Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Science

Probe of Einstein's Brain Reveals Clues To His Genius 195

Posted by timothy
from the so-it-wasn't-the-pipe-after-all dept.
sciencehabit writes "Smart, successful, and well-connected: a good description of Albert Einstein and his brain. The father of relativity theory didn't live to see modern brain imaging techniques, but after his death his brain was sliced into sections and photographed. Now, scientists have used those cross-sectional photos to reveal a larger-than-average corpus callosum — the bundle of nerve fibers connecting the brain's two hemispheres. The thickness of Einstein's corpus callosum was greater than the average, and more nerve fibers connected key regions such as the two sides of the prefrontal cortex, which are responsible for complex thought and decision-making. Combined with previous evidence that parts of the physicist's brain were unusually large and intricately folded, the researchers suggest that this feature helps account for his extraordinary gifts." Abstract (full article is paywalled) at the journal Brain.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Probe of Einstein's Brain Reveals Clues To His Genius

Comments Filter:
  • by girlintraining (1395911) on Saturday October 05, 2013 @11:20AM (#45044813)

    If Einstein were alive, he would have told you, as he told them when he was still alive -- he wasn't particularly intelligent, only passionately curious. That's paraphrasing a direct quote. He probably would have also told you to stand outside utterly fascinating by water drops falling out of a fountain instead of going to accept your award for being so smart, and run around town in your loafers not giving a fuck what anyone else thought of you.

    Maybe it's not intelligence per-se that we need to encourage, but non-conformity and the ability to embrace new ideas without pre-judgement.

    • by Wraithlyn (133796)

      Probably this one?

      “I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious.” - Albert Einstein.

      But you know, his subjectively modest opinion of his own relative intelligence, doesn't disprove that his brain had unusual features which may have provided certain advantages. Saying "anybody who works hard and has a good sense of curiosity has the potential to be an Einstein" is a nice thought, but that doesn't actually make it true.

      • by Dr. Evil (3501) on Saturday October 05, 2013 @12:09PM (#45045201)

        " his brain had unusual features which may have provided certain advantages"

        Or... his life revolved around unusual studies which caused his brain to respond by developing the corpos callosum?

        • So a guy with the monicker "Dr. Evil" is giving credit to "unusual studies" involving the brain? Natch.

        • by Wraithlyn (133796)

          Certainly another possibility. Emphasis on "may have" in my original post. :)

        • by Ol Olsoc (1175323)

          " his brain had unusual features which may have provided certain advantages"

          Or... his life revolved around unusual studies which caused his brain to respond by developing the corpos callosum?

          Possibly - you do bring up a good question. Einstein does mention his passionate curiosity, and we do know that people with brain damage can rereout and relearn. So yes, this might be a chicken and egg phenomenon.

      • Aren't these unusual brain features exactly what half the humans on this planet have? Women have more "cross linking" of the two brain halves. IMO these are a minus when it comes to focusing on one thing -- like Einstein did with Relativity -- not a plus. So I'll go with the "more curious" explanation.
    • If Einstein were alive, he would have told you, as he told them when he was still alive -- he wasn't particularly intelligent, only passionately curious.

      Curiosity is necessary for a great scientist (or even a not-so-great one) but it's not sufficient. Along with his brilliant statements about the nature of the universe, Einstein said a lot of goofy things, and this is one of them. His passionate curiosity combined with his intelligence is why he's still pretty much the canonical image of the scientist today. I guarantee you there are many, many people who are just as curious about the world as he was, and very few of them will be remembered.

      • Curiosity is necessary for a great scientist (or even a not-so-great one) but it's not sufficient.

        No, sorry, but this is a fractally wrong statement to make. With sufficient curiousity, you will be dedicated to learning as much as you can. The drive to learn will push you where you need to go. Intelligence merely sets the speed by which you'll arrive. Your over-emphasis on intelligence is elitism; It's suggesting that if you can't be "smart enough", you shouldn't be in science.

        I disagree. Firmly. Anyone can be a scientist. It is a method, a way of learning about the world. Almost every human being on th

        • No, sorry, but this is a fractally wrong statement to make.

          What do you mean by "fractally wrong"?

          With sufficient curiousity, you will be dedicated to learning as much as you can. The drive to learn will push you where you need to go. Intelligence merely sets the speed by which you'll arrive.

          True, but I'd argue that "mere" speed is pretty important. There are only so many hours in the day. A particular problem with modern science--bad enough in Einstein's day, worse now--is that there's a whole lot you have to learn before you can hope to make meaningful new contributions to any field. To refer back to an earlier famous scientist, standing on the shoulders of giants is great, but a lot of times you reach the shoulder of the giant only to realize that you

          • What do you mean by "fractally wrong"?

            This [lmgtfy.com].

            True, but...

            The end. There is no "but"; Either it's a correct statement, and you need to admit your original was mistaken and try again, or it's not, in which case no 'but' is required. All that using the word 'but' means is that your pride was hurt. While I sympathize, please stop using your busted argument.

            No one really knows at the outset if they've got what it takes,

            "Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge." -- Carl Sagan

            No, people do know. It takes the ability to observe natural phenomenon, form conclusions based on that, then test them unt

            • Huh. It's like you're having an argument with someone who made a post vaguely similar to mine. Well, have fun with that.

              • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

                Huh. It's like you're having an argument with someone who made a post vaguely similar to mine. Well, have fun with that.

                Ah, the ad hominid with a side of snark. The time-tested way of letting everyone on the internet know you just went full retard.

                • Ah, the ad hominid with a side of snark. The time-tested way of letting everyone on the internet know you just went full retard.

                  Have you actually read your own posts in this thread?

                • by AK Marc (707885)
                  That wasn't an ad hominem. Saying "I never said that" is not an attack on you personally.

                  Your inability or unwillingness to listen to others makes you a dumber than the stupidest person on the planet. At least they have an excuse for being so stupid. What's yours?

                  There, is that a better ad hominem?
            • You're pursuing this argument in a way that is typical in the humanities and social sciences, namely by deciding on the conclusion you want
              ("anyone can be a scientist") beforehand, and then justifying your conclusion by warping the definition of "scientist" to mean "anyone who is interested in science".
              That is not what the word means.

              The term "scientist" as it is used in common English, and certainly as it pertains to Einstein,
              refers to a professional researcher who discovers and publishes new research.
        • Your over-emphasis on intelligence is elitism; It's suggesting that if you can't be "smart enough", you shouldn't be in science.

          Unfortunately, the world is divided into the elite and the non-elite when it comes to mastering technically complex information, whether you like it or not.
          Specifically, an aptitude for math is an absolute requirement in the physical sciences.
          Without it, you may dabble in science, but will never be a significant contributor to it.

        • No, sorry, but this is a fractally wrong statement to make. With sufficient curiousity, you will be dedicated to learning as much as you can. The drive to learn will push you where you need to go. Intelligence merely sets the speed by which you'll arrive. Your over-emphasis on intelligence is elitism; It's suggesting that if you can't be "smart enough", you shouldn't be in science.

          This is a nice thought, but patently untrue. It's like saying that anyone can be an NFL football player, and your level of physi

    • Tsk. Curiosity generates intelligence. There are other ways, of course (meeting parents' expectations, in particular), but they're not as reliable or resilient. I would argue that the developedness of Einstein's corpus callosum (which does seem to be a congenital trait) simply meant that he was better able to benefit from his curiosity and to be more satisfied and captivated by its fruits.
      • Tsk. Curiosity generates intelligence.

        Citation needed. Please show me a study where someone who becomes curious about something becomes more intelligent. Conventional thinking right now is that intelligence is primarily genetic, and while it can be influenced by environment, it is largely fixed from birth. There are no cases I'm aware of where a person who was firmly tested and found to be of average or below average intelligence, by some later life experience, became a genius. This is real life, not Flowers for Algernon.

        I would argue that [...] he was better able to benefit from his curiosity and to be more satisfied and captivated by its fruits.

        Curiousity is a persona

        • Citation needed. Please show me a study where someone who becomes curious about something becomes more intelligent.

          Given that we're talking about development from an extremely early age, that would be illegal, but I will do my best to explain this.

          Conventional thinking right now is that intelligence is primarily genetic, and while it can be influenced by environment, it is largely fixed from birth.

          This is the primary reason given for the class bias seen in IQ testing. That is not, at all, conventional thinking. Read this [ucsd.edu] and this [psmag.com]. If intelligence were genetic to the extent you suggest, the children of immigrants would be incapable of integrating at the most fundamental cultural level.

          Curiousity is a personality trait. Intelligence is an ability. You can be curious and stupid, or disinterested yet intelligent. One has no bearing on the other.

          If you are curious about how something works, you will be more likely to figure out how

        • by metrix007 (200091)

          Conventional thinking is not that intelligence is primarily genetic. It's that multiple factors play a role and we don't entirely know to what extents, or which is the most significant.

          Everything you continue to say is so goddamn wrong.

      • by mcgrew (92797) *

        Tsk. Curiosity generates intelligence.

        I think that, but I don't know that. You're a biologist, could you explain the biology behind that to us? I'd be very interested.

        • Sure; I've just given an explanation in response to this [slashdot.org] somewhat more sceptical post.
        • by AK Marc (707885)
          Curiosity causes thinking. Thinking causes more brain development. Just like practice thinking (the studies done about crossword puzzles in old people and such) proves an improvement in brain activity, one could take that to mean "curiosity causes intelligence".
      • Computer analogies available for most topics! (Cars retired.)

        It's like when you send your old server to the junkyard to be parted out ... ahhh, crap.

        • Sort of... but the reality is that the core of how cells work is directly analogous to the hardware/software distinction in a computer (in fact, they're Turing-complete), so stretching things into a car metaphor is much harder to do—try explaining the contents of a typical Unix box's task list in terms of types of vehicles you see on a road, and you'll see how pointless it is.
          • the core of how cells work is directly analogous to the hardware/software distinction in a computer (in fact, they're Turing-complete)

            I was just trying to make a joke, but it's an interesting question: are cells Turing machines? (To the degree anything in the real world can be called a Turing machine; if you know where to get a computer with infinite memory, please send me the manufacturer's URL.) They have the potential to be, else we couldn't build biological computers--which AFAICT are just lab curiosities for now, but may someday do real work--but it seems to me they don't really act like them in their day-to-day functions. Then a

            • There's an old machine learning technique called genetic programming [wikipedia.org], which consists of randomly trying to find the correct algorithm to solve a problem. It's infeasible for large problems, but I've seen an example of using it to find Newton's law of universal gravitation. The raw result was a hilariously overcomplicated equation full of redundant multiplication and division operations, but it showed a real, meaningful evolutionary process. Just because a program's insane doesn't mean it's disqualified! (An

            • are cells Turing machines?

              Yes, they are. They are state machines (proteins, chemical substances, and other such items keeping state) with a semi-infinite tape (ie - DNA).

      • by PNutts (199112)

        Tsk. Curiosity generates intelligence.

        My cat is not able to duplicate your results.

    • by mcgrew (92797) *

      If Einstein were alive, he would have told you, as he told them when he was still alive -- he wasn't particularly intelligent, only passionately curious.

      How could one possibly be intelligent without being passionately curious?

      run around town in your loafers not giving a fuck what anyone else thought of you.

      Personally, I don't see giving a fuck what others think as a particularly intelligent trait. Not giving a fuck what people think has been beneficial to me. Followers give a fuck, creators seldom do.

    • by metrix007 (200091)

      Exactly. It's ridiculous the pedestal we place Einstein on.

      I'd be willing to bet that many smarter than average people have larger than average corpus callosums. It doesn't seem like something that would be unique to Einstein.

      Since Einstein, I think we have people who are without a doubt more intelligent, I mean just check this list [therichest.com].

      Einstein made a breakthrough that would have inevitable happened anyway, because he was curious, smart, confident and able to think critically.

      Putting him on a pedestal to the p

  • by MadCow-ard (330423) on Saturday October 05, 2013 @11:24AM (#45044843)
    I've read a lot about neuroscience discoveries and interesting abnormalities and didn't know the direct correlation between the corpus collosum thickness and intelligence. Ok, so when someone claims something like this article I think - bah... another stupid claim about Einstein. But this time there is some merit to the claim. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2754582/ [nih.gov] And yes, his other brain differences were know for a while, so this seems to be a new revelation based on new evidence of the correlation and the discovered photos.
    • And yes, his other brain differences were know for a while, so this seems to be a new revelation based on new evidence of the correlation and the discovered photos.

      All this ignores a rather glaring problem: The sample size is one.

      • no. The sample size which his brain is being compared to is much larger. He is the not the sample size, he is being compared to the known correlation of intelligence and corpus collosum thickness. Check it on google to find more research results.
        • by mysidia (191772)

          no. The sample size which his brain is being compared to is much larger. He is the not the sample size, he is being compared to the known correlation of intelligence and corpus collosum thickness. Check it on google to find more research results.

          Yes. He is being compared; HOWEVER, if you were to argue that this means thick corpus collosum makes you perceived as intelligent, that would be to commit a prosecutor's fallacy.

          The study does not show if corpus collosum thickness is useful information or

          • It only shows he had this difference; not that it was a factor in the public's perception that he is deemed intelligent.

            While arguing about logical fallacies you've failed to address the original point entirely; A sample size of one is a problem, guys. It can't disprove the null hypothesis. It doesn't matter how many observations you make in the control group; At the very best, the ideal case, you'll succeed in identifying properties of this brain not present in all those other brains, but what you could be identifying may have absolutely nothing to do with intelligence. It could just as easily be another property, like his

            • While arguing about logical fallacies you've failed to address the original point entirely; A sample size of one is a problem, guys. It can't disprove the null hypothesis. It doesn't matter how many observations you make in the control group; At the very best, the ideal case, you'll succeed in identifying properties of this brain not present in all those other brains, but what you could be identifying may have absolutely nothing to do with intelligence. It could just as easily be another property, like his love of Justin Bieber (hey, if we're going to allow a sample size of one to be scientifically valid, I'm bringing time travel back -- so no bitching).

              But the sample size it not 1. The article is claiming two things: CC thickness is correlated to Intelligence (which the article should have backed up with references), and two: Einstein's CC was thicker then normal. It is thus drawing a rather thin correlation to a correlation. But the sample size is not 1 because the article is not trying to say that since Einstein had a large CC and was intelligent, then CC thickness must mean higher intelligence.

              • by mysidia (191772)

                It is thus drawing a rather thin correlation to a correlation. But the sample size is not 1

                A correlation is a comparison of a measurement between two samples.

                For example: People who have thick members and those that have thin members.

                You cannot take a representative sample of people who have a small penis and a girlfriend-finding success rate of 3 girlfriend/year, and compare it against a sample of one person who has a large penis who happened to have a success rate of 14 girlfriends/year, to

                • ^^ This guy gets it. But next time man, stick with the traditional car analogy. If you mention penis, the discussion goes one of two ways after; Either everyone giggles and spends the next ten minutes exchanging awkward looks before one of them says penis again, ad nauseum... or someone assumes you insulted the size of their penis and WWIII breaks out, resulting in downmods and bitchiness all around. Also, anyone who has even 3 girlfriends a year obviously has commitment issues... let alone 14, at which poi

                • To continue your infantile example you are forgetting about the group of people with a large dick having larger success with women than those with small. Now there is some evidence to say "buddy's giant dick might have helped with the ladies".

                  To put succinctly: this is not a sample of one. This is a datum in a sample.

                • by AK Marc (707885)

                  You cannot take a representative sample of people who have a small penis and a girlfriend-finding success rate of 3 girlfriend/year, and compare it against a sample of one person who has a large penis who happened to have a success rate of 14 girlfriends/year, to find a correlation of penis size to number of successfully found girlfriends.

                  Your point may be right, but you undermine it with obviously false analogies. His brain is not being compared against one other (as in your analogy). Thus your analogy is false.

                  • by mysidia (191772)

                    His brain is not being compared against one other (as in your analogy). Thus your analogy is false.

                    No. The analogy is correct. HIS Is the one brain being compared against a more representative sample of the population. You have reverse the relationship, that doesn't invalidate the analogy "The other people's brains" are being compared against HIM; he is the sample of 1, and he was not chosen randomly, either, therefore: he is not even a representative sample, which essentially means, that ho

                    • by AK Marc (707885)

                      No. The analogy is correct. HIS Is the one brain being compared against a more representative sample of the population. You have reverse the relationship, that doesn't invalidate the analogy "The other people's brains" are being compared against HIM; he is the sample of 1, and he was not chosen randomly, either, therefore: he is not even a representative sample, which essentially means, that however you proceed from that comparison, it will have no scientific or statistical validity; you can only use it as a rough way to try to guess at a hypothesis --- not to test a hypothesis.

                      That's not how it works. You can look at one and have it be "meaningful". They call them "case studies" and it's a recognized and accepted practice. Comparing one against one doesn't work because you don't know what the "control" one is. Your "control" could be a 5' 0" adult male. So a 5'2" man would be considered "tall". That's why two samples of one doesn't work very well as a comparison.

                      But taking a single unusual male and comparing him against the "average" will correctly identify a basketball pl

          • This is not about perception it is about facts, and correlation. Fact: Einstein had a much higher then normal/average intelligence. Fact (but not well understood or even well researched so I would call it a weak fact): thicker corpus collosum is correlated to higher intelligence. Fact (according to one study which measured the thickness of Einstein's corpus collosum using photos): Einstein's CC was thicker then normal. Ergo, there could be a connection between Einstein's CC and his intelligence (if that
    • But this time there is some merit to the claim.....new evidence of the correlation and the discovered photos.

      I agree there is some good science going on here and there is merit.

      But this data isn't nearly as revealing as TFA & most pop-science articles will indicate.

      You hit it by mentioning "correlation"

      My point is, like the chicken and egg analogy, a larger corpus collosum doesn't make one smarter...reading, thinking, good health, human interaction, challenges, open-mindedness, accepting failures and c

  • by mandginguero (1435161) on Saturday October 05, 2013 @11:27AM (#45044869)

    Hmm, so we're comparing photographs of a fixed/preserved and sliced brain with those acquired by an MRI. Does anyone know what kind of variance or error these different imaging techniques introduce? There is enough variability in brain size and location of features that normal comparisons of one person's brain via MRI with another person's brain are rather meaningless. The standard procedure is to warp MRI brain scans to a common brain, and then run the comparisons of warped/normalized images....

  • ... is this physiological difference innate or developed as a result of Einstein applying his brain to difficult problems? Like what happens to the brains of London cab drivers [wired.com].

  • by Gravis Zero (934156) on Saturday October 05, 2013 @11:30AM (#45044889)

    Thomas Stoltz Harvey [wikipedia.org] (a pathologist) conducted Albert Einstein's autopsy. What they seem to omit (probably due to embarrassment) is that he stole Albert Einstein's brain. [wikipedia.org] Apparently he was trying to figure out (and take the credit to be famous) the very same thing, what made Albert Einstein so intelligent. He became obsessed and it ended up destroying his life and marriages, yes, multiple marriages. The only thing two things he did right was preserve the brain properly (though he sliced it into many parts) and eventually (decades later) return the brain. If you think he got his just deserts, well, take solace in that his selfish actions destroyed him.

    you can see this and other disturbing true tales in Dark Matters: Twisted But True [imdb.com] on Netflix or your local torrent site.

    • it looks like Netflix pulled this title (their probably license expired) but you can get it on amazon.com or your local torrent site.

  • Einstein Quotes (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SternisheFan (2529412) on Saturday October 05, 2013 @11:36AM (#45044971)
    Collected Quotes from Albert Einstein

    "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."

    "Imagination is more important than knowledge."

    "Gravitation is not responsible for people falling in love."

    "I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."

    "The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax."

    "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."

    "The only real valuable thing is intuition."

    "A person starts to live when he can live outside himself."

    "I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice."

    "God is subtle but he is not malicious."

    "Weakness of attitude becomes weakness of character."

    "I never think of the future. It comes soon enough."

    "The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility."

    "Sometimes one pays most for the things one gets for nothing."

    "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

    "Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new."

    "Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from weak minds."

    "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

    "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."

    "Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one's living at it."

    "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."

    "The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education."

    "God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically."

    "The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking."

    "Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal."

    "Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding."

    "The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible."

    "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."

    "Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school."

    "The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing."

    "Do not worry about your difficulties in Mathematics. I can assure you mine are still greater."

    "Equations are more important to me, because politics is for the present, but an equation is something for eternity."

    "If A is a success in life, then A equals x plus y plus z. Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut."

    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."

    "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

    "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."

    "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

    "In order to form an immaculate member of a flock of sheep one must, above all, be a sheep."

    "The fear of death is the most unjustified of all fears, for there's no risk of accident for someone who's dead."

    "Too many of us look upon Americans as dollar chasers. This is a cruel libel, even if it is reiterated thoughtlessly by the Americans themselves."

    "Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism -- how passionately I hate them!"

    "No, this trick won't work...How on earth are you ever going to explain in terms of chemistry and physics so important a biological phenomenon as first love?"

    "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."

  • homosexual men have enlarged corpus collums too. http://paws.kettering.edu/~pstanche/ArchSexBehav.pdf [kettering.edu] what do these macro imaging studies really tell us?
    • maybe that they are more intelligent. I'm not trolling, I'm somewhat serious. I also don't think correlation means more then just that: correlation (like ice cream and drownings), but it could. So lets stay open and keep looking for answers.
      • by rubycodez (864176)

        why would you think that, you might be using as your sample base the professionals you meet who congregate to and live in large cities, but maybe also you should be considering the ones in prison. just as with straight people, those are mostly not einsteins in the slammer

    • by Jmc23 (2353706)
      Yeah, but the increased communication in that case is just the nagging from their feminine side!
  • And yet people will still say that your fate depends on how hard you try, rather than who your mother and father were.

    • by Jmc23 (2353706)
      Ah Marvin. There's two ways to interpret those facts. Stop being part of the negative crowd, especially when we know that what you do affects your brain development.
  • I wonder if those parts of the brain can be developed like you develop muscles. Or is it genetic?
  • Just watched this which includes the latest findings on Einstein's brain, and was struck by how bad NOVA has become. It used to be a fairly hard science show but this featured adolescent humor and cheesy cut scenes, such as the presenter and a scientist using binoculars to look at Princeton where the majority of his brain is stored. I can only hope this is not the norm for the current NOVA programming, as I was extremely disappointed. - HEX
  • While interesting, this was known decades ago. Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" tv series, produced in 1978, has a segment specifically devoted to Einstein's brain. Sagan talks about Einstein's abnormally thick corpus callosum and suggests that it might somehow be related to his genius. Whoever authored this paper is not making a novel hypothesis.
  • How many times is this story going to show up? When I was tutoring someone for AP statistics, I learned a lot of interesting shit. One thing I remember was that if you take some ordinary object and measure 20 properties of the object, there is a high probability that one of the properties will be far from the mean. So if you take some famous person's brain and measure it in enough ways, you will find a property which is far from normal. Then you say 'aha!' and write a story about how such and such's ability
    • by tgv (254536)

      That's completely right, but this is even worse. This is not a random sample that can be drawn again and again, this is a fixed object and the independent variable in this case would be that we are all convinced that Einstein was more intelligent than the rest of us. That's methodologically quite unhealthy.

      Second, the obsession with trying to explain everything from a single cause and from a single brain feature in particular has failed so often in the past. We don't even have a good definition of intellige

  • This is not new information. Both observations about Albert Einstein's brain have been around for a long time.

    But so what? Do we have evidence, aside from Einstein's brain, that being extra wrinkly correlates with high intelligence in humans? Or that having a bigger than average corpus collosum correlates to having higher intelligence in humans?

The trouble with opportunity is that it always comes disguised as hard work. -- Herbert V. Prochnow

Working...