People from northern parts of the world have evolved bigger brains and larger eyes to help them to cope with long, dark winters and dim skies, scientists said on Wednesday.I had thought that any differences in skull - and therefore brain - size were the inventions of racist scientists. Stephen Jay Gould said so, after all, and no one was a greater authority in crypto-Marxist paleontology than he.
LONDON (Reuters) - People from northern parts of the world have evolved bigger brains and larger eyes to help them to cope with long, dark winters and dim skies, scientists said on Wednesday.
Researchers from Oxford University studied the eye sockets and brain capacity of 55 human skulls from 12 different populations across the world and found that the further human populations live from the equator, the bigger their brains.
It's not because they are smarter, however, but because they need bigger vision areas in the brain to cope with the low light levels at high latitudes, the scientists said in a report of their findings in the journal Biology Letters.
"As you move away from the equator, there's less and less light available, so humans have had to evolve bigger and bigger eyes," said Eiluned Pearce from Oxford's School of Anthropology, who led the study. "Their brains also need to be bigger to deal with the extra visual input.
"Having bigger brains doesn't mean that higher latitude humans are smarter, it just means they need bigger brains to be able to see well where they live."
Here's the abstract from the original paper:
Latitudinal variation in light levels drives human visual system sizeHmmm, visiospatial cognition:
Eiluned Pearce* and
Robin Dunbar
+ Author Affiliations
Institute of Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology, University of Oxford, 64 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6PN, UK
↵*Author for correspondence (eiluned.pearce@anthro.ox.ac.uk).
Abstract
Ambient light levels influence visual system size in birds and primates. Here, we argue that the same is true for humans. Light levels, in terms of both the amount of light hitting the Earth's surface and day length, decrease with increasing latitude. We demonstrate a significant positive relationship between absolute latitude and human orbital volume, an index of eyeball size. Owing to tight scaling between visual system components, this will translate into enlarged visual cortices at higher latitudes. We also show that visual acuity measured under full-daylight conditions is constant across latitudes, indicating that selection for larger visual systems has mitigated the effect of reduced ambient light levels. This provides, to our knowledge, the first support that light levels drive intraspecific variation in visual system size in the human population.
When we look at a scene we feel that we perceive the visual world in all its detail and richness. This experienced quality and effortlessness of vision masks the fact that scene perception is actually a highly complex cognitive process, which requires the explorative scanning by eye movements, the quick and accurate direction of attention, the anticipation of the consequences of actions, and the integration of current visual input with stored representations of previously viewed parts of the scene and knowledge of objects and their relationships. A number of striking visual illusions demonstrate that scene perception is in fact a rather fragile process that essentially builds upon assumptions about the visual world to optimally piece together the observations taken across multiple fixations.Whether higher visual acuity translates into or correlates with higher IQ I don't know. But visiospatial tests, such as Raven's Progressive Matrices, are part of IQ tests.
What the authors describe in the second paragraph of the abstract as "scene perception" is undoubtedly a major component of intelligence. Their denials that this is the case are routine in these situations.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of dim light bulbs, Mike Shedlock (Mish) says that:
ReplyDeleteThe per-capita and real-per-capita charts tell a story of decay, and that decay started with the ascent of Chinese manufacturing and continued even through the housing boom years.
It might not be a mistake to believe that a certain group specializes in parasitizing other groups until they have been sucked dry and then moving on.
Gould was, like Boas, a Leftist determined to make biology obey politics. Darwin was and is often hijacked to serve as a butress for spurious Leftist claims. Fortunately, Gould is being discredited openly today while the general paradigm of diversity/multicult is feverishly defended to the death.Inroads against this tyrannical creed must come piecemail and hopefully without attacks like that in Norway.
ReplyDeleteToday most scientists prefer peace and quiet to the open warfare of Leftists like Chomsky. Human cranial capacity has been recalculated and earlier "racist" naturalists were found to be utterly correct. J. Philippe Rushton, a notorious "racist" wrote Race, Evolution, and Behavior, a book containing data on skull sizes that rank Asian, White, and black in that order.There is no doubt about that simple fact of biology.
Liberals need to produce a James Watson from their ranks who will speak the truth about human biodiversity. Science needs to be able to explore the vistas of human differences and societies need badly to learn the truth about nature rather than myths.Each piece of research futhers our general paradigm against the hysteria of the Left.Nature is not built to accommodate one's whims and fantasies, but however it is built, learning to face the truth surely is superior to illusion.
I hate it when scientists report hate facts like this…
ReplyDeleteYea, I'm sure these bigger brains have absolutely nothing to do with intelligence.
ReplyDeleteNot lost on anyone here, just pointing out the
ReplyDeleteobvious need of these "scientists" to stress this politically correct and simultaneously scientifically incorrect point.
"It's not because they are smarter, however, but because they need bigger vision areas in the brain to cope with the low light levels at high latitudes, the scientists said [...]"
and, then, two small paragraphs later, in case anyone could have missed it the first time:
""Having bigger brains doesn't mean that higher latitude humans are smarter,[...]
Hmm, if they are scientifically incorrect perhaps one shouldn't label them scientists. Perhaps court jesters is a more apt description.
What happened to Roissy's blog? Why is it down?
ReplyDeleteStalking the Wild Taboo - Science and ideology, 1995. Edward O. Wilson on the marxism of Gould, et al.:
ReplyDelete"Now I can come to the essence of the radical science movement. As loopy as it all may seem today, and especially after the collapse of world socialism, the argument has to be taken seriously, since it has been accepted to varying degrees by a few influential scientists, including Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Levins, and Ruth Hubbard, who are highly regarded in the public eye as scientists, even as they continue to promote a Marxian view.
Here then is the argument in its raw form: only an anti-reductionist, non-bourgeois science can help humanity attain the highest goal, which is a socialist world. In the 1984 book Not in Our Genes, Lewontin, Steven Rose, and Leon Kamin, all worthies of radical science philosophy, explained their purpose as follows:
We share a commitment to the prospect of the creation of a more socially just--a socialist--society. And we recognize that a critical science is an integral part of the struggle to create that society, just as we also believe that the social function of much of today's science is to hinder the creation of that society by acting to preserve the interests of the dominant class, gender, and race. This belief--in the possibility of a critical and liberatory science--is why we have each in our separate ways and to varying degrees been involved in the development of what has become known over the 1970s and 1980s, in the United States and Britain, as the radical science movement."
I'll second that I don't really get the dismissal of visualspatial processing enrichment being more intelligence (well, I "get it" of course).
ReplyDeleteI find this questionable given the likely recent West Asian origin (in many parts, simply due to the Neolithic revolution) of Europeans, the low orbital volume of North East Asians (in this and reported elsewhere), the high relative orbital volume of Aborigines and Indians, and that there is a reduction in East Asians in this in in recent historical times.
I wouldn't be surprised if this isn't largely just a phenomenon resulting from the fact that other factors give rise to Caucasoids having relatively large orbital volume - I'm thinking the flat cheeks and high nasal bone - and mostly living in fairly cool and dark areas.
Another simplistic view on racial achievement gaps.
ReplyDeleteAddendum: Although there are data which support selection for visual acuity in the North (see blue eyes and fighter aces, snipers), if we're talking about selection for visual acuity, then the myopia (or other visual system disorder) prevalence patterns should follow the pattern. Are Northern people less myopic or more myopic?
ReplyDeleteAnon 11:33,
ReplyDeleteRoissy moved the blog to heartiste.wordpress.com
I live in Alaska and agree with the low light levels premise for only half the year - Winter. During Summer, the Sun rises around 4 AM and sets after midnight with the time in-between dusky and not black like a deep night. How do these elevated light levels change their theory?
ReplyDeleteI that specifying areas with consistently overcast skies might be a more viable research path.
The brains of Eskimos must be so huge they look like saucer men!
ReplyDeleteThat explains all the Eskimo geniuses and Nobel Prize winners...
That explains all the Eskimo geniuses and Nobel Prize winners...
ReplyDeleteNo one claimed that latitude is the only influence on intelligence. Culture and civilization create large selection pressures independent of climate. And FWIW, Eskimos score much higher on IQ tests than other hunter-gatherers.
Visual acuity and visual-spatial reasoning are not the same thing. The first has to do with perceiving objects in the field of vision, the second with visualizing and manipulating multidimensional objects in one's mind.
ReplyDelete"Light levels, in terms of both the amount of light hitting the Earth's surface and day length, decrease with increasing latitude."
ReplyDeleteHere,"Indeed, the relationship between UVB penetration and latitude is complex, as a result of differences in, for example, the height of the atmosphere (50 percent less at the poles), cloud cover (more intense at the equator than at the poles), and ozone cover. The duration of sunlight in summer versus winter is another factor contributing to the complexity of the relationship. Geophysical surveys have shown that UVB penetration over 24 hours, during the summer months at Canadian north latitudes when there are many hours of sunlight, equals or exceeds UVB penetration at the equator (Lubin et al., 1998)."
What would all that UV do to the lens of their blue eyes if their eyes were optimized for low light conditions and let massive amounts in during the summer ? It would fry it like the white of an egg that's what. They'd have had cataracts by wintertime.
The most acute eyesight is that of Eagles who manage without huge eyes. Owls have huge eyes but than is no doubt because they are nocturnal hunters which is a different thing entirely. A Stone age hunter who went looking for food at night would be likely to become food.
Talking about big eyes, look at this Ukrainian supermodel:
ReplyDeletehttp://i2.beon.ru/96/65/1386596/90/45685090/1175761391_masha_tielne009.jpeg
http://i2.beon.ru/96/65/1386596/91/45685091/article_imageimagearticle.jpeg
Well, it's fascinating to learn it never gets dark in central Africa, but then I only lived there for 20 years.
ReplyDeleteAnon.
Ambient light levels influence visual system size in birds and primates. Here, we argue that the same is true for humans. Light levels, in terms of both the amount of light hitting the Earth's surface and day length, decrease with increasing latitude.
ReplyDeleteWhat a howler! Day length does not decrease with increasing latitude. It's exactly the same, on average.
Well i think it's a great improvement after decades of "scientists" lying through their teeth about a measurable fact like brain sizes.
ReplyDeleteThe "why?" is always debateable but not the bare fact.
So yay!
Science today is all about what the money people want. It's not a search for the truth or the progress of humanity. It's about confirming the dominant politics. Most scientists work for the government in one form or another.
ReplyDeleteInteresting tidbit:
ReplyDeleteI once read in American Renaissance about a study showing that Australian aboriginals have a 25% larger area of the brain devoted to handling vision than whites (while having 15% smaller brains over all).
This paper ilustrates my point that science is broken.
ReplyDeleteScience absolutely requires that nearly-all scientists are habitually honest; these scientists (altogether typical of modern practice) are NOT EVEN TRYING to be honest.
Multiply that by itself a couple of times (scientists using each others work, citing each other's work, applying for grants and jobs, reporting their own work), and you will see that there is several-fold more noise than signal.
A complete waste of time, effort and resources.
Off-topic: New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism
ReplyDeleteI'm rather skeptical. Intensity of ambient light is a function not only of the angle of the sun but also of reflection from the ground. In Arctic Canada, ambient light is actually quite good and often very strong because of reflection from snow and ice.
ReplyDeleteIn winter, the days are shorter but twilight is also longer than it is down south. There is a long period before sunrise and after sunset when the southern sky is lit up.
Finally, if the Inuit evolved under conditions of weak ambient light, why do they have epicanthic eyefolds? Why did they invent snow goggles?
I nonetheless welcome this article. This is not "broken science." Science is dysfunctional when scientists observe a phenomenon and say nothing at all.
I don't believe the study is really concerned with the Arctic all that much.
ReplyDeleteThe skulls used in the study dated back to the 1800s and included samples from indigenous populations of England, Australia, Canary Islands, China, France, India, Kenya, Micronesia, Scandinavia, Somalia, Uganda and the United States.
Snow and ice aren't that ubiquitous in these areas. The populous areas of Scandinavia are the areas in which farming is possible and/or in which ice-free harbors allowed fishing. The other northern areas are England, France, and parts of China and the US.
Those areas have ambient light limited by latitude, but also by overcast (I'm not a climatologist, but I've spent some dreary weeks in the UK and Scandinavia). The question would be: how dark is at noon, on average, during the monsoon season of a given tropical area? As sunset/sunrise? I really don't know. If a monsoon actually makes it hard to see during the day, that would only be an advantage to big-eyed people if you could still obtain food during the monsoon (the way you can, for example, hunt narwhal in North Sea during the half-lit season).
That said, I am sure overcast limits ambient light in the Arctic from time to time, and navigating and obtaining food on those long nights is no joke. Something is accounting for the Eskimo advantages in IQ vis a vis other hunter-gatherers. (As to what accounts for their having lower IQs than other northerly groups, I suspect population density is the culprit.)
Olave,
ReplyDeleteThe correlation between brain size and latitude has been found by other studies, notably:
Beals, K.L., C.L. Smith, and S.M. Dodd (1984). Brain size, cranial morphology, climate, and time machines, Current Anthropology, 25, 301–330.
In that study, the Inuit and other Arctic hunting peoples had the highest cranial capacities of all human populatons.
I suspect that brain size reflects not so much intelligence as the need to store information, especially the kind of spatiotemporal information that hunters accumulate on long hunting expeditions.
Since hunting distance correlates with latitude, this might be the relevant factor (see Hoffecker, J.F. (2002). Desolate Landscapes. Ice-Age Settlement in Eastern Europe. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, pp. 8-9.)