Kat criticises my reading comprehension, but her criticism is based on the
fact that she herself did not read-and-comprehend the words "(and to an
equivalent extent)", in my original posting. I was -- of course -- aware
that the webpage in question stated that neighbouring areas were reduced in
size, but my question was whether this reduction was equivalent to the 15%
increase in question, so as to cancel it out, as far as over-all brain size
is concerned.
Peter Zohrab
"Kat" <katrahmes at hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fd51d657.0207061422.1972df07 at posting.google.com...
> "Peter Douglas Zohrab" <zohrab at xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:<4HvV8.4102$7G4.658649 at news.xtra.co.nz>...
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm not a scientist or medical man, but I've recently sent the following
> > email to Dr. Sandra F. Witelson (witelson at mcmaster.ca), of the
Department of
> > Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience. She hasn't really had time to
read
> > it and respond to it, but I heard her or Debra L. Kigar in a radio
interview
> > once, and I wasn't impressed with the apparent reluctance to follow a
train
> > of thought in a direction which led to un-Feminist conclusions, so I'm
> > posting it here, as well. I also have some experience of academics
omitting
> > to answer my awkward questions !
> >
> > "On page http://www.bioquant.com/gallery/einstein.html you write, " In
this
> > same region, Einstein's brain was 15% wider than controls. These two
> > features suggest that, in Einstein's brain, extensive development of the
> > posterior parietal lobes occurred early, in both longitudinal and
breadth
> > dimensions...."
> >
> > You also state, "the findings do suggest that variation in specific
> > cognitive functions may be associated with the structure of the brain
> > regions mediating those functions."
> >
> > and later you write, "Einstein's brain weight was not different from
that of
> > controls, clearly indicating that a large (heavy) brain is not a
necessary
> > condition for exceptional intellect. " I wonder, however, if that isn't
a
> > bit misleading -- in other words, is that the sole, or main conclusion
that
> > emerges from the facts ?
> >
> > Your use of the words "15% wider" clearly refers to size, rather than
> > structure, so we are obviously talking about size as well as structure
here.
> > So you are saying that the size of a particular part of the brain may be
> > correlated with enhancement in a particular form of intelligence. So,
given
> > that you are only interested in differences > or = to 2 SD's from the
> > control mean (males with an IQ of 116), we must assume that this
increase in
> > the *size* of one part of Einstein's brain was either at the expense of
the
> > size of another part of his brain, or was not enough to push his
otherwise
> > average/small brain to 2SD's larger than the mean of your controls.
>> Hello, I don't know what state you went to middle school in, but in my
> school we had reading comprehension classes. Perhaps they didn't in
> yours, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you
> have, truly, moved past a middle school level of education.
>> The article clearly states the the increase in one area was at the
> expense of another. I quote:
>> "These two features suggest that, in Einstein's brain, extensive
> development of the posterior parietal lobes occurred early, in both
> longitudinal and breadth dimensions, thereby constraining the
> posterior expansion of the Sylvian fissure and the development of the
> parietal operculum, but resulting in a larger expanse of the inferior
> parietal lobe."
