This is really sloppy journalism. They see a correlation between longevity, income, career, and cranium size and then say "welp, clearly it's the brain size" N

This is really sloppy journalism. They see a correlation between longevity, income, career, and cranium size and then say "welp, clearly it's the brain size" No, clearly it's the money. They go in with phrenology bias and can't really do solid science. They even use IQ numbers which have been shown to correlate with parents income more than almost anything else. They even mention the career of hedge fund managers, the classic career along with real estate and politics of dullard rich kids. As the article contributes they then point out everything that I did. I don't know if the editors wanted this style or what. It opens with paragraphs of clearly specious bullshit then says it's bullshit then has a concluding statement about how it's nonsense. Second to last paragraph > So it is not brain size, relative brain size or absolute number of neurons that distinguishes us. Perhaps our wiring has become more streamlined, our metabolism more efficient, our synapses more sophisticated. Yeah, duh, of course it's more complicated then "durr it's bigger". And of course it's all skewed by the instrument of measure. It's probably really stupid dumb things like the nuances of human emotions and our success in transmitting them. What sets is apart from other animals likely isn't what 30 year olds can do but what 30 week olds can