3 ms·

The have a lower brain to body ratio than Homo sapiens. That metric pretty much holds true across the animal kingdom so they were probably atleast a little bit

The have a lower brain to body ratio than Homo sapiens. That metric pretty much holds true across the animal kingdom so they were probably atleast a little bit dumber.

karim79 3y ago
> The have a lower brain to body ratio than Homo sapiens. That metric pretty much holds true across the animal kingdom so they were probably atleast a little bit dumber. I'm no expert, but that does seem to be something of an oversimplification.[0][1] [0] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-brain-size-matter1/#:~:text=In%20healthy%20volunteers%2C%20total%20brain,overall%20variability%20in%20general%20intelligence https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-brain-size-m.... [1] https://serendipstudio.org/bb/kinser/Int3.html https://serendipstudio.org/bb/kinser/Int3.html
nicklecompte 3y ago
I would be cautious about brain-body ratios. In all vertebrates, a huge chunk of the brain is dealing with sensory processing and integration, so brain volume : body size doesn't always scale the way you think it would. The bigger problem is I don't think your numbers are right, Neanderthals had notably larger brains than us. Via wikipedia: Average Neanderthal male height: 165cm Average Neanderthal male brain volume: 1600cm^3 Average pre-industrial human male height: 165cm Average pre-industrial human male brain volume: 1260cm^3 The difference is that Neanderthals also had disproportionately larger eyes than us, yet probably similar visual acuity: their brains had more pixels to process, which takes up quite a bit of volume. In fact it's eye size which seems to be the biggest confounding variable in associating brain size with intelligence. Their cerebellum was actually smaller than ours, which is probably more relevant - but who knows? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal
- huytersd 3y ago
  They were bulkier. Bigger, heavier bones and apparently a significantly higher body mass.
  - nicklecompte 3y ago
    The problem is that bone/muscle/fat mass doesn't mean more neurons connecting to that mass, so that bulk is mostly irrelevant. One place where it might matter is if Neanderthals had more skin surface area and the same density of touch receptors, but that is a pretty marginal difference and might not even be true. Their brains were notably, disproportionately larger, mostly due to having notably larger eyes.

The have a lower brain to body ratio than Homo sapiens. That metric pretty much holds true across the animal kingdom so they were probably atleast a little bit dumber.

karim79 3y ago

> The have a lower brain to body ratio than Homo sapiens. That metric pretty much holds true across the animal kingdom so they were probably atleast a little bit dumber. I'm no expert, but that does seem to be something of an oversimplification.[0][1] [0] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-brain-size-matter1/#:~:text=In%20healthy%20volunteers%2C%20total%20brain,overall%20variability%20in%20general%20intelligence https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-brain-size-m.... [1] https://serendipstudio.org/bb/kinser/Int3.html https://serendipstudio.org/bb/kinser/Int3.html

nicklecompte 3y ago

I would be cautious about brain-body ratios. In all vertebrates, a huge chunk of the brain is dealing with sensory processing and integration, so brain volume : body size doesn't always scale the way you think it would. The bigger problem is I don't think your numbers are right, Neanderthals had notably larger brains than us. Via wikipedia: Average Neanderthal male height: 165cm Average Neanderthal male brain volume: 1600cm^3 Average pre-industrial human male height: 165cm Average pre-industrial human male brain volume: 1260cm^3 The difference is that Neanderthals also had disproportionately larger eyes than us, yet probably similar visual acuity: their brains had more pixels to process, which takes up quite a bit of volume. In fact it's eye size which seems to be the biggest confounding variable in associating brain size with intelligence. Their cerebellum was actually smaller than ours, which is probably more relevant - but who knows? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

huytersd 3y ago
They were bulkier. Bigger, heavier bones and apparently a significantly higher body mass.
- nicklecompte 3y ago
  The problem is that bone/muscle/fat mass doesn't mean more neurons connecting to that mass, so that bulk is mostly irrelevant. One place where it might matter is if Neanderthals had more skin surface area and the same density of touch receptors, but that is a pretty marginal difference and might not even be true. Their brains were notably, disproportionately larger, mostly due to having notably larger eyes.