barretthunter:
I don't see why there shouldn't be something in this. Presumably the research was peer reviewed. A geneticist would argue that good parenting is down to the wish to preserve your genes through your children (I think in humans something more is involved, but I'm not a geneticist).
The biggest problem with the size-of-balls / parenting-and-other-behaviors study is that it is purely correlational. There is no theory, or any hint of one, as to WHY such a connection would exist. and the classic response is "Correlation does NOT imnply causation". There are always multiple possible explanations for a correlation, including one thing causin the other (either direction), both being caused directly or indirectly by some third issue, or no casual connection at all. This last is often found when correlational studies are repeated in larger or different populations with different outcomes.
barretthunter:
As for the big brain/ small brain thing, such a correlation does appear to exist BETWEEN SPECIES, but some argue that it's not the size of the brain but the proportion of body bulk taken up by the brain that matters - bad news for whales and elephants.
Actually it is quite well established that there is a formula giving the 'expected" brain mass for any species within a grouping of similar species: something like Brain = Const * Body^0.666666 The constant varies with the type of animal involved, and the exponent varies slightly also, but is usually near 2/3rds or 5/8ths If I recall correctly. Species well over or under this formula do seem to be, in some sense "smarter" or "less smart" then the others in their group. The ration of measured/expected brain size is called the Encephilazation quotient or EQ, but WITHIN a species and in particular among humans there seems to be no effect at all that is measurable. See _The Mismeasure of Man_ for lots more detail.
Page 3 of 3: «« 1 2 