4 ms·

But they are right, and you are wrong. Brain volume is positively correlated with intelligence in humans. In other species, larger brains as a proportion of b

But they are right, and you are wrong. Brain volume is positively correlated with intelligence in humans. In other species, larger brains as a proportion of body size is a sign of selection pressure for intelligence, in ways beyond just size.

kristopolous 3y ago
By intelligence you are probably talking about IQ, and the studies you are talking about probably didn't normalize for things like childhood nutrition availability or economic class background - which lead to both poorer test performance AND smaller sizes and thus smaller brains. You could use any correlated metric then and make the same claim - people with more expensive shoes performed better - or bigger feet. Demonstrating that people who grew up impoverished performed poorer than people who grew up wealthy, by using the proxy of the mass of their heads, isn't very convincing.
- SamReidHughes 3y ago
  So you're pretending there's a problem with the research instead of there actually being problems. Have fun playing make believe.
  - kristopolous 3y ago
    No. You're pretending that 100 year old research from racist eugenicists is valid science. Nutrition correlation? Yes. Access to education? Yes. Low stress from high income and fewer cognitive loads? Yes. These all lead to taller adults that then have "bigger brains" ... and that's it - that's why it's only detectable at all (and that's questionable depending on the metric), at very large population sizes, if any. It's not like people who win the Nobel Prize and Fields Medals are 8 feet tall giants. We also don't see someone that's say 5'0" and 90 lbs and think "they can't possibly have anything intelligent to say! Look at their stature!"
    - SamReidHughes 3y ago
      There is recent research into intra-race correlations. You need to stop lying. First to yourself. Try having a factual basis for the words that you write.
      - kristopolous 3y ago
        I knew the scepter of "race science" would come up from one of the "big brains = smart" people. Cool. Let's end this now. I'm done responding.
        SamReidHughes 3y ago
        https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intra- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intra-
        wizzwizz4 3y ago
        Thinking that “intra-race” – a sociological concept – is a meaningful concept in biology, is a brown M&M. It suggests the research probably isn't any good. Sure, in places like the US, or Apartheid-era South Africa, “race” might have enough of an impact on people's lives that controlling for it is a quick and easy way to clean up your data. But absent social factors, by itself, there's no reason to believe that it's something you need to control for; and if you have access to that information, there are always more direct factors you can control for.
      - Tor3 3y ago
        The concept of "race" is social, and not used in science. The vast majority of biologists will laugh you out of the room if you start blabbering about "race". To go from genes varying the amount of melanin in your skin to then divide humans into "races" is crazy. I've worked all over the world through all of my long career, with people from all over, and if there's one thing I have learned it's that people are people, everywhere, you find all kinds of personalities, but the thing is - it doesn't matter if you're looking in your neighbourhood street or somewhere on the other side of the globe.

kristopolous 3y ago

By intelligence you are probably talking about IQ, and the studies you are talking about probably didn't normalize for things like childhood nutrition availability or economic class background - which lead to both poorer test performance AND smaller sizes and thus smaller brains. You could use any correlated metric then and make the same claim - people with more expensive shoes performed better - or bigger feet. Demonstrating that people who grew up impoverished performed poorer than people who grew up wealthy, by using the proxy of the mass of their heads, isn't very convincing.

SamReidHughes 3y ago
So you're pretending there's a problem with the research instead of there actually being problems. Have fun playing make believe.
- kristopolous 3y ago
  No. You're pretending that 100 year old research from racist eugenicists is valid science. Nutrition correlation? Yes. Access to education? Yes. Low stress from high income and fewer cognitive loads? Yes. These all lead to taller adults that then have "bigger brains" ... and that's it - that's why it's only detectable at all (and that's questionable depending on the metric), at very large population sizes, if any. It's not like people who win the Nobel Prize and Fields Medals are 8 feet tall giants. We also don't see someone that's say 5'0" and 90 lbs and think "they can't possibly have anything intelligent to say! Look at their stature!"
  - SamReidHughes 3y ago
    There is recent research into intra-race correlations. You need to stop lying. First to yourself. Try having a factual basis for the words that you write.
    - kristopolous 3y ago
      I knew the scepter of "race science" would come up from one of the "big brains = smart" people. Cool. Let's end this now. I'm done responding.
      - SamReidHughes 3y ago
        https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intra- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intra-
        wizzwizz4 3y ago
        Thinking that “intra-race” – a sociological concept – is a meaningful concept in biology, is a brown M&M. It suggests the research probably isn't any good. Sure, in places like the US, or Apartheid-era South Africa, “race” might have enough of an impact on people's lives that controlling for it is a quick and easy way to clean up your data. But absent social factors, by itself, there's no reason to believe that it's something you need to control for; and if you have access to that information, there are always more direct factors you can control for.
    - Tor3 3y ago
      The concept of "race" is social, and not used in science. The vast majority of biologists will laugh you out of the room if you start blabbering about "race". To go from genes varying the amount of melanin in your skin to then divide humans into "races" is crazy. I've worked all over the world through all of my long career, with people from all over, and if there's one thing I have learned it's that people are people, everywhere, you find all kinds of personalities, but the thing is - it doesn't matter if you're looking in your neighbourhood street or somewhere on the other side of the globe.