Talk:Encephalization

I think this page should be moved to wiktionary ArrowStomper 05:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Lapicque link

The Lapicque link doesn't link to anything. I suggest someone write something about Lapicque before the link goes back on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zack.scholl (talk • contribs) 16:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict between name and meaning

The name suggests a process not a state of affairs. I would have called it: the process of enlargement of the brain compared to body mass during the evolution. Needs checking. LouisBB (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checked and my supposition was wrong.LouisBB (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Garbage Article

This article is worthless. It badly needs cleaned up! It's a poorly organized, rambling, misleading, internally inconsistent excuse for the article. Can somebody flag it or something? 74.215.113.165 (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aristotle

The line in the introduction regarding Aristotle is misleading. Although he acknowledged that Man has a greater brain/total mass ratio, he did not make this statement with the belief that the brain or head was the root of human intellect and intelligence. I'm not qualified to re-write this, but it should be understood that in 325 BC, as far a I'm aware, Aristotle was under the _firm_ impression that the heart was the organ which gave Man his intelligence.

Some sources: http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=aa05 & Mason, A History of the Sciences pp 45

- James (not registered) --86.26.245.250 (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EQ and Evolution

I can remember reading a research report that suggested that the growth in the Encephalisation Quotient over the course of the Paleozoic increased so much that we should have reached a human EQ 70 million years ago. With the Permian Extinction during the Mesozoic the EQ hardly increased at all, the growth would mean we would reach the human standard in 2 billion years. Then we see the rapid increase in EQ during the Cenozoic. This needs to be added to the article. 49.196.2.188 (talk) 13:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing the WILD speculation that "This rate of increase, if it had continued, would have resulted in the evolution of a species with close to a human EQ 70 million years ago.". It MUST have an acceptable reference, since it is at best physically unprovable (ie. un-scientific). Additionally, this section seems to be based on the INCORRECT assumption that increasing EQ is "evolution" while decreasing EQ is not. A die-off catastrophy ACCERLERATES evolution (for the survivors), its basic natural selection. Based on my investigation, EQ is: 1) only relevant in mammalian species (hence it is meaningless to discuss prior to the Late Triassic (~225 Mya) and claims about it evolving during (and prior to!!) the Permian (300 - 250 Mya) is nonsense and 2) recent research (Encephalization_quotient#Criticism) indicates it is not as good a predictor of primate intelligence as whole brain size (in other words, the species that EQ is of most interest are exactly those where better predictive measures of intelligence exist).

Also, I was able to track down a couple of "evolutionary" references to encephalization, but don't have access to the whole articles: <1> Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1985 Feb 13;308(1135):21-35. Animal intelligence as encephalization. Jerison HJ. <2> Trends Cogn Sci. 2005 May;9(5):250-7. Evolution of the brain and intelligence. Roth G1, Dicke U. <3> Prog Brain Res. 2012;195:413-30. Evolution of the brain and intelligence in primates. Roth G1, Dicke U. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.189.75.174 (talk) 22:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also think the whole section is rubbish as it is structured. EQ is a characteristic, not a species. Characteristics only "evolve" when discussing a species (or a lineage). It should be clear that EQ does not "evolve" upwards unless bacteria can read and write... Apparently, the meaning is that the ceiling/maximal EQ (for the entire ecosphere) correlates with "diversity" - except when it doesn't...rubbish. Anybody want to try to make it sensible? (note that its hardly worthwhile since its use is depreciating as we gain more sophistication about what "intelligence" is and how different species can be evaluated for it) (hint: its not a 1-dimensional scale).173.189.75.174 (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citations for the last section, "Evolution of EQ"

The last section of this article, "Evolution of EQ", does not have any citations. The linked "encephalization quotient" article does refer to some sources which discuss the topic of evolution of the encephalization quotient. Perhaps these two articles need to be merged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomsk1321 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

This page and the encephalisation quotient page seem to be about the same thing and have the very similar scope. They are both relatively small and cover much of the same material. I suggest merging them.Hollth (talk) 03:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 13:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]