Correlate. But I would argue one is much more specific than the other. From ready Sue Haley's book, the impression I got is that the problem is that very many behavioural variables correlate with brain size.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
Note that Healy does also have a habit of misrepresenting some studies. My papers have been cited incorrectly more than once (stating I said it showed something that I did not) and ongoing comments about how hummingbird brains are the size of a grain of rice (incorrect)
At a lower level of brain organisation, you could be able to be more specific: a particular feature allow a particular computation-->allows a particular behaviour.
Note that I don't mean to imply anything about the mechanisms of selection. It's perfectly possible that a genetic change allows for a bigger brain, which then allows for a particular lower level organisation feature.
thinking of selection is interesting, because brain/behaviour complexity doesn't seem to be critical for survival. Many small critters do just fine, even many without even proper brains; while at the same time big-brain Neanderthals are hard to find today...
What matters is brain size taking into account body size or medulla size or spinal chord size. This is encephalisation (Jerison). Corticalisation also matters, ie the amount of neocortex compared with the rest of the brain. What is the problem?
Comments