3 ms·

Thanks for being attentive and spotting potential flaws in the article. 1. I don't really know how to answer this to you other than with "arithmetic." 2. Have

Thanks for being attentive and spotting potential flaws in the article. 1. I don't really know how to answer this to you other than with "arithmetic." 2. Have you read the entire article? There is the "relative" part. Elephant's brain-to-body mass ratio is 1:560. And yes, brain size is important. Some small birds have 1:12 brain to body ratio, but that doesn't make them smarter than us.

catalogia 6y ago
> 1. I don't really know how to answer this to you other than with "arithmetic." Supposing I only use 10% of my brain at any given instant, but it's a different 10% each time, then removing any of my brain would have a negative impact on me.
- iuliangulea 6y ago
  You've just summarized the article in that sentence. I don't have anything to add.
tlarkworthy 6y ago
I kinda agree with the article just not the reasoning that got to the outcome. 1. Saying we use 10% of our brains doesn't imply 90% of the mass is unnecessary. It could be saying 90% of the electrical activity is unnecessary, or 90% of the synapses are unnecessary. I don't believe the myth, but doing a hard logic stop from 10% to that means 90% of weight is unnecessary is not implied by the statement we are arguing against. It's nothing to do with arithmetic. 2. If you look at the article one of the 1st headings is "Size Does Not Matter". So does it matter or not? When you look closer the stand out features of humans is a wrinkly grey matter, so surface area (i.e. grey matter) seems important and mass based arguments are a correlation to that. (also big bodies have more sensory area so their is an inverse correlation to body size too) Anyway, I think the point of the myth is to say humans have more potential than their default. If you take some Ritalin or Cola you might agree that the natural brain can be souped up a bit cognitively (not by 10x). Experience and learning also gets more out of an (nearly) identically sized brain too. You can't take an experience brain and cut half of it out to become a toddler again though
- iuliangulea 6y ago
  Thanks for the clarification. Now it's clearer why you wrote the first comment. 1. I think you and I have different understanding of that myth. I was referring to the fact that people think 90% is not used at all. I might have done a poor job of emphasizing that thing, that's why we are discussing this now. 2. I haven't looked at it that way. It's an instance when the paragraph name interfered with some important concepts in the entire article... The point in "Size Does Not Matter" that I have envisioned is that being a such a small fraction of the body, the brain consumes unproportionately more energy. The point of Ritalin and Cola is that those increase the blood glucose level, which aids in cognitive processes.
- saalweachter 6y ago
  > I think the point of the myth is to say humans have more potential than their default. The point of the myth is to say humans have more potential than their default ... and if you buy my book / miracle potion / herbal supplement / a ticket to my 3 day motivational lecture you can unlock yours!

catalogia 6y ago

> 1. I don't really know how to answer this to you other than with "arithmetic." Supposing I only use 10% of my brain at any given instant, but it's a different 10% each time, then removing any of my brain would have a negative impact on me.

iuliangulea 6y ago
You've just summarized the article in that sentence. I don't have anything to add.

tlarkworthy 6y ago

I kinda agree with the article just not the reasoning that got to the outcome. 1. Saying we use 10% of our brains doesn't imply 90% of the mass is unnecessary. It could be saying 90% of the electrical activity is unnecessary, or 90% of the synapses are unnecessary. I don't believe the myth, but doing a hard logic stop from 10% to that means 90% of weight is unnecessary is not implied by the statement we are arguing against. It's nothing to do with arithmetic. 2. If you look at the article one of the 1st headings is "Size Does Not Matter". So does it matter or not? When you look closer the stand out features of humans is a wrinkly grey matter, so surface area (i.e. grey matter) seems important and mass based arguments are a correlation to that. (also big bodies have more sensory area so their is an inverse correlation to body size too) Anyway, I think the point of the myth is to say humans have more potential than their default. If you take some Ritalin or Cola you might agree that the natural brain can be souped up a bit cognitively (not by 10x). Experience and learning also gets more out of an (nearly) identically sized brain too. You can't take an experience brain and cut half of it out to become a toddler again though

iuliangulea 6y ago
Thanks for the clarification. Now it's clearer why you wrote the first comment. 1. I think you and I have different understanding of that myth. I was referring to the fact that people think 90% is not used at all. I might have done a poor job of emphasizing that thing, that's why we are discussing this now. 2. I haven't looked at it that way. It's an instance when the paragraph name interfered with some important concepts in the entire article... The point in "Size Does Not Matter" that I have envisioned is that being a such a small fraction of the body, the brain consumes unproportionately more energy. The point of Ritalin and Cola is that those increase the blood glucose level, which aids in cognitive processes.
saalweachter 6y ago
> I think the point of the myth is to say humans have more potential than their default. The point of the myth is to say humans have more potential than their default ... and if you buy my book / miracle potion / herbal supplement / a ticket to my 3 day motivational lecture you can unlock yours!