Note the measurements I wrote on the photo above their crania
Evidence continues to accumulate showing that by the early 21st century, 1) the World’s biggest brained black was at times, the World’s ONLY black billionaire, 2) the World’s biggest brained woman was the World’s most influential woman, and 3) both individuals are the same person: A cultural phenomenon named Oprah, who overcame poverty, racism, sexism, weightism, illegitimacy, sexual abuse and teen pregnancy, to revolutionize the culture of America, and by extension, the World.
Just as the biggest brained animal (humans) used our intelligence to overcome our physical weakness and become the World’s most prosperous and powerful animal, the World’s biggest brain woman overcame her disadvantaged background, to become, at times, both the World’s richest black and the World’s most influential woman.
If true, this is arguably the most important anthropological discovery in decades, making me the Darwin of the 21st century.
Oprah is on record many times stating that her head is 25.25″ inches around. According to U.S. military data, that makes her an astonishing 6.3 standard deviations above the U.S. female mean, making hers almost certainly, the largest female HC in the developed World, and by extension, the entire World (excluding pathological cases).
Further confirmation of Oprah’s stunning cranium comes from the picture above, which offers a rare opportunity to compare Oprah’s head to that of actor Jamie Fox, because both individuals are facing each other in profile, and Oprah’s hair is pulled back tight.
The photo of Oprah’s cranium is 2.6 cm long, making it 130% as long as Jamie Fox’s. If Fox has the head circumference of the average American man (568.2 mm), that makes Oprah’s HC an unimaginable, 738.7 mm. Even if Fox has an extreme small head, like 536.6 mm (2 SD below the U.S. mean for men), that still makes Oprah’s an absolutely colossal, 697.6 mm (27.5″ around). If anything, Oprah’s self-reported 25.25″ head circumference was a conservative figure.
Further evidence of Oprah’s enormous cranium comes from a photo of Oprah with a famous actress.
Clearly, this actress’s brain could fit into Oprah cranium an incredible three or more times. Now this actress clearly has a small head, but among 6,325 U.S. army personnel measured in 1998, scholar J.P. Rushton found the smallest was 900 cubic centimeters (a black woman), and the largest was 1,795 cm3 (a white man). Even if we assume the actress standing next to Oprah was only 900 cm3, the fact that Oprah’s cranium is three or four times bigger, could put Oprah at as high as 2700 cm3 to 3600 cm3! Though Oprah’s self-reported HC of 25.25″ implies a more believable 2,029 cm3.
A thousand years from now, when no one even knows who Oprah was, anthropologists might dig through the soil and discover a skeleton with a colossal cranial capacity and assume it belonged to someone extremely intelligent. They’ll think it must have belong to some rare super human, perhaps a more evolved species. They might then discover the remains of her massive brick mansion and realize her intelligence allowed her to rule over the other humans of her time.
Pumpkin Person 
try again autistic fucktard.
oprah has lied about the size of her head for exactly the same reason she speaks in an accent she did NOT speak in as a child.
she’s got a huge chip on her shoulder about being black and stupid.
Then she would lie about having a high IQ. On the contrary, she once said she’s afraid to find out her IQ and she freely admits she’s an idiot when it comes to computers. In fact, she was once at a conference with hundreds of VIPs, and Bill Gates asked the group if anyone had never been on the internet alone, Oprah was the only person to put her hand up out of 500 people. She has no chip on her shoulder because growing up she was always the best reader and talker in her class.
No celeb would lie about having a big head. Outside the HBD fringe, people haven’t associated head size with intelligence since before WWII. It’s considered laughable. Outside of my blog, people with big heads are mocked as pumpkin heads, not praised for their intelligence.
and that’s holyfield in your picture NOT tyson.
oh wait it’s jamie foxx.
her head is smaller than poitier’s in this picture.
or maybe her head grows and shrinks depending on the picture.
heeheeheee.
it could be she has a problem with hats or wigs, if she does, because of the shape of her head and not its size.
The circumference has been measured at 25.25″ around, and I just confirmed from the picture with Fox, that it’s at least that big. Your problem is you judge head size from the Eurocentric perspective of head height and head width. You don’t understand that importance of head length.
measured by whom peepee?
you?
your autism makes you way too trusting.
She has stated a precise figure, so obviously someone measured it.
I’m not trusting, I think most celebs lie about their IQs and net worth, but outside this blog, people don’t exaggerate their head size.
If anything she lied to make it sound smaller than it is.
Your schizophrenia makes you way too suspicious. You think everything is a con, even when there’s no logical basis. You thought 90% of the commenters here were my sock puppets.
do you even know what 6 SDs corresponds to peepee?
that’s 1 in 1,000,000,000.
NO!
oprah is just a LIAR.
OBVIOUSLY!
Of course I know what it corresponds too. That’s the whole point! The World’s biggest brained woman is arguably the World’s most influential woman and the World’s biggest brained black is arguably the World’s richest black (at times).
Nobody would lie about having a 25.25″ inch head. No one wants to be known as a macrocephalic. And I independently confirmed her head is at least +6.3 SD by comparing it to Fox’s.
“Eurocentric”
PP is a SJW confirmed.
who’s this “famous actress” i’ve never seen in my life?
i was wrong. the problem with cynthia erivo is that she suffers from microcephaly.
OBVIOUSLY.
but that picture still looks like erivo has different lighting and thus was superimposed.
now peepee will put up a picture of oprah next to a case of the zika virus and say, “see!”
http://cache2.asset-cache.net/gc/539775250-oprah-winfrey-cynthia-erivo-and-scott-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=X7WJLa88Cweo9HktRLaNXtEw2zcPWREP1Xx%2BU113E11UcpWD3SEP62bHlGaEbbbG3KS3m5PPTsBWdZnnoLbSdA%3D%3D
I took those photos myself off the TV screen because even I couldn’t believe how huge Oprah’s head looked. They’re from the recent Tony awards. The smallest erivo’s head could be is 900 cc.
i’m pretty sure that’s just one of 1000s of photos of oprah you use as wall paper.
you need to see a shrink PRONTO!
peepee at home with her wall of oprah pictures:
I was browsing through and bust out laughing when i saw that picture. What movie is it from?
It’s Robin Williams in
the movie One Hour Photo
“peepee at home with her wall of oprah pictures:”
Lol
“now peepee will put up a picture of oprah next to a case of the zika virus and say, “see!””
I loled
you know that oprah’s hair is not part of her brain, right peepee?
foxx is bald. oprah is not.
try again.
Oprah’s hair is pulled back super tight.
Try again.
Yup, the problem with measuring head size from a distance is that Oprah’s body fat translates to head fat, which makes her head look artificially bigger depending on what angle you use. Nonetheless, she still looks to have a pretty big head.
And Jamie Foxx looks nothing like Holyfield/Tyson. Not that it matters, given that recognition of celebrities may be the only type of knowledge that is NEGATIVELY correlated with IQ.
http://giphy.com/gifs/26ufkTgAUGz8MINws
I worry if we all understand things like length and height the same way. Having in mind so-called classical anatomical position is very helpful
Anatomical position: The position with the body erect with the arms at the sides and the palms forward. The anatomical position is of importance in anatomy because it is the position of reference for anatomical nomenclature. Anatomic terms such as anterior and posterior, medial and lateral, abduction and adduction, and so on apply to the body when it is in the anatomical position.
You generally do great research, but then there are instances, where you seem irrational, biased, or naive. Your latest article on Jewish intelligence https://pumpkinperson.com/2016/08/26/excellent-data-on-jewish-iq-raises-more-questions-than-it-answers/ was great, but then you revised your finding of a likely and realistic Jewish Ashkenazi IQ of 102 up to 107 !? Why didn’t you stick to your guns, and kept the reasonable equal weighting on the six subtests !?
” … it is inconsistent with the incredible scientific achievements of Jews throughout the 20th century.” I recommend for you to read the following paper: JEWISH INTELLECTUAL SUPREMACISM: A REFUTATION by Andrew Ryan and Peter J. White https://thechosenites.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/refutation.pdf
And watch this Youtube video: Albert Einstein, Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud Exposed! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4v-OuwdW6U
Jewish media/publishing, lobbying, and networking are a huge factor to consider when it comes to ”the incredible scientific [etc.] achievements of Jews throughout the 20th century.” You don’t seem to do that. Why !?
Also on the cranium issue:
”L. Willerman, “Commentary on Rushton’s Mongoloid-Caucasoid Differences in Brain Size”, Intelligence, vol.15, 1991, pp.361-364, argues that Rushton makes an inappropriate correction; I maintain that a correction per se is inappropriate. Rushton seems to be operating with a model of cranial capacity as an index of brain power, like the engine capacity of a car. But there is no neurological reason to “correct” for stature and weight because these are irrelevant, even on his neurological model to the “brain power” of a given brain. Women, have brains, on average 15 percent smaller than men. To deal with this “inconvenient truth” scaling occurs so that when scaled against their smaller bodies the brain size difference disappears. But outside of political correctness, why should such a scaling occur if what we are interested in is “engine capacity”? But even though women’s brains are smaller than men’s, the Wernicke area, a key area for comprehending sounds and word meanings is 30 percent larger in women, and the Broca area, important for the ability to produce fluent and expressive speech, is 20 percent larger. Even here we cannot conclude from these size differences that women’s have a greater verbal superiority to men, as men’s Wernicke and Broca areas may be neurologically more efficient, even if smaller. Even though girls are outperforming boys at school (in an anti-male feminist environment), there is evidence that men’s brain cells transmit nerve impulses faster than women’s. The research was done by Professor Edward Reed of Toronto University, and Philip Vernon and Andrew Johnson of the University of Western Ontario. Males were found to have four times faster nerve conduction velocities than females, a significant sex difference in all test conditions in favour of males. […]
Another problem for Rushton’s theory is the considerable neurological redundancy in the human brain. John Lorber, “Is Your Brain Really Necessary?” Science, vol.210, 1980, p.1232, reported on studies of victims of hydrocephalus (water on the brain). One subject had a respectable IQ of 126 and was a maths honour student, but had “virtually no brain”! All that the neurologist Lorber found in this subject’s head was a thin layer of brain cells only a millimetre in thickness. The rest of the intercranial space was filled with cerebrospinal fluid. This, not only raises problems for Rushton’s theory, but also for reductionist neurology. It is sufficient to note that brain size, at best, is only weakly correlated with IQ. What seems to be more important is the degree of neural connectiveness. Otherwise blue whales would be of a super-intelligence level. Further it has been argued that the degree of fissuring and thickness in the frontal cortical brain layers is more important than the sheer size of the human brain. The Negroid brain is generally less fissured than the White and Mongoloid brain. See C.F. Connolly, “External Morphology of the Primate Brain”, (Thomas, Springfield, 1950); F.W. Vint, “The Brain of the Kenya Native”, Journal of Anatomy, vol.66, 1934; H.G. Garrett, “IQ and Race Differences”, (Howard Allen, Cape Canaveral, 1973), p.14.
Sociobiologists have noted that during the last 20,000 years the upward trend in brain size has been reversed. Modern man has a smaller brain than the Cro-Magnons, by about 100-200 cubic cms. It is usually inferred that the Cro-Magnons were more intelligent than modern man: J.W. Jamieson, “Biological Diversity and Ethnic Identity: Changing Patterns in the Modern World”, The Mankind Quarterly, vol.36, 1995, pp.193-199; B. Chiarelli, “Some comments on the Evolution of Hominid Intelligence” The Mankind Quarterly, vol.37, 1996, pp.29-36. Yet could it be that with modern man evolution departed from pursuing quantity and pursued quality? Perhaps evolution pursued the path of neural efficiency rather than sheer brain size? We will never know the answer to that question because we do not have a Cro-Magnon brain to subject to neurological investigation.” – The Myth of East Asian Intellectual Supremacy by Peter J. White http://thecross-roads.org/race-culture-nation/25-the-myth-of-east-asian-intellectual-supremacy
Another problem for Rushton’s theory is the considerable neurological redundancy in the human brain. John Lorber, “Is Your Brain Really Necessary?”
The human brain is an extremely expensive organ, both metabolically and in terms of physical and birthing burden. It would not have evolved to be so huge if it wasn’t necessary.
Sociobiologists have noted that during the last 20,000 years the upward trend in brain size has been reversed. Modern man has a smaller brain than the Cro-Magnons, by about 100-200 cubic cms. It is usually inferred that the Cro-Magnons were more intelligent than modern man: J.W. Jamieson, “Biological Diversity and Ethnic Identity: Changing Patterns in the Modern World”, The Mankind Quarterly, vol.36, 1995, pp.193-199; B. Chiarelli, “Some comments on the Evolution of Hominid Intelligence” The Mankind Quarterly, vol.37, 1996, pp.29-36. Yet could it be that with modern man evolution departed from pursuing quantity and pursued quality? Perhaps evolution pursued the path of neural efficiency rather than sheer brain size?
I think after the post-agriculture population boom (see the 10,000 years explosion) there were genetic mutations that made brains more efficient, so they could have the same IQ at smaller sizes, but I also think brains got smaller because bodies got smaller, and because the ice age ended so selection pressures for high IQ decreased, while overheating selected against big heads.
Everyone knows that Freud and Marx are hacks, care to explain Einstein?
this is nonsense, I highly doubat a) that there ever was a IQ 126 person with most of his brain gone b) humans have the most neurons outside one type of dolphin (or we may have the most cortical neurons) and c) we don’t know about the number of synapses in their brains
“this is nonsense, I highly doubat a) that there ever was a IQ 126 person with most of his brain gone”
It’s true. His IQ actually went up after his injury.
You would think that cutting out one-half of people’s brains would kill them, or at least leave them vegetables needing care for the rest of their lives. But it does not. Consider this striking story. A boy starts having seizures at 10 years of age when his right cerebral hemisphere atrophies. By the time he is 12, the left side of his body is paralyzed. When he is 19, surgeons decide to operate and remove the right side of his brain, as it is causing gits in his intact left one. You might think this would lower his IQ or leave him severely retarded, but no. His IQ shoots up 14 points, to 142! The mystery is not so great when you realize that the operation has gotten rid of the source of his fits, which had previously hampered his intelligence. When doctors saw him 15 years later, they described him as “having obtained a university doploma . . . [and now holding] a responsible administrative position with a local authority.”
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/10/24/small-brained-normal-iq/
“The human brain is an extremely expensive organ, both metabolically and in terms of physical and birthing burden. It would not have evolved to be so huge if it wasn’t necessary.”
No pp. It wouldn’t have evolved that big if we didn’t have adequate kcal. With less kcal comes a smaller brain. If we, as a race, consumed fewer kcal, we’d have smaller brains. Fact.
I recommend you read a bit into nutrition.
The question is not have a bigger or a smaller brain but a efficient brain.
”No pp. It wouldn’t have evolved that big if we didn’t have adequate kcal. With less kcal comes a smaller brain. If we, as a race, consumed fewer kcal, we’d have smaller brains. Fact.”
Source*
“Source*”
Common sense. The only reason we have such big brains today is because we ate more kcal. Erectus’s or habilis’s evolved into H. floresiensis whose brain shrunk due to less kcal. So, using common sense, if we were to eat fewer kcal for an extended amount of time, our brains and bodies would shrink.
Well obviously you need enough nutrients to support a big brain, but unless there’s an evolutionary need for one, those nutrients will be diverted to other things.
Of course adequate nutrients are needed. Lack of b vitamins, iron and zinc to name a few, lead to a decrease in brain size. BUT adequate kcal are needed to sustain our brains as the brain consumes 25 percent of our kcal.
If we were to eat 1100 kcal on average for, let’s say 1000 years, we’d evolved smaller brains and bodies.
I’m not sure what your point is RaceRealist. I never denied Kcal was necessary for our large brains to evolve. But you make it sound like any animal would have become as smart as humans had they been given enough calories.
Of course not. I wasn’t saying that. What I was saying was that if we were to eat fewer kcal for an extended period then we would lose our big brains and bodies. Without adequate kcal we would shrink. Like what happened to floresiensis.
Again, not sure what your original point was. No one denied nutrients were necessary for any big thing to evolve, not brain size only.
You said
“It would not have evolved to be so huge if it wasn’t necessary.”
This is true. But the ultimate cause is adequate kcal. That’s my point.
Things can have more than one cause, and the two theories are complementary, not mutually exclusive.
I get that. But without enough energy then big brains wouldn’t have evolved. Yea cold winter along with sexual selection was a cause but without enough kcal it wouldn’t have occurred. That is the driver.
must be depressed people are having more children right prof shoe?
Idiocracy is NOW, and prof shoe is a great example of it.
prof shoe said, “but brawndo is what plants crave. it has electrolytes.”
totally typical chink. all they can do is copy. they can’t think.
in the entire history of china not any thought at all.
it’s clear that it is impossible to think in chinese.
ancient greek and modern german are the best languages for thinking. sanskrit was ok too.
I once saw Roger Ferguson (TIAA CREF, Fed Reserve) speak. He was very articulate and smart. I noticed that his forehead seemed to bulge out. It isn’t necessarily that he has a large cranial volume, but his skull above the frontal lobes contained extra volume. My two cents….
i noticed the same of magnus carlsen and ken jennings.
it’s an example of neoteny.
i’ve never seen it in chinks except jack ma.
but are their heads big or are their faces small?
ma looks like there’s something wrong with him.
you measured very unfairly, do it again
What is this flexing for nerds? Instead of measuring to see who’s got the bigger dick you just measure to see who’s got the biggest head? This is ridiculous
LOL great analogy.
Recent article ascribing increased intelligence to the level of blood supply to the brain rather than simply its overall size.
http://m.phys.org/news/2016-08-smarter-brains-blood-thirsty.html
There was an interesting comment below the article you referenced: ”tinitus – Aug 31, 2016
[”]Brain size has increased about 350% over human evolution, but we found that blood flow to the brain increased an amazing 600%[”]
Actually what was observed was the increasing of the foramina carotid diameter. Carotid arteries are smaller in women [ http://stroke.ahajournals.org/content/37/4/1103.full.pdf ] even after adjusting for body and neck size, age, and blood pressure. Any conclusions?” – http://m.phys.org/comments/391793277/
Could the combination of a large brain and insufficient blood supply to it actually mean less brain power? Is the ratio between blood supply (carotid artery diameter) and brain size the true determinant of intelligence/brain power? Of course, a big brain plus sufficient blood supply (wide carotid artery diameter) would then likely mean very high intelligence/brain nerve cell connectivity/activity.
Could especially women with large brains/heads, like Oprah, who lack the proper blood supply to power their large brains actually be the least cognitively competent?
These findings from the study match with and confirm the findings and hypothesis I cited in my above comment on neural connectiveness and neural efficiency: ””We believe this is possibly related to the brain’s need to satisfy increasingly energetic connections between nerve cells that allowed the evolution of complex thinking and learning.”
To allow our brain to be so intelligent, it must be constantly fed oxygen and nutrients from the blood.”
Much food for thought.
Thanks for sharing!
Actually if anything, the brain-size IQ correlation appears to be stronger in women:
http://m.brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/129/2/386
And it’s been found that when men and women are matched for brain size, women are more intelligent.
I think what this discovery shows is just the importance of brain size: small increases in brain size cause HUGE differences in neural connections, so you need huge increases in oxygen to power all those connections.
Someone with a small brain but more oxygen could have more functional connections than someone with a big brain and less oxygen, but holding oxygen constant, the brain-size IQ correlation would probably be even stronger.
”Someone with a small brain but more oxygen could have more functional connections than someone with a big brain and less oxygen, but holding oxygen constant, the brain-size IQ correlation would probably be even stronger.”
Yup, that makes perfect sense to me too. Thanks for your feedback!
”And it’s been found that when men and women are matched for brain size, women are more intelligent.”
Could the explanation for this be testosterone levels? Did those studies control for testosterone levels?
”Our results have revealed the differences in salivary testosterone levels in boys grouped according to IQ, intellectually gifted and mentally challenged boys having lower salivary testosterone levels than their peers characterized by average intelligence proposing the common biological characteristic of minority IQ groups on both ends of the Gauss curve. In girls, no differences in salivary testosterone levels were found among IQ groups.” – http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0028393206004155
I saw you blogged on this topic. Interesting.: https://pumpkinperson.com/2015/06/06/iq-testosterone/
”Weak men (i.e. Bill Gates) and butch women (i.e. Rosie O’Donnel) are the most intelligent, while muscular men (i.e. Mike Tyson) and weak women (i.e. Paris Hilton) are the least intelligent.”
Could the explanation for this be testosterone levels? Did those studies control for testosterone levels?
No because the optimum testosterone level for (spatial) IQ is above the female mean & below the male mean, so neither sex has an advantage on that
Perhaps it’s because the female brain is more densely packed or because their two hemispheres better communicate
Thank you very much!
Oprah has got her brain from her mother. Check this photos, her mother’s head is even bigger:
No Oprah’s head is much much MUCH bigger than her mother’s:
Oprah likely got her huge brain from a rare de novo mutation. That’s how evolution occurs.
Are we looking at the same photos?
Her mother has definetely bigger head, in all photos, considering the distance to the camera.
And the picture with the same distance to the camera, the one when she is quite young is the most objective one.
Rare mutations do not appear so quickly in one generation. It cannot give you a bigger head in one mutation. It sounds simply having a bigger head, but it is an extremely complex operation which requires long evolutionary period.
I just searched at google images “Oprah with” which gave me the chance to compare head sizes to others. She definetely had the biggest head in almost all pictures, except with her mother. And one photo that I have some doubts, there is a guy on the right, Bruce Jenner, seems to compete with Oprah in brain size. Bruce Jenner had dislexia as kid, strangely. Here is the photo:
And the picture with the same distance to the camera, the one when she is quite young is the most objective one.
Cranial capacity is a multi-dimensional variable, and thus is far more complex than height. You can’t just eyeball it from a photo. It’s possible Oprah’s mom has a wider head, but Oprah probably has a much LONGER head. In the photo where Oprah is young, she’s only about 14 so her head has not yet finished growing. Also, her mother has a perm which exaggerates the appearance of the cranium. Further, depending on how the forehead slopes into the side of the head, what looks like a wider head can sometimes just be a head that is showing both its width and its length.
Ever since Oprah got money, Oprah’s mother has gone on wild spending sprees shopping for hats as reported by the local news in her area.
If her head were as big as Oprah’s, let alone bigger, she might have trouble doing this, because Oprah herself can’t buy hats off the shelf. Her head is so big she has them custom made.
Rare mutations do not appear so quickly in one generation. It cannot give you a bigger head in one mutation. It sounds simply having a bigger head, but it is an extremely complex operation which requires long evolutionary period.
Well certain mutations on the Microcephalin (MCPH1) gene can give you an extremely tiny head. This gene is also related to the tripling of primate brain size in 4 million years of evolution and variants of MCPH1 also came under great selection during the so-called emergence of behavioral modernity and during the emergence of the first civilizations, though strangely, these latest mutations might not be linked to brain size.
Neuroprahlogy.
Psychognoprah…
“This gene is also related to the tripling of primate brain size in 4 million years of evolution and variants of MCPH1”
Citation needed.
“This gene is also related to the tripling of primate brain size in 4 million years of evolution and variants of MCPH1”
Nope.
We test the hypothesis that polymorphisms of the brain regulator genes MCPH1 and ASPM contribute to variations in human brain size and its correlates.
…
Although all measures were construct valid and the allele frequencies showed expected population differences, no relationship was found between the genes and any of the criteria.
http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/3/2/157
Rushton is the lead author of this study so you should believe it right away.
This shows Bruce Lahn’s study from four years prior to be bunk:
Click to access 10.1126%40science.314.5807.1871.pdf
That study didn’t have the statistical power to detect such a small correlation but other research apparently has found a correlation with brain size.
Smell of sarcasm in the air….
Pingback: Racial differences in penis size | Pumpkin Person