A while ago I took IQ and brain size data mostly reported by Richard Lynn and attempted to correct it to show the IQs and brain sizes the races would have if they all enjoyed First World 21st century living standards. I called these corrected values, genetic IQ and genetic brain size, though in fairness, many actual anthropologists would call it pseudoscience.
| race | iq | real iq (rounded) | genetic iq (rounded) | brain size | genetic brain size |
| ashkenazim | 108 | 110 | 110 | 1457 | |
| east asians | 105 | 105 | 105 | 1416 | 1534 |
| whites | 99 | 100 | 100 | 1369 | 1487 |
| arctic people | 91 | 95 | 95 | 1443 | 1561 |
| southeast asians | 87 | 90 | 95 | 1332 | 1450 |
| native americans | 86 | 90 | 90 | 1366 | 1484 |
| pacific islanders | 85 | 90 | 90 | 1317 | 1435 |
| dark caucasoids | 84 | 85 | 90 | 1293 | 1411 |
| congoids | 67 | 75 | 85 | 1280 | 1398 |
| australoids | 62 | 65 | 70 | 1225 | 1343 |
| capoids | 54 | 60 | 70 | 1270 | 1388 |
| pygmies | 54 | 60 | 70 | 1085 | 1203 |
The problem was that the IQs Lynn reported for Bushmen, Pygmies and Australoids were so incredibly low (even after correcting for their low human development index) that I was left with a very steep slope for predicting a population’s genetic IQ from its genetic brain size. The absurdity of this steep slope became apparent when I tried to extrapolate the trend beyond humans and predict the IQ of chimps from their cranial capacity (about 498 cc if adjusted for their small size), and got an estimated IQ below zero!
I decided that the problem was that Lynn’s IQ data for Australoids, Bushmen and pygmies simply isn’t credible. You can’t give conventional IQ tests to people still living in hunter-gatherer societies and expect to get good results and there’s no credible evidence that any extant human race or ethnicity has a genetic IQ below the 80s. So after removing these three outliers, we get the following line of best fit predicting population IQ from population brain size.
Now when we predict the IQs of chimps from their cranial capacity we get 26, which is within 10 points of actual laboratory research suggesting an IQ of 35.
To obtain this 26 IQ you didn’t use EQ but simple cranial capacity. What if you used EQ instead, chimps average IQ would be lower or higher ?
What is more reliable, cranial capacity/brain size or EQ ?
What is more reliable, cranial capacity/brain size or EQ ?
When comparing animals of very different size, you must use EQ because in absolute brain size whales rank higher than people
Overall brain size, not EQ, best predicts cognitive ability across non-human primates.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6321027_Overall_Brain_Size_and_Not_Encephalization_Quotient_Best_Predicts_Cognitive_Ability_across_Non-Human_Primates
Some scientists were desperately trying to torture data to make the human brain look absolutely exceptional.
Some scientists were desperately trying to torture data to make the human brain look absolutely exceptional.
LOL! So it’s not enough to deny races differ in intelligence; now you’re denying people are smarter than animals
The slippery slope of HBD denial
That’s not what I implied, I just think some scientists have been very creative to make human brain dimensions look exceptional and causal to our intelligence.
“Some scientists were desperately trying to torture data to make the human brain look absolutely exceptional.”
Correct.
“LOL! So it’s not enough to deny races differ in intelligence; now you’re denying people are smarter than animals”
I don’t deny hbd and I think Encephalization quotient is trash
“That’s not what I implied, I just think some scientists have been very creative to make human brain dimensions look exceptional and causal to our intelligence.”
Afrosapiens gets it. Afrosapiens read The Human Advantage. You’d enjoy it. She talks. About EQ being garbage as well.
I don’t deny hbd and I think Encephalization quotient is trash
I think you’re trash.
Yawn. Why the attacks? When have I attacked you, PP? Can we have a discussion without childish attacks?
Is what I’m bringing up incorrect? Is there nothing wrong with EQ? Is what I said about Jerison wrong? Simple questions, simple answers, no stupid attacks necessary.
Yawn. Why the attacks? When have I attacked you, PP?
You’ve attacked entire scientific methods without even understanding them. Those are childish attacks
Is what I’m bringing up incorrect? Is there nothing wrong with EQ? Is what I said about Jerison wrong? Simple questions, simple answers, no stupid attacks necessary.
EQ is far from perfect but it’s the single best measure of inter-species intelligence ever developed.
“attacked entire scientific methods without even understanding them”
Please direct me to them. You and your attacks are meaningless. You’d save yourself time not typing them, and that’d be good since you’re a busy person.
“single best measure”
Are the criticisms meaningless? Why is a gorilla smarter and more cognitively complex than a capuchin monkey, when the capuchin gas an EQ 2 times that of gorillas?
Why is a gorilla smarter and more cognitively complex than a capuchin monkey, when the capuchin gas an EQ 2 times that of gorillas?
No one’s claiming there’s a perfect correlation between EQ and intelligence, but it’s a better measure than number of neurons in the cerebral cortex unless you believe whales are smarter than people.
Those whales don’t have the neuron packing density we do in our cerebral cortex. This is outside my specialty (nutrition and fitness) so I emailed Herculano-Houzel with the paper and a quote from her book. Waiting back on a reply now.
Those whales don’t have the neuron packing density we do in our cerebral cortex.
The whole point of having more packing density is you can fit in more neurons. Whales might have less density but they still have more neurons because their brains are so big. Her method might work well within primates but I suspect EQ works much better across the entire animal kingdom.
Also Afrosapiens:
Harry Jerison, the originator of the encephalization quotient, came to the conclusion that “human evolution … had been all about an advancement of encephalization quotients culminating in man.” (Herculano-Houzel, 2016: 15) What a conclusion. Just because EQ increased throughout hominin evolution, that means that it was all an advancement of EQs culminating to man. That’s circular logic.
Moreover, the “circular assumption” that higher EQ mean superior cognitive abilities in humans wasn’t founded on “tried-and-true correlations with actual measures of cognitive capacity.” (Herculano-Houzel, 2016: 15)
In second place on the EQ chart is the capuchin monkey coming in with an EQ of 2, which is more than double that of great apes who fall way below 1. That would imply that capuchin monkeys are more intelligent than great apes and outsmart great apes, right? Wrong. Great apes are. Total brain size predicts cognitive abilities in non-human primates better than EQ (Deaner et al, 2007).
Herculano-Houzel goes through the problems with EQ in one of her papers. I’ll link it later.
Herculano-Houzel goes through the problems with EQ in one of her papers.
God you quote that Brazilian bimbo like she was the second coming. Her theories suck.
“God you quote that Brazilian bimbo like she was the second coming. Her theories suck.”
You suck kilometers of dick every day, the Brazilian girl is doing actual work, I’d rather pay for her book than for you to give me head.
“God you quote that Brazilian bimbo like she was the second coming. Her theories suck.”
Says the “callgirl”.
You fuck random men for money, she’s a a neuroscientist researching the neuronal make up of different species’ brains. You’re a prostitute fucking random men for money. Yeaaaa.
She, as well as I, actually contribute to the world. Your contributions are fucking random men.
I’m gonna buy the book, she’s a very respected scholar, plus she has a degree from a French university.
I’m gonna buy the book, she’s a very respected scholar
Evidence?
She keeps saying there’s nothing special about our brain; it’s just a scaled up primate brain. But that IS what’s special about it. How big it is. In a way she’s an even bigger proponent of brain size than I am, because she’s saying SIZE is the ONLY thing special about the human brain, compared to other primates.
Speaking of Brazilians, what happened to Santa Claus?
“Evidence?”
Her studies have huge citation rates, she gets published in top journals and she gives prestigious conferences. She’s a leading researcher in comparative neuro-anatomy.
“She keeps saying there’s nothing special about our brain; it’s just a scaled up primate brain. But that IS what’s special about it. How big it is. In a way she’s an even bigger proponent of brain size than I am, because she’s saying SIZE is the ONLY thing special about the human brain, compared to other primates.”
You’ve completely misunderstood. She says that:
-our brains have the expected size for primates of our size
-what sets us apart is our number of neurons in the cerebral cortex which is much higher than expected from brains of our size
-we can afford the energy requirements for such a number of neurons thanks to cooking
Her studies have huge citation rates, she gets published in top journals and she gives prestigious conferences. She’s a leading researcher in comparative neuro-anatomy.
Her Wikipedia page is almost completely blank.
-our brains have the expected size for primates of our size
And that expected size is far bigger than the brain of any other primate. So she’s saying the only thing special about our brain compared to other primates is its size, which is what I said in the first place.
Of course she conveniently dismisses the brains of other hominoids which is the most relevant comparison group.
what sets us apart is our number of neurons in the cerebral cortex which is much higher than expected from brains of our size
Much higher than expected for an animal of our size, but not much higher than expected for a PRIMATE our size. So her argument seems to be:
1) human brains aren’t special, but primate brains are
2) humans have really big primate brains
This conversation is pointless, you’re completely remixing her theory and you’re lying to yourself.
“Speaking of Brazilians, what happened to Santa Claus?”
Dunno, he might be struggling with HIV.
“Her Wikipedia page is almost completely blank.”
Is Wikipedia the benchmark for being a respected scholar?
She has been cited 3,064 times in 4 years.
https://scholar.google.com.br/citations?user=cldyZo8AAAAJ&hl=en
Also, the Wiley Handbook of Evolutionary Neuroscience says:
Features contributions from highly respected scholars in their fields
http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1119994691.html
Who’s featured? Hercualano-Houzel.
“And that expected size is far bigger than the brain of any other primate. So she’s saying the only thing special about our brain compared to other primates is its size, which is what I said in the first place.”
My friend, our brains are bigger compared to gorillas, but when taking their body size into account for their brain size, it’s them who has a bigger body, that’s why the so-called ‘3.4 EQ’ is garbage.
It’s not the size of our brains, since it’s the size expected for a primate of our size. It’s the total number of neurons our brains have (which is due to us being primates, that’s why we can pack so many neurons into our brains. Cooking allowed for this to occur).
“Of course she conveniently dismisses the brains of other hominoids which is the most relevant comparison group.”
Such as?
“1) human brains aren’t special, but primate brains are
2) humans have really big primate brains”
Her argument is as follows:
Our brains are supposedly ‘special’ due to the high EQ. However, through cllular scaling, it’s found that primate brains scale the same. The brains of great apes scale linearly in their number of neurons. Herculano-Houzel and Kaas (2011) write:
Our results suggest that the brains of great apes also scale linearly in their numbers of neurons like other primate brains, including humans. The conformity of great apes and humans to the linear cellular scaling rules that apply to other primates that diverged earlier in primate evolution indicates that prehistoric Homo species as well as other hominins must have had brains that conformed to the same scaling rules, irrespective of their body size.
Please read this paper.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK207181/
You love brain size, yet Herculano-Houzel et al come and show a new way to look at the brain, irrespective of EQ and you dismiss it. Why?
My friend, our brains are bigger compared to gorillas, but when taking their body size into account for their brain size, it’s them who has a bigger body, that’s why the so-called ‘3.4 EQ’ is garbage.
Of course they have much bigger bodies, and they have much smaller brains, making their EQs vastly lower than ours.
It’s not the size of our brains, since it’s the size expected for a primate of our size.
Specifically where is the data to support this claim?
It’s the total number of neurons our brains have (which is due to us being primates, that’s why we can pack so many neurons into our brains. Cooking allowed for this to occur).
This is the crux of her theory. She thinks humans have the most (cerebral) neurons of any animal. Wikipedia says whales do, but I don’t think anyone knows until her brain soup method is tried. If she invented that she deserves a lot of credit.
You love brain size, yet Herculano-Houzel et al come and show a new way to look at the brain, irrespective of EQ and you dismiss it. Why?
Because everyone already knew humans have more neurons than other primates. However the one brain variable on which humans exceed all other animals by a huge amount is EQ. She’s essentially saying “forget about EQ, I have a simpler method: cerebral neurons”. But until she can show that humans rank on top by this measure (even compared to whales) it will never be as credible as EQ. And even then, EQ will always remain useful in cases where cerebral neuron count is unknown so your dismissal of it is ignorant.
For the first time, we show that a species of dolphin has more neocortical neurons than any mammal studied to date including humans
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4244864/
Miss Hercules gets OWNED! Stick a fork in her little theory. She’s done.
There is no issue with some animals having bigger brains or even more neurons than us, that tells nothing about the development of specific functions. Some species might have a few hyper-developed intellectual functions whereas humans have a more balanced and complex mix of abilities.
But her whole theory was based on the idea that humans have the most neurons and this was a better measure of intelligence than EQ:
Thus, it has recently been argued that mammalian brains should not be scaled equally, as brains of the same size do not always contain similar cell numbers (Herculano-Houzel, 2011b). Rather, the absolute number of neurons, irrespective of brain or body size, may be a better predictor of cognitive abilities (Herculano-Houzel, 2011a)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4244864/
But whales have twice as many neurons (at least in the neo-cortex)
“Rather, the absolute number of neurons, irrespective of brain or body size, may be a better predictor of cognitive abilities”
Which abilities ? Cognitive abilities cover a broad range. Marine mammals have to control their respiration, that alone has the potential to select for very high development in relevant cerebral functions.
Which abilities ? Cognitive abilities cover a broad range. Marine mammals have to control their respiration, that alone has the potential to select for very high development in relevant cerebral functions.
The abilities we associate with intelligence or intellect: reasoning, memory, thinking, learning, planning etc. Much of the brain is not cognitive, and is related to emotions or body regulation. One of the reasons EQ controls for body size is to control for the body regulation brain parts, since bigger animals need a larger brain just to control their extra bulk, regardless of intelligence.
Dolphins are clearly not stupid, they evolved to come back to sea surface to breathe, they have language, and their environment as well as their anatomy makes it very difficult for the to use tools, impossible to control fire and so on. So there is nothing incoherent with them having more neurons.
Dolphins are very smart, but humans are considered to be far and away the smartest animal to ever live. The reason EQ is the gold standard is it places humans way above other animals. She’s arguing that neuron count is a better measure of intelligence than EQ, but this is hard to take seriously when humans don’t come out on top.
Of course no measure is perfect and there will always be anomalies, but humans not coming in first is a pretty huge anomaly, and at the very least it’s a symbolically devastating blow.
That’s a retarded reasoning, human intelligence is the form of intelligence that we understand the most, animal intelligence is something more obscure. The life of dolphins requires an impressive brainpower, they live in the most challenging environment for mammals.
If you can’t even agree with the broad scientific consensus that humans are by far the most intelligent animal, then this discussion is pointless.
“If you can’t even agree with the broad scientific consensus that humans are by far the most intelligent animal, then this discussion is pointless.”
There is no such consensus, human intelligence is only the best understood form of intelligence, cetaceans my surpass us in some cognitive domains, elephants have a better memory, some other animals have far better sensory abilities. Animal brains are not supposed to evolve for human type intelligence.
“Specifically where is the data to support this claim?”
They determined the number of neurons and other cells that compose the ornagutan and gorilla cerebella, using those numbers to calculate the expected size of the brain and cerebral cortex which matched the size in the literature. That suggests that great ape brains scale the same way human brains do. This shows that great apes have evolved bodies that are ‘unusually large’, and that humans have the expected number of neurons in their brain. Since the cellular scaling rules apply across primate species, both our species and great ape brains scale the same, which shows that great apes have evolved bodies too big for their brains, with them being the outlier, not us.
“This is the crux of her theory. She thinks humans have the most (cerebral) neurons of any animal. Wikipedia says whales do, but I don’t think anyone knows until her brain soup method is tried. If she invented that she deserves a lot of credit.”
She did develop it. You really should read here book, it’s outstanding.
Here’s the paper.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15758160
“Because everyone already knew humans have more neurons than other primates. However the one brain variable on which humans exceed all other animals by a huge amount is EQ. She’s essentially saying “forget about EQ, I have a simpler method: cerebral neurons”. But until she can show that humans rank on top by this measure (even compared to whales) it will never be as credible as EQ. And even then, EQ will always remain useful in cases where cerebral neuron count is unknown so your dismissal of it is ignorant.”
Let’s say it doesn’t hold for all animals, but it holds for humans specifically—would you accept it then? Because you have to understand that 1) we don’t know their intelligence and 2) the intelligence of dolphins has been questioned.
I’m dismissing EQ on the basis that total brain size across primates is a better measure of cognitive ability. Certain measures of encephilization don’t correlate with IQ.
EQ is also sensitive to the species included. The “neuronal index” is a function of number of neurons expected from body size and absolute amount in the brain. This may explain “why differing mammals who share similar EQs show different cognitive abilities across mamillian orders.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17847061/
So because neuronal scaling applies between primates and humans have the expected number of neurons in the brain, it’s gorillas that evolved bigger bodies for their brains.
“Stick a fork in her little theory. She’s done.”
I actually emailed her about this. I quoted the parts of the paper that brought her up and I quoted the part in her book where she brings up cetaceans.
There’s one problem: They didn’t use the isotropic fractionator; they used stereological methods.
Moreover, they have more neurons because they have a larger brain—what’s the big deal? Also
“We found that the number of neocortical neurons in long-finned pilot whales exceeds the expected value with respect to body weight, although not to the same extent as harbor porpoises or humans. The number of neocortical neurons in long-finned pilot whales is just below the expected value with respect to brain weight.
They also need it for thermoregulation. We also have more packing density in our cerebral corex. We also don’t use neurons for thermoregulation. They also didn’t use the IF.
If I get an email back from her, I’ll let you guys know. But she said she’s using her technique on their brains, so I’m interested to see what she finds and says on the matter.
Let’s say it doesn’t hold for all animals, but it holds for humans specifically—would you accept it then?
I’m open minded to the possibility that there are other brain properties the better correlate with intelligence than EQ or overall brain size in specific contexts, sure
I’m dismissing EQ on the basis that total brain size across primates is a better measure of cognitive ability.
You can dismiss any scientific theory by cherry picking subsets of data. Across the entire animal kingdom, no single measure better predicts intelligence than EQ.
Certain measures of encephilization don’t correlate with IQ.
There’s only one measure of EQ, and it does correlate with intelligence across the animal kingdom
EQ is also sensitive to the species included.
No one said it was perfect, but it’s better correlated than any single other brain measure has yet proven to be
So because neuronal scaling applies between primates and humans have the expected number of neurons in the brain, it’s gorillas that evolved bigger bodies for their brains.
Perhaps compared to other primates, but compared to all animals its size, gorillas have large brains
I actually emailed her about this. I quoted the parts of the paper that brought her up and I quoted the part in her book where she brings up cetaceans.
There’s one problem: They didn’t use the isotropic fractionator; they used stereological methods.
Their methods were good enough to get through peer review
Moreover, they have more neurons because they have a larger brain—what’s the big deal? Also
The whole point of her theory is that the more cerebral neurons, the smarter the species. If humans are outranked by whales, the relationship is not that strong.
They also need it for thermoregulation. We also have more packing density in our cerebral corex. We also don’t use neurons for thermoregulation. They also didn’t use the IF.
The fact that you have to make all these excuses shows her method is just as prone to anomalies as EQ, if not more so.
.
I’ve seen that dolphin brains are adapted to function in very low oxygen conditions when they dive.
“Much higher than expected for an animal of our size, but not much higher than expected for a PRIMATE our size. So her argument seems to be:
1) human brains aren’t special, but primate brains are
2) humans have really big primate brains”
That’s exactly what she was saying.
Primate brains are special in their neuron density, that’s why whales are not more intelligent.
Primate brains are special in their neuron density, that’s why whales are not more intelligent.
She thinks because of our high neuron density, that humans have more cerebral neurons than whales, but it appears she’s been proven wrong and her theory is too simple.
Also, Absolute size of the brain is only a good predictor within non human species.
Unless neanderthals are smarter than modern man.
“I’m open minded to the possibility that there are other brain properties the better correlate with intelligence than EQ or overall brain size in specific contexts, sure”
Like? I’m convinced that overall brain size is a better predictor, at least in primates.
“You can dismiss any scientific theory by cherry picking subsets of data. Across the entire animal kingdom, no single measure better predicts intelligence than EQ.”
I agree. Here’s a good link, saying what I said, citing the Deaner et al 2007 study I cited:
https://www.quora.com/In-which-animals-is-the-encephalization-quotient-metric-of-intelligence-most-badly-flawed
That for non-human primates, overall brain size matters more.
“There’s only one measure of EQ, and it does correlate with intelligence across the animal kingdom”
EQ is also sensitive to the species included. The “neuronal index” is a function of number of neurons expected from body size and absolute amount in the brain. This may explain “why differing mammals who share similar EQs show different cognitive abilities across mamillian orders.”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.20598/full
“Perhaps compared to other primates, but compared to all animals its size, gorillas have large brains”
Source? The relationship is clear. Gorillas, for instance, eat a any based diet. They have nigger bodies. They already eat for 8 to 10 hours a day. For a gorilla to power a brain our size in its current body, they’d need to eat over 750 more kcal!! Though you have to also think of the metabolic trace off between brain and other body parts, like the gut for instance, as well as muscle mass. Less muscle mass is correlated to high brains as well.
“Their methods were good enough to get through peer review”
Of course. Though, she either didn’t know of this study on long-finned whales, she willfully excluded it, or she wants to use her methods. I’m thinking was 3.
Did I link you her paper on stereology and the IF?
“The whole point of her theory is that the more cerebral neurons, the smarter the species. If humans are outranked by whales, the relationship is not that strong.”
I agree. I have a hunch on why they have more neurons, but she also says that stereological methods use small sample sizes and small sections of the brain while not counting enough neurons. I’ll check out their methods later. This is far and away outside my area of expertise so I really hope she emails me back.
“The fact that you have to make all these excuses shows her method is just as prone to anomalies as EQ, if not more so.”
Meh. I’m not an expert on this, the human body is my speciality.
Maybe…..there is no ‘perfect’ measure of intelligence across all species? Would you think that is a possibility?
Melo,
“Unless neanderthals are smarter than modern man.”
Maybe… I don’t know what to think anymore. I’m really starting to question everything I know about human evolution right now.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0096424
1) Our brains are relatively expensive because it’s a primate brain and holds a large number of neurons for its body compared to nonprimates.
2) The human brain still costs as much energy as expected for its number of neurons and just ad much energy compared to the body as expected for a non-great ape primate for its mass.
3) The human brain is remarkable in its energy cost because of the remarkable number of neurons it has, because it’s a primate brain.
Therefore the human brain is not special. It’s just what is expected.
“She thinks because of our high neuron density, that humans have more cerebral neurons than whales, but it appears she’s been proven wrong and her theory is too simple.”
What? No?
Primate brains have higher neuron density than other families.
Even if whales have a higher number of neurons, humans have almost just as much packed into a much smaller brain. The density is enormous, this allows for quicker and more efficient connections.
Am I really the only one here who understands that damn paper?
I didn’t read the whole paper but I did see in this article by her:
So what do we have that no other animal has? A remarkable number of neurons in the cerebral cortex, the largest around, attainable by no other species, I say
http://nautil.us/issue/35/boundaries/the-paradox-of-the-elephant-brain
And also in her TED talk:
So what is the human advantage? What is it that we have that no other animal has? My answer is that we have the largest number of neurons in the cerebral cortex, and I think that’s the simplest explanation for our remarkable cognitive abilities.
So her theory seems to be that it’s the number of cerebral neurons that makes humans smartest, not the neuron density. In fact she says:
And there, if you do the math, you find that a generic primate with 86 billion neurons would have a brain of about 1.2 kilos, which seems just right, in a body of some 66 kilos, which in my case is exactly right…
So human neuron density is identical to that of an average primate. That’s not what makes us smart according to her. It’s the absolute number in the cerebral cortex, except she seems to have been proven wrong, since whales surpass us there.
“Am I really the only one here who understands that damn paper?”
I do as well. That’s the conclusion I drew from it. They have less neurons than expected for their body size while humans have more in comparison.
I hope Herculano-Houzel emails me back so I can get her professional analysis in her area of expertise.
“So her theory seems to be that it’s the number of cerebral neurons that makes humans smartest, not the neuron density. In fact she says:”
Jesus pumpkin no, you’re misinterpreting her work, You should at least read the shit before you criticize it.
She showed in 2007 That primates(including humans) had a neuron count/Brain size ratio of 1:1 Whereas in rodents and other similar animals it was 1:5
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/9/3562
Meaning when she said in 2012: “with a relatively enlarged cerebral cortex that does not have a relatively larger number of brain neurons yet is remarkable in its cognitive abilities and metabolism simply because of its extremely large number of neurons.”
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/Supplement_1/10661
She is talking about WITHIN the primate family(if not she doesn’t understand her own paper’s implications)
“So human neuron density is identical to that of an average primate. That’s not what makes us smart according to her. It’s the absolute number in the cerebral cortex, except she seems to have been proven wrong, since whales surpass us there.”
Long finned pilot whales have the most neocortical neurons of any species. As you mentioned before. But they do not share the same density.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-finned_pilot_whale#Anatomy_and_morphology
You might like this: http://www.evoanth.net/2012/07/03/humans-have-giant-chimp-brains/
“A bigger concern I have (and did not list earlier, what a twist!) is that other research is revealing other changes to the human brain that would not be picked up by just counting cells. SRGAP2 mutations, for example, seem to have changed the very cells themselves! As such there may well be “hidden” differences between humans and primates.”
Jesus pumpkin no, you’re misinterpreting her work, You should at least read the shit before you criticize it.
I admit I haven’t fully read her paper, but her quotes speak for themselves. She’s pretty clear in asserting that the reason we’re the smartest is we have the most cerebral neurons. Period.
I think you’re reading into her paper more than she intended to say.
But maybe she can salvage her theory by embracing your interpretation. Perhaps humans have the most cerebral neurons multiplied by neuron density of any other animal.
“Perhaps humans have the most cerebral neurons multiplied by neuron density of any other animal.”
Along with a higher neuron packing density. As well as more neurons in the frontal cortex iirc. I have my book next to me but I’m too lazy at the moment to get a quote.
And the long-finned whale has slightly less neurons than expected for its body size. Humans and harbor porpoises have more per weight.
“I admit I haven’t fully read her paper, but her quotes speak for themselves. She’s pretty clear in asserting that the reason we’re the smartest is we have the most cerebral neurons. Period.
I think you’re reading into her paper more than she intended to say.”
You may be taking it out of context.
“Additionally, the so-called overdeveloped human cerebral cortex holds only 19% of all brain neurons, a fraction that is similar to that found in other mammals. In what regards absolute numbers of neurons, however, the human brain does have two advantages compared to other mammalian brains: compared to rodents, and probably to whales and elephants as well, it is built according to the very economical, space-saving scaling rules that apply to other primates; and, among economically built primate brains, it is the largest, hence containing the most neurons. These findings argue in favor of a view of cognitive abilities that is centered on absolute numbers of neurons, rather than on body size or encephalization, and call for a re-examination of several concepts related to the exceptionality of the human brain.”
Also Long finned pilot whales only have more neurons in the cerebral cortex not the whole brain.
I think elephants have the most neurons of any animal.
“But maybe she can salvage her theory by embracing your interpretation. Perhaps humans have the most cerebral neurons multiplied by neuron density of any other animal.”
We could prove this by doing similar math as race realist.
The surface are of the cerebral cortex in humans is 2500 cm while in the pilot whale it is 5800 cm.
https://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/facts.html
Assuming the relationship is additive:
long finned pilot whales have 50% more cortical neurons than us despite having over 100% larger surface areas in the corresponding regions. I think it’s safe to assume that humans had more neuron density.
To obtain this 26 IQ you didn’t use EQ but simple cranial capacity. What if you used EQ instead, chimps average IQ would be lower or higher ?
The graph was based on cranial capacity not EQ since all the human races in the chart were of similar size.
But when estimating the IQ of chimps from
the line of best fit, i did not use the real chimp cranial capacity of 400 cc, but rather the CC chimps would have if they were as big as people: about 498 cc
You are not HBD PP, I guess some HBDers would disagree with your stats.
I found interesting to see what is the IQ we should expect from a group’s life expectancy for people born in 2015 (The expected IQs are those of people born that year), taking white Americans as the standard and I came with these results:
Whites:
-White Americans: 79 years, IQ 100
-White Americans born in 1950: 69,1 years, IQ 87
-France: 82,4 years, IQ 104
-Germany: 81 years, IQ 102
-Russia: 70,5 years, IQ 89
Yellows:
-Japan: 83,7 years, IQ 106
-China: 76,1 years, IQ 96
-Indonesia: 69,1 years, IQ 87
New world browns:
-Mexicans: 76,7 years, IQ 97
-Hispanic Americans: 81,8 years, IQ 104
-Brazilians: 75 years, IQ 95
-Native Americans: 74,6 years, IQ 94
-Greenlanders: 70 years, IQ 89
Old world Browns:
-Indians: 68,3 years, IQ 86
-Egyptians: 70,9 years, IQ 90
-Israeli: 82,5 years, IQ 104
-Moroccans: 74,3 years, IQ 94
Blacks:
-Nigerians: 54,5 years, IQ 69
-Kenyans: 63,4 years, IQ 80
-African Americans: 75,2 years, IQ 95
-African Americans born in 1950: 60,8 years, IQ 77
-Barbadians: 75,5 years, IQ 96
-Haitians: 63,5 years, IQ 80
-Australian Aborigines: 71,4 years, IQ 90
What’s the point?
The point is that difference in life expectancy between countries and eras are strongly related to differences in IQ. Obviously, death causes vary between countries and life expectancy is a rough estimate of health status. But controlling for life expectancy is a good way to understand population differences in IQ
Ah, ok. Incidentally, I think the blogger Jayman once pointed out that the relation between life expectancy and IQ was entirely mediated by reaction time.
Jayman is a moron, health, especially pre-natal and early infancy health, has a direct impact on cognitive development. Controlling for infant mortality might show an even stronger correlation between health and IQ than life expectancy alone, which includes factors that influence health at later age. the Mediterranean paradox might be one of them and the IQs of hispanics should be lower than what we expect from life expectancy. But hispanics also have better peri-natal outcomes than whites, so that’s a complex issue.
“Jayman is a moron, health, especially pre-natal and early infancy health, has a direct impact on cognitive development”
This.
Pregnant women pass on protein deficiencies to their children.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3905637/
Lack of pertinent vitamins and minerals, b vitamins, etc, leads to antisocial behavior and lower cognition.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041117005027.htm
Countries should be monitored for a decrease in parasites and disease as they develop to see if there will be a rise in IQ. (There should be.)
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2010/06/29/rspb.2010.0973.full
I think intergroup variation in IQ must be entirely due to prenatal and childhood health (including nutrition), education and culture
2.
South Asia has a lower disease burden (of iq-depressing diseases like malaria, hookworm, and several others) than Africa. And many iq estimates of Africa are closer to 76 (81 according to Jelte Winchert’s analysis.). Many, including Richard Lynn have posited that malnutrition and disease burden may lower iq to arround 15 points.
The disease burden levels of South Asia are similar to many places in the Caribbean. Many of these Caribbean islands have measured iq’s in the 80s or closer to 80(according to Jason Malloy’s more accurate analyses), rather than 70/low 70s. Jamaica for instance, scores 81, rather than 72 as claimed by Lynn (not far from the low 80’s scores usually given for India and Pakistan).
for example; Jamaica
http://humanvarieties.org/2013/03/01/hvgiq-jamaica/
Some earlier Caribbean iq re-estimates
https://z139.wordpress.com/2012/09/08/caribbean-national-iq-re-estimates/
In many cases, the more mixed Caribbean countries (like; Puerto Rico, The Dominican republic, Belize, Guyana; with some in the 70’s) do not score higher, or they score lower, than more black ones (such as; Dominica, the Bahamas, Barbados, Jamaica).
It may be that over history, disease burdens in some of these places were less (have fluctuated over time). There is some evidence that in parts of Africa, changes in settlement patterns over the last century or so have worsened infection rates (some environments conditions may have contributed—in other cases they may have had the reverse effect or little at all.
I agree that culture and nutrition play also a, likely often significant, role (along with other possible factors which may or may not include genetic ones).
1. (meant to come before 2.. 1. did not show up, maybe a problem with the links. So I have deleted one and “rewritten another”)
In terms of disease burden, Africa is generally very high—though it is possible that it fluctuated in the past, depending on settlement patterns. etc.. (figure label in the link below labeled “Global Infectious Disease Deaths by Region 2004” from the work of Christopher Eppig, near top,)
http://affordablehousinginstitute(dot)org/blogs/us/2010/08/sickness-makes-you-stupid(dot)html
The Bahamas (90% black) have a significant disease burden (3.47) despite being relatively wealthy for the Caribbean, but a higher measured iq score (93, according to the most up-to-date analysis from Jason Maloy) than India (81-82) whose disease burden is only a little higher at 3.79 (but scores similarly in iq to some other South/South East Asian countries with similar disease burden scores (I speculate that this may relate to a relatively lower rate of malaria in particular in the Bahamas than elsewhere in the Caribbean, Africa, India etc, but I could be wrong.) (All/virtually all Africa’s disease burden scores are higher than S. Asia’s; being mostly about 4.30-40 and up).
Jamaica’s (and a few other Caribbean countries’) disease score 3.22 and iq (81 according to Malloy’s more accurate analysis of Lynn’s data) correlation, however seem to (albeit) roughly parallel those of India and Pakistan also low 80’s.
So the correlation (iq depressing disease to iq score) seems to be a reasonably good one (as Eppig contends) so far (as far as I can tell).
http://humanvarieties.org/2013/03/12/hvgiq-the-bahamas/
http://humanvarieties.org/2013/03/01/hvgiq-jamaica/
(I speculate that difference of the correlation in the Bahamas and S.E. Asia vs in India may relate to a relatively lower rate of malaria in particular in the Bahamas than elsewhere in the Caribbean, Africa, India etc, but I could be wrong.)”
Edit: “…deleted one and “rewritten another”; the “dot”s of course should be “.”‘s/periods)”
And the two posts above are to Afrosapiens.
For reference, I linked the Epigg paper above.
Edit: “Many, including Richard Lynn have posited that malnutrition and disease burden can lower iq up to arround 15 points.”
Agreed with all of the above comments. Although we can attack the robustness of international IQ estimates, we see that few groups have IQs very different from what is expected from life expectancy. Moreover, Flynn effect gains mirror life expectancy gains.
Using more accurate IQ estimates, as well as refined health variables and accounting for education leaves very little room for genetic explanations.
Using more accurate IQ estimates, as well as refined health variables and accounting for education leaves very little room for genetic explanations.
This can only work if you control for genetics. That is, if you need to compare people of the same genetic background but who differ on socio-health variables to see how much of an effect socio-health variables have on IQ independent of genes.
You can start for example by comparing African Americans to black Africans, since the two might be expected to have similar genetic IQs but differ greatly on actual IQ scores. This difference can be presumed virtually 100% environmental, and thus used to measure the effect size of a unit of environmental difference.
“This can only work if you control for genetics. That is, if you need to compare people of the same genetic background but who differ on socio-health variables to see how much of an effect socio-health variables have on IQ independent of genes.”
IQ gains caused by immigration is a well documented phenomenon. But controlling for health and education variables alone is a good way to assess the level of international variation that is due to environmental factors.
Ah, ok. Incidentally, I think the blogger Jayman once pointed out that the relation between life expectancy and IQ was entirely mediated by reaction time.
how does that even make sense?
“how does that even make sense?”
I don’t know but see, that’s not the only thing that makes no sense, PPs post makes no sense. He removed his estimates for Australoids, Pygmies and Bushmen on the basis that testing the IQ of hunter-gatherer intelligence makes no sense and I agree with that. But he only did that for his model to best predict chimpanzee’s intelligence which makes even less sense than testing the IQ of non-western underdeveloped populations.And it’s disappointing that PP is not even trying to look more into the relationship between national IQ and health indicators.
I don’t know but see, that’s not the only thing that makes no sense, PPs post makes no sense. He removed his estimates for Australoids, Pygmies and Bushmen on the basis that testing the IQ of hunter-gatherer intelligence makes no sense and I agree with that. But he only did that for his model to best predict chimpanzee’s intelligence which makes even less sense than testing the IQ of non-western underdeveloped populations.
I disagree. I think scientists have ironically done a better job measuring the intelligence of non-humans than they have of pre-literate peoples. The reason is with pre-literate humans, it’s assumed that since they’re human, they have basic test sophistication and motivation, when James Flynn has explained that pre-literates live in the here and now, and struggle to take hypothetical abstract problems seriously.
But when testing animals, the problems are made much more practical and directly relevant. The animal must use his wits to get the food which is a practical problem that he’s intrinsically motivated to solve.
And it’s disappointing that PP is not even trying to look more into the relationship between national IQ and health indicators.
It’s not enough to merely show a correlation between national IQ and national environment. You also have to show the correlation is causal. I do have strong causal evidence that whatever is stunting height in sub-Saharan Africa has subtracted about 7 IQ points, and low schooling and low parental schooling is subtracting far more.
Hey Afrosapiens.
I remember reading something a while back saying that some researchers asked a hunter gatherer African tribe to sort things based on usefulness. Iirc they put spoons with forks and the like. Then they asked how would a stupid person do it? They then did it how we would.
Do you know what study I’m talking about? What are your thoughts on that?
I know this study, though as I recall it was West African farmers (Kpelle or Mende) instead of hunter-gatherers who are all pygmies or bushmen in Africa.
They made practical instead of abstract categorizations, which is normal at their level of technological development.
But I was still surprised because Niger-Congo languages have their grammar based on complex abstract noun-classes, so abstract classification exists somewhere in their intellect but they may not find it relevant to their daily life.
Anyway, that must be the kind of thing that make international IQ comparisons difficult to interpret.
I think you we referring to this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kpelle_people#Psychological_research
“I disagree. I think scientists have ironically done a better job measuring the intelligence of non-humans than they have of pre-literate peoples.”
You can’t translate animal cognitive test results into human IQs, some animals outperform us in some tasks but are way below (or just untestable) on most. That makes the notion of animal IQ absolutely ridiculous.
“I disagree. I think scientists have ironically done a better job measuring the intelligence of non-humans than they have of pre-literate peoples.”
Had you read the links above you’d have seen that there is abundant evidence that this correlation is causal. However, you have no issue assuming the much lower brain size – IQ correlation is completely causal to group differences.
“I do have strong causal evidence that whatever is stunting height in sub-Saharan Africa has subtracted about 7 IQ points,”
What matters is what stunts brain growth, not height.
“and low schooling and low parental schooling is subtracting far more.”
Education is thought to have less importance than early development health.
Second quote was:
“It’s not enough to merely show a correlation between national IQ and national environment. You also have to show the correlation is causal.”
Are you familiar with the Hispanic/Mediterranean paradox? it’s the finding that Hispanic-Americans and people in the Mediterranean tend to live much longer than you would expect given their socioeconomic status.
The Mediterranean paradox has to do with my speciality, diet.
It has to do with their high fat, high oil diet. High in fish and other outstanding brain nutrients. The Mediterranean diet is outstanding for life expectancy. And it’s called the French paradox.
Don’t quality matters to life expectancy, obviously. Look at the Okinawans. They ate fatty meats and natural cars and had the highest life expectancy in the world. They switched to a modern diet and what do ya know….. Life expectancy fellnbelow the Japanese average.
Almost as if diet quality dictates life quality and expectancy…..
Tldr, screw high carb diets. Eat high fat, low carb and moderate protein if you want o live longer. Use plenty of olive oils and fatty foods. The diet-heart hypothesis is wrong. Dietary fat doesn’t cause heart disease. Carbs cause diseases of civilization.
Matter of fact I’ll write on that tonight.
Yes I am, I live in a romance speaking Mediterranean country, we brag a lot about our healthy diet.
RR I’ve recently Los tried my appetite for some unknown reason. I only ate one meal yesterday and just forgot to eat the rest of the day. Haven’t eaten today. Is this bad for me? I’m gonna try to force myself to eat.
lost my appetite *
“RR I’ve recently Los tried my appetite for some unknown reason. I only ate one meal yesterday and just forgot to eat the rest of the day. Haven’t eaten today. Is this bad for me? I’m gonna try to force myself to eat.”
You’re fine. I regularly fast for 2 days every week. More free time (I need to find some time to comment here =^) ), less time spent cooking and eating and more time spent getting my daily responsibilities done.
I remember before I came to fasting, and I was too busy—literally—to eat all day. I thought I was doing damage. Then when I understood how we evolved eating, then it all made sense to me. Give a read:
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/02/01/how-did-man-evolve-to-eat/
You should never force yourself to eat. You should only eat when you’re hungry and stop when you’re full.
I forget to eat too sometimes. I love it. Just black coffee (black cold brew. Black coffee or go home) and just get things done. Longest I’ve went fasting is 2 days, I’m going to try 3 days this week. Tuesday, Wednesday and break my fast Thursday night. Lose weight, get the health benefits of fasting, and save time AND money because you have more free time not cooking, eating and thinking about your next meal.
If you’re a busy person, fasting is the best!
You should read Dr. Jason Fung’s blog, he’s a world expert on fasting. He also released his fasting book in October. I have it (of course), it’s great.
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/
RR I read his book so I’m aware of the benefits of fasting but one of my goals is to get toned. I’m skinny already. I’m scared that fasting will make me lose the little muscle I do have.
“get toned”
Never say this again.
You mean you want to gain muscle. Eat right and hit the gym with a sensible program.
“I’m scared that fasting will make me lose the little muscle I do have.”
So you didn’t read his book?
Haha I read it a while ago. Kinda forgot some of it.
Thats it! Visualise being skinny!
As a person of species, I resent having a white woman chastise me like that in public. Our ancestors were deforested against their will.
RR, The mediterranian diet is high in mono-unsaturated fat (olive oil) and omega 3 kind of poly-unsaturated fat (fish and walnuts) They are not rich in other kinds of fat. These mono and omega 3 are the best kind of fats for the heart and brain. So assuming that med diet is rich in all kinds of fat so people should eat fat is wrong. Its the kind if fat that matters. But i agree with your assessment on carbs.
I’m getting into it with someone on twitter. Grab some popcorn.
I hate twitter. It’s impossible to have a drawn out conversation.
That’s unreadable, bring that guy here.
I just sent him the link to this thread.
I don’t know instances of outright fraud in HBD research, HBd is fraudulent by cherry-picking and misinterpreting data. I also suspect strong reporting bias because the Pioneer fund has been created more than 50 years ago to “prove the negro is inferior to the white man” yet pioneer fund “scientists” have provided very little first-hand data that fulfills the Fund’s goal.
Stop bullying people. Where’s our bouncer?
PP, Your chart should take into account the population. That is why it is hard to find the IQ of chimpanzees. I doubt that each race has the same number of people so this would change the outcome.
Whites
1487 / 100 = 14.87
Chimpanzees
498 / 35 = 14.22
Taking the amount of mass a brain has; every 14.5cc of mass should equate to one IQ point in adults. This should be the average.
Also,
Metabolic efficiency should a factor in IQ. Cooking gave us more energy to think when it was invented. Cells that need less energy to do the same amount of work would mean they can use the extra energy to do more.