John Lorber's strange findings.

[plindboe]

I had a discussion with a person who claimed that humans only use a third of our brain, and as evidence she linked to an article about John Lorber. This late neurology professor supposedly discovered people with virtually no brains, who was able to lead perfectly normal lives and even scored above average on iq-tests. Here's an article:

http://www.alternativescience.com/no_brainer.htm

Anyone know any details about this?

 

[Dragon]

This sounds like a variation of the 10% myth, which is mentioned in your link (It also mentions Rupert Sheldrake in an apparently positive way so BIG red flag there!).
If you Google on - 10% myth lorber - there are plenty of other links.
In summary -
We use all of our brains, just not all at once.
Young brains can develop to overcome loss of material through injury, illness or congenital abnormalities and function more or less normally but this is not the usual outcome.

 

[plindboe]

This sounds like a variation of the 10% myth, which is mentioned in your link (It also mentions Rupert Sheldrake in an apparently positive way so BIG red flag there!).
If you Google on - 10% myth lorber - there are plenty of other links.
In summary -
We use all of our brains, just not all at once.
Young brains can develop to overcome loss of material through injury, illness or congenital abnormalities and function more or less normally but this is not the usual outcome.

Thanks for the reply Dragon, I noticed too that the article mentioned Sheldrake, but it was the best I could find at the time. I wasn't so interested in the 10% myth itself, I started this thread to hear if anyone knows more about Lorber's findings. He seemed to be a respected neurology professor, though perhaps somewhat provocative. What I'm wondering is if other researchers have managed to make the same findings. Or if Lorber's work has been misquoted and exagerated throughout the net. If Lorber's findings is true, maybe some has an idea on how it's possible to be above average intelligence and lead a normal life with virtually no brain left.

 

[The Don]

In his book A New Science of Life Sheldrake rejected the idea that the brain is a warehouse for memories and suggested it is more like a radio receiver for tuning into the past

? !

As for the real question. This study seems to show that people with small heads (and hence small brains) tend to have lower intelligence.

Of course this doesn't preclude people with tiny brains being of average or above average intelligence or those with huge brains being below average

 

[Soapy Sam]

I keep wondering if the critics who say British University Degrees are being devalued just may be onto something.

(Dons tin helmet and dives under table awaiting wrath of Sheffield grads everywhere.)

It has to be said that if Lorbers's findings were real, then a lot of neuroscience is called into question. I would be interested to see responses from the profession.

 

[drkitten]

If Lorber's findings is true, maybe some has an idea on how it's possible to be above average intelligence and lead a normal life with virtually no brain left.

Because the infant brain is astonishingly pliable and can accomodate to the loss of tissue much, much better than can an adult brain. The developing infant's brain will attempt to cover as much of the necessary function(s) as possible.

What you often see in children with brain injury of some sort is a kind of good, but fragile, performance. For example, you may have a reading speed of 250 words per minute, which is average. Someone with brain damage in infancy may be able to read at 225 (or even 300) wpm. However, if you stress the performance -- maybe make them read upside down, or make them listen to a radio and remember which pieces were played while reading -- you might drop down to 150 wpm, while the other person drops down to 50, or even 25, or even 10 wpm. They have the neural capacity for average-level performance, but not for several simultaneous average-level performances. The old joke about "walking and chewing gum at the same time" springs to mind here.

 

[Gastric ReFlux]

I agree that it's pretty obvious that evolution would design us with huge massive brainpower we apparently don't need to make use of.

It's also an effective marketing tool for those who like to sell programs that claim to increase your brainpower.

 

[pgwenthold]

I keep wondering if the critics who say British University Degrees are being devalued just may be onto something.

(Dons tin helmet and dives under table awaiting wrath of Sheffield grads everywhere.)

It has to be said that if Lorbers's findings were real, then a lot of neuroscience is called into question. I would be interested to see responses from the profession.

It's apparently real.

There was an article about this in Science in the mid-70's I think. That's where this website got its information (although I don't see that it has it cited anywhere)

I used to have a copy of the article in my file cabinet, but can't seem to find it these days. It takes a little work to find it, because it wasn't a direct research article by Lorber, but was sort of a summary piece.

And yes, the title of the article was "Is your brain really necessary?"