The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Our Brain!  (Read 11338 times)

Offline simeonie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 351
    • View Profile
    • http://www.simeonie.co.uk
Our Brain!
« on: 13/08/2005 10:52:47 »
You know people say that we only use 10% of our brain right. Well is that true? And if so do the more intelligent people like Albert Einstein, and great artists etc use a hiher percentage that the average Joe.

----------------------
Time is like a knife..... slowly and relentlesly.... cuts the cored of life.

-__- my website!!!!
http://www.simeonie.co.uk
has forums too!
Think about it! lolz


 

Offline Ultima

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 488
    • View Profile
    • My Homepage
Re: Our Brain!
« Reply #1 on: 13/08/2005 13:00:12 »
http://www.csicop.org/si/9903/ten-percent-myth.html

It's true you don’t use all of your brain at any one given moment... we use all parts of our brain just not at the same time. Don't think they had any tech around to look at good ol’ Einstein's brain while he was alive :) I think they do still have it in a jar somewhere though. Your brain is just as active in REM sleep as it is when awake too!
Intelligence is more how you think and use that brain than pure biology. I imagine there are plenty of super intellectuals in Africa going to waste since the most challenging thing they ever have to contemplate, is where the next meal is coming from. Plenty of einstein’s being missed because of lack of education and resources. Really intelligent people tend to use creative along with analytical thinking. That way they derive things most people wouldn't normally come up with. That type of thing cant be easily gauged with a test imho.

Stuff about Einstein, he never took an IQ test. It’s not like he needed to prove anything :)
http://www.einstein-website.de/z_information/variousthings.html#iq

Silly IQ test I found.
http://www.iqtest.com/ Lol I took that test it said I was "gifted" (138) wtf must be a very dodgy test :D probably over score you so you purchase a "personal profile".


wOw the world spins?
« Last Edit: 13/08/2005 13:43:03 by Ultima »
 

Offline simeonie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 351
    • View Profile
    • http://www.simeonie.co.uk
Re: Our Brain!
« Reply #2 on: 13/08/2005 19:26:56 »
he he he I beat you Ultima I got 149! lol. I know it doesnt prove anything thought does it? I am considered a genius lol

Oh and back to topic. So we do use more than 10% of our brain then just never all at once. And also did you know that left handed people use their right side of their brain (making them generally more artistic) and visa versa.

----------------------
Time is like a knife..... slowly and relentlesly.... cuts the cored of life.

-__- my website!!!!
http://www.simeonie.co.uk
has forums too!
Think about it! lolz
 

Offline memasa

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 196
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Our Brain!
« Reply #3 on: 13/08/2005 20:10:14 »
What's also true is that mathematically talented and linguistically talented use different hemispheres.
 

Offline simeonie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 351
    • View Profile
    • http://www.simeonie.co.uk
Re: Our Brain!
« Reply #4 on: 13/08/2005 21:19:28 »
ha cool! My best subjects are french and Maths. I am really good at maths, and I am good at french too (not being Big headed lol)

----------------------
Time is like a knife..... slowly and relentlesly.... cuts the cored of life.

-__- my website!!!!
http://www.simeonie.co.uk
has forums too!
Think about it! lolz
 

Offline memasa

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 196
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Our Brain!
« Reply #5 on: 13/08/2005 21:50:58 »
There was a an article about this in the newest Scientific American.
 

Offline memasa

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 196
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Our Brain!
« Reply #6 on: 14/08/2005 09:53:55 »
quote:
(not being Big headed lol)


That's called a synergy benefit in the corporate world. :D
 

Offline simeonie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 351
    • View Profile
    • http://www.simeonie.co.uk
Re: Our Brain!
« Reply #7 on: 14/08/2005 10:02:09 »
That doesnt make sense

----------------------
Time is like a knife..... slowly and relentlesly.... cuts the cored of life.

-__- my website!!!!
http://www.simeonie.co.uk
has forums too!
Think about it! lolz
« Last Edit: 14/08/2005 10:03:00 by simeonie »
 

Offline memasa

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 196
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Our Brain!
« Reply #8 on: 14/08/2005 10:43:59 »
For me it does. I have weird sense of humour, I guess...

1 : SYNERGISM; broadly : combined action or operation
2 : a mutually advantageous conjunction or compatibility of distinct business participants or elements (as resources or efforts)    

www.m-w.com

The better your cerebral hemispheres work together the more "cost-effective" it is.
 

Offline Razor

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
Re: Our Brain!
« Reply #9 on: 14/08/2005 11:16:17 »
If we used 100% of our brain, we'd all be like Jesus (for those who are of religious beliefs and those who've heard "the story".):D:D:D

-----------------------
http://www.compfused.com/directlink/132
 

Offline Razor

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
Re: Our Brain!
« Reply #10 on: 14/08/2005 11:17:04 »
Turning Rocks into a 12 course meal:)

-----------------------
http://www.compfused.com/directlink/132
 

Offline Razor

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
Re: Our Brain!
« Reply #11 on: 14/08/2005 11:19:19 »
Transforming a glass of pure nurishing water into a pint!(of beer!):):):)

-----------------------
http://www.compfused.com/directlink/132
 

Offline Razor

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
Re: Our Brain!
« Reply #12 on: 14/08/2005 11:22:46 »
3 different types of treats for 3 types of tuck times, icecream for breakfast, sweets for lunch, chocolate for dinner, with lots of unhealthy snacks in-between.[:p][:p]

-----------------------
http://www.compfused.com/directlink/132
 

Offline Ultima

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 488
    • View Profile
    • My Homepage
Re: Our Brain!
« Reply #13 on: 14/08/2005 12:37:06 »
we use 100% of our brain keep up... and I am no heysux

heh simeonie with an IQ like that you should be able to do pretty much anything you want academically. I think that test is a bit off though, it comes up with high results with everyone I've talked to.

wOw the world spins?
 

Offline simeonie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 351
    • View Profile
    • http://www.simeonie.co.uk
Re: Our Brain!
« Reply #14 on: 14/08/2005 17:32:55 »
I know it is weird. I have taken a couple more tests. One was 169 (I think that is tooo high) and another that was 135, around 135 can't rememeber the exact number.

Iq tests though I think only test how good you are at taking Iq tests. There was a topic not long ago about Iq tests.
----------------------
http://www.simeonie.co.uk
Check it out. Click on the forums
« Last Edit: 14/08/2005 17:33:42 by simeonie »
 

Offline socratus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 329
    • View Profile
Re: Our Brain!
« Reply #15 on: 06/12/2005 13:53:40 »
Infinity: a symbol or reality.
1. Everyone knows, that absolute temperature T=0K cannot be reached.
We can only indefinitely come nearer to her.
2. Everyone knows, that nobody can reach
absolute speed of quantum of light  c=1.
We can only indefinitely come nearer to her.
3. But everyone also knows, that only quantum of light goes with
absolute speed  c=1.
It is the fact, it is a reality.
Question: Unless can this absolute movement  c=1 occur in  relative reference frame ?
Answer: No.!
The absolute movement can occur only in absolute frame of reference.
But only one absolute  frame of reference is known  T=0K
(which  is impossible to reach).  
And only in her quantum of light can move with the absolute speed  c=1.
 And it is also reality.
But what can tell quantum of light about his travel in the parallel world?
*      *     *
Best regards.
Socratus.
http://www.socratus.com
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Re: Our Brain!
« Reply #16 on: 06/12/2005 14:30:09 »
If you want to really test yourself, try this site:-

http://www.highiqsociety.org/noflash/nonmembers/iqtests.htm
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Re: Our Brain!
« Reply #17 on: 08/12/2005 16:31:24 »
quote:
Originally posted by simeonie

I know it is weird. I have taken a couple more tests. One was 169 (I think that is tooo high) and another that was 135, around 135 can't rememeber the exact number.

Iq tests though I think only test how good you are at taking Iq tests. There was a topic not long ago about Iq tests.
----------------------
http://www.simeonie.co.uk
Check it out. Click on the forums



Different IQ tests return different numbers.  Without knowing which test you were taking, the numbers are meaningless.

Most high IQ societies will look at your IQ as a proportion of the population that would have an IQ at or above your IQ, not as a particular number.

http://www.mensa.org.uk/mensa/iqlevels.html
quote:

There are many standard IQ tests in use around the world. On most tests, average IQ is 100, but some tests give different numerical values to the level required for entry into Mensa, in the same way that the same temperature is expressed by different numerical values on the Fahrenheit and Celsius scales.  
 
One way of comparing scores from different IQ tests is to convert them to a ranking, or percentile, score which tells you in which band you fit. A percentile score of 99% means that you are in the top 1%, a percentile score of 98% puts you in the top 2% and so on.



As you say, IQ tests really only test how good you are at passing IQ tests.  An extremely low IQ result may be indicative of more general problems, but a very high IQ does not qualify you for doing anything but IQ tests.
« Last Edit: 08/12/2005 16:37:36 by another_someone »
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Re: Our Brain!
« Reply #18 on: 09/12/2005 18:12:41 »
IQ test can give a reasonable idea of someone's mental capabilities, but they should be approached with caution. There are so many aspects to ability that devising a way of testing all of them would be nigh on impossible.
In 1983 Howard Gardner published his "Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences". He proposed that there are 6 distinct intelligences - linguistic, logico-mathematical, spatial, musical, body-kinesthetic and personal. (Howard proposed that musical intelligence involves a person being able to find meaning in sets of musical pitches. I would go further & change this category to "artistic" so as to include those who find meaning in shapes, patterns & images. Although Howard includes the ability to see patterns in images in the "spatial" category along with being able to orient or locate oneself, I believe he was wrong to do so and that it would fit better alongside musical intelligence)
In Howard's model, people will develop varying degrees of competence in each of these categories but will tend to process information using only 1 or 2 of them. Some people will excel in areas where others are weak and vice versa.
Sometimes people will develop a disability in 1 or more of these areas that will hinder their ability in others. For instance, a person suffering brain damage may have reduced or non-existent verbal skills & thus their ability to communicate is impaired. In Howard's model this would be an impairment in the body-kinesthetic intelligence impingeing on the linguistic intelligence.
IQ tests tend to concentrate on only the linguistic and logico-mathematical intelligences. This means they examine only a very small part of the intelligence spectrum. These parts, however, are those that tend to be most useful to schools, colleges and businesses which is probably why IQ tests have remained very limited.
They can also throw up seemingly spurious results. In the case of autistic people, they can score very high in 1 area but very low in others. Averaging this out will tend to give a low IQ rating when, in fact, the person may be a genius in a very narrow field. For instance, Kim Peek (on whom the character Raymond in the film "Rainman" was loosely based) would score extremely highly in any mathematical section of an IQ test but low everywhere else, causing him to score low overall. Yet this man's mathematical ability is outstanding.
In general, then, IQ tests are a bit of fun but can, and do, have uses for certain institutions.

(takes off intelligent head & returns to being an idiot)
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Re: Our Brain!
« Reply #19 on: 09/12/2005 18:22:10 »
(puts intelligent head on again briefly)

It should also be remembered that a person can get different scores on different days. If you have personal problems, or maybe even just a headache, you may score much lower than on a day when you were relaxed and feeling good. Stress should also be taken into account, such as at job interviews, but this tends to be factored into the results (although, again, different people handle stressful situations differently so even that factoring will give biased results)

 

another_someone

  • Guest
Re: Our Brain!
« Reply #20 on: 09/12/2005 21:47:21 »
DoctorBeaver, I would agree with most of the generality of what you say (not least the bit about having different scores on different days), but some of the categories, which are contentions in any case, I would probably have a different opinion to you.

Firstly, although most IQ tests are linguistic/mathematical in nature, British Mensa also uses in its own tests a 'culture fair' test which is more spatial and pattern recognition (intended for people who would not be as familiar with the English language).

You suggested that musical ability was associated with wider artistic ability.  I would disagree with this.  There are also those who associate musical ability with mathematical ability, but this is based upon the mathematical relationships that exist in music, but some sort of mathematical relationship exists in most forms of artistic expression.  In fact, in past centuries there would not have been any distinction made between the aesthetic arts and the philosophical arts.  In modern times, we have moved towards more specialism, and a separation between the aesthetic arts and the philosophical arts, but I believe there is just as much separation between the visual arts and auditory arts (and, if such things was widely recognised, the olfactory arts and the tactile arts).  I accept that there are many people who have a propensity for both music and the visual or auditory arts, but there are also people who have a propensity for music and the sciences (Borodin was a chemist; Feynmen liked to play the Bongos – can't say how musical he was; and Einstein was quoted as saying “If I were not a physicist, I would probably be a musician. I often think in music. I live my daydreams in music. I see my life in terms of music”).

The body-kinesthetic, I would separate out into reaction speed and reaction accuracy.  My own anecdotal observations lead me to believe that reaction speed may be related in some way with IQ (many IQ tests are time limited, and maybe speed of thought and speed of physical reaction are interrelated).

As you rightly say, IQ is only one narrow measure, which is why you have such a plethora of other tests, such a Myers-Briggs, or EQ testing.  They don't have as long an established history to validate them, but they nonetheless do recognise that there are things outside of IQ that should be measured.

And, yes I do realise that I run the risk of teaching my grandmother to suck eggs, and it is not my intention to do such, merely to exchange experiences and views (not that I ever knew if my grandmother did know how to suck eggs, though I do believe my mother used to do so in her younger years).
« Last Edit: 09/12/2005 21:49:53 by another_someone »
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Re: Our Brain!
« Reply #21 on: 09/12/2005 22:26:38 »
quote:
You suggested that musical ability was associated with wider artistic ability


No. I did not say musical ability; i said "musical intelligence involves a person being able to find meaning in sets of musical pitches". That does not infer any kind of actual musical ability.

 
quote:
but there are also people who have a propensity for music and the sciences


I did not say otherwise. I think you may have said the above as you misunderstood what I originally said about musical intelligence. As such, the point you raise would have been a fair 1.

quote:
Einstein was quoted as saying “If I were not a physicist, I would probably be a musician. I often think in music. I live my daydreams in music. I see my life in terms of music”


It's difficult to know exactly what he meant by that. If my own experience is anything to go by, when I hear or read something that doesn't seem right, it's as if I'm hearing a very bad piece of music, or as if someone has played a "bum note". I don't mean the discordant compositions of Bartok or Schonberg; although they are discordant, they sound right. I'm talking about notes that really do not fit. I get the same "That's not right" feeling.
Elegant & correct solutions to problems, on the other hand, are like my hearing Bach or Mozart. The patterns just seem to fit. It's very difficult to describe it. (yes, I am also a musician)

 
quote:
The body-kinesthetic, I would separate out into reaction speed and reaction accuracy. My own anecdotal observations lead me to believe that reaction speed may be related in some way with IQ (many IQ tests are time limited, and maybe speed of thought and speed of physical reaction are interrelated).


Hmmm, I'm not sure about this at all. From my own experience, the 2 are totally unconnected. I used to practice martial arts & knew intelligent people whose reactions were slower than those who were less gifted intellectually. I'm not, offhand, aware of any studies in this area. I'll see if I can find anything.

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is concerned with personality types. It isn't intended as, nor can it be used as, a measure of intelligence. There are similarities between the theories of Jungian tests and MBTI.

I'm aware of the Mensa tests. They are, indeed, much broader in scope.

« Last Edit: 09/12/2005 23:04:54 by DoctorBeaver »
 

Offline ukmicky

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3011
    • View Profile
    • http://www.space-talk.com/
Re: Our Brain!
« Reply #22 on: 09/12/2005 23:38:38 »
http://www.mensa.org/index0.php?page=12&PHPSESSID=6a002dfe124bbd351495c56eb0e955a0

lets see how clever you all are no cheating

i haven't done it yet i'm still stuck on the first question:D



i've created a thread for this, so please post score here


http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3073
Michael                                      
« Last Edit: 10/12/2005 01:14:23 by ukmicky »
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Re: Our Brain!
« Reply #23 on: 10/12/2005 18:14:07 »
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Re: Our Brain!
« Reply #24 on: 10/12/2005 19:18:28 »
quote:
Originally posted by DoctorBeaver

http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html



While I agree that the claim that we only use 10% of our brain is dubious, I cannot say that the site in question actually disproves anything.

What it states, rightly, is that we have no substantive evidence for the claim that we only use 10% of our brain; but a lack of evidence is not the same as proof of falsehood.

It also claims:
quote:
Furthermore, from an evolutionary point of view, it is unlikely that larger brains would have developed if there was not an advantage.


But then goes on to say:
quote:
This concept is called "redundancy" and is found throughout the nervous system.


I think it reasonable to say that if a system has redundancy, then some of that system is not being used.  It does not mean that the unused parts will never be used in the future – the purpose of redundancy is that one may well need that redundant component at a future time (just as having two kidneys, while demonstrably can survive with only one kidney,  means that we are normally only utilising (at most) 50% of our kidney function, while retaining the other 50% on standby).

We do know that the brain loses a lot of its capacity over time, and thus having a brain that starts with substantial excess capacity would seem a prerequisite for long term survival.

As I said, I am not trying to argue for the 10% claim, only wary about specious arguments trying to support a position, even if I believe their may be some merit in the position being argued for.

One of the big problems about the 10% argument is that the vast majority of the brain has nothing to do with intellectual thought, and so the argument that tries to suggest that we have far more brain available for intellectual thought than we actually use ignores the fact that most of the rest of the brain is trying to do mundane things like visual or auditory signal processing.

It must also be remembered that the human body (including the brain) is a machine, and any machine that is constantly run at 100% load will rapidly fail.

An experiment that might in fact be an interesting example of just this issue of system overload is:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4513904.stm
quote:

In the study, the researchers "switched on" p25 at will in the brain's learning and memory centre, the hippocampus.
In these mice, they found that switching on p25 for only two weeks boosted learning and memory compared to normal mice.
But if the p25 was switched on for six weeks, mice displayed impaired learning and memory in tests.
Physiological studies showed that these mice showed significant brain damage and lost nerve cells in the hippocampus.
But those who had elevated p25 levels for just two weeks had no such effects.
The researchers concluded that short-term production of p25 boosts learning - but long term exposure affects the ability to form new memories.
The researchers, led by Dr Li-Huei Tsai, say the study suggested that the protein was normally beneficial, helping form memories and enable learning.
But if there was too much p25, perhaps because of other changes in the brain linked to dementias, nerve cells can die.



None of this is to say that the 10% figure is valid, but that the brain must have some redundancy built in is inevitable and essential to the long term survival of the organ.
« Last Edit: 10/12/2005 23:52:03 by another_someone »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Our Brain!
« Reply #24 on: 10/12/2005 19:18:28 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums