Kenneth Collins wrote in message ...
>Andrew Russell wrote in message <3d2b2dc3.5357366 at news.btinternet.com>...
>>"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.
>>i doubt such studies are properly controlled. i. e. how is the distribution
>of subjects cross-correlated with societal distributions? [how are they
>controlled with respect to subjects' experience?]
>>>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.
>>all most-likely attributed to nutritional experience, including prenatal.
which, of course, is not entirely gender-independent because, even among
young siblings, food is often the object of aggression in which 'size
matters'. but, because of the =huge= wastefulness inherent, overall,
propensity for aggression is anti-correlated with 'intelligence'.
over the short-term, 'aggression' is much-cheaper than is non-aggressive
problem-solving
over the long-term, the opposite is True because it doesn't lay everything
to waste, which allows actual Progress where, at best, aggression maintains
a "victor's" status quo [minus the cost inherent in carrying out the
aggression].
in other words, aggression =always= takes things a step backward, often many
steps backward, and, in the 'nuclear' age in which we live, possibly back to
the Beginning.
so, that "size matters" in aggression, doesn't translate to 'intelligence'.
overall, it's anti-correlated.
"humanity" has yet to learn this ~2000-year-old stuff. [which concurs with
Peter's 'point' about information-processing 'time'-courses.]
k. p. collins
>>k. p. collins
>>>>>>> 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.
>>
