PDA

View Full Version : Smarter Brains Are Blood-Thirsty Brains.



JMcB
09-02-2016, 03:28 AM
Smarter Brains Are Blood-Thirsty Brains.

11315

A University of Adelaide-led project has overturned the theory that the evolution of human intelligence was simply related to the size of the brain -- but rather linked more closely to the supply of blood to the brain.

http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/smarter-brains-are-blood-thirsty-brains-006565

tippy
09-02-2016, 10:13 AM
I think the idea that brain-size correlates to intelligence has been discredited for a long time now.

Amerijoe
09-02-2016, 11:38 AM
I think the idea that brain-size correlates to intelligence has been discredited for a long time now.

The small brain society backs this conclusion.:nod:

kevinduffy
09-02-2016, 02:20 PM
I think the idea that brain-size correlates to intelligence has been discredited for a long time now.

I think you may be wrong about that.

tippy
09-02-2016, 02:36 PM
I think you may be wrong about that.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4127475/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245536567_The_Evolution_of_Large_Brain_Size_in_Mam mals_The_'Over-700-Gram_Club_Quartet'

Recent research suggests that intelligence is more related to how the brain is 'wired' or the way that synapses are organised - as well as blood supply etc. The idea that brain size correlates to intelligence in mammals and humans is an older idea and newer studies seem to be going the other way.

Amerijoe
09-02-2016, 03:38 PM
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4127475/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245536567_The_Evolution_of_Large_Brain_Size_in_Mam mals_The_'Over-700-Gram_Club_Quartet'

Recent research suggests that intelligence is more related to how the brain is 'wired' or the way that synapses a
re organised - as well as blood supply etc. The idea that brain size correlates to intelligence in mammals and humans is an older idea and newer studies seem to be going the other way.

Albert Einstein's brain weighed less than average. His difference were extra glial cells which make up 90% of the brain. A type of glial cell called the astrocyte located in the cortex, may be where brain power and creativity reside. Einstein had the ability to visualize his mathematical thoughts. He also had many more connections between hemispheres.

Size in Einstein's case didn't matter. It was the proportion of ingredients and structure. By the way Einstein is an honorary member of the small brain society.

CannabisErectusHibernius
06-09-2017, 05:50 PM
Nine out of ten Neanderthal intellectuals agree that size doesn't matter.

Pappy
08-13-2017, 03:43 AM
I read that cooking meat made us smarter and healthier.

Robert1
08-13-2017, 06:25 AM
Ha! I first took the thread title, Smarter Brains Are Blood-Thirsty Brains, another way - Blood-Thirsty predators being smarter than poor Bambi, which tends to be true. And as we've become smarter we certainly have become better at spilling more and more blood.

skyyrie
04-04-2018, 07:29 AM
oh,it means modern human cant grow higher,because of gravity,the higher men grow,the more powerful the heart has to be.

Aleph
10-20-2019, 03:22 PM
Smarter Brains Are Blood-Thirsty Brains.

11315

A University of Adelaide-led project has overturned the theory that the evolution of human intelligence was simply related to the size of the brain -- but rather linked more closely to the supply of blood to the brain.

http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/smarter-brains-are-blood-thirsty-brains-006565

That is true in the long run, but among humans today there is a positive correlation between brain size and intelligence. In order for that to be overturned you would need to find an extensive study which finds a negative correlation or something like that. With that being said- the brain size alone only accounts for some of the variance, I would like to add something else to this thread:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04268-8
Looks like low density also helps. So one would still expect a random person with a more massive, well structured and lower density brain to be more intelligent than a smaller and denser brained person.

Perhaps you can also expect a person with a regular brain mass and low brain density to be more intelligent than someone who has an above average brain mass without the low brain density (and less optimal organization).

Milkyway
10-21-2019, 09:31 AM
No, brain size is not necessarily related to intelligence (let's not forget that there are many types of intelligence). Birds are well-known to have tiny brains, yet some species like ravens are even more intelligent than your average dog or rat. Ravens and crows are said to have the cognitive abilities of a seven-year-old human. So they're not stupid, what happens is that their brains are organized differently (there's less space between neurons in birds and reptiles in general than in mammals). Men also have on average bigger brains than women and they aren't more intelligent as a whole.

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-06-term-bird-brain.html
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/mar/26/crows-reasoning-ability-seven-year-old-humans

Alanson
10-21-2019, 11:12 AM
No, brain size is not necessarily related to intelligence (let's not forget that there are many types of intelligence). Birds are well-known to have tiny brains, yet some species like ravens are even more intelligent than your average dog or rat. Ravens and crows are said to have the cognitive abilities of a seven-year-old human. So they're not stupid, what happens is that their brains are organized differently (there's less space between neurons in birds and reptiles in general than in mammals). Men also have on average bigger brains than women and they aren't more intelligent as a whole.

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-06-term-bird-brain.html
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/mar/26/crows-reasoning-ability-seven-year-old-humans

True. Bird brains are different in terms of physiology and etc in comparison to Mammalian brains, but that doesn't mean they're less intelligent than Mammals considering that there are bird species that can even outperform Apes in intelligence. People back in the day claim that Dinosaurs are not intelligent due to them having smaller brain cases than Mammals, and yet, Birds are considered to be living Dinosaurs which greatly suggest that non-Avian Dinosaurs would have been much more intelligent than previously thought.

Aleph
10-22-2019, 08:22 PM
No, brain size is not necessarily related to intelligence (let's not forget that there are many types of intelligence). Birds are well-known to have tiny brains, yet some species like ravens are even more intelligent than your average dog or rat. Ravens and crows are said to have the cognitive abilities of a seven-year-old human. So they're not stupid, what happens is that their brains are organized differently (there's less space between neurons in birds and reptiles in general than in mammals). Men also have on average bigger brains than women and they aren't more intelligent as a whole.

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-06-term-bird-brain.html
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/mar/26/crows-reasoning-ability-seven-year-old-humans

Within humans there is an small, yet consistently positive correlation between brain size and IQ. Pretty much every study that I have seen claims that a small part of the variation in intelligence comes from brain size. Women's brains are arranged differently and so you have to account for that (though they do seem to have a lower variance than men do- maybe a byproduct of this arrangement). Though brain size would also include non-neurons (thus weakening the correlation between brain size and intelligence), so neural count and neural arrangement when accounted for properly will account for a much larger variance than raw brain size alone.

Your second link shows that crows can match 5 to 7 year olds in one specific class of tasks. I don't think that they will do all that well in a bunch of other tasks associated with general intelligence and learning. Animals having some understanding of basic causality isn't surprising since animals and like birds and mammals also have a basic sense of numeracy (but all of that is fairly basic). Speaking of smart birds, the first link says that there is perhaps a relation between neural number and intelligence, which is why birds are smarter than what we would expect given their cranial capacity- they have smaller neurons which aren't as few in number as one would expect. It literally argues for a link between a high neural count and intelligence. Maybe if birds like crows had large neurons (with the same cranial capacity and hence a lower number of total neurons) they would't be as smart as they are.

Though I have yet to see a source which shows that neural size in humans can vary as much as the variance between mammal neurons and bird neurons, so the smaller human brains probably don't have a large number of small neurons that birds have.

From the first link:
"Scientists were left with a generally unsatisfactory fallback position: Avian brains must simply be wired in a completely different fashion from primate brains. Two years ago, even this hypothesis was knocked down by a detailed study of pigeon brains, which concluded that they are, in fact, organized along quite similar lines to those of primates.

The new study provides a more plausible explanation: Birds can perform these complex behaviors because birds' forebrains contain a lot more neurons than any one had previously thought - as many as in mid-sized primates."
High neural count (based on broader observations of many species) + low neural density (as seen in comparison between different humans-> which in turn is associated with a more efficient neural structure) seem to be the key to high intelligence.

Milkyway
10-23-2019, 09:48 AM
Within humans there is an small, yet consistently positive correlation between brain size and IQ. Pretty much every study that I have seen claims that a small part of the variation in intelligence comes from brain size. Women's brains are arranged differently and so you have to account for that (though they do seem to have a lower variance than men do- maybe a byproduct of this arrangement). Though brain size would also include non-neurons (thus weakening the correlation between brain size and intelligence), so neural count and neural arrangement when accounted for properly will account for a much larger variance than raw brain size alone.

Your second link shows that crows can match 5 to 7 year olds in one specific class of tasks. I don't think that they will do all that well in a bunch of other tasks associated with general intelligence and learning. Animals having some understanding of basic causality isn't surprising since animals and like birds and mammals also have a basic sense of numeracy (but all of that is fairly basic). Speaking of smart birds, the first link says that there is perhaps a relation between neural number and intelligence, which is why birds are smarter than what we would expect given their cranial capacity- they have smaller neurons which aren't as few in number as one would expect. It literally argues for a link between a high neural count and intelligence. Maybe if birds like crows had large neurons (with the same cranial capacity and hence a lower number of total neurons) they would't be as smart as they are.

Though I have yet to see a source which shows that neural size in humans can vary as much as the variance between mammal neurons and bird neurons, so the smaller human brains probably don't have a large number of small neurons that birds have.

From the first link:
"Scientists were left with a generally unsatisfactory fallback position: Avian brains must simply be wired in a completely different fashion from primate brains. Two years ago, even this hypothesis was knocked down by a detailed study of pigeon brains, which concluded that they are, in fact, organized along quite similar lines to those of primates.

The new study provides a more plausible explanation: Birds can perform these complex behaviors because birds' forebrains contain a lot more neurons than any one had previously thought - as many as in mid-sized primates."
High neural count (based on broader observations of many species) + low neural density (as seen in comparison between different humans-> which in turn is associated with a more efficient neural structure) seem to be the key to high intelligence.

I recall that there might be an association between brain size and muscular mass. That'd explain why the Neanderthals had bigger brains (on average) than modern humans without being (necessarily) smarter. Same between men and women. Of course, we can't extrapolate what's observed in birds to humans because the latter are mammals, and their brains are wired differently. Then you have the example of marine mammals: their brains are also big when compared to those of humans, but it seems that echolocation takes a lot of brain power, so they're not necessarily smarter...

Aleph
10-26-2019, 02:16 AM
I recall that there might be an association between brain size and muscular mass. That'd explain why the Neanderthals had bigger brains (on average) than modern humans without being (necessarily) smarter. Same between men and women. Of course, we can't extrapolate what's observed in birds to humans because the latter are mammals, and their brains are wired differently. Then you have the example of marine mammals: their brains are also big when compared to those of humans, but it seems that echolocation takes a lot of brain power, so they're not necessarily smarter...

Well yes you also need a bigger brain to manage a more voluminous/larger body. Which is why raw brain size doesn't tell you much (but it still has a small positive correlation regardless of all of the other factors that influence brain size). The point is, pretty much everything that I have seen (including the links presented in this thread) affirm that neural count (do not conflate this with glial cell count) and neural arrangement (aided with lower density at least in humans) have a positive correlation with intelligence.

As for raw size- as said earlier: non-neurons do add on to that, and as you have just mentioned- a larger body size would need to be accounted for as well. So, say you have person A and person B both with a ~1600 gram brain (and equal cranial capacity) with an equal number of total neurons and glial cells- if person A is significantly smaller (in body size) than person B, then you would expect person A to probably be smarter than person B- though this would assume that person B doesn't have a significantly better neural arrangement to make up for the extra size disadvantage (or maybe even go so far as to make B smarter than A).