“Great is the power of steady misrepresentation; but the history of science shows that fortunately this power does not long endure.” ~ Charles Darwin.
Celebrity scientists are trash, repeat after me.
Especially theoretical physicists.
The discovery of the DNA structure would’ve been impossible without the imaging provided (and borrowed without asking) by a woman. Who got the Nobel Prize? The two dudes. Including the one who did the borrowing and showed it to the other guy.
That is established fact, FYI.
She died of cancer.
Prior to the Nobel nomination.
But of course, where’s the proof of sexism in STEM, internet bros?
These people are so dispassionate and pure, they’d never lie or steal.
“Of the four DNA researchers, only Rosalind Franklin had any degrees in chemistry.”
As for Einstein, he ripped a lot of a lot off.
However, Weinstein has analysed the letters in detail and says that two lines of evidence suggest that this was unlikely.
No motive there.
He used his first wife to do his mathematics, a thing he admitted in his letters.
There is one fly in the ointment. Maric and Einstein divorced in 1919, but as part of the divorce settlement, Einstein agreed to pay his ex-wife every krona of any future Nobel Prize he might be awarded.
Then he dumped her and married a cousin or something?
But where’s the evidence of sexism, guys?
Where would you even look for that?
I just don’t see it anywhere, there is nothing suspicious.
The guy has zippo, works in a place as the lowliest type of clerk where ideas are submitted (including scientific ones, at the time) and BOOM, full of ideas. Sheer, amazing, epic coincidence.
Einstein didn’t want his brain or body to be studied; he didn’t want to be worshipped. “He had left behind specific instructions regarding his remains: cremate them, and scatter the ashes secretly in order to discourage idolaters,” writes Brian Burrell
Technically corpse rape
But Harvey took the brain anyway, without permission from Einstein or his family.
Harvey would tell stories about the brain, about cutting off chunks to send to researchers around the world. Burroughs, in turn, would boast to visitors that he could have a piece of Einstein any time he wanted.
Pure, innocent nerds.
Because a human brain is like a steak and you can just slice a lil’ bit off to give out.
To fast forward a bit: Come 1985, Harvey and collaborators in California published the first study of Einstein’s brain, claiming that it had an abnormal proportion of two types of cells, neurons and glia. That study was followed by five others (the most recent published just this month), reporting additional differences in individual cells or in particular structures in Einstein’s brain. The researchers behind these studies say studying Einstein’s brain could help uncover the neurological underpinnings of intelligence.
And the study couldn’t have been published with a “no, he was totally normal guys!” result.
But that premise is nonsense and the studies are bunk, at least according to Terence Hines, a professor of psychology at Pace University.
A couple of weeks ago, Hines presented a poster at the Cognitive Neuroscience Society annual meeting outlining all of the ways in which each of the six studies is flawed. Some highlights:
That is the academic equivalent of a plate-spinning roast to end all roasts.
Perhaps most problematic, counting cells is a subjective business, and the researchers performing the cell counts were not blind to which tissue was Einstein’s and which was not.
Innocent little angels who dindu nuffin.
There were no differences in the number of neurons or the size of neurons, the study found, but Einstein’s tissue was thinner than controls.
It was stored in a basement.
Have you stored meat in a basement?
More densely packed neurons, the authors speculated, means that cell-to-cell messages travel shorter differences, which might mean faster processing speed overall. That’s quite a stretch. As Hines calls out in his poster, the finding was based on just one square millimeter of Einstein’s brain.
What’s more, the authors admit to not reporting any of the ways in which Einstein’s brain was similar to controls.
“Yes we lied but you’re an Anti-Semite or something???”
It’s like just missing the beach house off your tax returns.
They forgot guys.
Totally innocent mistake, could’ve happened to anyone who stole lumps out a celebrity’s corpse.
(This is almost as bad as the Monroe necrophiliacs story).
–In 1999, Harvey and Canadian collaborators got Einstein’s brain into one of the world’s most prestigious medical journals, The Lancet.
Appeal to authority.
Based on old photographs
Do I have to mock this one?
I’m skipping this one.
that had been taken of Einstein’s brain before it was cut up, the researchers claimed that Einstein had an abnormal folding pattern in part of his parietal lobe, a region that has been linked to mathematical ability.
It doesn’t work like that.
They also reported that his parietal lobes were 15 percent wider, and more symmetrical, than those of control brains. Once again, though, the researchers were not blinded to which photographs showed Einstein’s brain. And though the authors were quick to make links between these supposed differences and Einstein’s mathematical prowess, Hines points out that Einstein wasn’t, in fact, a great mathematician.
Even if the statistics were sound, you’d still have the problem of attributing skills and behaviors to anatomy.
phrenology has a sound basis
especially compared to this
There’s no way to know
just the way uhuh uhuh
they like it
This is neurobiology, remember. Science is easy to fake out.
if X thing in Einstein’s brain made Einstein smart/dyslexic/good at math/you name it, or was just an X thing in his brain.
Dya wanna know the truth?
You’re on this site so I guess ya do.
Behaviours change the brain. This has been known forever. Read any good book and it’ll mention this. The Taxi Driver study is most famous: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17024677
There are others of the same concept
You can literally grow parts of your brain by being a little bit weird.
Let’s see which brain part they claimed was different, most frequently?
“his parietal lobes were 15 percent wider,”
“When we scanned the brains of Tibetan Buddhist meditators, we found decreased activity in the parietal lobe during meditation”
It makes you toothless. It’s like an evolutionary roll back.
“MRI images showed more brain matter density in the compassion, learning and memory centers in the hippocampus compared to pre-meditation scans. Interestingly, gray matter in the amygdala, a stress and anxiety center, shrank.”
[obviously something like porn couldn’t change the brain ever…]
Meditation (and prayer) literally alters your brain (but meditation is a form of prayer whatever the hippies say and the neuroscience proves it).
The musical ability might’ve easily caused any brain structure differences.
“The findings also suggest that Einstein’s famed love of music was reflected in the anatomy of his brain.”
“Witelson’s team found that Einstein’s parietal lobes–which are implicated in mathematical, visual, and spatial cognition–were 15% wider than normal parietal lobes. The team also found other unusual features in the parietal region, although some of these were questioned by other researchers at the time.”
“One parameter that did not explain Einstein’s mental prowess, however, was the size of his brain: At 1230 grams, it fell at the low end of average for modern humans.”
And the parietal lobe is linked with music.
Activation in the Right Inferior Parietal Lobule Reflects the Representation of Musical Structure beyond Simple Pitch Discrimination
But that doesn’t affect size, you say?
Structural MRI-data revealed significant volumetric differences between the brains of keyboard players, who practiced intensively and controls in right sensorimotor areas and the corticospinal tract as well as in the entorhinal cortex and the left superior parietal lobule. Moreover, they showed also larger volumes in a comparable set of regions than the less intensively practicing musicians. The structural changes in the sensory and motor systems correspond well to the behavioral results, and can be interpreted in terms of plasticity as a result of intensive motor training.
Areas of the superior parietal lobule and the entorhinal cortex might be enlarged in musicians due to their special skills in sight-playing and memorizing of scores. In conclusion, intensive and specific musical training seems to have an impact on brain structure, not only during the sensitive period of childhood but throughout life.
I know my shit.
Neuroscience isn’t that hard. Well, apparently it’s hard for the people being paid to not notice this one thing that a non-neuroscientist can notice. You can see it too, right?
He imagined tons of stuff, right? See things, bit like a schizo?
Parietal Lobes in Schizophrenia: Do They Matter?
TLDR: what the fuck do you think.
“We want to propose that in a proportion of individuals with emerging schizophrenia structural and functional alterations may start in the PL”
Too tenuous? O.K.
“In doing so, the parietal lobe assembles elementary building bricks from so-called “lower-order” brain regions to create concepts, said Daniela Dentico, a researcher at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and lead author on the report.”
Thinking a lot, daydreaming, would cause the parietal cells to thicken.
“A leading theory in image processing “posits that our visual mental images are not stored somewhere in the brain, but get actively reconstructed,”
“The researchers could not determine, however, whether imagination originates in the parietal lobe. It may instead flow through the parietal lobe”
“Purposeful behavior with objects and tools can be assessed in a variety of ways, including actual use, pantomimed use, and pure imagery of manipulation.”
Perhaps most damning of all, sex difference.
“We found that women had proportionately greater gray matter volume in the parietal lobe compared to men, and this morphologic difference was disadvantageous ” (for task)
He had a brain like a chick.
Compare Einstein’s brain to another elderly Jewish fantasy-prone musician and you might have a study.
A matched case study.
“In contrast, we found that men compared to women had proportionately greater parietal lobe surface area, and this morphologic difference was associated with a performance advantage for men on mental rotation.”
Does that mean flatter? But I’ve also seen reference to greater volume? Whatever.
Magical flip flop.
You can get that difference by playing a lot of Brain Training.
Back to the good article.
It makes me angry to think of all that was wasted in these investigations.
There was the monetary cost of the studies — money that could have been spent on work that was not doomed from the outset to fail. There was a personal cost, in that Einstein’s family was essentially strong-armed into agreeing to participate in research that Einstein explicitly did not want to participate in. And there was a public cost, too. In popular-press accounts of these studies over the years, the public was misled about the findings and their supposed scientific value.
Here’s how smart Einstein was — he understood all too well the public’s obsession with him, our obsession with celebrity and special-ness. He knew that if given the chance, scientists would pore over his brain’s neurons and glia, sulci and gyri, and make grand pronouncements about what makes a genius. And he knew it would be bullshit.
Maybe because he knew it would be average?
I do feel sorry for the guy, it’s a horror show to steal someone’s body parts and tamper with them post-mortem. He made it clear he didn’t want it, the family’s permission means nil.
Apply to the BBC.
If they say no, you must be white.
Make a joke.
If you are told you are Hitler, you must be white.
Walk around a diverse area.
If you are raped…
Note: modern invaders of European countries e.g. Turkey, Italy, do not magically change DNA thanks to particles of feels in the dirt. This has been a PSA from Captain (Fucking) Obvious.
The books are online for free.
No, you don’t need to take a course to understand Darwinian evolution (there is no other).
He wrote a book you can see for free.
It is here.
THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELECTION;
THE PRESERVATION OF FAVOURED RACES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE.
By Charles Darwin, M.A., F.R.S.,
Author of “The Descent of Man,” etc., etc.
Sixth London Edition, with all Additions and Corrections.
Pause to consider:
The 6th Edition is often considered the definitive edition.
If you want the raw form?
With slightly less information?
Also see Project Gutenberg Etext #1228 for the First Edition.
You have no excuse now.
I am not one of those people who lie about Darwin. I encourage you to read the bloody books. Plural, this is the first one you start with or don’t use that word around me. Picture someone going on and on about cookery who doesn’t know how to crack an egg. That’s how you all sound.
The atheists are shit scared of this being required reading in schools.
That’s because it deals in fact and compares humans with other animals.
I know you’ll see my way if you have any capacity for logic and literacy.
Note: genes can jump within and between chromosomes within an organism.
“Jumping genes” so-called and ignored for decades.
This was discovered by a woman so don’t be shocked you weren’t taught it in school.
Barbara McClintock. Look her up.
Never let it be said I avoided an interesting title.
Male infertility isn’t just related to procreation, either. Oftentimes, a decrease in sperm count is an indicator of an increased risk in premature death. (2) In fact, the study called it a “canary in the coal mine” for male health. And though the researchers didn’t set out to figure out why sperm counts were decreasing, they floated several theories, including environmental and lifestyle influences.
STDs and endocrine disruptors. That include the talc on your ass as a baby, makes you less manly and gives women ovarian cancer. Men get testicular.
According to the Food and Drug Administration, it’s been found that the effects of continuously raised estrogen levels in the female body due to taking birth control pills may include: (5)
- Potential increased risk of breast cancer
- Potential increased risk of blood clotting, heart attack and stroke. The risk of blood clots is highest for very overweight women taking the pill.
- Headaches or migraines
- Gallbladder or liver problems, including benign tumors
- Increased blood pressure
- Weight gain
- Mood changes, with some women experiencing symptoms of depression or anxiety
- Nausea, cramping, irregular bleeding or spotting between periods
- Breast tenderness
Compared to the low low risk of shutting your legs.
Ignoring sex has medical consequences. Groundbreaking.
I wish he uploaded the presentation PDFs.
Could you imagine?
Broadcast into secondary school playgrounds. Sex Ed will never Ed this.
NB We need studies on male divorce risk. Nobody wants to study male promiscuity.
The list would be so long, and so what?
White people literally invented science itself.
You can’t top that.
The Scientific Method?
1600s Europe, at the earliest.
Truly, the Scientific Enlightenment primarily in France, some England, a little Germany, formalized it. All those subjects and branches and divisions you now know? Taught in the universities. Nobody else even knew what these were, so they can’t claim it and they certainly didn’t teach it either.
All NW Europeans, mostly upper class men, a smattering of a few women.
Previously we had ‘natural science’ (the term for this is German, which should give you a clue), mucking about with plants mostly. Labeling and drawing, not really an experimental manipulation, is it?
I guess it’s like saying we had ancient ‘doctors’ – who didn’t see a disease they didn’t wanna stick a leech on.
Except… that isn’t the meaning of the term as we use it in modernity, is it?
Don’t be intellectually dishonest.
Fun fact: leech still means doctor, it’s a synonym.
It’s like trying to claim evaporation cooling was Muslim when at the latest it was Egyptian but probably stolen from more ancient civilizations, there are examples at Pompeii.
Islam mostly murdered its tall poppies because they questioned the religion. That isn’t whitey’s fault.
They had a few good philosophers – not scientists. There was the occasional competent mathematician, but if that’s how low your standard… not to mention, they only built upon Greek and Hindu developments.
I haven’t seen an Islamic Antikythera mechanism. If they had such an advanced knowledge, there’d be proof and they’d use it in battle. Compare with Greek fire, a variant of which was referenced in Game of Thrones. The knowledge of Greek fire was probably lost because of the Muslim conquests going on at the same time. Thanks, Mohammed.
A little chemistry was developed during the Renaissance but kept quiet by something called a guild.
See Venice and mirrors.
You look at the root of anything STEM and I guarantee you there’s a racial European at the heart of it. I’ve yet to find a single exception.
However, the Egyptians did some fine, pioneering medicinal work in the field of surgery, which isn’t technically a science. These findings were stolen by Muslims.
Along with the country and its women. Look at the modern racial composition.
The eldest surgical examples I’ve seen are European, see trepanning.
Those damn Frenchies, inventing neurosurgery! (As English, we hate giving the French credit for anything except losing). It’s painful for me to admit that, viscerally painful.
Their articles are brief but good, can’t quote without feeling guilty.
Where is the lie?
Bonus meme because I am bored and edgy.
Another! *smashes coffee mug in a display of Keynesian economics*
This is why we bless things.
Positive vibes – positive outcomes.
They used monks, not priests. Should’ve studied many faiths, that would’ve been funny.
Some would’ve succeeded, others would’ve failed.
He did another couple of studies about emotional discharge and ice crystal formation.
TLDR: Ugly thoughts, crappy crystals.
Maybe that explains why leftists are so ugly, all that hating stuff. Can’t be good for the complexion.