/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.12760280]

/sci/ what is the meaning behind this scientific data?

[Anonymous No.12760293]

>>12760280
women have smaller bodies, and thus have smaller brains. I don't disagree that women are dumber than men on average, but brain weight isn't the reason.

[Anonymous No.12760459]

>brain weight isn't the reason.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Microcephalic_Nobel_laureates

[Anonymous No.12760474]

>>12760459
You're not smarter than a sperm whale then.

[Anonymous No.12760498]

>>12760474

[Anonymous No.12760512]

[Anonymous No.12760878]

>>12760280
It's meaningless.
>>12760293
Sexism and racism are both mental illnesses and you're a sick fuck.

[Anonymous No.12760965]

>>12760878
well reasoned argument, ma'am

[Anonymous No.12760972]

>>12760459
Whats the outlook on these two? Are they even aware of anything? Jesus Christ imagine having to look after two urinating, shitting, vegetables 24/7, for the rest of your life, not to the mention the cost of feeding and clothing them.

[Anonymous No.12761025]

>>12760878
explain with detail how women being dumber than men is a sexist remark.

[Anonymous No.12761040]

>>12760459
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatole_France

[Anonymous No.12761048]

>>12761025
Because the axiom we work with is that we are all equal. So, any empirical evidence pointing otherwise is false for one reason or another, and we WILL find that reason. Whether it makes sense or not.

[Anonymous No.12761057]

>>12760280
*these

[Anonymous No.12761849]

>>12761048
>roasties

[Anonymous No.12761864]

>>12760280
I don't want my brain to shrink, guys
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M9HgzXVVo6E

[Anonymous No.12763640]

>>12760965
race and iq should be used since thats more triggering, and the gap is larger and evidence for it stronger

[Anonymous No.12763697]

Whale brain argument is a fallacy because whales are another species, but if brain weight/size was the only determinant for intelligence then we would have more females than males leaning on the left side of the bell curve, when in reality most of them are at the center while men are more spread out on both sides. Brain architecture is what pretty much defines intelligence, and from there its size/weight. In other words, if we have two people with exactly the same brain architecture, but one of them had a considerably bigger brain they would certainly be more intelligent.

[Anonymous No.12763863]

>>12760280
Men have a greater proportion of muscle mass for a given body weight.

[Anonymous No.12763929]

>>12763697
Physics still plays a role
In order to do mental "calculations", you need energy. Smaller brains physically can't generate enough energy/heat to keep up mentally with larger brains.

That's why even with increasingly smaller computer parts, supercomputers are still massive. Size doesnt have a 1:1 correlation with intelligence, but to say it has no correlation is just mind-numbingly retarded.

[Anonymous No.12763976]

>>12760965
kek

[Anonymous No.12763987]

>>12763929
Nice reading comprehension, Ameritard.

[Anonymous No.12763998]

The human brain has actually been decreasing in size over the past 20k years or so, and humans definitely are not less intelligent than then. Some people just have more efficient brain architectures, reduced size in brain regions on "unnecessary" processes like episodic memory, and so forth. Though note having a smaller brain is not at all the same thing as microcephaly, like at all.

[Anonymous No.12764023]

Back to /pol/ incels

[Anonymous No.12764041]

>>12763697
>in reality most of them are at the center while men are more spread out on both sides.
That's largely a meme. Some studies point towards greater male variance, but quite a few show females being slightly to the left of males.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_intelligence#Research_on_general_intelligence

[Anonymous No.12764067]

>>12763998
>The human brain has actually been decreasing in size over the past 20k years or so, and humans definitely are not less intelligent than then.
Do we actually know people are more intelligent now? Acquiring knowledge through school doesn't mean we're necessarily more intelligent. It certainly took a degree of intelligence, ingenuity, and acquired knowledge to survive 20k years ago. Many people today would die if placed in that situation.

[Anonymous No.12764088]

>>12760474
right i am a sperm whale

[Anonymous No.12764119]

>>12764067
>It certainly took a degree of intelligence, ingenuity, and acquired knowledge to survive 20k years ago
Maybe, but that knowledge certainly had very little or absolutely 0 g loading.

I mean, memorizing 10k plant species, 20 animal species, and whatever else for hunting is pretty much useless. We have civilization, we have writing to export all the knowledge that was just taking up space otherwise. In African/Paupau New Guinean/Amazonian indigenous languages, for instance, everybody already knows every possible word that they will ever have to use, it's all memorized, but their total vocabulary available is absolutely nothing in comparison to written languages, their dictionaries have maybe 500 words max. English has an absurdly large dictionary in comparison, like 500k words.

>Acquiring knowledge through school doesn't mean we're necessarily more intelligent.
Funny how acquiring knowledge through hunting and gathering doesn't make you intelligent either, it makes you experienced, maybe, but that says nothing about how you will react to novel situations.

[Anonymous No.12764252]

>>12764119
>but that says nothing about how you will react to novel situations.
But you're always going to be exposed to novel situations when it comes to survival in the wild. Differing weather, differing seasons, predators, etc. I don't see people today being more intelligent, they're simply better at solving the problems we have today, and that's primarily due to learning how to solve those problems through education. IQ tests were created to solve those same sets of problems, so they're biased toward people who have had experience with them. If I created an IQ test that involved building a shelter or choosing the best method for tracking prey, it would favor an entirely different set of people. There's no IQ test that's not culturally biased.

[Anonymous No.12765057]

This graph is meme-tier because brain size is not exactly proportional to intelligence in the animal kingdom, there is much better data available to compare, for example the amount of neuronal connections.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10073431/
>Estimates of neuronal numbers -- the product of neuronal thickness times density -- were 13% higher in males than in females
>The data provide morphologic evidence of considerable cerebral cortical dimorphism with the demonstration of significantly higher neuronal densities and neuronal number estimates in males
The OP graph therefore points in the correct direction except with a shitty argumentative approach. It is undeniable that historically it was significantly more difficult for men to survive and pass their genes than it was for women. This different quality of life led to sexual dimorphism. Men also have more muscles so we don't have to dig into the brain at all to reach the obvious conclusion that evolution doesn't operate on an unseen mechanism that insists to make people equal.

[Anonymous No.12765075]

>>12764067
You know, not everyone today has access to education or modern technology. You can just go to the few odd places on Earth where people still live like in the past and then see for yourself whether you have better problem-solving skills. Hint: yes.

[Anonymous No.12765471]

>>12765075
>You can just go to the few odd places on Earth where people still live like in the past and then see for yourself whether you have better problem-solving skills.
Thanks for bringing this up. You're correct, we have many examples of people doing just this, travelling to isolated or wilderness environments because they believed they were survivalists, only to fail miserably. And the funny thing is they were actually trained to survive in those environments. That's the difference between playing at survival, and actually living it. Now take a city person with no survival experience and have them try it. It takes a lot of ingenuity and knowledge to make it in an environment like the Amazon, or Outback, or Alaskan wilderness.

[Anonymous No.12765480]

>>12765057
>This graph is meme-tier because brain size is not exactly proportional to intelligence in the animal kingdom, there is much better data available to compare, for example the amount of neuronal connections.
Brain size in humans would relate to other humans though. We're all the same species. I don't deny there are people with big brains but low intelligence. But surely more gray and white matter means more neurons right? At least for the first half of the graph, It correlates fairly well with the average rate of learning in humans. And it is noteworthy that the brain loses mass as we age, regardless of connections.

[Anonymous No.12765484]

>>12760878
weedy soi drenched fingers typed this

[Anonymous No.12765492]

>>12765480
Supposedly Einstein had below average brain size, but then there's many people who believe he wasn't the genius he's portrayed to be.

[Anonymous No.12765583]

>>12765471
This isn't what I said and you know what I meant. Go to the amazonian rain forests, go to central african plains, go to remote australian aboriginal settlements, find people who live with little amounts of clothes, make them take various problem-solving tests. You already know what these tests will say, modern education works, which is why I wish it for everyone so they can have a better quality of life.

[Anonymous No.12765718]

>>12765583
>make them take various problem-solving tests.
I already covered this earlier. Those problem solving tests are biased toward education. Matrices have a relationship with math. Give a problem solving test involving building a shelter, making fire, tracking prey. Do you really think most Westerners would succeed on that kind of test?

>modern education works
Modern education works at making you better at the kind of logic tests that education teaches. I know people who excel at school and logic puzzles that have no sense whatsoever. They've essentially learned how to think logically in only constrained situations. Introduce real world scenarios where things can be chaotic and they're useless.

[Anonymous No.12765786]

>>12760459
brainless idiot retard children

[Anonymous No.12765819]

>>12764041
>there is little difference between the average IQ scores of men and women.
>Also, studies have found the variability of male scores is greater than that of female scores, resulting in more males than females in the top and bottom of the IQ distribution.

[Anonymous No.12765847]

>>12765718
>my personal perception is much more valid than stupid statistics.
IQ is one of the greatest predictors in life outcome, overall happiness and the greatest in problem solving abilities.

[Anonymous No.12765865]

>>12765718
Building a shelter requires information, making a fire requires information, tracking prey requires information. I'm afraid you're the one intentionally suggesting biased tests to avoid facing an uncomfortable truth. It is possible to design tests that strive to measure the capacity to solve problems with the most neutral approach possible. We're looking at simplified puzzles involving shapes, sequence of events, word association, pattern recognition and logical statements. We should go by these fair tests but I'm afraid you already know the answer, isolated tribal population will do worse. If you want to contemplate some extreme examples, I can attract your attention to the fact that there are humans found raised in the wild by animals. It's a rare phenomenon but it doesn't belong entirely to the realm of fiction, there are a few known cases and there are studies done to measure intelligence at various tasks, it gives us an an important insight on how well our brain naturally develops with minimal education. The short answer is: not much. While these people may have survived in conditions where many would perish, it didn't stimulate their intelligence. Rather than being fairy tales, these are sad stories. An example:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2017/07/21/166538.full.pdf
>Genie did not understand the difference between the simple task of “putting a bowl behind a cup” and “putting a bowl in front of a cup,” despite familiarity with both objects described by the words “bowl” and “cup.” These tasks, which are reasonably simple for a typical individual well before the age of six, were beyond Genie’s capability even at the age of 20 after seven years of strenuous linguistic training.
While feral children are admittedly an extreme example to consider, it should hint about the relationship between wilderness survival, access to education and healthy brain development.

[Anonymous No.12765994]

>>12765847
>IQ is one of the greatest predictors in life outcome, overall happiness and the greatest in problem solving abilities.
It's one of the best predictors, and still a terrible predictor. It's also a predictor based on modern society, created for modern living.

>>12765865
>Building a shelter requires information, making a fire requires information, tracking prey requires information.
Exactly, and every IQ test I've ever taken involved patterns which I could use prior experiences to help solve. They don't exist in isolation. Someone who hasn't been exposed to those patterns won't have that experience to draw on when tested. I don't believe that means they have less g. Their experiences probably involve problem solving when they need to start a fire in novel conditions, or when their normal food supply isn't available.

>It is possible to design tests that strive to measure the capacity to solve problems with the most neutral approach possible.
It's possible to strive for it, it's not possible to do it.

>We're looking at simplified puzzles involving shapes, sequence of events, word association, pattern recognition and logical statements.
All of which you learn about through education, video games, etc. Improving at them doesn't mean you're getting smarter, it means you're simply getting used to the patterns and drawing from prior knowledge.

>If you want to contemplate some extreme examples, I can attract your attention to the fact that there are humans found raised in the wild by animals.
I don't think anyone would question that being totally isolated from other humans and not learning a language will stunt intellectual development. Living 20k years ago didn't mean being alone and lacking language. I believe reaching your intellectual potential has more to do with early nutrition and novel interactions during childhood. Education is simply an opportunity to display that potential in a narrow capacity.

[Anonymous No.12766036]

>>12763697
>when in reality most of them are at the center while men are more spread out on both sides
Lookie here it's another dolt with an uninformed opinion

[Anonymous No.12766045]

>>12760498
Typical Wichita State grads.

[Anonymous No.12766050]

>>12760878
>getting mad on the internet
i seriously hope you don't do this

[Anonymous No.12766148]

>>12765994
I agree that it is impossible to design a single perfect test but despite lacking perfection, we can definitely gather meaningful data about the conditions that favor mental development.

>I don't think anyone would question that being totally isolated from other humans and not learning a language will stunt intellectual development.
In that case you should be on the path to accept that people who are half isolated and speak half your vocabulary are half stunted.

[Anonymous No.12766160]

>>12760280
Did you put the word 'scientific' in your data set to imply it should not be questioned?

How was this data collected? I don't believe it at all.

[Anonymous No.12766183]

>>12766148
>In that case you should be on the path to accept that people who are half isolated and speak half your vocabulary are half stunted.
Nah. English has more words than many languages, yet I don't see evidence that English speakers are more intelligent on average than other language speakers. And in terms of isolation, so long as there's some human interaction, I think it's fine. It's the lack of interaction during the child's developmental years that's the issue, but past a certain point, meeting more people is probably not needed. Many brilliant people have been loaners throughout their lives.

There's even a theory that the reduction in brain size is due to more reliance on others and less independence. We can be stupid about a lot of things today because we don't need to do everything ourselves. That's domestication for you, it has its positives and negatives. Working together leads to a higher combined intelligence, but less individual intelligence.

[Anonymous No.12766269]

>>12766183
The average english speaker has an active vocabulary between 20 000 and 40 000 words. If you looked hard enough, you'd find people with an active vocabulary of 2 000 words or less. I suggest that if we tested for intelligence the people on both ends of this spectrum, we'd notice a tendency.

[Anonymous No.12766428]

>>12760878
please go back to r/realgirls.

[Anonymous No.12767889]

>>12766428
r/realgirls isn't tranny sub though. Maybe you meant r/actuallesbians?

[Anonymous No.12770161]

>>12760878
obvious bait

[Anonymous No.12770166]

>>12767889
You actually can't tell that the girls on /r/realgirls are trannies? Anon...

[Anonymous No.12770198]

>>12766269
>The average english speaker has an active vocabulary between 20 000 and 40 000 words.
Which is estimated to be double the average Spanish speaker. Do you think Spanish speaking people have lower IQ's as a result?

[Anonymous No.12770242]

>>12760512

[Anonymous No.12770522]

>>12770198
Yes. It might possibly make them 0.001% dumber. I can tell you expected some sort of "gotcha!" scenario as if the previous posts necessarily forced me to argue there must be a significant difference between speaking 10 000 or 20 000 words in the same way there is a significant difference between speaking 1 000 words or 11 000. I don't feel compelled to argue that at all. There are diminishing returns to the benefits provided by stimulation. What if I said that someone who can do 10 push ups is quite stronger than someone can only do 1? Would this cause you to assume I attach a linear function to the benefits of each push ups? Would you mock me for believing that someone who can do 50 push ups can throw cars like Superman? Would you expect this argument to make me crumble at your feet, having been cleverly trapped by my own illogical belief that exercise is good for health?

[Anonymous No.12771417]

>>12770198
Ugh it's well known Hispanics have lower IQ than whites.

[Anonymous No.12773117]

>>12770522
>desperation
>coping

[Anonymous No.12773739]

>>12770522
>I can tell you expected some sort of "gotcha!" scenario
No, I just don't agree that memorization of words increases intelligence. Smart people may tend to have larger vocabularies because they're smarter, but I don't believe it's what made them smarter. There's plenty of paths to mental stimulation that don't involve language.

[Anonymous No.12773744]

>>12771417
What's a Hispanic?

[Anonymous No.12773911]

>>12773739
>memorization
you don't think I'll point out we're not talking about raw memorization
>Smart people may tend to have larger vocabularies because they're smarter, but I don't believe it's what made them smarter.
It did. Learning a complex language stimulates the brain the same way that learning complex math stimulate the brain. Complex sentences are better, complex equations are better. I think your main worry is that you believe you're seeing an argument here that people should be needlessly pedantic. I don't make that argument. A person can personally prefer to speak simple sentences and the same person can enjoy silently reading difficult books. The result is the same, they are mentally stimulated by language. Do you see yourself arguing next that reading difficult books can't help?
>There's plenty of paths to mental stimulation that don't involve language.
k

[Anonymous No.12773935]

>>12761025
That's a ridiculous request.
I bet you seethe like mad when confronted with a woman that's smarter and better educated than you are, especially if she has authority over you, am I right?
Oh and tell us all about the last time you had sex, Anon, and how long ago was that?
>oh I'm sorry that's hurtful of me isn't it? Because you've NEVER had sex before. My bad!

FFS. Some of the most intelligent people I've ever met were women, and my IQ is in the 130's -- and I'm not an incel, either.
Must suck to suck at life so much, glad that isn't me.

[Anonymous No.12774157]

>>12773935
>women are shorter than men
is that observation a sexist remark?
what about
>women have bigger tits than men
or
>women have more x chromosomes than men
none of them are, so saying women have smaller brains and are dumb also isn't a "sexist remark" any more than saying that the sky is blue is a "sexist remark"

[Anonymous No.12774196]

>>12770522
btfo

[Anonymous No.12774210]

>>12773935
>deriving life value from frequency of sex
>iq > 130
Lol, nice try, faggot.

[Anonymous No.12774421]

>>12773911
>you don't think I'll point out we're not talking about raw memorization
Learning a language is memorization. That's really it. All of those complex sentences are just a bunch of memorized chunks.

>Learning a complex language stimulates the brain the same way that learning complex math stimulate the brain.
I don't believe mathematics increase intelligence either. All of this "stimulation" has failed to increase intelligence in a meaningful way when studied.

>Do you see yourself arguing next that reading difficult books can't help?
I feel like we've basically returned to where we were earlier. Learning and intelligence are two different things. Learning can be mistaken for increased intelligence. If it were as simple as you're saying, that all we need to do is stimulate the brain, then everyone who works hard should have an IQ of 140+. Many geniuses are lazy, and many hard workers will never be above average. Outside of proper nutrition early on and a minimum amount of stimulation and human interaction, there's not much we can do to increase our intelligence in a meaningful way.

[Anonymous No.12774484]

>>12774421
>Learning a language is memorization.
no
>All of this "stimulation" has failed to increase intelligence in a meaningful way when studied.
no
>I feel like we've basically returned to where we were earlier
I noticed you didn't answer the question. You deny that learning a language helps to stimulate the brain, you deny that learning math helps, now do you deny that reading books help? Are we reaching this point or not? Please go on.

[Anonymous No.12774773]

>>12760878
good, but you will never be a woman without a lobotomy tranny