If you’re a big-headed guy or gal at a rationalist puddle cuddle, double check that your rubbers didn’t get punctured.
Aren’t smaller, better-connected brains more likely to be from an intelligent person? I’m not sure there’s a relationship between intelligence and brain size in general.
Also, huge head does not imply large brain inside the head.
I have a big head (I needed to pick the bigger helmets when I went gokarting) so yes, there is a huge relationship between IQ and brain size. Don’t mock my chunky noggin please.
uses my superior vision, no caliper needed
That you felt to point out what you think is a mistake shows me you have an inferior skull. You might even have the blood of the worst people (The Dutch, the creators of the infernal word LOL, Colonizing the sea, and Big Brother (potjandorie nog aan toe!)), in you. :P
Our brain shape science basically boils down to:
- missing big pieces usually makes it work less well.
- folds and creases seem good?
- Not too much fluid!
- Not too little either!
- front part seems pretty important for thinking.
- middle too.
- “stuff” in the brain is almost always bad for thinking. Like rocks and things. Neurons, blood and the right blend of fluids are great.
- phrenology is pretty wrong. Like, super wrong.
Beyond that, we know a bunch of stuff about brains and neurons and how they all piece together, but just based on lookin’, we’re pretty bad at judging a person based on their head and brain.
Based on my neurology classes, I feel like we have some idea what some parts of the brain do. Obviously full on experiments would be unethical, but we can like, observe which neural pathways formed in people with the same life style (so Taxi Drivers have larger and more developed sections focused on navigation). We can observe what happens to people who take the same kinds of damage, and occasionally we get lucky and we can see what happens to people with grievous injuries or rare maladies. Also, we can do experiments on creatures like snails which far less complex brains.
The brain is certainly an interesting a weird black box, but we do have outs to learn some things
Oh, I forgot to mention that we can also do some weird experiments with rats. Teach a bunch of rats how to do a maze, or complete some task, and then surgically remove different bits of each of their brains.
Unless you really mess them up, they usually remember how to do the maze.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5001904/
It’s why missing a chunk won’t make the neurologist definitely say it’s impaired someone’s intelligence.
It’s an extreme case, but definitely indicative of how visual examination is just not great for assessing brain function.
Oh, totally. We legitimately know tons of stuff about brains, including what most parts are typically used for. We just can’t tell much based on eyeball lookin’, we’ve gotta get in there with FMRI and EEGs.
I’m purely referring to head/brain size or gross physical properties and how they relate to intelligence.
Show a neurologist a photograph of a random brain and ask them to assess the owners intelligence.
The only thing they really have to go on is that if you can photograph someone’s brain, signs aren’t typically looking great for them.
They’ll be making guesses based on vague correlations, and also getting fidgety about what you even mean by intelligence, since that’s also not a simple measure.
@henfredemars Indeed, it is often associated with hydrocephalus, a condition rarely conducive to cognitive performance.
