Whenever I read about brain size and intelligence, I wonder about the Fairy Fly, an insect smaller than the diameter of a human hair. It has a brain much smaller than a period yet can walk, see, fly, mate, and lay eggs, all under the control of its brain.
Also, researchers love meta-analyses because they get to publish but don't have to do any tedious experiments. Lumping a bunch of lousy studies together doesn't necessarily produce a good study.
People who don't actually use magnetic resonance imaging in their day to day life ascribe WAY too much significance to the magical images. I'm reminded of the old radiologist's saying "X-rays are but a shadow of reality".
It isn't the size (of the brain). It's how you use it. That also goes for other things.
Whenever I read about brain size and intelligence, I wonder about the Fairy Fly, an insect smaller than the diameter of a human hair. It has a brain much smaller than a period yet can walk, see, fly, mate, and lay eggs, all under the control of its brain.
Also, researchers love meta-analyses because they get to publish but don't have to do any tedious experiments. Lumping a bunch of lousy studies together doesn't necessarily produce a good study.
People who don't actually use magnetic resonance imaging in their day to day life ascribe WAY too much significance to the magical images. I'm reminded of the old radiologist's saying "X-rays are but a shadow of reality".
I tried to read this but it is just too arcane for me.
I tried to read this but it is just too arcane for me.
I am very suprised to see there's publication bias in brain size correlation studies. Usually we see publication bias in favor or blank slatism?