Does brain size matter?

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by francois, Oct 14, 2006.

  1. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    nothing in your links prove your case francois.
    as a matter of fact one of your links states "responsibility must be applied when detirmining the results"

    is it still your assertion that bigger brained people are smarter?
    explain midgets and their IQ with your theory.

    edit
    The fact that midgets, with small head-size on a par with that of normal 2 to 3 year old children, show no differences from the general population in IQ indicates that large brain size per se, though correlated about +.40 with IQ in the general population, is neither necessary nor sufficient for low, average, or high IQ.
    http://www.cogsci.ecs.soton.ac.uk/p...syc.00.11.021.intelligence-g-factor.33.jensen

    i reiterate brain size in and of itself is not a reliable indicator of intelligence.
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2006
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. francois Schwat? Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,515
    You say that, as if that statement says anything contradictory to my argument. In fact, every single one of those abstracts in one way or another makes mention that brain size contributes to intellectual ability. Do I need to begin spelling things out for you?

    Perhaps it's because midgets have small bodies. And so the brain size isn't quite so small when body size is taken into account. I know I've been talking about brain size all this time and it's been a bit of a simplification. Indeed, studies have shown a higher correlation between brain size adjusted for body size and IQ, than just brain size and IQ.

    But anyway, we're talking about people in general. My argument was never that midgets can't have normal IQs. My argument was never that it's impossible to have a high IQ if you have a small brain. My argument was always that smarter people generally have larger brains.

    In fact, that link you gave me by Jensen supports my argument more than yours. He said that brain size correlates with IQ by more than .40. If Jensen's work were to support your argument, do you know what that number would be? The correlation would be 0. Not +.4. It would be 0. Because you said that there is no correlation between brain size and IQ.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    and i have shown that brain size isn't necessary or sufficient for a low, medium or high I.Q.

    really? try reading the last sentence of the quote again francois.

    edit
    to be honest i don't know what you are getting at.
    are you saying that if someone gave you a brain that you can tell by it's size how intelligent that person was?
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2006
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. francois Schwat? Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,515
    Congratulations. You've said something I don't disagree with.


    Okay, you're going to have to forgive me. Earlier in the thread you said brain size has nothing to do with a persons intelligence. To quote:
    and now you're saying "i reiterate brain size in and of itself is not a reliable indicator of intelligence."--something quite different. Sounds like you're sneakily backpeddling out of a bad argument. I can't blame you.

    You still don't know what I'm getting at? Jesus Christ. I thought I've been quite clear through this whole fucking thread. How many times have I said it? Honestly. Smarter people have larger brains than idiots. That's it. That's what I'm getting at.
    Is that what I'm saying? No. That's not what I'm saying at all. Jesus Christ, are you an idiot? Fuck!
     
  8. francois Schwat? Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,515
    Unremarkably, by the 6th page of this thread, nobody has offered a shred of evidence that brain size is not important for an organism's intelligence--nevermind a human's intelligence.

    It does make sense, does it not? I mean, consider the human brain. It weighs approximately 3 lbs. Three pounds. 1.5 kilos. It consumes 25 percent of the body's metabolic energy. The question is WHY would an organism invest so much energy and resources in an organ if it did not benefit the organism in some massive way? The obvious answer is that it would not. The question then becomes, how does a larger brain benefit an organism?

    I don't see how someone could gloss over the importance of intelligence. Intelligence is flexible. Intelligence brings about a whole new world of variables and new and different ways to compete and exploit. The world of intelligence is vast. The potential of an intelligent organism is high, especially if coupled with opposable thumbs.
     
  9. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    i am not backpedaling out of anything.
    NO brain size doesn't matter.
    NO brain size in and of itself is not a reliable indicator of intelligence.

    have i taken this kind of attitude with you francois?
    suck my cock all the way down to the nuts and stick your tongue in my asshole.

    fuck you francois you fucking pussy.
     
  10. francois Schwat? Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,515
    Alright, these are two completely different arguments. One of them I agree with; another one I don't. Can guess which I agree with? Oh god. I feel like I'm taking a retard to a zoo.

    Merci beaucoup.
     
  11. madanthonywayne Morning in America Staff Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    My small headed friend, as I said, the test was simply measuring the relationship between the score you receive and what you think of the test. Any test. They were not trying to determine the accuracy of any real test. The test they gave me was obviosly complete BS. They were measuring the test taker's perception as it relates to his score. That's it.

    This in no way supports your argument, but it may explain your antipathy towards IQ tests.
     
  12. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    that's because you didn't ask that question.
    you asked "is brain size important".

    i read somewhere that 25% of a persons heat is lost through their head
    a persons liver benefits a person in a massive way.
    so do a persons:
    kidneys
    heart
    genitals
    none of which consume the stated 25% metabolism.
    it seems the obvious answer isn't so obvious.
    i don't know, maybe we should ask the false blue whale, it has one of the biggest brains on record.
    or we could ask the shrew, it has one of the largest brain/body masses.
    uh, nobody is. you stated in your first post what is the importance of brain size to intelligence, does brain size really matter.
    to answer your question yet again, no, brain size does not matter in determining an individuals intelligence.
    there is no way, none, that will allow you to measure a brain and determine its intelligence based on its size
     
  13. francois Schwat? Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,515
    You can't be serious. I've asked people multiple times throughout this thread to disprove that smarter people do not have larger brains. I must have said that at least 4 or 5 times already. You're just not reading.


    As have I.

    Do you really know that none of those consume 25% of the body's metabolism? Are you a doctor? Anyway, assuming you are right--the fact that the brain consumes so much more, doesn't that serve as an indictaor regarding the importance of its utility within its environment?

    Okay. So you think the body would have no problem in investing large amounts of energy into a structure even if it did not benefit it in some massive way? Nooooo man. That would not happen. That's not how nature works. Superfluous, unnecessary things are discarded. We keep only things that are essential. We may however, keep things that are unnecessary if they do not require a lot of resources, ie, our appendix. Our brains, yikes, I don't think so.

    I don't really have a good answer for those organisms. I think it has something to do with the brain structure. Perhaps they live in a less demanding environment. Perhaps, it's not quite so important for whales to have compact brains, simply becaue their bodies are so massive. The environments in which they compete are so massively different. Perhaps a level of superfluity, which may not seem sizable to them, but seems quite large to us, simply because of their massive size is allowed.

    However, you're comparing different animals which derives their genes in VERY different competetive environments in an attempt to prove that brain size does not matter, which is VERY bad logic. These animals developed different brains. What you should be doing is measuring brain size and intelligence among animals that have the same brains--like what I've been doing with humans. I chose humans because we have a simple, accurate and available means testing intelligence. Indeed, everything I've found on the subject has confirmed my initial assertion--brain size correlates powerfully with intelligence. Nobody has cited ANYTHING that shows the opposite. I've looked on the Internet and could not find anything, except that which bolsters and supports my point.

    You are still not understanding me. This is why I got upset with you before. You do not seem to learn or understand. I'm not saying you can use brain size to measure intelligence. I've never once said that. I've read in some of the studies I've found that brain size can, at best, serve as a crude indicator of a person's intelligence. Sorry, I called you stupid before. But honestly, how many times do I have to tell you?

    Smarter people generally have larger brains. There. That's the last time I'm going to say it. Do you see how that statement isn't the same statement you're trying to put in my mouth?--"that will allow you to measure a brain and determine its intelligence based on its size"... Guy. I never said that--not once. Jesus Christ. Please, man. Read before you type. I'm begging you.
     
  14. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    thread title: "does brain size matter?"
    your first post:
    Well, what do you think, folks?

    Is brain size at all important? Studies seem to indicate that it does matter. Let's not make this an argument about opinions. Let's just compare sources and see if we can make any logical and meaningful deductions from them. This can be a thread where we can pool information together and see how it all relates to nature. I'll begin posting sources a bit later.

    it seems to me that you are asking if brain size matters. it doesn't.
    you say smarter people have bigger brains, BUT THAT IS ALL YOU CAN SAY.
    just because person "a" has a bigger brain than person "b" doesn't mean "a" is smarter than "b" or even "a" will ever be smarter than "b".
    this is why i keep asking you for the studies themselves because i feel these people are relating intelligence to brain size when in fact both are related to a third factor such as environment. personally i feel a persons environment has more effect on intelligence than brain size. the midget and meditation studies seem to support that conclusion.
    we all have our moments
     
  15. francois Schwat? Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,515
    Yes. That is what I am asking. You are disagreeing, but you aren't giving any reasons. You're just saying that you don't agree. That's not an argument.

    When I say that I'm saying it as a generalization. I'm not saying all smart people have large brains. I'm saying, generally smarter people have larger brains. Shit, I said it again, even though I promise it was the last time I was going to say it. Anyway, what I'm saying is true. Smarter people generally have larger brains. That's what the concensus is in the science community, as I have demonstrated many times already. You have not shown anything whatsoever that contradicts that statement.

    Once again, I never said anything like that, or anything to that effect. If you keep saying these moronic things as if they were ever implied by me, I'm just going to ignore them.

    I already explained that I would have to subscribe to medical and science journals to get them. Why are abstracts not good enough for our purposes? Why would researches report one thing in their studies and then have something completely different in their abstracts? It makes no sense.
    Nobody cares about how you feel. Furthermore, those studies do not support that conclusion whatsoever. I'm sorry. I can't argue with you anymore. This is retarded.
     
  16. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    no? what about the midget study francois? explain that with your theory.
    if brain size is important then explain the false blue whale, when asked about that you throw in another topic such as species or structure. the same can be said of the shrew. when anybody disproves that brain size matters you throw in a different set of topics.
    i have explained that to you francois.
    then argue with this:
    The implications of this analogy for the brain are straightforward. Any program that seeks to relate brain weight, cranial capacity, or some other measure of overall brain size to individual performance ignores the reality of the brain's functional diversity. Thus, quite apart from the political or ethical probity of attempts to measure “intelligence” by brain size, by the yardstick of modern neuroscience (or simple common sense), this approach will inevitably generate more heat than light. A more rational approach to the issue, which has become feasible in the last few years, is to relate the size of measurable regions of known function (the primary visual cortex, for example) to the corresponding functions (visual performance), as well as to cellular features such as synaptic density and dendritic arborization. These correlations have greater promise for functional validity, and less pretense of judgment and discrimination.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=neurosci.box.1833
     
  17. valich Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,501
    As more-and-more humans implant microchips in their brain, brain size will decrease as it becomes computative in all areas, and more intelligent in all aspects. Size: irrelevant.
     
  18. francois Schwat? Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,515
    I really don't know how to respond to that, except maybe with... you're dumb?

    Sorry, but god damn, what is with you people? It has nothing to do with what we're talking about. We're talking about how brain mass correlates with cognitive ability. Nobody is talking about brain implants. That's for a completely different topic. I mean, perhaps what you're saying will eventually happen and brain size will not matter. But it's completely irrelevant to our discussion. Just because it may *possibly* be the case in the future does not mean brain size does not matter now.

    Does that get through to you?
     
  19. Oniw17 ascetic, sage, diogenes, bum? Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,423
    Do they really have brain implants that you can get?
     
  20. valich Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,501
    My small headed jerk friend. Thank you for clarifying my comment by restating it in a different way. I'm proud to have you as my sweeping tail.
     
  21. valich Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,501
    Duh! there seems to be a growing mass of participants criticizing your posts. As the brain allocates more-and-more functions to micro-chip implants, those areas of the brain that formerly used that function will no longer be needed or used and will then dieoff or diminish in size and function, thus the brain becomes smaller as we increase our direct bionic reliance on silicon and AI.
     
  22. valich Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,501
    "Introducing Jesse Sullivan, the World's First "Bionic Man"
    http://www.ric.org/bionic/

    google "bionics," "bionic implants," "micro-chip brain implants," or "Jesse Sullivan."
     
  23. CANGAS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,612
    Relatively recently having buried a dearly beloved pet cat of 15 years, and having daily observed her behavior, I offer my opinion that my dear friend, with her peanut sized brain just could not learn and figure out things as well as I could with my luxuriously extravagantly melon sized biocomputer.

    I dearly loved and respected her, but she just obviously could not keep up with my oversized and supercharged big brain.
     

Share This Page