Science Shows Why You’re Smarter Than a Neanderthal

Thanks to all for the replies!

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: borntowatch
I guess they only used less than 10% of their brain
but still if its bigger than homosapien brains then they still use more than us, this is a stupid study based on absolutely nothing but assumption, conjecture and 10% brain stupidity

and this is a stupid post based on zero knowledge of the topic. especially when you bandy about anachronisms pertaining to percentages of brain used by any species. we all use all of our brains and you're entirely excluding the FACT that in primates, brain size is measurably proportionate to body size and mass. HSN had more mass than contemporary AMH as well as current HSS populations.

Some people make stuff up with out thinking

as you demonstrate with increasing regularity

Ahh so my stupid post is stupid because some say human brains are smaller than Neanderthal brains but we are smarter...what is that based on
A bigger brain by logic has more capacity, stop following the heard.

Neanderthal brains are bigger, they have more capacity, prove otherwise.

The 10% meant nothing, its a matter of capacity.
Use your 10%

originally posted by: Hanslune
...and you know that - how?

*puts fingers to temples*
*makes buzzing noise*

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: borntowatch
I guess they only used less than 10% of their brain
but still if its bigger than homosapien brains then they still use more than us, this is a stupid study based on absolutely nothing but assumption, conjecture and 10% brain stupidity

and this is a stupid post based on zero knowledge of the topic. especially when you bandy about anachronisms pertaining to percentages of brain used by any species. we all use all of our brains and you're entirely excluding the FACT that in primates, brain size is measurably proportionate to body size and mass. HSN had more mass than contemporary AMH as well as current HSS populations.

Some people make stuff up with out thinking

as you demonstrate with increasing regularity

Ahh so my stupid post is stupid because some say human brains are smaller than Neanderthal brains but we are smarter...what is that based on
A bigger brain by logic has more capacity, stop following the heard.

Neanderthal brains are bigger, they have more capacity, prove otherwise.

The 10% meant nothing, its a matter of capacity.
Use your 10%

Humans like to believe that our exceptional cognitive abilities must indicate that we are the kings of the animal kingdom in terms of brain size, or at least that we have the largest brains relative to our body size. As nature would have it, both of these common assumptions are incorrect. Whales and elephants have much bigger brains than humans, and we have about the same brain-to-body mass ratio as mice.

neuroscience.stanford.edu...

By your logic, why are whales and elephants not smarter than humans? They have more capacity in your view. And when will mice finally be recognized as our equals?

Maybe bigger brains dont necessarily have a benefit by measure of human intelligence which could be a factor as to why were here and Neanderthals are not? Nah, that's silly.

a reply to: Cambot

Additionally little people (midgets) with brains half the size of an adult brain of a normal size human are fully as intelligent as regular folks.

originally posted by: borntowatch
Ahh so my stupid post is stupid because some say human brains are smaller than Neanderthal brains but we are smarter...

Its a pun. You call a study stupid by not bothering with the apropriate research or understanding then expect to get a little back.

what is that based on

Rad the article or the paper it was based on. That's the entire point of the post. If you can't be bothered to give the basic attention required don't expect anyone else to coddle you with the explanations and do your homework for you.

A bigger brain by logic has more capacity, stop following the heard.

Bigger capacity doesn't mean similar spacial organization. If the visual cortex takes up a significant amount more cubic space, them there is less room for other functions. It doesn't make one smarter or dumber than the other. It made them specialized in different ways. We have been us for Neanderthal managed to survive in some of the harshest climates imaginable with basic lithic technology. I in no way am implying they were dumb. I wouldnt have soent years researching them or using them for the basis of my thesis if i werent immensely impresed with them Nor is the article making such an implication either. Its describing the results of a we years of research. If you disagree with the outcome of the paper, please write a counterpoint to it.

Neanderthal brains are bigger, they have more capacity, prove otherwise.

Please read above... More capacity in no way means spacial organization is similar. Different regions of the brain that specialize to improve different functions mean you have a give and take. If you disagree with something, simply stating that it is dumb doesn't really do anything. Explain why its dumb, do some basic research, understand the correlation between cranial capacity and mass. Rebut the data with facts as opposed to simply announcing that its dumb.

The 10% meant nothing, its a matter of capacity.

If it meant nothing why say it? Its a matter of you not understanding, not capacity.

Use your 10%.

Its so sweet of you to be concerned.

originally posted by: Hanslune
Additionally little people (midgets) with brains half the size of an adult brain of a normal size human are fully as intelligent as regular folks.

There is also the case of hydrocephalics who have their brains squished into a fairly thin layer on the inside of their skulls. Some of them get by just fine. Some of them never even know it.

originally posted by: Cambot

By your logic, why are whales and elephants not smarter than humans? They have more capacity in your view. And when will mice finally be recognized as our equals?

Maybe bigger brains dont necessarily have a benefit by measure of human intelligence which could be a factor as to why were here and Neanderthals are not? Nah, that's silly.

Thats valid cambot, I agree.
My issue is evidence rather than assumption.

Where is the evidence that suggests humanity is smarter than the Neanderthal.
There are lots of Ooparts that suggest at one stage a highly intelligent civilisation existed before us humans.

Why couldnt it have been the bigger bodied, bigger brained Neanderthal

Maybe the Neanderthal population was just smaller in number and was bread out, maybe they were fully human like Pygmys are fully human.

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: borntowatch
Ahh so my stupid post is stupid because some say human brains are smaller than Neanderthal brains but we are smarter...

Its a pun. You call a study stupid by not bothering with the apropriate research or understanding then expect to get a little back.

what is that based on

Rad the article or the paper it was based on. That's the entire point of the post. If you can't be bothered to give the basic attention required don't expect anyone else to coddle you with the explanations and do your homework for you.

A bigger brain by logic has more capacity, stop following the heard.

Bigger capacity doesn't mean similar spacial organization. If the visual cortex takes up a significant amount more cubic space, them there is less room for other functions. It doesn't make one smarter or dumber than the other. It made them specialized in different ways. We have been us for Neanderthal managed to survive in some of the harshest climates imaginable with basic lithic technology. I in no way am implying they were dumb. I wouldnt have soent years researching them or using them for the basis of my thesis if i werent immensely impresed with them Nor is the article making such an implication either. Its describing the results of a we years of research. If you disagree with the outcome of the paper, please write a counterpoint to it.

Neanderthal brains are bigger, they have more capacity, prove otherwise.

Please read above... More capacity in no way means spacial organization is similar. Different regions of the brain that specialize to improve different functions mean you have a give and take. If you disagree with something, simply stating that it is dumb doesn't really do anything. Explain why its dumb, do some basic research, understand the correlation between cranial capacity and mass. Rebut the data with facts as opposed to simply announcing that its dumb.

The 10% meant nothing, its a matter of capacity.

If it meant nothing why say it? Its a matter of you not understanding, not capacity.

Use your 10%.

Its so sweet of you to be concerned.

No I call it stupid because they are fitting pieces in to a puzzle to prove their theory, it doesnt matter if the pieces fit or not

More capacity does not prove they were smarter, sure as hell doesnt prove they were not as smart either.

Oh and because I have a different view, I am the enemy of science, yeah thats logical.

Just drink the cool aid

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: Cambot

Additionally little people (midgets) with brains half the size of an adult brain of a normal size human are fully as intelligent as regular folks.

I dont think you should have typed that down, some of these very learned scientists would have to change so many theories based on that information, the science community would never recover their credibility

No one is going to challenge your comment because to do so would make them look very foolish

Expect to be ignored, enjoy it

Very good comment, very pertinent

originally posted by: borntowatch

Thats valid cambot, I agree.
My issue is evidence rather than assumption.

Where is the evidence that suggests humanity is smarter than the Neanderthal.

That's not what any of this is about. It has nothing to do with Intelligence. Its about different areas of the brain being used for different things. In this specific case, its that Neanderthals visual cortex took up a larger part of their brain which left less cubic area for other cognitive functions. Its not represe tstive of oversll intelligence though. In the Levant for example, the lithic technology used by the Neanderthal living there was superior to that of the Homo sapiens who were moving into the area 70KYA. The Homo sapiens ended up learning from and eventually improving upon that tech but initially the Neanderthal lithic was superior.

There are lots of Ooparts that suggest at one stage a highly intelligent civilisation existed before us humans.

Such as?

Why couldnt it have been the bigger bodied, bigger brained Neanderthal

Because all evidence indicates nothing more than Stone Age technology. Its cool to ponder but you can't just throw it out there as your explanation without supporting with something more substantial than "what if?.

Maybe the Neanderthal population was just smaller in number and was bread out, maybe they were fully human like Pygmys are fully human.

Their genetic code has been fully decoded and compared to ours. Not fully human like Pygmy sorry.

originally posted by: borntowatch

No I call it stupid because they are fitting pieces in to a puzzle to prove their theory, it doesnt matter if the pieces fit or not

Then describe exactly how that is so please.

More capacity does not prove they were smarter, sure as hell doesnt prove they were not as smart either.

Again, I'm not saying they were less smart than HSS or HS. They survived for well over 200,000 years as the sole humans in Eurasia. That's not a feat for dummies.

Oh and because I have a different view, I am the enemy of science, yeah thats logical.

Just drink the cool aid.

Not because you have a different view, because you just shoot things down as dumb and leave it at that. You don't explain why its dumb or give any detail let alone a counterpoint. Its basic, its elementary and its lacking substance. Just my opinion. Maybe if you were to attempt comprehension of what you read instead of seeing my name attached and automatically deciding its derision for its own sake thereby reading and seeing what you want and ignoring all the rest you would be better off.

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: Cambot

Additionally little people (midgets) with brains half the size of an adult brain of a normal size human are fully as intelligent as regular folks.

I dont think you should have typed that down, some of these very learned scientists would have to change so many theories based on that information, the science community would never recover their credibility

No one is going to challenge your comment because to do so would make them look very foolish

Expect to be ignored, enjoy it

Very good comment, very pertinent

There's nothing to be ignored. You're misconstruing the actual meaning. There are no theories or hypothesis to be altered, nothing for science to be in an uproar about. Its exactly in line with what everyone has said all along you simply don't see how far off base you really are.

originally posted by: peter vlar

Because all evidence indicates nothing more than Stone Age technology. Its cool to ponder but you can't just throw it out there as your explanation without supporting with something more substantial than "what if?.

So we agree.
Some silly headline about humans being smarter than Neanderthals based on conjecture, invalid as no experiment has taken place.....
no valid support other than conjecture
nothing substantial other than assumption

yet its listed as a fact in the headline?

The premise is a what if, so is mine. Do you get it?
Stop drinking the cool aid

and I am not shooting it down, I am saying its baseless, its fitting theory to suit a premise, its not science.
Its an invalid statement based on no scientific evidence, its conjecture, there is no experiment, just faith.

originally posted by: peter vlar

There's nothing to be ignored. You're misconstruing the actual meaning. There are no theories or hypothesis to be altered, nothing for science to be in an uproar about. Its exactly in line with what everyone has said all along you simply don't see how far off base you really are.

Well what do you see as the meaning?

You are right, its in line with what you believe, its been fitted in, it has no scientific bases.
Where is the scientific proof that Neanderthals were not as smart as humans, were not human

www.colorado.edu...

Try to understand that the opening post states that Neanderthals were not as smart as humans based on the fact the part of the brain for social interaction was smaller than modern humans
All I am asking is that statement be proven scientifically, simple
please get back to me with evidence.

The simple fact is the statement may well be true, it may well be false.
Where is the evidence to justify the statement, where is the science as opposed to belief, conjecture, assumption.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Hanslune
...and you know that - how?

*puts fingers to temples*
*makes buzzing noise*

Ah the Acme Laboratory A2 mode 3, Deluxe maker upperer!

originally posted by: borntowatch


So we agree.
Some silly headline about humans being smarter than Neanderthals based on conjecture, invalid as no experiment has taken place.....

The only part I would agree with is the silly heaine if the ARTICLE. Have you looked at the actual paper or are you basing your entire interpretation on the headline of the article? If so your beef is with Smithsonian Magazine not the papers authors. The title of the actual paper is "New Insights into Differences in Brain Organization Between Neanderthal and Anatomically Modern Humans". Since you are oblivious to that you clearly have not read the actual paper which means you have no basis for your next statement below

no valid support other than conjecture
nothing substantial other than assumption

yet its listed as a fact in the headline?

Your beef is with Smithsonian Mag and has nothing at all to do with the actual content of the paper which you have yet to read.

The premise is a what if, so is mine. Do you get it?
Stop drinking the cool aid

You've
Drank it all and save no Kool-Aid for anyone else. You've got your
Own damned Kool-Aid brewery over there.

and I am not shooting it down, I am saying its baseless, its fitting theory to suit a premise, its not science.
Its an invalid statement based on no scientific evidence, its conjecture, there is no experiment, just faith.

The only thing I've read that is baseless woukd be your commentary since you haven't actually read the paper. Hand linked it in the OP. Read it first then whine about you. Ignorance does not become you, It's your default position. Kool Aid my rear end...

a reply to: Hanslune

Finest machine ever made !

a reply to: peter vlar

Journalist by their nature tend to over emphasis things and sensationalize theories. I believe it is also a ATS policy to put down the exact name used in articles.

It always helps to read the underlying paper.

a reply to: Hanslune

100% correct on all counts. Reading the paper was the first thing I did when I saw it linked. It's a short and sweet 7 pages and addresses all the concerns of the resident naysayer who happens to be as sensationalistic as the finest of journalists. This topic has been discussed for years and it's particular research has been ongoing since 2013 if I remember correctly. I simy can't fathom constructing my entire opinion solely on a magazine article or an abstract alone. But hey... To each their own I guess.