John Knight wrote:
>> "Cary Kittrell" <cary at afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
> news:ago04g$3dn$1 at oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...> > In article <hopems-1207022009450001 at cs6625171-151.austin.rr.com>
>hopems at mail.utexas.edu (Hope Munro Smith) writes:
> > <
> > <In article <3d2f507c.20059553 at news.freeserve.net>,
> > <angilion at ypical.fsnet.co.uk (Angilion) wrote:
> > <
> > <> [several groups cut to avoid excessive crossposting]
> > <>
> > <> On Fri, 12 Jul 2002 15:19:57 -0500, "Shadow Dancer"
> > <> <insomniac at winterslight.org> wrote:
> > <>
> > <> [..]
> > <>
> > <> >http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Thompson/psychsex.htm> > <> >
> > <> >To Quote:
> > <> >
> > <> >"The most important single contribution to our knowledge of the facts
> of the
> > <> >case is to be found in Dr. Franklin P. Mall's paper 'On Several
> Anatomical
> > <> >Characters of the Human Brain Said to Vary According to Race and Sex,
> with
> > <> >Especial Reference to the Weight of the Frontal Lobe' (Am. J. of
> Anat., IX.,
> > <> >p. 1, 1909). Dr. Mall's general conclusion is that there is as yet no
> > <> >reliable evidence for the variation of anatomical characters with
> either
> > <> >race or sex. The belief that the brains of females differ from those
> of
> > <> >males has been widely accepted, and has been thought to be conclusive
> > <> >evidence of the permanent inferiority of the female mind.
> > <>
> > <> That's obviously out of date - the general belief nowdays is that women
> > <> are *more* intellectually capable than men. Try reading the posts
> > <> John Knight was replying to, for example. Are you going to
> > <> counter those, or are you one of the many who think that female
> > <> people are innately superior to male people?
> > <>
> > <> You are going back to 1910 for that paper. Do you think that's
> > <> actually relevant to today, especially in her conclusions about
> > <> the prevailing belief concerning which sex is mentally superior?
> > <
> > <Really, use of such dated material is quite puzzling.
> > <
> > <>
> > <> As an aside, I have seen it hypothesised that brain mass correlates
> with
> > <> height. That would neatly explain the average difference in brain
> > <> mass between men and women (as an artefact of the average
> > <> difference in height) and the hypothesis sounds plausible. However,
> > <> I haven't seen any evidence for it. Do you have any?
> > <>
> > <
> > <I'd be interested in hearing it as well. It would make
> > <sense that a larger body would need a larger brain to work
> > <its various systems, which again would prove that brain size
> > <says nothing about intelligence.
> >
> >
> >
> > That's quite standard in biology: neurological comparisons
> > are always made on a brain/body mass basis, never on absolute
> > brain size. (what's the smartest blue whale you've ever met?)
> >
> >
> > -- cary
>> Which may be why so many Americans are so misled about the relationship
> between intelligence and brain size.
>> It's absurd to infer that an 18% increase in body mass requires an 18%
> increase in brain cells. It takes *precisely* the same set of instructions
> and *precisely* the same compute power and *precisely* the same amount of
> memory or storage, to control a 12 year old girl's body as it does to
> control Akebono's body. Making the body bigger doesn't drain any resources
> at all away from the brain.
>> We're talking about averages here, and IF [note big "if"] it's true that
> brain size and height are correlated, then it's a *given* that height and
> intelligence are correlated.
>
I really have to wonder if you are having us on...
J
> John Knight
