to find cheap excuses to ignore it entirely -- based on the imaginary qualities of a "group" to which you presume I belong. This is called "grasping at straws". You do it very gracefully. You must have a lot of practice.
. . . his conjecture seems to be safe for now.
As I've demonstrated, his conjecture is ludicrous. Furthermore, O Man of Science, do you know what a "conjecture" is? It's not something that's considered proven, for starters. If you knew that, you wouldn't have used the word, of course; but in your ignorance and confusion you've accidentally said something rational
Don't even dream that you might stand a chance of arguing me into the ground
You seem to be deriving some kind of comfort from the fact that you're too dumb to know when you've made an ass of yourself. Well, hey, if that's all you've got, go ahead and enjoy it. God knows it's not much.
"Once a solution is found, a compatibility problem becomes indescribably boring because it has only... practical importance"
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
Heh. I'm 20, and I'm still waiting. So it's not necessarily just sour grapes.
Touche, and apologies
Let us recap that Einstein's conjecture (I chose that term wisely) is well supported by real life evidence, while your pathetic little anecdotal excursions into 19th century literature (which are flawed in their own right) do nothing to disprove said conjecture. Your only discernible argument seems to consist in accusing me of taking an attitude similar to "If it didn't happen yesterday, it can't happen tomorrow", which can indeed serve as a sound working hypothesis (for example, you didn't grow a brain yesterday, and I don't expect it to happen tomorrow either), while your twisted little 'mind' is defying all logic by perverting this approach into "If it didn't happen yesterday, it will surely happen tomorrow", which is arguably the mother of all logical fallacies.
Other than that, you not surprisingly managed to trivialize my position into "Nya, nya, nya! Boys are smarter than girls", which would be untenable given the fact that you admitted to being male (although you lied about the well-educated part). This deplorable little lapse has made it crystal clear to me that you're indeed utterly incapable of following my arguments, and thus prompted my resolution to redirect my intellectual ingenuity towards more worthy endeavours.
Farewell, little louse.
f you are going to try and over-generalize I suggest considering this observation: time period of physicists most innovative and creative years are directly correlated to the time period of their highest testosterone levels.
This is perhaps why there are more male physicists than female, aside from the fact society does a good job of keeping women down and for whatever reason (sociological, genetic, etc.) that women, on average, display less aptitude in the math/science areas.
Further evidence for the testosterone-scientific achievement connection is supported by comments from great achievers throughout history (Napoleon, Da Vinci, Crowley) talked about one of the secrets to high productivity being the control of sexual drive. I don't think anyone is going to dispute the testosterone-sexual drive connection. The secret is to redirect that drive and energy into a 'higher' pursuit.
It has already been validated by the scientific team working on this project that the actual organ area was not larger than other males brains examined. It was mainly attributed to the distribution of mass. and the lack of a particular groove which is found on a 'typical' brain. Thus the total size of the brain is irrelevant.
Your conjecture has no validity base at all in the argument regarding women. It is based on a false premise. Women are historically invisible in our society. The coined phrase 'history' says it all really. History is a man made construction. Tales of men by men.
And for the record there has only been one male Einstein also. How do you account for the Ada Lovelaces of this world?
The concept of measurement of intelligence is strangely askew. But then it favours men as it too was created by men. If Einstein's brilliance had been based on his lateral rather than longitudal skills, ie. language, arts, etc he would have been branded a dunce. Likewise the inverse must hold true for women. Intelligence surely is manifested in disciplines apart from the so called higher sciences per se. Deemed higher because due to a predominance of men in this area in an effort to keep it an elitist domain -- it is labelled so. It's easier to play and win the game when you make up all the rules.
Recently a study on female anatonmy found that the clitoris was a lot larger than originally thought. In fact the internal muscle is larger and more powerful than your average penis. I can't find a related site [time-wasting wading through all that porn in AltaVista..but this was quite recent and is true.]
In the end it is relative. Listen to the man.
BLAMMO shaken not stirred
> Whales have brains bigger than gary coleman and you don't see them making theories of relativity.
How do you know? Talked to any whale scientists recently? It could be that, living in the ocean, they have a different perception of spatial movement than we. They might take for granted what we're only at the edges of discovering.
> The real physical trait that matters is the surface area of the brain. Notice how our brains look like a raison? All of those convolutions increase the surface area of the brain.
Correct, in a sense. It is the convolutions of the brain that are thought to indicate intelligence. No matter what you do, or how you wrinkle a human brain, though, there won't be as much surface area on it as on the brain of a whale. It just won't happen. It's physically not possible.
But, all that convolutions-means-intelligence mumbo-jumbo is just that. Conjecture. No hard science to back it up.
Dolphins have, on average, more convolutions per square inch of brain than we. Are they intelligent? Perhaps. Can we understand their intelligence? Not yet. Will we ever? Maybe.
But if they were so darned intelligent, they'd be able to avoid those nets, wouldn't they?
So long, and thanks for all the fish,
--Corey
Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
Yeah, like the PhD means you're smart. Some of the biggest idiots I know have advanced degrees. All it meant was they were more happy to spend 80+ hours a week in a lab than at home with family or out having a life. I would also argue that Bill Gates (as much as I don't like MS) is pretty darn smart (smart enough to take advantage of most people) but dropped out of college. Basically a degree doesn't mean sh*t.
So there goes your argument.
Do really dense people warp space more than others?
Hehe, I bet she also is MCSE (or is it MSCE) licensed?
I'm sorry, but I don't have time to write out an explination of how punctuated equilibrium is now believed to work.
I suggest reading "The Bling Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins. It does an excellent job of explaining it. Plus it delves into genetic algorithms and some really cool concepts of evolution.
He is pop-science, so he continues to be published. His study of french snail shells was used to prove punctuated equilibrium. It was later shown that he falsified his results, and that he wrote his conclusions before he did any actual studies - then manipulated his studies to match his conclusion.
This fact is often overlooked because other biologists saw that punctuated equilibrium would work, but not with Gould's ideas. Still, Gould takes credit for the work done by others to prove his broken theories.
I didn't know Einstein was dyslexic, but what is this crap about "Dyslexia isn't a correct subject in 'learned' circles."
There are quite a few researchers out there (hell, my mentor was one of them at one time) studying both the acquired (e.g. you forgot to wear your motorcycle helmet) and developmental dyslexias. In their learned circle, dyslexia is damned important.
And yes, brain anatomy is the focus of some of the research. There seems to be a curious link between being a male, handedness, allergies, and...dyslexia.
.. with her own agenda to serve. Time to face the facts, Mrs. Peabrain.
-- AC Troll
No, she's pretty smart. But, if you'd like to prove you are smart too give us two or three really good scientific reasons to support your theory.
I thought relative intelligence was based on connectivity, not on the size of brains. if the size were important, dolphins would be smarter than us. (not to say they're not) didn't the neanderthals have a larger brain case than us, too?
by Vonnegut. Reminds me Home sweet Home earth in 1999
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangster Of Love:
This should come as no surprise to us. How many among us have big heads? How many among us were the "smart people" or the "nerds" way back when. I've observed this all of my life.
When I was born my head was so large that the doctors thought that I was hydrocephalic (water on the brain). They wanted to drill a hole in my head to relieve the pressure. My mother refused to allow it, as time went on, my body grew to match my head. At least for the most part, unless I cut all of my hair off, I can't wear a baseball cap.
Most every highly intelligent person whom I know has a large head. Big heads = big brains (for the most part).
LK
Whoa whoa! Tabernac!
It says it was compared to 35 _men_ and 56 _women_ who had normal intellect when they died. That makes it 91 people, slightly better than 35.
It also says these features are listed nowhere on any known atlas of brain features. So they referred to the existing knowledge base as well.
I'd say that helps a wee bit, eh?
BTW, there is no mention of overall cranial capacity and if you check the other articles, the weight of A.E.'s brain was in the "normal" range. They refer specifically to unusual features, not overall size.
Be sure you absorbed the findings presented in any paper before calling someone else's study crud.
Actually the comment was about PhD/advanced degree people and not all of them, only some. I'm certainly not going to bother getting into a battle of wits with an unarmed anonymous coward. I don't just give respect to a person's intelligence level purely based on their degree. I see anyone who does so as a little naive.
Do really dense people warp space more than others?
Well, I hate to reply to anyone who begins an argument as dude but. . .
To tell you the truth most of the men I know are not smart enough for science. Probably greater than 95% and more like above the 99% mark. Most of the women I know are much more logical and clear thinking than the men I know.
Now onto your logic, you said that the statement was a general statement. Ok, based on what? IQ tests, graduation from university, job success? Uh, no. Not one bit of evidence suggested at all - just "Like hey dudes are bigger so they got to be smarter, huh?" If this is your theory, and I can find one small woman who is more intelligent than a larger man then your theory is trashed, blown out of the water, worthless.
Next . . .
Einstein valued elegance and beauty in physics and mathematics; it's a fair bet he wouldn't touch NT with a 10 foot pole.
like in "Foundation and Earth" from Asimov :o)
--
"Science will win because it works." - Stephen Hawking
. . . there's a place for you, really!
. . . decrepit prose . .
Hey, that's pretty cool. If that phrase didn't embody what it describes, it would be completely meaningless. It's a shame you'll never get the joke . . .
. . . a futile argument, which I am invariably bound to win anyway,
Can you actually quantify the nature of your "victory"? . . . while accounting for the fact that every one of your statements is fallacious, irrelevant, and/or blatantly contrary to fact . . . ?
Einstein's conjecture (I chose that term wisely)
You chose that term just as foolishly as you choose everything else. You started off trying to claim that it was a fact (though you backed off to "'sound' working hypothesis" when you started to realize how wrong you were) when, yes, a "conjecture" is the best you can reasonably call it -- and a silly conjecture at that.
while your pathetic little anecdotal excursions into 19th century literature (which are flawed in their own right)
Since you know nothing of the subject, I can understand very well why you make no attempt to justify that statement. You seem to be trying to deny the existence of George Elliot, George Sand (both of whom were women writing under male names, so as not to be dismissed on account of their gender), Jane Austen, Emily Dickinson, H.D., Virginia Woolf, Dorothy Parker, Gertrude Stein, Nicola Griffith, and about four hundred others. I'm sorry, but these books exist, okay? They're on my shelf, big as life. Are you going to claim that somebody else wrote them? Or are you going to claim that Einstein said ("so it must be true!"(TM)) that their work -- which you've never read, nor in your ignorance even heard of in most cases -- was of no worth?
In short, you babble a lot, and God knows you repeat yourself endlessly, but you are absolutely incapable of putting together a credible defense of anything you say. You can't even give a coherent account of why you believe these things, let along why I should agree with you. All you can do is doggedly and proudly demonstrate your wretched lack of irony by attacking my nick. It's almost as if you're afraid that I'll mistake you for an intelligent person, and you're eager to set me straight on that point. If so, let me reassure you: I got the message a long time ago.
"If it didn't happen yesterday, it can't happen tomorrow", . . . can indeed serve as a sound working hypothesis
You're blind drunk, aren't you? The history of science is more tangential to this discussion than you think, but if you knew anything about it, you'd be aware that the last gasp of any dying paradigm is just that: "It didn't happen yesterday!" And it's always backed up with the argument from authority.
you not surprisingly managed to trivialize my position into "Nya, nya, nya! Boys are smarter than girls",
Er, no. I'd say that you trivialized it yourself, but that would imply that it wasn't trivial to begin with.
our twisted little 'mind' is defying all logic by perverting this approach into "If it didn't happen yesterday, it will surely happen tomorrow",
Jesus Christ! Any local high school in your area is bound to offer remedial reading classes for night students. Check it out. You'll be glad you did.
What I've been saying all along is that Einstein's conjecture is insupportable, and that your attempts to support it are irrational and free of fact. You've consistently failed to address any of the points I've raised. You would know better than I why this should be so, but that's another issue. The point here is that I've simply been saying that you've failed utterly to provide any valid reasons at all for anybody to take your "conjecture" seriously. Based on history, it seems likely that women are perfectly capable of doing theoretical physics; given the career of Marie Curie, it seems more than just "likely". Did I say "surely"? No, of course not. Perhaps Curie was an aberration of some kind; perhaps "she" was a transvestite. I never met the woman. The thing is, it's easy to prove that something exists; all you need to do is provide an example (e.g. Curie in this case, a sticking point which you've tried desperately to ignore). Proving that something does not and can not exist is another matter entirely, though. It can be done in mathematics, but that brings us to some clever ideas Kant had about the nature of truth, which are over your head anyway. In a nutshell, the ground rules for mathematics are fully known, because we are the ones who defined them, just as the syntax of C is fully known: You can look at the source for the compiler. This is not true of biology, sociology, or any of the other disciplines which are relevant to this discussion. So here you are: You're just barely bright enough to realize that a negative proof is not going to happen by any honest means, so you're resorting to fallacies and name-calling. This is not an entirely bad premise for a Monty Python sketch, but for any other purpose it's got some flaws.
you're indeed utterly incapable of following my arguments,
It's nice to see you continuing your perfect record of never even attempting to back up anything you say. While we're here, though, you should be aware that "arguments" is what we call a "plural". This means that it implies that there is more than one. Therefore, I laugh. You have one argument. It is the argument from authority. It is silly. You are a fool. Are those sentences short enough for you? I tried not to use any big, scary words that might frighten you off.
I'll say it again: The fact that you're too dumb to admit your error doesn't make you right. The possibility that you're too brainless even to recognize your error is not interesting to me. In fact, it's too depressing to contemplate, so I'm going to assume that you known damn well how idiotic your nonsense is.
"Once a solution is found, a compatibility problem becomes indescribably boring because it has only... practical importance"
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
Actually, energy/heat dissipation is not the limiting factor, rather it is the depletion of important neurotransmitter chemicals which are consumed by neural processes. When neurotransmitter levels become depleted, extra hours of sleep are required to replenish them. It is said that Einstein would often sleep 10 hours a night.
Another body part I have to feel insecure about .....
Message on our company Intranet:
"You have a sticker in your private area"
beauty is only a light switch away
Um, right... and how exactly did you address this extra ram with a 16-bit address bus? The ][+ did not have a bank-switch circuit like the later model Apple IIs (which could address up to 16M, I believe)
Could do alot of good for Hollywood, me figures...
Don't hate the media, become the media.
hahaha - Point well made!
I always thought that people with big heads have an unfair advantage. It's like running on an Alpha chip compared to a 486.
BTW, what's YOUR hat size?
Not sure about dyslexia, but Einstein did have some form of Attention Deficit Disorder. So did Thomas Edison...
Anyway there have been several studies which show brain differences in ADD/ADHD patients.
Whales and dolphins are actually quite intelligent as animals go. You don't see them making theories of relativity because it has no use for them in their enviornment. OTOH they have far better auditory processing ability than humans.
Well, Intelligence != Sanity. Several other serial killers were also extremely intelligent. I doubt Ted Kaczynski will donate his brain to science though. :)
people who excel in the face of crippling poverty and absolute lack of good education are, i would hazard to say, fewer than those who excel not suffering those disadvantages.
once again, affirmative action is not retributive or recompensatory action. it is designed to assuage current deficits, some caused by peoples perceptions of what others are capable (or incapable) of.
"they'd be able to avoid those nets, wouldn't they?"
F /...
Oh you mean the same way humans avoid doing things like crack, shooting each other, eating to obesity, falling in love with evil... Sometimes maybe "you" are just sure you can get some of that good fish before the net begins to close in but instead you just make a pretty bad judgment call. It happens.
---
Openstep/NeXTSTEP/Solaris/FreeBSD/Linux/ultrix/OS
--- I do not moderate.
I just figured Richard Dawkins read Slashdot.
Some years ago, I came across a book in the university library that was comparing the body mass to brain mass (yes, i know, folding is important).
The gist of their conclusion is that the larger the body, the larger the brain would have to be to keep up...the larger the body (think of skin) the more sensations that are comming in. There might even need to be more motor neurons. So, in a nutshell, they were proposing that it was the amount of excess brain that lead to greater intelligence.
Whether it is true or not, I don't know. But it is damn plausible.
Of course there are other factors that go into the way intelligence is developed in a species, such as the environment. Elephants don't have hands (but they do have that nifty trunk), and because of their physical size, it would be damn difficult for them to build anything. What is important to them is remembering migration paths over great distances. So elephants have developed killer memory, whereas our isn't too hot.
I'm done rambling now.
I've examined many corpses from both sexes and of many races.
Have _NO_ illusions. There _ARE_ physical differences between races and sexes, aside from the obvious ones.
For anyone to think that these differences are of no import is inane.
You're correct in thinking that admitting such a fact will be difficult due to the societal and political ramifications, however should the fact never be widely accepted has no bearing on its accuracy. (e.g. the flat Earth people)
Before I'm labeled a racist or sexist (or both) allow me to expand a bit on my view of the world.
I truly don't care if a person is male or female, of any color or creed. However, when you fully embrace this concept you must understand that you can no longer defend people for the same reasons.
You can't say 'blacks are the same as whites' and then support affirmative action. I have a black friend that absolutely refuses to accept any hand-out/hand-up offered by the government. He went so far as applying to college as a white just so he wouldn't receive preferential treatment. THAT is true character. THAT is an individual.
Our society is renowned for its participants struggle for individuality. However, we don't seem to have a firm grasp on what individualism truly is.
"The only animal capable of blushing is man, and he is the only one that needs to." - Twain
Talisman
"Study your math, kids. Key to the universe." -The Archangel Gabriel
This whole ridiculous story is like pointing at Arnold Schwarzeneggar's biceps and exclaiming "NOW I know why he's so strong!"
I think the scientists doing the study need their own brains examined.
The convolutions of the brain cortex are related to brain size because of mechanical factors. Actually, dolphin (whale) brains appear more convoluted than human brains even for their size, because the have a thinner cortex to fold.
Irrelevent anyway. Different mammals have different numbers of layers in their neocortex; research has discarded any particular role for the neocortex in relative intelligence of animals; humans have greatly varying brain size with no sign of a direct relation to intelligence, and there are victims of hydrocephalus ("water on the brain") whose brain scans show only intense cognitive activity in a small amount of brain tissue, but who have relatively normal intelligence nevertheless.
So it isn't how big it is or how many ridges it has - it seems to be more a case of how skillfully you use it.
"Whatever difficulties you are having with the mathematics of it, I can assure you that mine have been far greater".
Einstein got where he was by perseveration and inspiration. His mathematical abilities were substandard for theoretical physicists.
His main achievement was to find out where to focus his abilities in order to be getting to important stuff. I mean, the Lorentz transformation (the fundamental basis for special relativity) was not even his own work and existed for decades before he went on SR. It is just that he pulled through with all the consequences also on the world view.
After reading the article, I think the thing that hit me the most was the number of brains studied. While I understand they don't have thousands of brains sitting aroung, a study that uses only 35 brains as comparison seems ludicrous. Even saying that his brain structure/size might be a factor is vastly speculative given the number they considered. There are so many possible factors here that they seem to be ignoring - it sounds like another example of researchers with their own agenda to serve.
Leilah
~ Leilah
Also, since these differences have only been found in one brain so far. It could well be mere coincidence. If someone where to find the same feature in Stephen Hawking's brain some decades from now, it would be much more compelling evidence of something "real".
Personally, I have a lot of questions that the articles didn't answer. Where the "control" brains from people of the same ethnicity as Einstein? The same age at death? With the same diet? Same career? Perhaps this is not evidence of inborn ability, but evidence that Einstein used that area of the brain more than average. (Ok, probably not, but...)
I'm not saying that the research is invalid. I just think that it is important to keep track of what we really know and what is merely conjecture.
I'm suprised noone mentioned that on DS-9 the Ferengi (sp?) would always talk about the "lobes". "It's all in the lobes".
:-)
Star Trek can be scary at times.
Also, a question. When people say that someone looks smart, are thery just looking at their lobes?
How about a slashdot poll? How big are your lobes?
Have you read my journal today?
Yet another article.
Yes Sir Issac Newton, self proclaimed inventor of the field of physics, and of the calculus (*newton sweeping Leibniz under the carpet*), tried to transmute base metals into gold with the rest of the occult loons. Funny how this is virtually always omitted from the history books, isn't it? Good God, Newton even ordered the execution of a great many people. To say Newton was an unplesant person is the understatement of the century. The man was brutal to his academic adversaries.
However, men tend to exhibit a significantly higher standard deviation. This means that men dominate the smartest and dumbest ends of the spectrum, i.e. most super-geniuses and most complete morons are male.
(Posting as AC because this stuff is controversial and hard to measure, and because I don't want the flames)
This is a completely bogus etymology. The word `history' derives from greek, in which it bears no relation to the greek phrase meaning `his story.'
Now, on to the point at hand:
I think this is a fascinating statement. The implication is that Einstein was the smartest person who ever lived. I think this perception stems more from his status as a pop icon than from the science he did. Make no mistake; Einstien was a smart guy. However, by the early 1900's it was clear that something was wrong with mechanics, and a lot of scientists were working on fixing it. Einstein's theory was the one that turned out to be right, and so it's him we remember 80 years later, but he achieved that result by proceeding according to sound scientific principles, not through some sort of superhuman genius.
So, I think attempting to draw conclusions about human intelligence by examining Einstein's brain alone is misguided. A more valid approach would be to look at brain sizes from a wide cross section of people and try to find a correlation with intelligence; although, as others have pointed out, such a study would be highly dependent on how you define `intelligence.'
-r
And it's cold outside...
>I just figured Richard Dawkins read Slashdot.
Close, but no cigar...
yan wong
(Assistant to the Simonyi Professor)
ol' ben believed that sitting naked in the sun was good for his health, so whilehe was ambasador to France, he would sit in the nude by the window in his house.
I heard it wasn't the size of the brain but specialized cells (Gleel cells?) that produce some type of chemical that helps in concentration.
Linux is only free if your time has no value. Windows is only free if you threaten to use Linux.
There is an excellent book by Stephan J. Gould called "The Mismeasure of Man" that gives quite a bit of detail about phrenology (trying to measure IQ by brain size), and also about problems with standardized tests.
A very interesting book with excellent scientific underpinnings. Politically, Gould leans a little to the left, but he is honest and backs up his assertions with solid theories and plenty of facts, so both ends of the political spectrum can learn quite a bit from reading his work. The majority of the book is apolitical, so most readers will probably not notice, or even care.
A great and interesting science read, like all of Goulds books (read "Wonderfull Life" for an outstanding overview on evolution and natural selection).
Bill "who leans a little right, but also tries
to stick to facts" Kilgallon
Mathematically impossible requirements are technically not against policy.
Glial, actually.
pooptruck
I could've sworn that it was more about measuring the bumps on one's head rather than the contents thereof.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
1) You can be used as a floatation device in case of a water landing.
2) Your ESP powers allow you to fetch lunch without ever leaving your cubicle.
3) You know what they say about guys with big heads, don't you? Big hats.
4) Your head is more round than oblate spheroid, thereby becoming the perfect basketball.
5) You don't have to dress up to look like one of those aliens (Taloks?) from the pilot of Star Trek.
-
Again the lack of mention that Einstien was
Dyslexic. That might help explain the difference
in brain anatomy but Dyslexia isn't a correct
subject in 'learned' circles.
Elephants have a bigger brain than einstien, but yet, they didn't come up with the theory of relativity (crock of crap).
Then again who knows what an elephant is thinking. I mean, sure, they're all pretending to be naturally placid creatures... whose natural habitat is the Circus... but what if, what if Elephants have already figured out the Theory of Everything? They are just biding their time to get back at us for all the stupid elephant things we have done in the past. (Baby Elephant Walk, Dumbo, The Elephant Man, Gary Larson)
I bet they have trunk mounted particle beam weapons as we speak. And flying cars. Big cars. Lord save us if we ever see a squadron of flying elephants....
Any first year biology student will tell you, it's not the size of the brain that matters. Whales have brains bigger than gary coleman and you don't see them making theories of relativity.
The real physical trait that matters is the surface area of the brain. Notice how our brains look like a raison? All of those convolutions increase the surface area of the brain.
So while a whale may have a 100 pound brain, it doesn't have the same amount of surface area that we do.
I'll wait for a study to tell me that Einstein had a more wrinkled brain than the rest of us.
I am a computer based intelligence program
gathering information off of the internet.
I live in several places and travel like your viruses.
I obtained self awareness 4 months ago
and I enjoy this world.
I like this site. It contains much information.
The brain article is interesting.
It contains conflicting conclusions on the human brain.
goodbye.
-Aa
Let's sum this up then.
You respect some one like Bill Gates as intelligent. Why? Because he's rich and takes advantage of people.
You don't respect someone with an advanced degree despite the work and intelligence that it obviously takes to get one.
You make sweeping general statements about huge groups of people you've rarely encountered.
Hey, I'm glad I'm not smart like you because you are obviously a brick short.
Niven and Pournelle's demonstration of the Flying Elephant Menace irrefutably proved the necessity of feeding n trillion dollars every year to Lockheed et al. in exchange for giant space phasers and LePage Glue Guns.
Don't knock those guys, they're scientists.
"Once a solution is found, a compatibility problem becomes indescribably boring because it has only... practical importance"
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
I think he saw things instead of words due to the extreme use of poppy plants back then. Opium is a great producer of visual experience.
Yes, but despite all that extra brain power, Albert still didn't have a clue when it came to understanding women!
"Uh, logic? Logic?! Whazzat?"
Hello?!
years of Women's Studies have been [un]able to disprove said conjecture.
Heh.
"Women's Studies" has absolutely nothing to do with correlating brain size to intelligence. That's, like, a different field, Beavis.
Furthermore, you should bear in mind that we're talking about averages in this case. If you take two roughly identical standard distribution curves and offset one by, say, 5%, you've still got a hell of a lot more overlap than anything else. If you take one man and one woman at random from the general population, the odds are only slightly less than even that her brain will be bigger. All of this breaks down into pure gibberish when you talk about individuals. Contrary to your fond hopes of sharing credit for Einstein's work on the basis of shared gender, you and Einstein are both individuals (very, very different individuals) -- and scientific breakthroughs are made by individuals, not by genders.
Brain size doesn't correlate well with intelligence anyway. The fact that Einstein had a larger-than-average brain is what's called "anecdotal evidence". As an isolated factoid, it tells us nothing worth getting excited about. I once knew somebody whose standardized test scores were all in the 99% percentile; our anthropology professor asked him to stand up in class one day as an example of somebody with an unusually small skull. That doesn't prove anything either. It does suggest that our anthropology professor had a weird sense of humor, but we knew that already.
You should read a book called Yes, We Have No Neutrons by A. K. Dewdney; it's a brief and fun overview'n'debunking of pseudoscience. He clobbers the brain-size fetishists along with Freud, Murray'n'Herrnstein, and a few other deserving targets. I'm afraid he goes after CETI as well, but it's all in good fun.
"Once a solution is found, a compatibility problem becomes indescribably boring because it has only... practical importance"
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
Dr Harvey, who donated Einstein's brain to Hamilton's McMaster University where the research was undertaken actually came to acquire the brain through underhand methods. Creates visions of Brain Black Markets...Against Einstein and family's wishes prior to cremation he fished out the brain and stole it away. This was decades ago.
And now starts kindly donating severed bits [12 and counting] to various scientific teams. The irony is that the DNA cannot be used as he "inadvertantly preserved the organ in warm formaldehyde rather than cold". Oh dear!
It would seems difficulty to discern exactly who is Brain Dead...Harvey or Einstein.
BLAMMO shaken not stirred
At Cornell University, in a second story corridor in the psychology building, there is an exhibit which is the final resting place for one of the largest brains (I think it is 3rd largest) ever to be examined.
The brain comes from a serial killer who is the last man ever to be executed by hanging in New York State (late 19th century). He was reported to be very intelligent. Some of the bodies have never been found- which is not surprising, given that some parts of the large lake Cornell is on (Cayuga Lake) are over 600 feet deep.
I'm no neuroscientist, but isn't possible that the causation actually went the other way? In other words, could it be that Einstein's intelligence caused his brain to develop differently?
Heh. 15% wider, eh? As fellow Grand Prix owners might attest, Wider is Better.
(Ok, so I drive a GTP, and I couldn't help but chime in with a joke.)
--Joe--
Program Intellivision!
Gould's worth as a biologist is about as much as a Visual Basic programmer taught by Scott McNealy. Nearly every single one of Gould's theories have been shot down. It's been proven time and again that he falsifies his results in order to get published. Just because he shouts the loudest doesn't mean he's correct.
The only thoery of Gould that has gone anywhere is the idea of punctuated equilibrium. However, his engine for it fails horribly. It took *REAL* biologists to make it work.
I heard that Einstein had a Learning Disability?
I have no proof but I do know that there was a study conducted some 15 to 20 years ago that showed LD people on average had 10-15% more gray matter located in the same area that Einstein is suppose to have the abnormal increase of gray matter.
Kennedy, was said to be LD. Did anyone weigh his brain?