Slashdot Log In
Bigger Brains Make Smarter People Study Says
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Sat Jun 18, 2005 08:53 AM
from the hector-hammond-and-the-leader dept.
from the hector-hammond-and-the-leader dept.
udderly writes "People with bigger brains are smarter according
to a Virginia Commonwealth University industrial and organizational
psychologist, Michael A. McDaniel, Ph.D.
McDaniel, who is a professor in management at
VCU's School of Business. He reviewed 26 previous studies comparing brain size
and intelligence and found that brain volume has a strong correlation to
intelligence. According to McDaniel, 'for all age and sex groups, it
is now very clear that brain volume and intelligence are related.' So, how
big of a hat do you wear?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Drudge Report (Score:2, Insightful)
Ok, I officially resign.
Airheads? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Airheads? (Score:3, Funny)
Ob Pulp Fiction (Score:4, Funny)
Jules: Do you know what they call a Quarter Pounder with cheese in France?
Brett: No.
Jules: Tell him, Vincent.
Vincent: Royale with cheese.
Jules: Royale with cheese. Do you know why they call it a Royale with cheese?
Brett: Because of the metric system?
Jules: Check out the big brain on Brett. You're one smart motherfucker. That's right - the metric system!
Parent
Savants (Score:5, Interesting)
But considering that we all share the same assembly instructions, apples to apples maybe bigger is better.
Re:Savants (Score:5, Insightful)
This study would probably find a correlation between number of folds and brain size.
Parent
Folding (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Savants (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Savants (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Savants (Score:5, Funny)
my response? i was thrilled. i told him that most of my professors seemed to be grading based on random elements unrelated to class performance, and i was excited to have one actually admit it.
Parent
Spam of the future... (Score:5, Funny)
I have always worried about the size of my brain. When I have thoughts, even though she says that the thought is good, I know that what she really wants is an extra inch!
3 months ago I found The Extender. I just put it on whilst I'm driving the car and when I'm sleeping. It stays hidden under my clothes and it is really surprisingly comfortable and soft.
I could tell that my brain was getting larger and heavier, but I thought that when I took it back off I would shrink back to original size. I was really surprised!
I have been 115 IQ since adolescence When I took off The Extender I was measuring 145 IQ. After not wearing the extender for a week, I am still 145 IQ!
The enlargement is permanent!
I could not believe the results of this device. I am back to wearing it again and I'm still getting larger! My girlfriend says it is the best product I've ever bought, and she ALWAYS reminds me to put it on if I forget!
Take a peek... We know it works. There's a total guarantee with it, too. If you are not completely satisfied with your size gain and comfort you get your money back. Every penny. No-one sends them back!
The Extender correct the curve of the brain too, straightening out sharp bends as new cells grow!
Parent
TMBG (Score:3, Funny)
Everybody wants prosthetic
Foreheads on their real heads
Everybody wants prosthetic
Foreheads on their real heads
Re:Savants (Score:5, Interesting)
On the other hand there is an experiment that seem to indicate that cognitive ability is largely a function of number of instances of some simple pattern:
Experiment was run in a Y maze, i.e. subject placed in one end, food reward at one of the other two ends. Three subject types: Particular breed of fish, turtles (with about twice the brain mass), and a third I'll get to later.
Initially food is always on, say, the right at first. Subject learns to turn right. Once this learning is established, the maze is reversed. Subject must UNlearn "food on right" and learn "food on left". Measure number of trials to do this. Repeat.
With the fish it takes a while for them to figure out the food is now on the left. And then takes them about the same number trials to learn it's back on the right. You can do reversals until your grant runs out and it still takes them about the same number of trials to figure out that it's switched.
With the turtles, after a few reversals they suddenly get the concept of reversals. After that they catch on very quickly that the maze has swapped again.
Now the interesting part: Take embryos of the fish species. Remove the prototype brain tissue from one and insert it into another. Let it mature. Result is a chimera fish with a double-mass fish brain of apparently the normal organization - and about the size of the brain of the turtle.
Run these through the test and they learn reversals just like the turtle did. They "get it" with what is apparently just more-of-the-same rather than anything special.
With respect to savants: It's pretty clear that different areas of the brain are specialized for different things. So savants having normal-sized brains and being exceptionally good at one thing is not at odds with the idea that it's more neurons that make more smarts. They could as easily have given over more of their brain tissue to processing that specialty - possibly at the cost of starving other functions of neurons.
On the other hand, that doesn't eliminate other possibilities, such as better organization of that part of the brain, or more attention given to the subject in a more general-purpose system. The big-brained fish could be expected to have more of any specialized processor sections, as well as more "general-purpose cpu resources" to distribute (as "attention") to tasks like cracking the maze problem.
Parent
Uh....this isn't new news (Score:3, Funny)
WAYSA?
Re:Uh....this isn't new news (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Gnxp (Score:2)
Too bad this comes out now... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Too bad this comes out now... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Too bad this comes out now... (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Too bad this comes out now... (Score:3, Insightful)
Brain size vs Neuron density (Score:5, Insightful)
However, neuron count in specific brain areas would seem to be more significant, and higher densities would provide more neurons/volume and therefore enable a smaller brain to outperform a larger one.
Using hat size to select job applicants, as the linked article suggests, is probably not a good idea.
Re:Brain size vs Neuron density (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Brain size vs Neuron density (Score:3, Interesting)
(begin Hitchiker's jokes
Re:Brain size vs Neuron density (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Brain size vs Neuron density (Score:3, Interesting)
The best example I can think of is vision, and the section of the brain that handles processing that is actually broken down further into motion detection, shape recognition, & color identification, and probably a couple of other items I've forgotten.
There's also hearing, language, emotion, memory, autonomic functions, touch, voluntary motor control... each
Einstein: The exception to the rule? (Score:5, Informative)
So maybe the correct conclusion is not that bigger is better, but only the sections that matter. Remember, its not the size of the wand, its the magic in it that counts.
Maybe Einstein Really Wasn't All That Bright (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Maybe Einstein Really Wasn't All That Bright (Score:2)
Re: Einstein: The exception to the rule? (Score:3, Funny)
> Einstein's brain fell in the range of normal for all measurements, except for the portion known as the inferior parietal lobes
His inferior lobes were superior?
WHAT rule? (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, before I go off on them, we've made advances since then... So apparently we've got a new, rigorous definition of intelligence, that they found a unique way to measure... Wait... it's just the same old standardized tests which use the sam
Re:WHAT rule? (Score:4, Insightful)
and that races like Australian aborigines are inferior because they are smaller still? My guess is about... fifteen seconds.
^^^ Woah - hold it right there, this type of political correctness is the antithesis of science. While there will always be groups who abuse "science" to prove some racist point, that doesn't mean that all research that makes such claims are cases of abuse, and if you believe in science at all then you cannot just offhandedly dismiss the possibility that, until proven otherwise, it might actually be true that physically smaller races have slightly lower average intelligence. Has it been proven otherwise? No. Never. Yet somehow, you seem to already have arrived at the conclusion that it cannot be true. How can you know this? What is your reproducible research that proves it? Truth is the ultimate goal - science should never be censored or impeded for the sake of political correctness, as you are suggesting. If someone wants to study the intelligence of aboriginal races in a scientifically sound manner, and produced proveable results that you didn't like, should those results be censored?
I don't know why this study seems to offend you so much. It only talks about averages - it does not mean that someone with a small head cannot be intelligent, it's still possible, just less likely on average, if the results are true. (Is your head smaller than average?) This doesn't show that people will smaller brains are going to be less intelligent - just that there is a general correlation on average. The correlation be so slight as to even have no practically useful predictive power - doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Einstein's single case doesn't "prove the rule is garbage", that's the most scientifically and statistically unsound claim I've seen on slashdot in a long time. A sample size of one doesn't tell you anything - a first year stats student can tell you that.
I agree that the idea that this might be used to e.g. put small children into 'boxes' that pre-determine their supposed potential and destiny based on head size is highly noxious, and that this could very well happen. Schools already put children into such boxes all the time based on various factors. But none of that is a problem with the science. If there is a correlation, and science can show the correlation, then it doesn't matter how much you dislike it.
I don't see any of the circular reasoning you mention, since they don't claim that brain size causes "intelligence" (as measured by their "intelligence tests") .. merely that if the standardised tests they measure do actually measure intelligence, that there is a correlation between those test results and brain size. So what they've really measured, is a correlation between brain size and the results of 'standardised intelligence tests'. They haven't proven, nor have they claimed to prove, that 'standardised intelligence tests' do measure "intelligence". "Intelligence" might be a term that is too fuzzy to measure scientifically, but the fact remains that standardised intelligence tests are still one of the best predictors of future job performance. They have practical utility, even if the science is not sound.
Parent
Re:WHAT rule? (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, I think the answer is yes. Intelligence of animals has been found to relate to the brain-size to body mass ratio.
As to dismissing scientific results on the grounds of 'sounds like BS' -- well, you are kinda right, it should not be done... unless you are reading the ACTUAL research paper, and not some science writers interpretation thereof.
Re:WHAT rule? (Score:5, Insightful)
Whoa yerself. I'm not rejecting the study based on possible non-PC conclusions, I'm rejecting it because it is the same crap we've seen before that always suffers from the same logical fallacies. That annoys me.
The fact that there will be racist and sexist conclusions drawn from this study also annoys me, because it's the Bell Curve all over again -- crap science used to justify an "our preconceived societal prejudices are actually scientifically valid biological innevitabilities" conclusion.
it might actually be true that physically smaller races have slightly lower average intelligence. Has it been proven otherwise? No. Never.
Has it been proven true? No, never. Have people tried? Yes, repeatedly. Have the same mistakes been made resulting in the same self-confirming conclusions? Yes, repeatedly.
As long as we're talking about unproven hypothesis, how about this one: There is an inherent "intelligence" that can be measured as a single numerical value (or small number of values). This has not ever been proven. We don't even know what intelligence is. We know we have it, but like "consciousness" or "creativity" we can't define it in a way that turns it into a physical entity, much less a quantifiable physical entitiy. And so far there is no indication that this is even possible. But this study is predicated on this hypothesis being true.
I don't know why this study seems to offend you so much. It only talks about averages - it does not mean that someone with a small head cannot be intelligent, it's still possible, just less likely on average, if the results are true. (Is your head smaller than average?)
Quite the opposite. I have a large head, though I don't know how large my brain is. I think I'm pretty smart, but I know I'm very good at taking tests -- especially multiple-choice standardized tests. I have no doubt I'd fall on or above whatever curve they drew. I have no personal ego at stake here whatsoever. I'm a smart privileged white male (with a big head) -- these things always come out in my favor, but that doesn't make me less likely to view them as crap.
So why does the study offend me? Because first it is crap, and second because these studies are always commissioned, accepted (despite the flaws) and used by two groups of people:
1) Bureaucrats. Whether in business, education, or government, they want to be able to take a person and give them a single "goodness" value so they can just put everybody into a sort function and pick the top N. Instead of helping every student reach as high as they can, selectively help the "smartest" and let the inherently less smart prepare for blue collar jobs. Do away with annoying and subjective interviews; managers want a quantitative way to pick "the best". Never been proven to be possible, but it doesn't stop them.
2) Racist social conservatives. What looks like social injustice is actually just the natural order of things. Downtrodden minorities aren't really downtrodden, they're just in their natural place as inferiors as determined by our perfect and blind meritocracy. Women aren't discriminated against, they are rightly excluded from demanding jobs because they aren't as capable. These are biological facts that cannot be changed, so there is no point to social programs that attempt to address these issues.
McDaniel is clearly in the Bureaucrat camp, being as he "specializes in the study of intelligence and other predictors of job performance." He also claims, after stating several (unproven) aspects of the intelligence he is testing: "The use of intelligence tests in screening job applicants has substantial economic benefits for organizations." I have no reason to think he is racist or sexist, but I guarantee those who are will glom onto this study and refuse to let go.
This has been done
Parent
Re:Einstein: The exception to the rule? (Score:3, Insightful)
Missing Word? (Score:2, Redundant)
And while we're at it, study what?
Elephants (Score:5, Funny)
I for one welcome our supremely intelligent, prehensile nosed overlords.
Re:Elephants (Score:5, Funny)
To verify this I will conduct an experiment: I will amputate my feet and measure my iq before and afterwards.
Parent
Makes sense (Score:5, Funny)
Phrenology? (Score:2)
Smarter People Study? (Score:5, Funny)
So the next question is obviously.... (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't buy it. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's mostly a literature review, which obviously attempts to use the 'majority must be right' fallacy to some mysterious end. The guy's an 'industrial psychologist,' though, so go figure.
To argue something so bold and broad that the size of the brain is an indicator for intelligence is frighteningly naive. If you leave your computer for a second and go meet a few people, you'll quickly realize that people with little heads have no problem outsmarting people with wide hats. This is about on par with 'people with big noses have big johnsons.' Don't read this publication if you're expecting any insight on anything other than a statistical analysis of random literature. You won't find any discussion of neuroplasticity here. I've a question I'd like to ask this guy: how come people 3 feet tall are smarter than you?
Jupiter is fucking huge, but let me assure you, I'd rather be back home. Bigger is not always better.
too simplistic a theory (Score:5, Informative)
As one other poster noted, Einstein had a brain that only fell in the range of "normal", giving lie to the theory size alone is an indicator of likely intelligence. Here's another interesting article [yahoo.com] I coincidentally read a couple days ago.
A couple of interesting things to take from this article:
Before drawing conclusions on brain size and correlation with intelligence therein, read this article... it sheds far more light on this discussion than does the research "summary".
Interestingly, even though men and women have fairly significant differences in brain sizes, this article shows that women's brains develop differently than mens, with density in different regions and layers possibly offsetting size differences. I'll not go over the entire article, read it.... it's good.
Sidebar: Oh, and by the way, my brain is so small, I use the extra space inside my skull to store my CD collection.
Re:too simplistic a theory (Score:3, Insightful)
Einstein is just a single data point, and possibly an outlier.
Brrrraaaaiiiiinnnnnsssss (Score:3, Interesting)
What's disturbing is the age at which our brains start to shrink and our cognitive functioning declines. I've done a lot of neuropsych assessment, and the norm tables for the instruments show turning points (depending on what is being measured) as early as age 17, and as late as the late 20s. I believe I remember reading that brain size significantly begins shrinking in the early 30s, and the rate is positively correlated with blood pressure.
Use it or lose it. Avoid salt.
Stopped clock syndrome. (Score:3, Insightful)
Given the state of the social sciences in the 1830's, I have a hard time believing that Tiedmann's research was anything but a mish-mash of bad techniques, preconceived bias, and probably blatant racism.
Enlargement? (Score:3, Funny)
However, it would actually might be useful. If you buy it, you are dumb and when you stop buying it, your intelligence has obviously increased.
Re:Skull Size != Brain Size (Score:2, Funny)
You hear about the acid head who quit going to his shrink?
He was afraid to have his head shrunk and his mind expanded at the same time.
KFG
Re:Einstein (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The Mismeasure of Slashdot (Score:3, Informative)
I especially remember a passage where Gould tries to make Jensen look like an idiot. In one of his books, Jensen makes a rather straightforward claim: that some critters are smarter than others. But when Gould gets through with it, it sounds very much as though Jensen believes that humans evolved from dogs.
I'm all in favo