/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11292931]

Does head/brain size have a correlation with intelligence?

[Anonymous No.11292939]

yes
https://twitter.com/stuartjritchie/status/879679668869369856?lang=en

[Anonymous No.11292941]

[Anonymous No.11293103]

>>11292931
yes

[Anonymous No.11293173]

No, otherwise babies would be smarter than anyone else

[Anonymous No.11293203]

>>11292931
Yes, but it's so small, you can safely ignore it.

[Anonymous No.11293370]

>>11292931
i want to fill her womb up

[Anonymous No.11293407]

>>11292931
Yes and no. Once the size reachs a certain threshold (with in the normal distribution of circumstances basically) it doesn't matter. People with severe autism(basically so socially retarded that they can't be taught, so they are basically retarded) and other genetic disorders have very big heads to make of that what you will

[Anonymous No.11293424]

>>11292931
Oh my dear um haha your ahh hmmm yess sorry oh my well your bre... that is... I mean to say... I"M GUNNA COOOOOOOOOOOM AHHHHHHH I"M COOOOOOOOOOOOOOMING ALL OVER YOUR MILKY WHITE TITS AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH IT"S ALL OVER NOW LORD HAVE MERCY

[Anonymous No.11293436]

no but there is a very strong correlation between mammary volume and the volume of my penis

[Anonymous No.11293465]

Yes. The correlation is however not very large, think of it more as in a group of 1000 scientists, 501 have large heads and 499 have regular heads.
Keep in mind the density of the brain varies very greatly between individuals and therefore measuring the size of your head can be misleading, albeit determine if you have a slightly greater probability of being intelligent.

[Anonymous No.11293481]

[Anonymous No.11293517]

>>11293173

[Anonymous No.11293520]

>>11293424
>Oh my dear um haha your ahh hmmm yess sorry oh my well your bre... that is... I mean to say... I"M GUNNA COOOOOOOOOOOM AHHHHHHH I"M COOOOOOOOOOOOOOMING ALL OVER YOUR MILKY WHITE TITS AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH IT"S ALL OVER NOW LORD HAVE MERCY

actual description of what happened
>you are retarded

attempt at trolling
>you are retarded

making fun of OP for chosing a sexualized image
>you are retarded

No matter the viewpoint - it's always the same outcome.

[Anonymous No.11293730]

>>11292931
Pretty much 100%. Cerebellum size is also important.

People with small heads can compensate and gain higher IQ, but it makes them stupid in general, as it's at the cost of cutting more corners. Look at Feynman to how huge head you need for a genuine IQ~125.

[Anonymous No.11293743]

>>11292931
i dunno man

[Anonymous No.11293748]

>>11292939
>>11293103
>>11293465
>>11293730
>>11293517
Oops! This is a science board. I think you got lost on your way to your pseudoscience boards. That is ok! Here, let me help you out
>>>>/pol/
>>>>/biz/
>>>>/adv/
>>>>/r9k/

[Anonymous No.11293772]

>>11292931
What sort of quantum numbers is this megamind looking hoe crunching?

[Anonymous No.11293787]

>>11293748
>>11293730
It's the cause of the controversial IQ communication gap. Many people gain their IQ at the cost of severe cognitive dfects, high IQ tend to make bizarre logical errors and think irrationally. So when they speak they basically rely on having to predict the cognitive errors of others and compensate accordingly in order to succesfully communicate. So the communication between a lower IQ (or a naturally high IQ person) and a "high IQ" person leads to the low IQ person finding yourself unable to determine what the other person means (there seem too many equally likely possibilities what they could mean) and the "high IQ" person find him or herself constantly misled by the low IQ behavior (as they have no frame of reference to compensate for the "high IQ" person cognitive errors).

[Anonymous No.11293792]

>>11293748
>>11293730 (You)
It's the cause of the controversial IQ communication gap. Many people gain their IQ at the cost of severe cognitive defects, high IQ people tend to make bizarre logical errors and think irrationally. So when they speak they basically rely on having to predict the cognitive errors of others and compensate accordingly in order to succesfully communicate. So the communication between a lower IQ (or a naturally high IQ person) and a "high IQ" person leads to the low IQ person finding themselves unable to determine what the other person means (there seem too many equally likely possibilities of what they could mean) and the "high IQ" person find themself being constantly misled by the low IQ person's speech or behavior (as they have no frame of reference to compensate for the "high IQ"'s person cognitive errors).

[Anonymous No.11293816]

>>11293748
High IQ people make and expect others to make inferrences that are objectively impossible, which means their speech becomes too vague to be objectively comprehensible.

They also keep being misled by "unaffected" people because they deduce from what they do or say more than they objectively shoud. (other high IQ people intentionally modify their behavior in order not to be misleading to other high IQ people)

[Anonymous No.11293827]

>>11293792
>>11293816

High IQ = high ability to solve problems

Being constantly misunderstood by other people is a problem.

[Anonymous No.11293861]

>>11293827
The question is if it comes from a natural ability, or if it is forced on a brain that cannot cope with it, and if it comes from their solutions being objectively better, or if they score higher because they make similar errorrs and suffer similar biases as those who made the tests.

Many high IQ people have obvious perception defects, make irrational decisions and have literal and figurative tunnel vision.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysrationalia
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/visual-test-reveals-new-dimension-of-iq/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6396694/

[Anonymous No.11293870]

>>11293827
>high ability to solve problems
No. For one their mind may be to narrow for various kinds of problems. A schizo may be of more use.

[Anonymous No.11294097]

>>11292931
i hate this ho

[Anonymous No.11295135]

>>11293743
This is fake, like most china gifs

[Anonymous No.11295291]

>>11292931
not even xl sunglasses fit my head. my high school had to special order a football helmet for me. I am easily 180 iq.

[Anonymous No.11295327]

>>11293730
Feynman likely underestimated his own abilities, and that 125 number was from a verbal iq test. He was very well known for his humbleness. Despite this he consistently scored genius level marks on mathematical tests.

[Anonymous No.11296377]

As a baby, yes.
As an adult, not as much.
If you had a large neurocranium as a baby there seems to be a slightly larger chance of adult intelligence.
Of course, you'll still not be able to measure the density of your brain so it's not very accurate regardless.

[Anonymous No.11296389]

>>11293748
THANK YOU. I mean, seriously. How fucking crazy would you need to be to think that the organ responsible for intelligence and cognition being larger would result in increased smarts? Sounds like a fucking conspiracy theory to me. This guy in my pic, I don't get the impression that his intelligence comes from his giant forehead. You'd have to be a pseud to get that impression. Good post man!

[Anonymous No.11296776]

>>11293792
>Many people gain their IQ at the cost of severe cognitive defects
in my experience this isn't true. at which IQ level do you think this occurs?

>high IQ people tend to make bizarre logical errors and think irrationally
everyone is susceptible to this. the way more intelligent people make errors is more complex, but they can be just as fundamentally wrong.

I don't think there are "high IQ" and naturally high IQ people. You have IQ/intelligence and other factors like personality, character, and life experience. I've found that I can connect better with people that are high in openness like me and have similar life experiences (knowing what it's like to struggle or be an outcast). Intelligence then only determines the speed at which I can communicate with them. I've met some smart people at my university who wouldn't even consider anything controversial I told them, making it impossible to get anywhere with them. But the smartest guy I know is high in openness and doesn't have this "problem".

>>11293861
What makes you think intelligent people have these "obvious" defects at a higher rate than less intelligent people?

[Anonymous No.11296795]

>>11296776
>>Many people gain their IQ at the cost of severe cognitive defects
Madness

[Anonymous No.11297213]

>>11292931
Very much so

You will find the smartest people always have bigger than average heads.

[Anonymous No.11297249]

>>11293203
That's what she said.

[Anonymous No.11297476]

>>11293861
>https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/visual-test-reveals-new-dimension-of-iq/
>More intriguing was the fact that subjects who had higher IQ struggled more than other subjects to detect motion in the largest frame.
not true

here's a newer article by the same researcher: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289617302027
>1. Detecting motion direction is more difficult for large stimuli (spatial suppression).
>2. Time to detect motion direction was consistently related to intelligence.
>3. Spatial suppression was not related to intelligence.
>4. Reaction times and detection thresholds commonly predicted intelligence.
so intelligence only predicts performance positively.

[Anonymous No.11297477]

big tiddie milkers

[Anonymous No.11297491]

>>11297476
>Have visual snow
Guess I'm the smartest guy here.

[Anonymous No.11297527]

>>11292931
Within the same species, yes. But the correlation is not prefect(not always tru3)

[Anonymous No.11297533]

>>11292931
Cranial capacity has a strong correlation with visuospatial IQ, but not with verbal IQ.

https://www.unz.com/akarlin/cognitive-cliodynamics/

[Anonymous No.11297834]

>>11296776
>in my experience
Kill yourself, idiot.

[Anonymous No.11297880]

>>11292931
Yes, both of which correlate with height.

Manlets, when will they learn.

[Anonymous No.11297885]

>>11297533
>unz

[Anonymous No.11297913]

>>11293481
>the largest a female brain is still only similar to an 8 year old male
That explains a lot

[Anonymous No.11298272]

>>11297913
Based retard

[Anonymous No.11298279]

>>11292931
Pill me on this toth

[Anonymous No.11298280]

>>11296776
>in my experience this isn't true.
It might be virtually impossible to notice the errors in others if you make them yourself. In fact you may think of them as intelligent exactly because they make the same errors and "understand" the things you do.
> at which IQ level do you think this occurs?
With modern tests it's basically by definition. It used to be that you had some reasonable time limit, and the tests got progressively harder. Now the tests are trivial, and only the speed at which you solve them is measured. This overwhelmingly prefers people who focus on fast, simple thoughts and somebody who triple checks their results and considers multiple possible solutoons will be severelly disadvantaged over quick, lazy thinkers, who go with their first guess.

[Anonymous No.11298282]

>>11297476
>subjects who had higher IQ struggled more
>so intelligence only predicts performance positively.

[Anonymous No.11298284]

>>11292939
>using twitter as a source
Off yourself

[Anonymous No.11298286]

>>11293748
Based

[Anonymous No.11298308]

~120-130 IQ
62 centimeter head circumference

And you?

[Anonymous No.11298378]

>>11293481
>>11297913
Einstein's brain was significantly below average in weight

[Anonymous No.11298387]

>>11297885
Not an argument

[Anonymous No.11298594]

>>11292931
No. When will you fuckheads stop making these brain size circle jerk threads? How about i cave in your head with a sledgehammer?

[Anonymous No.11298713]

>>11292941
thank you

[Anonymous No.11298714]

>>11298280
if it's impossible to notice it yourself, then you'd need research to confirm it. so what research makes you suspect this?

if IQ tests are getting more dependent on convergent thinking and speed, their correlation with g would decrease. is there any data to confirm this?

[Anonymous No.11298762]

>>11298714
It's obvious to those who don't make the error, even though it may not be exactly obvious what exactly is the problem. See the picture.
>correlation with g
Doesn't g come primarily from IQ tests?

[Anonymous No.11298823]

>>11298762
I see what you're getting at with that picture, and I know the answer is A, but there are reasons many people (who haven't had some education in statistics/probability) answer B. Depending on the situation, being inclined to answer A can be just as much of a defect as answering B.

No, g is the factor that best correlates performances on cognitive tasks. You can use any task that tests cognitive abilities, including one that rewards deep. long, and divergent thinking. IQ tests focus on convergent thinking and speed, because answers to those questions are simple and fast to check. You could create a series of tests that require deep/lateral/divergent thought, and rank-order the test subjects as to get a score comparable to IQ (call it IQ2). Maybe IQ and IQ2 would correlate only marginally, and you'd be right. That would then also mean that g correlates marginally to all cognitive tasks, but if you'd split g up in g_convergent and g_divergent you'd get high correlations again.

My suspicion is that there is difference in people's ability to think convergent or divergent, but that it's more of a result of personality (openness and orderliness) and that g (general/overall intelligence) still matters most. That is, someone scoring 130 on an IQ test focused on convergent thinking, will always be better at divergent thinking than someone with an IQ of 100.

[Anonymous No.11299066]

>>11298308
57 cm head circumference, not to mention my overall head volume is low too, probably below average cause I've got a kinda flat head.

my IQ is only 110-115. So yeah head size is probably important.

[Anonymous No.11299080]

>>11299066
It's ok bro, 58 cm head here, I don't know my IQ, but your head-size likely has 0 actual bearing on your intelligence. Thankfully I'm blessed(cursed) with a long head and a high forehead, consider yourself lucky, that if you go bald you won't look funny.

[Anonymous No.11299084]

>>11293465
>in a group of 1000 scientists, 501 have large heads and 499 have regular heads.
And the question remains: can we tell, that those regular heads scientists don't deserve to be in that group? Because I know that in science also the majority is morons, but is there any connection with the size of their skulls?

[Anonymous No.11299696]

>>11298823
how about <<<<

>Depending on the situation, being inclined to answer A can be just as much of a defect as answering B.
please explain

[Anonymous No.11299775]

>>11299696
I'd answer that they all need to be turned over, because the rule applies to all cards, and if, for example, the "D" card has 3 on the back the rule is false.

The mathematically correct answer A is more useful if you take everything that's been said very literal and you want to figure out probability in the sense of population statistics. Which is more useful in say, social research.
The casually correct, more intuitive, answer B is more useful if you want to know whether Linda is more likely to be a feminist relative to others.
The reason that many people would go for B probably has to with an evolutionary advantage of viewing probability in the world that way.
The defect of being inclined to answer A is that you get in trouble when you're technically correct but completely missing the point. For example, your partner is very upset that you "never take the trash out", and you respond with "that's a lie. that is not true. I took the trash out last month once.". You're technically correct, but you're not doing your relationship any good.

I think that if you're dealing with large complex problems, you'd probably need people who are actually different in these things to address both sides.

[Anonymous No.11299780]

W/ respect to body size.

[Anonymous No.11299837]

>>11299775
>and if, for example, the "D" card has 3 on the back the rule is false.
wrong
>The casually correct, more intuitive, answer B is more useful if you want to know whether Linda is more likely to be a feminist relative to others.
No it isn't.
>an evolutionary advantage
an evolutionary advantage of being wrong?

[Anonymous No.11299867]

>>11299837
>>and if, for example, the "D" card has 3 on the back the rule is false.
>>wrong
ah, you're right. I've re-read it. the rule only says "if A then 3" and not "if 3 then also A". so you'd need to check 3 out of 4 cards: "A", "D", and "7". you don't need to check "3", because no matter what's on the back, the rule stays true.

>>The casually correct, more intuitive, answer B is more useful if you want to know whether Linda is more likely to be a feminist relative to others.
>No it isn't.
Yes, it is. It is very useful for people to judge others, predict what they're like, how you should interact with them, and what you can expect of them.

>an evolutionary advantage of being wrong?
Good job completely missing the point, and not even trying to consider what I'm saying. It's quite ironic that you're claiming to have a superior naturally high IQ without cognitive defects, while coming across very narrow-focused and close-minded.

[Anonymous No.11299895]

>>11299867

>Yes, it is. It is very useful for people to judge others, predict what they're like, how you should interact with them, and what you can expect of them.
I meant it isn't useful if you want to know whether Linda is more likely to be a feminist relative to others, and no, it isn't very useful being wrong about other people.

> It's quite ironic that
It's quite ironic that you imply you are highly intelligent, when you first agreed that the D card is not needed, then you removed the 3 card from the list. Your thinking is a total mess.

[Anonymous No.11299920]

>>11299895
>I meant it isn't useful if you want to know whether Linda is more likely to be a feminist relative to others
of course it is. if you know that Linda participated in a bunch of sjw-shit, she's more likely to be a feminist than the average woman.

>It's quite ironic that you imply you are highly intelligent
Where did I do that?

>you first agreed that the D card is not needed, then you removed the 3 card from the list. Your thinking is a total mess.
What? No, I never said that checking the "D" card wasn't needed. In my first post I assumed that "if A then 3" and "if 3 then A". Then you pointed out that I shouldn't assume "if 3 then A", so I reconsidered.
And I wouldn't call being able to accept critique and being able to reconsider a "mess in thinking ability".

[Anonymous No.11299921]

>>11299867

>Yes, it is. It is very useful for people to judge others, predict what they're like, how you should interact with them, and what you can expect of them.
I meant it isn't useful if you want to know whether Linda is more likely to be a feminist relative to others, and no, it isn't very useful to make wild guesses about other people.

> It's quite ironic that
It's quite ironic that you imply you are highly intelligent, when you first agreed that the D card is not needed, then you removed the 3 card from the list. Your thinking is a total mess.

[Anonymous No.11299933]

>>11299920

>of course it is. if you know that Linda participated in a bunch of sjw-shit, she's more likely to be a feminist than the average woman.
And how is it useful to knwo that Linda is 25% likely to be a feminist, instead of 18%?
> I never said that checking the "D" card wasn't needed.
You did:
>>>and if, for example, the "D" card has 3 on the back the rule is false.
>>wrong
>ah, you're right.

> In my first post I assumed that "if A then 3" and "if 3 then A". Then you pointed out that I shouldn't assume "if 3 then A", so I reconsidered.
Why are you making so many assumptions? Your answer was still wrong.

>And I wouldn't call being able to accept critique and being able to reconsider a "mess in thinking ability".

No, you're a mess because you first agreed that one card isn't needed, then you included it in the lsit of cards that are needed two sentences later.

[Anonymous No.11299942]

>>11299920
ignore this

[Anonymous No.11299948]

>>11299933
>you first agreed that one card isn't needed
>if, for example, the "D" card has 3 on the back the rule is false.
that means you do need to check the card...
if checking a card can make the rule false, you need to check it...

>Why are you making so many assumptions? Your answer was still wrong.
Cool, then please explain what the right answer is.

[Anonymous No.11299950]

>>11298762
*dabs on Gould*

[Anonymous No.11299969]

>>11299920
>Then you pointed out that I shouldn't assume "if 3 then A", so I reconsidered.
>so I reconsidered.
>so I reconsidered.
>so I reconsidered.
Never gonna make it, f a m.

[Anonymous No.11299972]

>>11299969
kek, why?

[Anonymous No.11299986]

>>11299948
>if checking a card can make the rule false, you need to check it...
It doesn't make the rule false.
>Cool, then please explain what the right answer is.
Why is it so hard to figure out?

[Anonymous No.11299992]

>>11299986
>It doesn't make the rule false.
if you assume "if A then 3" and "if 3 then A", it would make the rule false.

>Why is it so hard to figure out?
Lol dude, you tell me. You're telling me I've got it wrong.

[Anonymous No.11300002]

>>11299992
For fucks sake are you trolling me? You said you reconsidered.

[Anonymous No.11300009]

>>11300002
goddamnit, you're dense, and shit at communicating.
In my first post I assumed "if A then 3" and "if 3 then A". In my second post I reconsidered to only "if A then 3" because of what you pointed out.

>if, for example, the "D" card has 3 on the back the rule is false.
That's from my first post. Not my second!

[Anonymous No.11300033]

>>11300009
> so you'd need to check 3 out of 4 cards: "A", "D", and "7". >>11299867

[Anonymous No.11300049]

>>11300033
You're being very vague and you're communicating like shit.
What I think you're trying to get at is that I made another mistake in my second post: I completely forgot "each has a capital letter on one side and a single digit number on the other side", so I thought the "D" card could have an "A" on the other side and thus needed to be checked. So the actual correct answer is that you need to check "A" and "7". You don't need to check "D", because it has to have a number on the back and so it can't have "A" on the back. And you don't need to check "3", because it can have any letter on the back and still adhere to the rule.

[Anonymous No.11300059]

>>11300049
>So the actual correct answer is that you need to check "A" and "7"
Finally!

[Anonymous No.11300061]

>>11297476
>visual snow
when i visited va forums some people thought they see atoms high iq indeed

[Anonymous No.11300083]

>>11300059
Yes, great.
I've often gotten these if-then type things wrong, because I keep interpreting "if A, then B" as "if and only if A, then B". Maybe it's a fault I picked up from linear algebra? I'm not sure.

[Anonymous No.11300096]

Neanderthals had bigger brains than us https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/neanderthal-brains-bigger-not-necessarily-better

[Anonymous No.11300102]

My cousin is dumb as fuck and he has a giant head. Great at head butts though.

[Anonymous No.11301125]

>>11299867
>Yes, it is. It is very useful for people to judge others, predict what they're like, how you should interact with them, and what you can expect of them.
this>>11298762 is the reason why communicating with "high IQ" people is impossible. Linda, as anothe "high IQ" person would of course know people are going to guess she's a feminist, so she's going to curate what she's going to tell about herself, so that she doesn't mislead people into thinking she's a feminist. the communication works on the principle of wild guesses and by everyone expecting what guesses other people make and compensating accordingly. This in practice means that a normal person will look to "high IQ" people as a psychopath, a brilliant manipulator who can convince people of virtually anything and often does that for no apparent reason (since she doesn't compensate for the wild guesses "high IQ" people make, so she ends up inadvertedly "lying" to them) While from the perspective of the healthy person, the "high IQ" person looks like a narcissist, who first loved them excessively for no apparent reason, then discarded them when they got tired of them and now even try to destroy their life by spreading false rumors about them.

[Anonymous No.11301139]

>>11299867
>Yes, it is. It is very useful for people to judge others, predict what they're like, how you should interact with them, and what you can expect of them.
this>>11298762 is the reason why communicating with "high IQ" people is impossible. Linda, as anothe "high IQ" person would of course know people are going to guess she's a feminist, so she's going to curate what she's going to tell about herself, so that she doesn't mislead people into thinking she's a feminist. the communication works on the principle of wild guesses and by everyone expecting what guesses other people make and compensating accordingly. This in practice means that a normal person will look to "high IQ" people as a psychopath, a brilliant manipulator who can convince people of virtually anything and often does that for no apparent reason (since she doesn't compensate for the wild guesses "high IQ" people make, so she ends up inadvertedly "lying" to them) While from the perspective of the healthy person, the "high IQ" person looks like a narcissist, who first admired them excessively for no apparent reason, then discarded them when they got tired of them and now even try to destroy their life by spreading false rumors about them.

[Anonymous No.11301243]

>>11292931
I wish.

[Anonymous No.11301263]

>>11297913
Weight does not correlate to functionality

[Anonymous No.11301400]

>>11300083
Unless linear algebra was taught to you in a language other than English, probably not. If it was then it might indicate a problem you have with languages

[Anonymous No.11301476]

>>11292931
You can build a model of the g factor as good or better than an IQ test by just measuring head size, reaction times, and sensory discernment.
Much more stable across time than IQ is as well, since is pretty much entirely genetic.