The human brain is getting smaller due to evolution

[A window to the soul]

Prolly just need to cut down on cell phone usage.

 

[Valiant]

Heh, good one...

 

[Lark]

I agree that at any one time certain types are en vogue or ascendent with consequences individually and socially, more often individually I'd say though resulting in ill health or good fortune as people find best fit, this is where typology meets Fromm's social character.

Brain size and chemistry, changes happen, why and what's the upshot? Is it chemicals in the water table like contraceptive medicines or the antibiotics given to animals before they go to market? Chemicals in the food chain? TV? Media? Socialisation?

 

[Within]

It just means the human brain is getting more efficient, not 'dumber'.

Exactly, Einstein's brain was against common believes smaller than the median value. One explanation why he was so smart is that the neurons in his brain was bundled together tighter than the average Joe's.

 

[ColonelGadaafi]

Exactly, Einstein's brain was against common believes smaller than the median value. One explanation why he was so smart is that the neurons in his brain was bundled together tighter than the average Joe's.

Which is the result of the process described as neurogenesis

Neurogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Riva]

We are using less than 10% of our brains anyway. So would it really matter if it was smaller?

And the brain is like a muscle, the more you use a certain part of it the more that part develops. The brain has different areas separated to certain function such as logic, creactivity, hope etc.

The more a person uses a different part of the brain it develops and takes away space of the areas dedicated to other functions.

So having a small brain really wouldn't matter too much.

(1) We don't use all of it anyway
(2) If you want to you could purposely develop the functions that you belive need to be stronger.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

There is a parallel for this, actually. Did you know that domestic dogs have brains that are around 10% smaller than wolves, relative to body mass?

I think domestic dogs are largely dumber than wolves.

 

[INTP]

We are using less than 10% of our brains anyway.

that has been proved wrong like 10 years ago already

 

[Riva]

that has been proved wrong like 10 years ago already

Lolz... really? I didn't know

So does it mean me use slightly more than 10% or around 50%?

:workout:

 

[Haphazard]

Lolz... really? I didn't know

So does it mean me use slightly more than 10% or around 50%?

:workout:

You use 100% of your brain 100% of the time, but much of the information is ignored as useless.

 

[Within]

You use 100% of your brain 100% of the time, but much of the information is ignored as useless.

I was under the assumption that you don't. You use different parts of your brain at different times but not all together, eventually the sum adds up to 100%.

 

[Salomé]

Exactly, Einstein's brain was against common believes smaller than the median value. One explanation why he was so smart is that the neurons in his brain was bundled together tighter than the average Joe's.

This must be why women are so much smarter than men!

Seriously, there's no mystery. Big bodies require big brains. Most of the work your brain does has nothing to do with higher cognition. It's just running your body. Our bodies have shrunk; so have our brains.
Simples.

 

[Salomé]

brain size doesent make real difference, the thing that makes the difference is how large that outer layer is when you straighten all the wrinkles(sorry i dont know what the fancy words are in english).

Neocortex. Latin, actually.

 

[freedom geek]

This is a slow enough process that, even if it is as bad as some claim, we should be able to fix it with new technologies such as genetic engineering and cybernetics.

 

[Arthur Schopenhauer]

Circuits and CPUs have been getting smaller, more efficient, and more powerful since their inception. I see the human brain as developing in a similar fashion.

Agreed.

I wonder what will happen when we eventually combine the two. What size will be necessary then?

 

[Salomé]

Agreed.

I wonder what will happen when we eventually combine the two. What size will be necessary then?

Artificial intelligence will exceed human intelligence in the near future, then the size of our inferior brains will be moot.

 

[Supernaut]

Circuits and CPUs have been getting smaller, more efficient, and more powerful since their inception. I see the human brain as developing in a similar fashion.

Okay, I need to go into Ti+Ne mode for a sec and call you out on why this doesn't make any sense at all.

It is not logically consistent to think that because computer chips are becoming smaller due to technological advances that this would mean that a human brain could possibly undergo an even remotely similar process like this inanimate machinery. The two are so dramatically unrelated; there's just absolutely no basis for this type of thinking.

That being said, I think it's quite possible that OP's article has some sense behind it. Think about it; growth almost always occurs out of NECESSITY. The NECESSITY to learn and understand things is becoming weaker every day, as everything in our lives is being made simpler and requiring less work and thinking. There's an overwhelming amount of information at our fingertips; you barely have to work for it at all.

The Age of Technology has given rise to general disorders such as ADD that everyone alive claims to suffer from, and this attack of information from all sides is having an effect opposite to what one might expect: it is resulting in people learning and retaining LESS. The drive, the desire, the NECESSITY to learn and understand are all weaker than they were in olden days.

Doesn't the brain create neural connections and strengthen pathways when you stimulate it? Isn't it possible that the amount of neural connections you make has a relation to how large your brain is relative to your size or relative to your brain's size potential? Isn't it also possible, then, nay - even probable, that understimulation of the brain results in reduced neural connections, which results in smaller, less powerful brains?

I think it's a definite possibility that our brains are shrinking due to under-stimulation, though I'd like to see the research behind the study in OP's post.

 

[Arthur Schopenhauer]

Artificial intelligence will exceed human intelligence in the near future, then the size of our inferior brains will be moot.

I've always imagined genetics overtaking technology in the distant future. I personally think it's wisest and fitting -development wise- to stay ahead of ones creations but that isn't how things currently work. Eventually though, perhaps the human brain can be engineered to outpace any sort if A.I. program.

Personally, I think A.I. should be sitting in the passenger seat. Transhumanism and whatnot are where the real advancements are. That's my opinion anyways.

 

[Arthur Schopenhauer]

Okay, I need to go into Ti+Ne mode for a sec and call you out on why this doesn't make any sense at all.

It is not logically consistent to think that because computer chips are becoming smaller due to technological advances that this would mean that a human brain could possibly undergo an even remotely similar process like this inanimate machinery. The two are so dramatically unrelated; there's just absolutely no basis for this type of thinking.

He didn't say that because CPU's have been getting smaller, that the brain is following in that path. No, he simply stated that the relationship between the evolution of the human brain and the development of the CPU have striking similarities.

That being said, I think it's quite possible that OP's article has some sense behind it. Think about it; growth almost always occurs out of NECESSITY. The NECESSITY to learn and understand things is becoming weaker every day,

No, the necessity to learn has not devolved. We still live in a competitive and evolved society... Learning is most certainly not a thing of the past and the necessity to learn has only gotten stronger. Take a look at modern education, it's a great and in-depth thing that spans many subjects from; philosophy, to biology, to maths, to physics. In the past, these acedmic achievements are virtually nonexistent - that is, school was not as broad and taxing, or did not exist at all, nor was it as refined. I sincerely doubt you would have found children learning algebra 2 in the year 4000 B.C.

as everything in our lives is being made simpler and requiring less work and thinking. There's an overwhelming amount of information at our fingertips; you barely have to work for it at all.

Everything has grown more complex as it has gotten simpler and more accessible.

The Age of Technology has given rise to general disorders such as ADD that everyone alive claims to suffer from, and this attack of information from all sides is having an effect opposite to what one might expect: it is resulting in people learning and retaining LESS. The drive, the desire, the NECESSITY to learn and understand are all weaker than they were in olden days.

Doesn't the brain create neural connections and strengthen pathways when you stimulate it? Isn't it possible that the amount of neural connections you make has a relation to how large your brain is relative to your size or relative to your brain's size potential? Isn't it also possible, then, nay - even probable, that understimulation of the brain results in reduced neural connections, which results in smaller, less powerful brains?

I think it's a definite possibility that our brains are shrinking due to under-stimulation, though I'd like to see the research behind the study in OP's post.

I'd like to see the proofs that the brain is shrinking due to lack of stimulation as well.

 

[Supernaut]

He didn't say that because CPU's have been getting smaller, that the brain is following in that path. No, he simply stated that the relationship between the evolution of the human brain and the development of the CPU have striking similarities.

The evolution of the human brain and the development of the central processing unit have striking similarities? What? How so? Please list examples.

And why would a brain becoming smaller necessarily have ANYTHING to do with a brain becoming more efficient?

No, the necessity to learn has not devolved. We still live in a competitive and evolved society... Learning is most certainly not a thing of the past and the necessity to learn has only gotten stronger. Take a look at modern education, it's a great and in-depth thing that spans many subjects from; philosophy, to biology, to maths, to physics. In the past, these acedmic achievements are virtually nonexistent - that is, school was not as broad and taxing, or did not exist at all, nor was it as refined. I sincerely doubt you would have found children learning algebra 2 in the year 4000 B.C.

Let me clarify what I'm saying: The necessity of the average person to TAX THEIR BRAIN and use RAW BRAINPOWER (which results in the strengthening of neural connections) has been gradually reduced over time. We have computers and calculators now that can do everything for us. There isn't as much thinking that the average person is forced to subject themselves to on a day-to-day basis anymore, because so many things that previously required raw brainpower to perform are now automated.

Here's what I'm NOT saying, which is what you seem to have interpreted: I'm NOT saying that humans are no longer driven to learn and figure things out, no longer competitive, suddenly incapable of creating a developed education system, etc.[/quote]

Everything has grown more complex as it has gotten simpler and more accessible.

That's a natural byproduct of compounding facts and knowledge that humans have amassed and compiled over time and not necessarily a reflection of us having better, more efficient brains now.

I really would have rather appreciated a rebuttal. I'm kind of sad that you're depriving me of a potentially interesting perspective on this subject.

I'd like to see the proofs that the brain is shrinking due to lack of stimulation as well.

I'm more curious to see the effects of the internet era on the brain and brain usage/function/problem-solving/thought processes 30-50 years from now. We're still in the relatively early stages of what is probably the most revolutionary technological discovery of all time, and not nearly enough time has elapsed to accurately analyze/predict how humanity will be affected. I'm predicting an intellectual nosedive as technology becomes more and more advanced and automated.