3 ms·
As the original article[a] mentions, there is already quite a bit of evidence in the literature that bigger brains are associated with higher IQ. The key contr
by cs702 8y ago
As the original article[a] mentions, there is already quite a bit of evidence in the literature that bigger brains are associated with higher IQ. The key contribution of this work is that it finds evidence that neuronal circuitry that is organized in a sparser (i.e., more computationally efficient) manner is also associated with higher IQ.
In other words, the evidence suggests that intelligence (as measured by IQ) is a function not only of brain size, but also a function of how efficiently the brain works.
[a] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04268-8.pdf https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04268-8.pdf
- rando444 8y agoWhile it's nice to have more evidence, isn't this mostly accepted from just following general anthropology? E.g. - homo-sapiens are considered smarter than homo-erectus and neanderthals despite having smaller brains .. evolution of the hypothalamus, etc.
- ggggtez 8y agoSorry that's not how science works. You can't just "look" and "know" the answer. A mouse has a smaller brain than a human, does that mean the mouse is smarter? An elephant has a bigger brain, does that mean the elephant is smarter? No, you need to actually methodically prove something is true, you can't just guess. We have no living neanderthals or other humanoids to test our theories against. If you go cross species, there are too many variables to account for.
- jbattle 8y agoThere is a rule of thumb that relates the size of the brain to the size of the body. A bigger needs more brain mass just to operate (more nerve endings?). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encephalization_quotient https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encephalization_quotient
- perl4ever 8y agoI don't think it is intuitively obvious why the brain needs to scale with the body. An elephant would seem to have roughly the same processing needs as a mouse. Maybe 25% more for the trunk or something, but not in proportion to its vastly larger size. Regarding nerve endings, I think it can be shown that the sense of touch does not have as high resolution as you might think,* so I'm not sure more surface area requires more nerves. *I recall reading somewhere about a simple experiment where someone touches you with one or two pins and you try to determine whether it is one or two. At a certain distance apart you can't tell if you don't look.
- rando444 8y agoI didn't say this was how science works. I was asking the question whether this was already the existing theory. I mean what is science if not deduction based on observation?