"mat" <mats_trash at hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:43525ce3.0207080456.2ba6b308 at posting.google.com...
> > 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.
>> Well, no actually that is not what is said. What the author says is
> that Einstein had an unusually large parietal region which may point
> to such region being involved in 'intelligence', from which does not
> follow the definitive conclusion big brain = ++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.
> >
> > 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, and that we should expect this to be
> > correlated, respectively, with a higher or lower IQ, since the IQ is the
sum
> > of scores in sub-tests of various forms of intelligence.
>> well thats also making the huge assumption that everything else (such
> as cell density remains the same) maybe its particular circuit
> arrangements that are responsible for intelligence and not neuron
> number per se. You are unfairly taking tentative data and conjectures
> due to the original author and making definitive conclusions from them
>> >
> > I would be very grateful to hear your comments on these matters."
> >
> > What I am leading up to here is that the above webpage tries to ignore
size
> > and concentrate on structure, for the simple reason that the two authors
are
> > both female, and we all know that the average female brain is smaller
than
> > the average male 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), such that these differences, in toto,
result
> > in a female brain that is smaller than its male equivalent.
> >
> > 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. In other words, if size mattered for Einstein versus the rest
of
> > us, 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 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.
>> You cannot on the one hand take the example of Einstein as an 'unusual
> case' to make your point and then subsequently generalise that to
> every other male who is clearly not Einstein. You also assume that
> the control data is correlated such that bigger brains => higher IQ,
> which may not in fact be true at all from, the sparse info given. Not
> only are you supposing enough about the Einstein data (did he actually
> have a high IQ?, it is not certain even though he was a "genius") but
> also a great deal about the controls
>> > 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.
>> Again you are drawing too much from the data, the increased size may
> have nothing to do with Einsteins intelligence and may simply be
> coincidental (given that you are only looking at one case)
>>> I have read other research which shows that Einstein had no more
> neurons than the average but did have an unusually elvated number of
> glial cells. Perhaps this increased partietal cortex was due to this,
> but perhaps this is a highly unusual reason for having an increased
> brain size, the most common difference between women and men simply
> being changes differences in cell/volume ratios.
>> You are trying to connect two facts as causal without any evidence for
> it. Einstein was also dyslexic, is the posterior parietal enlargment
> (given its involvement in vision) instead responsible for this with
> some weird circuitry in the frontal lobes responsible for is
> intelligence??
It's likely that the only "intelligent" thing Einstein ever did was to
plagiarize the works of the people whose brains *should* be used in this
comparison, so to use Einstein's brain as a control sample is meaningless
http://christianparty.net/einstein.htm
The simple fact that all standardized tests support precisely what Mr.
Zohrab posted, whereas "IQ tests" don't, suggests that the politicization of
"IQ tests" is deceiving a LOT of people.
John Knight
ps--following are just a few examples from
http://christianparty.net/timss.htm
In the following 12 subjects, no country scored lower than American 12th
Grade Girls who scored:
22 points lower than American boys and 90 points lower than Greek girls in
Numbers & Equations.
41 points lower than American boys and 123 points lower than Cypriot girls
in Calculus.
31 points lower than American boys and 121 points lower than French girls in
Geometry.
34 points lower than American boys and 139 points lower than Norwegian girls
in Physics.
53 points lower than American boys and 130 points lower than Norwegian girls
in Mechanics.
21 points lower than American boys and 152 points lower than Swedish girls
in Electricity & Magnetism.
6 points lower than American boys and 37 points lower than Norwegian girls
in Heat.
18 points lower than American boys and 86 points lower than Swedish girls in
Wave Phenomena.
20 points lower than American boys and 92 points lower than Swedish girls in
Modern Physics.
31 points lower than American boys and 117 points lower than French girls in
Advanced Math.
23 points lower than American boys and 65 points lower than Swedish girls in
General Science.
11 points lower than American boys and 77 points lower than Dutch girls in
General Math.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Zero percent of American 12th grade girls correctly solved TIMSS math
problems.
Zero percent of American 12th grade girls correctly solved TIMSS physics
problems.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Among American students on other standardized tests:
In the quantitative section of the Graduate Record Exam:
Mexican boys score 3 points higher than White girls.
Mexican boys score 59 points higher than girls who major in education.
The average boys' score is 72 points higher than average girls' score.
Foreign boys score 171 points higher than American girls.
Asian boys score 234 points higher than black girls.
Boys who major in engineering score 251 points higher than girls who major
in education.
In the verbal section of the Graduate Record Exam:
Asian boys score 5 points higher than White girls.
Mexican boys score 23 points higher than girls who major in education.
Boys who major in humanities score 114 points higher than girls who major in
education.
White boys score 124 points higher than black girls.
In the analytical section of the Graduate Record Exam:
Mexican boys score 8 points higher than girls who major in education.
Indian boys score 15 points higher than girls who major in education.
Hispanic boys score 27 points higher than girls who major in education.
Asian boys score 79 points higher than girls who major in education.
White boys score 99 points higher than girls who major in education.
Boys score 46 points higher than girls in SAT math.
Boys score 2 points higher than girls in ACT math.
Boys score 5 points higher than girls in NAEP math.
Boys score 53 points higher than girls in TIMSS physics.
Boys score 41 points higher than girls in TIMSS calculus.
Swiss boys score 47 points higher than Swiss girls in TIMSS calculus.
Boys score 17 points higher than girls in IAEP math.
