It's a solved question. Of course brain size relates to intelligence, albeit noisily. What, why do people assume that the increase in brain volume in the evolut

It's a solved question. Of course brain size relates to intelligence, albeit noisily. What, why do people assume that the increase in brain volume in the evolutionary record, concurrent with the increase in sophistication of material culture, doesn't set a prior for within-species effects of variance in this trait? Do we have another computational substrate besides brain contents? Would this skepticism be considered reasonable in the context of any other tissue and its quantifiable function, like muscle or bone? This is the most up-to-date meta-analysis on the topic: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.211621 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.211621 > Brain size and IQ associations yielded r = 0.24, with the strongest effects observed for more g-loaded tests and in healthy samples that generalize across participant sex and age bands.