If we ignore the puerile attempts at sarcasm in "Jet"'s post (below), the
only substantive comment that appears to remain is the repeated assertion
that:
"it's not the overall size
> of the brain that matters, but the relative sizes of different parts of
> the brain."
In fact, the webpage in question provides absolutely no evidence for that
proposition, though it does seem to be an assumption that the writer of the
webpage makes. However, it is not a coherent assumption -- if Einstein's
brain had been, say, half the size of the average male human brain overall,
would the fact that one part of if was *relatively* bigger than normal,
compared to the other parts of the brain, have enabled him to make his
well-known contribution to science ?
I might as well also mention the following non-substantive issues arising
from "Jet''s post::
1. In my original post, I said "for the sake of simplicity", when
mentioning the "n forms of intelligence", so that people like Jet, desperate
for something relevant to say, would not mention parts of the brain not
relevant to IQ. Obviously, I was over-optimistic, and "Jet' decided to
bring up bowel motions !
2. "Jet" says I have a "hatred of women". He provides no evidence of this.
I challenge him to find anything I have posted that shows that I have a
"hatred of women". If there is a 'feminist conspiracy", such as he refers
to, it includes mindless Feminists accusing anyone who dares to resist
Feminism of "hatred of women". I have been accused of this several times on
Usenet, and the slanderers have never been able to proide any evidence, when
challenged to. I am tempted to accuse them of "hatred of men" -- but to
hate men is a sign of political correctness in our Western culture, so the
accusation would have no sting.
3. The word "lobe" is not a complex concept. It is easy to understand what
a 'lobe' is. Nothing in the meaning of that word affects what I said in my
original post. If all the parts (including lobes) of a brain, for example,
are larger than average, then the total brain will necessarily be larger
than average. If all the parts of the brain, for example, are smaller than
average, then the total brain will be smaller than average. My argument
centred around the permutations of these sorts of possibilities.
"Jet" has obviously not understood the central point of my original post,
but, fortunately, many others will have understood it.
Peter Zohrab
"Jet" <thatjetnospam at yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3D2784B5.161B5C8E at yahoo.com...
>>> Peter Douglas Zohrab wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm not a scientist or medical man,
>> Really?
>> 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,
>> Well, don't hold your breath.
>> > but I heard her or Debra L. Kigar
>> Or someone. You know, it doesn't help your credibility any when you show
> you don't even know who you were listening to.
>> 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,
>> Yeah, it's part of the vast feminist conspiracy.
>> so I'm
> > posting it here, as well. I also have some experience of academics
omitting
> > to answer my awkward questions !
>> You misspelled "stupid". Why do you expect them to take you seriously
> when you don't even know whose comments you are talking about?
>> > "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,
>> No, color.
>> rather than
> > structure, so we are obviously talking about size as well as structure
here.
>> LOL. She said, "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...."
>> Let's break it down, she said, "in this same region". Now what region
> could that be? Let's look for clues. She goes on to say, "These two
> features suggest that, in Einstein's brain, extensive development of the
> posterior parietal lobes..." Hmmmm...maybe she is saying that Einstein's
> proserior parietal lobes were 15% larger than average, what do you
> think?
>> > 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.
>> So what?
>> >
> > Are all abnormally large sizes of a given part of the brain correlated
with
> > abnormally (and to an equivalent extent) small sizes of another (e.g.
> > neighbouring) part of the brain, so that the size-differences cancel
each
> > other out ? I assume that this is not the case.
> >
> > Assuming, for the sake of simplicity, that there are n forms of
intelligence
> > that are each associated with one particular part of the male brain,
then
> > surely it is conceivable, and it will often occur, that some of these
parts
> > will be, say, 5% larger than the male population mean, and some will be
5%
> > smaller -- and sometimes parts will be 10% or 15% or even 20% larger or
> > smaller than the mean. It seems to me obvious that, in some
individuals,
> > the sum of these differences will result in a brain that is
significantly
> > larger or smaller than the mean,
>> Yeah.
>> > and that we should expect this to be
> > correlated, respectively, with a higher or lower IQ,
>> Why would having a larger than average size of the part of the brain
> that makes your bowels work make you have a higher IQ? You spend more
> time on the toilet reading?
>> since the IQ is the sum
> > of scores in sub-tests of various forms of intelligence.
> >
> > I would be very grateful to hear your comments on these matters."
>> Let me explain it to you, it was quite clear...it's not the overall size
> of the brain that matters, but the relative sizes of different parts of
> the brain.
>> > What I am leading up to here is that the above webpage tries to ignore
size
> > and concentrate on structure,
>> Because it was found that size didn't matter.
>> for the simple reason that the two authors are
> > both female,
>> And this changed the size of Einstein's brain how?
>> and we all know that the average female brain is smaller than
> > the average male brain.
>> So what? Einstein's brain was no larger than the average males. The
> whole point was that it was relative sizes of sections of the brain that
> mattered, not the overall size of the brain.
>> >If the female brain is smaller than the male brain,
> > then this must be either because all of its parts are scaled-down
versions
> > of the equivalent parts of the male brain, or because there are
> > size-differences of various sorts between the various parts of the two
types
> > of brains (including even the absence of one or more parts of the brain
in
> > the male or the female brain),
>> IOW, you have no idea what you are talking about, and are just venting
> your hatred of women.
>> such that these differences, in toto,
> result
> > in a female brain that is smaller than its male equivalent.
>> You must have missed the part where she said Einstein had an average
> size brain, but relatively large posterior parietal lobes. But it is fun
> to watch someone who doesn't know what a lobe is act like he "caught" a
> neuroscientist is some feminist cover up.
>> >
> > If the fact that one part of Einstein's brain is 15 % larger than the
mean
> > for a sample of brains that output a mean IQ of 116 is causally
connected to
> > his "genius" (or whatever word you want to use), then there is a prima
facie
> > case to investigate, as regards the size-difference between male and
female
> > brains.
>> If any male/female study were indicated, it would be about the relative
> sizes of parts of the male and female brains.
>> > In other words, if size mattered for Einstein versus the rest> us,
>> Damn you are a dummy. She didn't say Einstein's brain was bigger than
> average.
>> we would not be wasting our time following up the idea that it might
> > matter for male brains vs female brains. I gather from the radio
interview
> > I heard
>> With someone...
>> that big men don't have bigger brains than small men, and big women
> > don't have bigger brains than small women -- so it's not a question of
> > body-size that's at issue here.
> >
> > Now, it may well be that women's mean IQ is found to be the same as
men's
> > mean IQ, but, in view of the above discussion, that result would have to
be
> > a bit suspect. I have plenty of experience of academics
>> Writing to people with your woman hating theories is not "experience of
> academics".
>> preferring to state
> > what is politically correct than what is true. In fact, many academics
> > consider it to be the height of naivety to state something that is
merely
> > true, when the opposite is widely known to be politically correct !
>> Why don't you donate your brain for her to study, you're not using it.
> :)
>> J
>>>> >
> > See also: http://members.tripod.com/peterzohrab/dumbfemi.html> >
> > Peter Zohrab
> > --
> > Domestic Violence Bibliography
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
> > New Zealand is run by Lesbians, and men are afraid they won't be real
men if
> > they contradict them! Manufacturing Concern
> > http://mera.50megs.com/boycecnt.html The Next US President is a Batterer
> > http://www.glennjsacks.com/is_there_a.htm Review of Sex, Lies & Feminism
by
> > J. Steven Svoboda in Everyman: A Men's Journal
> > http://mera.50megs.com/evereviw.html
