"Peter Douglas Zohrab" <zohrab at xtra.co.nz> painstakingly noted:
>Maybe so, but that is not relevant to the present discussion. If you are
>saying that Einstein's brain was the anomalous (please note the spelling of
>this word) subject, that is inappropriate to this discussion, since his
>brain was presumably not part of the sample on the basis of which the
>generalisation was made that female brains are smaller than male brains.
J P Rushton (The National Review, September 15, 1997) pointed out that
any debate over the relation between brain size and intelligence was
over.
Subsequently, of course, discoveries using Magnetic Resonance
Imaging (MRI), which creates a three-dimensional image of the
living brain, have shown a strong positive correlation (0.44)
between brain size and intelligence. And there is more. The
National Collaborative Perinatal Study, as reported by Sarah
Broman and her colleagues, showed that head perimeter measured
at birth significantly predicts head perim-eter at 7 years --
and head perimeter at both ages predicts IQ. Recent studies
also show that head size and IQ vary with social class.
It is, of course, relationships between brain size/IQ and sex
and race which, understandably, arouse the most anxiety. Some
critics have even suggested a social taboo on discussion and
research in these fields. That would run counter to the entire
tradition of scientific inquiry.
You appear to have come up against the "social taboo" he mentions.
This is the type of research that Gloria Steinem and Jesse Jackson
want prohibited.
