| Comments: |
If "the brain, with access to cooler air and cooler venous blood, could work harder before it risked overheating" than this brain, adapted to working in the cooler air, would break down in heat. So, people in cold climates should become measurably stupider once they move towards the equator, in fact, they should be stupider than the people evolved to deal with the heat. Should be possible to test. Are average IQ scores of Northern-ancestry people in Africa, for instance, lower, than average IQ scores of native people?
I think that since they have a physically larger brain, they would keep the intelligence advantage, but that they would also be much more susceptible to heat related problems and exhaustion.
We can design a test to distinguish the results of having the wrong brain size for the climate from the results of having the wrong body type and skin color, but there'd be no practical way to run it :( So, let's try from another angle - if there's a mutation that produces a larger brain and one that produces dark skin and one that produces less body hair and fat the winners will be people with all three mutations. Can we find any?
Why would the winners be people with all three mutations? In particular I don't know that skin color directly changes body temperature.
It doesn't. I wasn't thinking about just body temperature as much as living in the South in general. Melanoma incidence rates are 20 times higher for Caucasians than for African-Americans. So, a person with all 3 mutations would be smart, cool, and cancer-free. But we find two out of three at most - why?
Another (totally unrelated) point: larger head = more heat loss from the head. Especially in infants, who lose heat mostly from their heads, a large head in a cold climate is detrimental to survival. Adults, too, would have to make up for the heat loss by obtaining more calories. In fact, the ideal head for a cold climate would be a small one, covered in thick, kinky, wooly hair.
Hmm. IIRC, while there are a few years to adapt, once you have adapted, you are no more suspectible to the heat (or cold) that the natives of a climate. (Deleted comment)
> I will use the scientific method even if it makes me feel stupid.
Going to work and trying to program with a bag of peas on my head is probably not quite as bad as going out to my backyard and hollering "letter for Hogwarts" -- more opportunity for explanation, for one.
I'll try this tomorrow.
Gregory Cochran (of The 10,000 Year Explosion fame) has been speculating(1) that there is variation in mutation rate dependent on temperature or something correlated with temperature, (2) higher mutation rates cause a higher genetic burden in human populations, (3) leading to IQ reduction and other minor dingsSome related blog posts of his: [ 1 2 3 4 5] Edited at 2012-08-08 06:10 am (UTC)
That was super super fascinating. I was going to say that can't be the whole story because of the difference in cranial capacity, but Cochran addresses that in your [5]. Thank you.
You're welcome, glad you enjoyed it. :)
Do you have evidence that the brain generates significantly more heat when one is exerting willpower and conscious control?
From: (Anonymous) 2012-08-08 07:45 am (UTC)
| (Link)
|
It should be easy enough to test that by looking at glucose consumption while people do various types of task. Heat's got to come from somewhere.
-- passing Firedrake
From: (Anonymous) 2012-08-08 11:23 am (UTC)
| (Link)
|
My understanding is that the brain does not consume significantly more glucose when you're exerting yourself mentally compared to when you're idling. Visual processing, as well as sensory and motor stuff, takes up a lot more space than your puny capacity for conscious thought.
Your example with the inventing of jackets requires intelligence to only be useful over the long term. Most smart people are generally better at day-to-day problem solving, which is probably incredibly useful in inhospitable environments.
I prefer my* theory, which is that runaway sexual selection for neoteny gave us our big heads, and we lucked out in that this gave enough real estate for functional adaptations, unlike say a dirty big asymmetric claw or a bushy tail with colourful plumage.
* "My" in that I came up with it independently but I've seen it espoused by others since.
As someone with 50% Nordic/Mediterranean genes I have to wonder where your theory leaves me. I'm well adapted to the heat, so does that mean I lack the cool brain smarts? I know I *could* be smarter, I'm at the sweet spot of the Dunning-Kruger curve where I'm pretty much aware of how smart I'm not but lack the blessed obliviousness that would let me plow ahead (People assume the Dunning-Kruger effect is a handicap, but I'm not so sure)
I do notice performance differences between summer and winter, but I'd never considered them in terms of cognitive power availability, rather general exhaustion. I'll have to keep an eye out.
From: (Anonymous) 2012-08-08 05:16 pm (UTC)
| (Link)
|
I prefer my* theory, which is that runaway sexual selection for neoteny gave us our big heads, and we lucked out in that this gave enough real estate for functional adaptations, unlike say a dirty big asymmetric claw or a bushy tail with colourful plumage.
Given that homo floresiensis appears to have been doing the same stuff with a quarter the brain volume as contemporary sapiens, that's actually probably a better explanation than one that depends critically upon relating human intellectual performance to our big heads. (In general, while brain volume and intelligence seem to correlate in hominins, the relationship is not a smooth or simple one, and it utterly fails to account for why H. Neanderthalensis had bigger brain volume but didn't evidently outcompete us -- problematic for theories that link brain size, intelligence and exclusive evolutionary success for H. Sapiens.)
As with pretty much all between-populations variation, even the slightest idea of your actual intelligence, eg that you do well in school, pretty much eliminates any information you could gain from tiny differences in between-groups intelligence.
The heat in the brain notion also shows up in Reciprocality, an obscure bit of psychoceramics descended from the Programmer's Stone idea. It includes the notion that more fractally compressed ideas have higher information entropy and thus more compact thoughts lead to a measurable lowering of temperature in the brain. And this is how MDMA works to induce revelations in programmers who take it in nightclubs. Or something close to that. It's a bit special.
What? Was Aristotle onto something after all?
True, he thought the sole function of the brain was to cool the blood, and the reason he thought that made us smart was that it kept us in cool reason rather acting in a hot-blooded manner, so I wouldn't say he was right -- but still, it's kinda interesting.
Why isn't this entry titled "Stuff"?
Every so often people link my articles on Facebook or something, and "Stuff" auto-shows-up as the title, and it's embarrassing. I try to make slightly better titles for any article that's substantive enough to possibly get linked to, when I remember, which I rarely do.
This theory explains the adaptive value of male-pattern baldness - once an older male has attained alpha male status in his tribe, the cognitive load of maintaining his status necessitates additional cooling.
Shaving people's heads should increase their cognitive performance, even without fancy cooling systems.
That first paragraph sounds very sketchy...I would naively expect that younger people would be bald because it sounds harder to gain status in the first place than to maintain it.
It is a good point that why the heck does male-pattern baldness happen anyway, and I'd be interested to know if there were a known biological or evolutionary explanation.
It's a way to signal high testosterone levels to females.
From: (Anonymous) 2012-08-08 05:18 pm (UTC)
| (Link)
|
This is so very easy to test. Buy a cheap laser thermometer, target it at your forehead, and then perform demanding cognitive tasks.
From: (Anonymous) 2012-08-12 04:23 pm (UTC)
| (Link)
|
So, do people score higher on standardized tests when taken in colder rooms?
As (somewhat) of an applied physicist, there's an issue... Brain gets power from flowing liquid that has very high heat capacity, which simultaneously with providing the power carries away the heat from whence its generated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebral_blood_flow0.75 litres per minute, or 0.0125 litres per second. Heat capacity of water is about 4100 joules per litre per kelvin, and that requires 51 watt of heat output to make the out-flowing blood be warmer by 1 kelvin ( 51 / (0.0125 * 4100) = 1 ). The power of brain is somewhere around 20 watts, so 0.4 Kelvin higher out-flow temperature than in-flow temperature. Not much, considering that some people can be full 1 degree colder than typical. I would expect increase in the power consumption to require increased cerebral blood flow. And at the body level some percentage on extra ~20 watts to shed is not much. It is the case, though, that when you are cold, 'wasting' nutrients on brain costs nothing as you would have had to burn those nutrients anyway. Better to think harder before shivering, I guess. | |