Brain size does not determine intelligence.

In the last few weeks ive seen a lot of posts relating to IQ. We forget that the simplest term of intelligence is "Problem Solving" Not copying someone else

An experiment conducted gave these results.

Research; Crows have much smaller brains than apes, but is still just as intelligent. Other factors than brain size seem to play a role in intelligence, at least for crows.

After allowing ravens, jackdaws and crows of New Caledonia make the same intelligence test previously used on 36 other species are Lund researchers who led the study impressed brains efficiency of these birds.

The test involves placing food inside a transparent cylinder and see if the test animal is smart enough to try to access food through the openings on the ends of the cylinder. The less intelligent animals beats instead of the pipe directly at the point where they see the food just inside.

The Ravens were the best in the test - all chose to go through the pages, despite a brain that only weighs 15 grams. Even jackdaws and crows of New Caledonia did well, they were in the class with such gorillas.

The big question is why crows are so smart.

- We do not know yet. There are many hypotheses. There are, for example, so far only a few studies on avian brain structure. And there are new studies underway on how large numbers of brain cells corvids have. They may be able to provide an answer to why they are so special, says PhD Can Kabadayi said.

This is what we actually consider intelligence.

Government scientists proved woman brain the size of squirl. So what are you trying to say....?

a reply to: Sillyosaurus

Im not saying anything, im just the messenger.

a reply to: PanPiper

I Kidd. But that's interesting to say the least. Maybe there are forms and ways of intelligence we don't yet understand/ can quantify. Brains are amazing things.

I've been told I have a big head and Id say at times I'm bright and others not so much but that's par for the course.
As bashed up as I've been it's amazing I have any function at all.

the video is hilarious

Octupi have a brain the size of a wall nut and eight other brains as well.

“It is as if each arm has a mind of its own,” says Peter Godfrey-Smith, a diver, professor of philosophy at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, and an admirer of octopuses. For example, researchers who cut off an octopus’s arm (which the octopus can regrow) discovered that not only does the arm crawl away on its own, but if the arm meets a food item, it seizes it—and tries to pass it to where the mouth would be if the arm were still connected to its body.

www.wired.com...

Brainy for a fish

a reply to: PanPiper

Funny how money seems to make people really smart.

Old news for me, but great to finally see a title on the science forum that is both interesting (as in an important fact to understand) and almost accurate/correct in the title (except for missing "can not reliably" determine... instead of what it says now, which is close, but not close enough). Why this is an important fact for people to understand is explained in this article:
Question 4: Has All Life Descended From a Common Ancestor?

DETERMINING INTELLIGENCE BY BRAIN SIZE

▪ Fact: The brain size of a presumed ancestor of humans is one of the main ways by which evolutionists determine how closely or distantly the creature is supposed to be related to humans.

Question: Is brain size a reliable indicator of intelligence?

Answer: No. One group of researchers who used brain size to speculate which extinct creatures were more closely related to man admitted that in doing so they “often feel on shaky ground.” Why? Consider the statement made in 2008 in Scientific American Mind: “Scientists have failed to find a correlation between absolute or relative brain size and acumen among humans and other animal species. Neither have they been able to discern a parallel between wits and the size or existence of specific regions of the brain, excepting perhaps Broca’s area, which governs speech in people.”

What do you think? Why do scientists line up the fossils used in the “ape-to-man” chain according to brain size when it is known that brain size is not a reliable measure of intelligence? Are they forcing the evidence to fit their theory? And why are researchers constantly debating which fossils should be included in the human “family tree”?* Could it be that the fossils they study are just what they appear to be, extinct forms of apes?

What, though, about the humanlike fossils of the so-called Neanderthals, often portrayed as proof that a type of ape-man existed? Researchers are beginning to alter their view of what these actually were. In 2009, Milford H. Wolpoff wrote in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology that “Neandertals may have been a true human race.”

Honest observers readily recognize that egos, money, and the need for media attention influence the way that “evidence” for human evolution is presented. Are you willing to put your trust in such evidence?

* = If you want to respond to the question:

And why are researchers constantly debating which fossils should be included in the human “family tree”?

I suggest you read the rest of the article first where this "debating" is discussed and examples are used. That question was not related to the subsecton "DETERMINING INTELLIGENCE BY BRAIN SIZE". As well as some of the other things mentioned at the end that are discussed in more detail in the article (that probably many of you don't want to read).

Oh, btw, there's no need to bring up genetics, I am aware there are other cards to play in the house of cards that is erronuously called "a mountain of evidence", in some cases intentionally deceptively called that way. Those who are aware for example of little inconvenient facts such as the one described above and in this thread title (after my caveats and rephrasing). Similar facts are inconvenient for the arguments or cards being played involving the subject of genetics and phylogenetic trees; but hardly suited for this thread, unlike what I quoted above that directly relates to the importance of the fact mentioned in the thread title after applying my caveats (then I can agree it's a fact), facts alone won't do you any good (see my comment here for more details what I mean with that).

Understanding. Understanding is the ability to see how the parts or aspects of something relate to one another, to see the entire matter and not just isolated facts. The Hebrew root verb bin has the basic meaning “separate” or “distinguish,” and it is often rendered “understand” or “discern.” It is similar with the Greek sy·niʹe·mi. Thus at Acts 28:26 (quoting Isa 6:9, 10) it could be said that the Jews heard but did not understand, or did not put together. They did not grasp how the points or thoughts fitted together to mean something to them.
...
Because a person with understanding is able to connect new information to things he already knows, it can be said that “to the understanding one knowledge is an easy thing.” (Pr 14:6) Knowledge and understanding are allied, and both are to be sought.—Pr 2:5; 18:15.

Discernment. ...As with understanding, discernment involves seeing or recognizing things, but it emphasizes distinguishing the parts, weighing or evaluating one in the light of the others.

Knowledge: Insight, Volume 2

The original-language words rendered “understanding” can refer to comprehension of a rather simple kind or can describe a full and profound realization of the inner nature, underlying reasons, and significance of complex matters. Insight, discernment, and perception are all closely connected to understanding.
...
Relationship to Knowledge and Wisdom. Understanding must be based on knowledge, and it works with knowledge, though it is itself more than mere knowledge. The extent and worth of one’s understanding is measurably affected by the quantity and quality of one’s knowledge.
...
The “understanding heart is one that searches for knowledge”; it is not satisfied with a mere superficial view but seeks to get the full picture. (Pr 15:14)

Understanding: Insight, Volume 2

originally posted by: forthelove
a reply to: PanPiper

Funny how money seems to make people really smart.

If by smart, you mean stupid, then yeah.

Human brains are wired sort of like bird brains but have the consistancy of a pigs brain. It is the efficient speed of the signal through the brain and proper neurotransmitter balance that is important to intellect. The ability to store information is good, but to process and apply the information correctly is really important.

So we are bird brain pigs I guess.

I know people with small heads that are very smart. The most critical thing to remember is we all are steered by our realization of reality and our personal view of what is important in life. I do not believe that the smartest people are in the elite sciences, I believe they are not dumb enough to get themselves tied into a field where they can not learn many different things. There is so much out there to learn, why be stuck in such a cramped in reality. Once a person realizes that we only have one life to enjoy and learn in, you tend to see being tied down is not so great. I could have never stuck to one type of work all my life, I enjoy diversity of learning too much. I even enjoyed talking to the street people in Vegas when I went there. I thought that was cool, learning how they think.

I like being a mouse, I am not limited to following in the path that society says we should be following in. Just because you are as smart as a rocket scientist does not mean you have to be stuck in that job all your life.

Bit of a bias in the bird test. Seems like the test was Taylor ed for their natural foraging techniques.

Yes brain size is irrelevant, but this test does not prove that.

a reply to: rickymouse

Man bear pigs are far smarter and apparantly more illusive.

a reply to: GemmyMcGemJew

Then what does the test prove?

If you remove society from the equation. Is not problem solving actually the definition of intelligence?

originally posted by: PanPiper
a reply to: GemmyMcGemJew

Then what does the test prove?

If you remove society from the equation. Is not problem solving actually the definition of intelligence?

I think problem solving has 3 primary sources:

- raw intelligence and logic skills. You can look at something, deduce things about it that are not readily evident, figure out how/why those things are, and then create manipulations around those things or utilizing those things
- memory. You experience a lot of stuff, and those memories begin to create a type of deja vu
- lateral/relational thinking. If you have a good memory, this is exceptionally powerful. Because you then begin to tie together seemingly disparate items from your own memory, by being able to laterally relate it to a current conundrum.

I have a lot of the latter 2, with exceptional memory and abstract/lateral thinking ability. My "boss" is purely number 1. He forgets more than I will ever remember, but can always catch back up very quickly by leveraging his immense intellect to sort through the problem.

2 different approaches to problem solving, each having its strengths and weaknesses. But for me, without having some kind of experience to relate back to...i am lost for what to do. At least, until the next time (when ill have that prior experience). Not my boss....he just sits down and brute forces the logic.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I have a form of ADD, i can take in lots of information but i cant process it in the right way. So i found a "college" trick which actually focuses the brain and enhances the capability of the things I have read. The way my brain works, is that color, music, visual makes a pattern recognition. The logical part is the "college" trick and then i can make something useful of my brain which does not shut off.

Is it problem solving? well, im not Tesla. I know that my brain will focus on tasks which will make difficult things easier.. Something nature gave us as a gift. Someone who actually did understand this is Bill Gates:

Bill Gates — 'I choose a lazy person to do a hard job. Because a lazy person will find an easy way to do it.'

The problem is most read this as "he is hiring lazy people" which he really isnt..

a reply to: PanPiper

Bill gates and I share that philosophy.

While I am immensely lazy, i have OCD for efficiency. If something is inefficient, its removed and replaced. An example: i have a daily task that takes my peers in other locations between 1-3 hours to complete. I finish mine in 10 minutes. Mostly because I've taught myself macros in Excel and have a strong boolean background (they taught us all boolean logic when I went to school), and have automated a large portion of my job.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I have a friend that does this, problem is, instead of being lazy he just takes in more work.. And i always ask;" Why " And he says; "I just wanted to show them that they are overpaid idiots".

a reply to: PanPiper
It proves that the birds remember how to utilise their daily foraging techniques under experiment conditions, that is all. If the test is set up to mimic similar foraging conditions of a selected animal, that animal will display greater "intelligence" because it favours their natural behaviour (birds put their beaks inside things e.g to get grubs from trees, monkeys have adapted different techniques due to the abundance of food in obvious locations).

This test is a self fulfilling prophecy.

I could set up a test that demonstrates monkeys are better at utilising tools when compared to birds., linking tool making to intelligence it completely favours the monkeys natural skills and is biased from the offset.

Basically the test only highlight the behaviour attributed to intelligence. Hopefully that helps ya.