brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

OhSojourner ohsojourner at
Sun Jul 14 14:47:50 EST 2002

John Knight wrote:

>"Angilion" <angilion at> wrote in message news

>>On Sat, 13 Jul 2002 01:35:12 +0000 (UTC), cary at
>>(Cary Kittrell) wrote:

>hopems at (Hope Munro Smith) writes:

>>>< < <angilion at (Angilion) wrote:


>>><> As an aside, I have seen it hypothesised that brain mass
>>>correlates with <> height. That would neatly explain the average
>>>difference in brain <> mass between men and women (as an artefact
>>>the average <> difference in height) and the hypothesis sounds
>>>plausible. However, <> I haven't seen any evidence for it. Do you
>>>have any? <I'd be interested in hearing it as well. It would make
>>><sense that a larger body would need a larger brain to work <its
>>>various systems, which again would prove that brain size <says
>>>nothing about intelligence. That's quite standard in biology:
>>>neurological comparisons are always made on a brain/body mass
>>>never on absolute brain size. (what's the smartest blue whale
>>>ever met?)

>>1) No-one has suggested trying it across different species, due to
>>the differences in brain structure.

>>2) You are making a standard argument to "prove" that "female people
>>are more intelligent than male people", because the average brain
>>mass to body mass ratio is higher in female people than in male
>>people. I've seen that often enough in children's TV shows, as part
>>of the endemic conditioning to make male people feel inferior and
>>female people feel superior.

>>3) You are making a stupidly irrational argument to support the
>>prevailing sexism. By your argument, losing weight would make a
>>person more intelligent. Losing a lot of weight would make them a
>>more intelligent. After all, the more weight they lost, the higher
>>their brain mass to body mass ratio would become. By your argument,
>>anorexia is a sure route to genius. A very nasty argument.

>>4) You appear unable to tell the difference between height and

>>5) You do not provide any evidence concerning the hypothesis I
>>mentioned, which is what I was asking for. You just used it as a
>>means to promote an idea which is harmful both directly and through
>>the sexism it promotes.

>Very well said, Angilion.

>To feminazis, there's no difference between blue whales and humans,
>because they both "evolved" from the same "common ancestor", so it
>must somehow make sense to them to make such a suggestion.

>But to the rest of the normal people in the country, namely the 91%
>who reject this "theory" of evolution,

Do you have a cite for this claim?  (A non-subjective one)

> human beings have a unique role
>on the planet because they are a unique species, so to suggest that
>must make comparisons across species is merely the easiest way out 
>of replying logically to your question.

How logical are the "alternatives" to the idea of evolution (namely,
religious faith)?  Besides, evolutionists have also attempted to
explain why men and women apparently have different cognitive levels
of functioning.

>TIMSS and GRE are evidence enough of the correlation between human
>brain size and human intelligence--but this forum sure did add some
>nice data to the equation, didn't it?

Angilion also mentioned the case of a man who was found to have very
little brain mass, yet was functioning successfully in his educational
career.  ...So obviously, there is something else going on besides
just that.

>John Knight

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list