• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

The human brain is getting smaller due to evolution

Arthur Schopenhauer

What is, is.
Joined
May 1, 2010
Messages
1,158
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5
The evolution of the human brain and the development of the central processing unit have striking similarities? What? How so? Please list examples.

Sigh.

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

Smaller brain + equal or higher output = a more efficent brain based upon size. It would require less mass. Less mass results in many benefits.

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.

You make it sound as if people are to catered hand and foot by calculators that are capable of doing absolutely everything, and this is incorrect. I don't think, throughout history, that the average person had subjected themselves to much thinking anyways. That's probably why they're average. In any case, I'd like to see the proof that calculators have caused the brain to shrink. The idea seems outrageous to me.

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.

Uh............

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.

Except for the fact that the things continue to grown at a faster and faster rate instead of slowing down or coasting.

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.

Har. You seem to be doing a good job of pioneering that nosedive. Just kidding. Har har har.
 

Supernaut

New member
Joined
Feb 22, 2010
Messages
10
MBTI Type
INTP

Haha, no, seriously. I'm begging you. Please give me ANY example of the evolution of the brain being so "strikingly similar" :laugh: to the development of the CPU. This is by far the most nonsensical thing anyone has said in this thread thus far, and you've yet to substantiate your claim.

Smaller brain + equal or higher output = a more efficent brain based upon size. It would require less mass. Less mass results in many benefits.

You still haven't sold me on the "equal or higher output." Accomplishments compounding over time, knowledge and information compounding over time, and the technology to store and share all of this information is NOT EVIDENCE for the higher brain output of modern humans. For a Te user, the evidence part should be easy, right?

Oh, and "less brain mass results in many benefits" --- such as? Never mind, I can already sense that you're going to refuse to substantiate this ridiculous claim as well because you're basing that statement on absolutely nothing. You'll probably just quote this paragraph and put something like "Sigh." again like you tend to do when you don't have a counter-argument but wish to appear too intelligent to respond. Really dude, if you obviously have a reason for disagreeing with something, why not share it?

You make it sound as if people are to catered hand and foot by calculators that are capable of doing absolutely everything, and this is incorrect. I don't think, throughout history, that the average person had subjected themselves to much thinking anyways. That's probably why they're average. In any case, I'd like to see the proof that calculators have caused the brain to shrink. The idea seems outrageous to me.

It's not really like that; and it's not limited to only calculators. Everything is becoming increasingly simplified (and yes, we do have access to more complex information than ever before, but that doesn't mean that too many people are going to go out and seek it or make use of it). What I'm arguing is that modern day-to-day activities impose less brain stress than past day-to-day activities as a result of more developed technology. This is very much a Ti-construction and not something that I can prove to you objectively. You either recognize it in the world around you or you don't. If you want to hear it out of the mouth of someone else, though, I'd read this for starters: Is Google Making Us Stupid? - Magazine - The Atlantic

Uh............
Zzzzzz.

Except for the fact that the things continue to grown at a faster and faster rate instead of slowing down or coasting.

You could reduce the worldwide average IQ by 25 points and you'd still see fantastic development and progress when you introduce revolutionary new technology like the internet to humankind. Progress like this is to be expected, and like I said earlier, is not indicative ofus having more developed brains today.

Har. You seem to be doing a good job of pioneering that nosedive. Just kidding. Har har har.

Less ad hominem and more actual debate, please.
 

Arthur Schopenhauer

What is, is.
Joined
May 1, 2010
Messages
1,158
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5
Haha, no, seriously. I'm begging you. Please give me ANY example of the evolution of the brain being so "strikingly similar" :laugh: to the development of the CPU. This is by far the most nonsensical thing anyone has said in this thread thus far, and you've yet to substantiate your claim.

I did that in the second paragraph of my last post.

You still haven't sold me on the "equal or higher output." Accomplishments compounding over time, knowledge and information compounding over time, and the technology to store and share all of this information is NOT EVIDENCE for the higher brain output of modern humans. For a Te user, the evidence part should be easy, right?

Flynn effect

Oh, and "less brain mass results in many benefits" --- such as? Never mind, I can already sense that you're going to refuse to substantiate this ridiculous claim as well because you're basing that statement on absolutely nothing.

Neuroscience and intelligence

The brain is a metabolically expensive organ, and consumes about 25% of the body's metabolic energy in some species. Because of this fact, although larger brains are associated with higher intelligence, smaller brains might be advantageous from an evolutionary point of view if they are equal in intelligence to larger brains.

----

You'll probably just quote this paragraph and put something like "Sigh." again like you tend to do when you don't have a counter-argument but wish to appear too intelligent to respond. Really dude, if you obviously have a reason for disagreeing with something, why not share it?

Sigh.

It's not really like that; and it's not limited to only calculators. Everything is becoming increasingly simplified (and yes, we do have access to more complex information than ever before, but that doesn't mean that too many people are going to go out and seek it or make use of it). What I'm arguing is that modern day-to-day activities impose less brain stress than past day-to-day activities as a result of more developed technology. This is very much a Ti-construction and not something that I can prove to you objectively. You either recognize it in the world around you or you don't. If you want to hear it out of the mouth of someone else, though, I'd read this for starters: Is Google Making Us Stupid? - Magazine - The Atlantic

More unfounded opinion.


Ditto.

You could reduce the worldwide average IQ by 25 points and you'd still see fantastic development and progress when you introduce revolutionary new technology like the internet to humankind. Progress like this is to be expected, and like I said earlier, is not indicative ofus having more developed brains today.

Uh, a person with an IQ of 75 isn't going to be doing that well...

Less ad hominem and more actual debate, please.

It wasn't ad hominem... It was a joke.
 

Salomé

meh
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,527
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
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.
If anything, modern brains are overstimulated, not understimulated. You haven't proven that decreased mass correlates with decreased intelligence. In fact, the reverse is true. As our brains (and bodies) have been getting smaller over the past 50,000 (not 5,000) yrs, we have become more "intelligent" as that term is usually understood. (see The Flynn Effect)
The increase in IQ is only now starting to drop off in developed nations, in developing nations, the effect is still evident. One explanation is that the increase is due to the stimulating effects of technology on abstract reasoning capability.
Of course, you can argue about definitions of intelligence all day long, but working with the data we have makes sense.

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.
Genetics is technology. Technological evolution out-paces organic evolution, this is fact.
However it is ultimately implemented is irrelevant.
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.
It's a fallacious analogy. CPUs have been engineered to be smaller. Intelligent design is at work.
 

sleepy

Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
536
This is something I find pretty funny. I usually don't put an equal sign between brain size and intelligence...
Me neither.

What's happening is that the human population is becoming female. The female brain is somewhat smaller then the male. It's happened to fish, now it happens to humans.
 

ColonelGadaafi

New member
Joined
Oct 10, 2008
Messages
773
MBTI Type
ESTJ
Enneagram
Si
If anything, modern brains are overstimulated, not understimulated. You haven't proven that decreased mass correlates with decreased intelligence. In fact, the reverse is true. As our brains (and bodies) have been getting smaller over the past 50,000 (not 5,000) yrs, we have become more "intelligent" as that term is usually understood. (see The Flynn Effect)
The increase in IQ is only now starting to drop off in developed nations, in developing nations, the effect is still evident. One explanation is that the increase is due to the stimulating effects of technology on abstract reasoning capability.
Of course, you can argue about definitions of intelligence all day long, but working with the data we have makes sense.
The Flynn effect is bogus and based on what i would call highly subjective factors in a even more obscure conclusion based on a unsubstantiated assumption. The same two emeritus researchers support the conclusion made by Phillipe J .Rushton who states that there is some kind of racial hierarchy of intelligence determined by genetically belonging to the respective group of Europeans, East-Asians and Sub-Saharan Africans. So citing the Flynn effect as a relevant factor is highly questionable considering the implications and agenda held by the author of the "Flynn-effect"(The guy actually believes that certain part's of the world have the same mental performance as people classified as mentally handicapped). The sources for the theory is highly questionable so to speak.

But i agree with you're initial premise. Our brains are getting smaller because the evolutionary advantage of being larger, muscular and what else is being compensated by our sedentary lifestyle and global dominance as a species. We no longer struggle with nature to conceive nourishment. It's a similar process to the new genetic mutation of newer generations lacking molars, which is a redundant trait from when mankind had a harder unprocessed diet. The large Molars provide the extra volume required to chew raw or partially processed food.
 

Haphazard

Don't Judge Me!
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
6,704
MBTI Type
ENFJ
I do not think it would be right to say that just because stuff is "no longer needed" it goes away. If that were true the selection would be stable. Larger bodies would have to be disadvantageous.
 

ColonelGadaafi

New member
Joined
Oct 10, 2008
Messages
773
MBTI Type
ESTJ
Enneagram
Si
I do not think it would be right to say that just because stuff is "no longer needed" it goes away. If that were true the selection would be stable. Larger bodies would have to be disadvantageous.

It doesn't necessarily have to be disadvantageous to become actively deselected, a defined trait decreasal only works in case circumstance where this trait is a liability or interference for the species survival, otherwise something like larger bodies does not disappear entirely, even in favor for positive selection of smaller, less energy requiring bodies. Also you have to put in mind external factors, like diet and climate, location, altitude.

But yes having a larger body muscular body today is more or less redundant in comparison to say 40000 years ago.
 

Salomé

meh
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,527
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
The Flynn effect is bogus and based on what i would call highly subjective factors in a even more obscure conclusion based on a unsubstantiated assumption. The same two emeritus researchers support the conclusion made by Phillipe J .Rushton who states that there is some kind of racial hierarchy of intelligence determined by genetically belonging to the respective group of Europeans, East-Asians and Sub-Saharan Africans. So citing the Flynn effect as a relevant factor is highly questionable considering the implications and agenda held by the author of the "Flynn-effect"(The guy actually believes that certain part's of the world have the same mental performance as people classified as mentally handicapped). The sources for the theory is highly questionable so to speak.
I'm aware of the controversy. It's not a theory - it's a statistical observation. You can provide data to the contrary or you can expose any problems with the methodology. Ad hominem attacks are not persuasive.
 

ColonelGadaafi

New member
Joined
Oct 10, 2008
Messages
773
MBTI Type
ESTJ
Enneagram
Si
I'm aware of the controversy. It's not a theory - it's a statistical observation. You can provide data to the contrary or you can expose any problems with the methodology.
It's not only partially based on statistical data obtained by IQ tests, with some of the input of it being questionable like Equatorial guinea. But there are also very arbitrary factors, like economical statuses of countries included which influences the "Flynn factors" effect on diverse population's.

The bell-curve authors only demonstrate that economically lesser nations perform worse then 1st world countries on standardized Intelligence quotient tests. It doesn't really prove anything about the cognitive ability of denizens of the world.

Lots of criticism by qualified scholars has already been directed towards the book, so i don't see the point in trying to take up it's deficiencies. But the least i can do is tell you that the hypothesizes and explanations are jack shit for credibility.


Ad hominem attacks are not persuasive.
Correction>
Ad-hominem constitutes a personal attack towards the opposing party in the form of linking the premise of your argument to an agenda or a belief, to undermine the validity of your argument. I was questioning the usage of the flynn effect as a premise, i was not making a statement about your apparent . Had i said something like" Hey, your argument is invalid because the flynn effect is racist, so your a racist, thus your premise is invalid", that would constitute an Ad-Hominem.
 

erm

Permabanned
Joined
Jun 19, 2007
Messages
1,652
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5
I see a few fallacies in this thread.

The obvious one is definitions of intelligence. There is not an agreed upon definition in even the slightest sense. For example, by many definitions, artificial intelligence has not been made (as algorithms are not considered intelligent). By other definitions, a primitive calculator is already far beyond human intelligence.

Another is the idea of "out-evolving", or being "more evolved". There is no such thing. Something is either adapted to the environment or not. To simplify, either surviving or not. Humans are just as "evolved" as any other life form that survives today (except those becoming extinct), unless one takes a non-standard definition of "evolution" (which only hinders things). Evolution != improvement, evolution is objective, improvement is subjective.

Changes in species are not necessarily due to evolution either. As changes aren't necessarily an adaption in response to the environment. This is why traits that are either neutral or negative to survival rates often arise and persist in species.

Finally, it is simple fact that the typical modern human faces far more mental stimulation than the typical human at any other time. The amount may have fluctuated in the past few decades, but prior to that there was consistently less information and ways to process it (both mentally and physically). However, what has happened recently is not very relevant on a five thousand year scale.

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.

Our bodies have shrunk? All I've ever heard is the opposite. A recent boom, but a gradual increase prior to that.
 

ColonelGadaafi

New member
Joined
Oct 10, 2008
Messages
773
MBTI Type
ESTJ
Enneagram
Si
Our bodies have shrunk? All I've ever heard is the opposite. A recent boom, but a gradual increase prior to that.
Well as i mentioned earlier... there are a shitload of factors that determines a populations average stature.

But according to findings of cromagnon, they hypothesize that it is the case.

cro-Magnon were anatomically modern, straight limbed and tall compared to the contemporary Neanderthals. Physically they only differ from their modern day descendants in Europe by being on average taller, having a more robust physique and a slightly larger cranial capacity.[20] The Cro-Magnons had long, fairly low skulls, with a wide face, a prominent nose and moderate to no prognathism, similar to features seen in modern Europeans.[21] A very distinct trait is the rectangular orbits.[22] Several works on genetics, blood types and cranial morphology indicate that the Basque people may be the descendents of the original Cro-Magnon population.[23].
 

erm

Permabanned
Joined
Jun 19, 2007
Messages
1,652
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5
Well as i mentioned earlier... there are a shitload of factors that determines a populations average stature.

Yes, but long after Cro-Magnons is what I was referring to.

It may be closely linked to the development of agriculture or other factors outside of genetics, but I thought evidence suggested that over the past five thousand years human bodies have been increasing in size.

An idea I'm particularly fond of for no rational reason, is that brain size evolution lags behind body size evolution. So the average brain shrinking in the last few thousand years would be a delayed response to humans still being smaller than cro-Magnons twenty thousand years ago, yet possessing comparable brain size and function.
 

ColonelGadaafi

New member
Joined
Oct 10, 2008
Messages
773
MBTI Type
ESTJ
Enneagram
Si
An idea I'm particularly fond of for no rational reason, is that brain size evolution lags behind body size evolution. So the average brain shrinking in the last few thousand years would be a delayed response to humans still being smaller than cro-Magnons twenty thousand years ago, yet possessing comparable brain size and function.

Actually you are right... i took the time to look up the quoted source and as it turns out

Cro-Magnons were robustly built and powerful and are presumed to have been about 166 to 171 cm (about 5 feet 5 inches to 5 feet 7 inches) tall. The body was generally heavy and solid, apparently with strong musculature. The forehead was straight, with slight browridges, and the face short and wide. Cro-Magnons were the first humans (genus Homo) to have a prominent chin. The brain capacity was about 1,600 cc (100 cubic inches), somewhat larger than the average for modern humans. It is thought that Cro-Magnons were probably fairly tall compared with other early human species.

The average for most human population is higher... somewhere around estimated 175cm if all the populations had equal terms in nutrition and diseases. With some human populations reaching up to 184-190cm's (6 feet plus) like the Sudanese Dinka, Monte-Negrans, The Dutch and so on and forth. But it still doesn't suffice to say that because of the cro-magnon's larger cranial capacities.. they must have been more intelligent, you can make the same statement about . After all these were archaic Homo Sapiens and they did not have the same mutations(many which we could reasonably say are positive in comparison).

This also poses a new question. Are we out of our element with sedentary lifestyles and technology?.
 

Haphazard

Don't Judge Me!
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
6,704
MBTI Type
ENFJ
How are they measuring this, anyway? If we're measuring brain capacity by skull capacity, it's possible that our skulls are just getting smaller and tighter around our brains -- A koala's brain only takes up half of its skull capacity, the rest filled with cerebrospinal fluid.
 
Top