<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_31_1334257</id>
	<title>Scientists Postulate Extinct Hominid With 150 IQ</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1262271240000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hughpickens.com/" rel="nofollow">Hugh Pickens</a> writes <i>"Neuroscientists Gary Lynch and Richard Granger have an interesting article in Discover Magazine about the Boskops, an extinct hominid that had big eyes, child-like faces, and forebrains roughly 50\% larger than modern man indicating they may have had  <a href="http://discovermagazine.com/2009/the-brain-2/28-what-happened-to-hominids-who-were-smarter-than-us">an average intelligence of around 150, making them geniuses among Homo sapiens</a>. The combination of a large cranium and immature face would look decidedly unusual to modern eyes, but not entirely unfamiliar. Such faces peer out from the covers of countless science fiction books and are often attached to 'alien abductors' in movies. Naturalist Loren Eiseley wrote: 'Back there in the past, ten thousand years ago. <a href="http://ranprieur.com/readings/futureman.html">The man of the future, with the big brain</a>, the small teeth. He lived in Africa. His brain was bigger than your brain.' The history of evolutionary studies has been <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=human-evolution-appears-t">dogged by the almost irresistible idea that evolution leads to greater complexity</a>, to animals that are more advanced than their predecessor, yet the existence of the Boskops argues otherwise &mdash; that humans with big brains, and perhaps great intelligence, occupied a substantial piece of southern Africa in the not very distant past, and that they eventually <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=uihmQgAACAAJ&amp;dq=Big+Brain:+The+Origins+and+Future+of+Human+Intelligence&amp;ei=rWM7S6eWBaXsNbywydQB&amp;cd=1">gave way to smaller-brained, possibly less advanced Homo sapiens</a> &mdash; that is, ourselves. 'With 30 percent larger brains than ours now, we can readily calculate that a population with a mean brain size of 1,750 cc would be expected to have an average IQ of 149,' write Lynch and Granger. But why did they go extinct? 'Maybe all that thoughtfulness was of no particular survival value in 10,000 BC. Lacking the external hard drive of a literate society, the Boskops were unable to exploit the vast potential locked up in their expanded cortex,' write Lynch and Granger. 'They were born just a few millennia too soon.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens writes " Neuroscientists Gary Lynch and Richard Granger have an interesting article in Discover Magazine about the Boskops , an extinct hominid that had big eyes , child-like faces , and forebrains roughly 50 \ % larger than modern man indicating they may have had an average intelligence of around 150 , making them geniuses among Homo sapiens .
The combination of a large cranium and immature face would look decidedly unusual to modern eyes , but not entirely unfamiliar .
Such faces peer out from the covers of countless science fiction books and are often attached to 'alien abductors ' in movies .
Naturalist Loren Eiseley wrote : 'Back there in the past , ten thousand years ago .
The man of the future , with the big brain , the small teeth .
He lived in Africa .
His brain was bigger than your brain .
' The history of evolutionary studies has been dogged by the almost irresistible idea that evolution leads to greater complexity , to animals that are more advanced than their predecessor , yet the existence of the Boskops argues otherwise    that humans with big brains , and perhaps great intelligence , occupied a substantial piece of southern Africa in the not very distant past , and that they eventually gave way to smaller-brained , possibly less advanced Homo sapiens    that is , ourselves .
'With 30 percent larger brains than ours now , we can readily calculate that a population with a mean brain size of 1,750 cc would be expected to have an average IQ of 149, ' write Lynch and Granger .
But why did they go extinct ?
'Maybe all that thoughtfulness was of no particular survival value in 10,000 BC .
Lacking the external hard drive of a literate society , the Boskops were unable to exploit the vast potential locked up in their expanded cortex, ' write Lynch and Granger .
'They were born just a few millennia too soon .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens writes "Neuroscientists Gary Lynch and Richard Granger have an interesting article in Discover Magazine about the Boskops, an extinct hominid that had big eyes, child-like faces, and forebrains roughly 50\% larger than modern man indicating they may have had  an average intelligence of around 150, making them geniuses among Homo sapiens.
The combination of a large cranium and immature face would look decidedly unusual to modern eyes, but not entirely unfamiliar.
Such faces peer out from the covers of countless science fiction books and are often attached to 'alien abductors' in movies.
Naturalist Loren Eiseley wrote: 'Back there in the past, ten thousand years ago.
The man of the future, with the big brain, the small teeth.
He lived in Africa.
His brain was bigger than your brain.
' The history of evolutionary studies has been dogged by the almost irresistible idea that evolution leads to greater complexity, to animals that are more advanced than their predecessor, yet the existence of the Boskops argues otherwise — that humans with big brains, and perhaps great intelligence, occupied a substantial piece of southern Africa in the not very distant past, and that they eventually gave way to smaller-brained, possibly less advanced Homo sapiens — that is, ourselves.
'With 30 percent larger brains than ours now, we can readily calculate that a population with a mean brain size of 1,750 cc would be expected to have an average IQ of 149,' write Lynch and Granger.
But why did they go extinct?
'Maybe all that thoughtfulness was of no particular survival value in 10,000 BC.
Lacking the external hard drive of a literate society, the Boskops were unable to exploit the vast potential locked up in their expanded cortex,' write Lynch and Granger.
'They were born just a few millennia too soon.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30610086</id>
	<title>Fox got them</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262255700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No doubt the ancestors of Glen and Sarah where annoyed at all that "thinking and stuff" and immediately eliminated them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No doubt the ancestors of Glen and Sarah where annoyed at all that " thinking and stuff " and immediately eliminated them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No doubt the ancestors of Glen and Sarah where annoyed at all that "thinking and stuff" and immediately eliminated them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606396</id>
	<title>Blame Women!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262281380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've never, ever heard a woman purr with delight about a guy having a big head/brain.</p><p>Apparently, the Boskop women--like a lot of modern Homo Sapiens women--preferred men with larger wedding tackle.</p><p>So nothing's changed in 10,000 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never , ever heard a woman purr with delight about a guy having a big head/brain.Apparently , the Boskop women--like a lot of modern Homo Sapiens women--preferred men with larger wedding tackle.So nothing 's changed in 10,000 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never, ever heard a woman purr with delight about a guy having a big head/brain.Apparently, the Boskop women--like a lot of modern Homo Sapiens women--preferred men with larger wedding tackle.So nothing's changed in 10,000 years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30613970</id>
	<title>Modern Phrenology</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1230824160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Brain size does not correlate with IQ.<br>Brain size does not correlate with intelligence.<br>IQ doesn't correlate with intelligence.<br>Trying to force any of these into existence is equal in validity to telling someone's personality traits from the bumps on their head.</p><p>Anyone who wants to take issue with the statements above regarding intelligence would first need to provide a definition of intelligence with an objective and replicable measurement of it. They'd also have to justify using it despite the enormous of disparity of opinions from cognitive psychologists on what intelligence is. Most of them have an opinion on the matter. The ones that know the most will acknowledge it as an opinion and will acknowledge the disparity.</p><p>Now as to TFA and IQ, if such beings existed, it's no wonder they're extinct. IQ is a measure of how well one does on an IQ test. If these beings' claim to evolutionary fame is their IQ, one can envision them sitting around taking tests, making them easy targets for predators. One can also envision them getting eaten while other hominids with smaller brains (and one would assume from TFA lesser IQs) run away. One can then meditate on the meaning of intelligence with respect to IQ since sitting around getting eaten doesn't seem to be a very intelligent behavior. If IQ made them smart, they'd have recognized the fact that running away was working for the others and adopted the technique.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Brain size does not correlate with IQ.Brain size does not correlate with intelligence.IQ does n't correlate with intelligence.Trying to force any of these into existence is equal in validity to telling someone 's personality traits from the bumps on their head.Anyone who wants to take issue with the statements above regarding intelligence would first need to provide a definition of intelligence with an objective and replicable measurement of it .
They 'd also have to justify using it despite the enormous of disparity of opinions from cognitive psychologists on what intelligence is .
Most of them have an opinion on the matter .
The ones that know the most will acknowledge it as an opinion and will acknowledge the disparity.Now as to TFA and IQ , if such beings existed , it 's no wonder they 're extinct .
IQ is a measure of how well one does on an IQ test .
If these beings ' claim to evolutionary fame is their IQ , one can envision them sitting around taking tests , making them easy targets for predators .
One can also envision them getting eaten while other hominids with smaller brains ( and one would assume from TFA lesser IQs ) run away .
One can then meditate on the meaning of intelligence with respect to IQ since sitting around getting eaten does n't seem to be a very intelligent behavior .
If IQ made them smart , they 'd have recognized the fact that running away was working for the others and adopted the technique .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Brain size does not correlate with IQ.Brain size does not correlate with intelligence.IQ doesn't correlate with intelligence.Trying to force any of these into existence is equal in validity to telling someone's personality traits from the bumps on their head.Anyone who wants to take issue with the statements above regarding intelligence would first need to provide a definition of intelligence with an objective and replicable measurement of it.
They'd also have to justify using it despite the enormous of disparity of opinions from cognitive psychologists on what intelligence is.
Most of them have an opinion on the matter.
The ones that know the most will acknowledge it as an opinion and will acknowledge the disparity.Now as to TFA and IQ, if such beings existed, it's no wonder they're extinct.
IQ is a measure of how well one does on an IQ test.
If these beings' claim to evolutionary fame is their IQ, one can envision them sitting around taking tests, making them easy targets for predators.
One can also envision them getting eaten while other hominids with smaller brains (and one would assume from TFA lesser IQs) run away.
One can then meditate on the meaning of intelligence with respect to IQ since sitting around getting eaten doesn't seem to be a very intelligent behavior.
If IQ made them smart, they'd have recognized the fact that running away was working for the others and adopted the technique.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605866</id>
	<title>Re:Does a bigger brain really mean higher IQ?</title>
	<author>ArsenneLupin</author>
	<datestamp>1262278740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Does a bigger brain necessarily mean they had a higher IQ?</p></div><p>Yes of course. That's why horses are so smart: they've got bigger heads.</p><p>
But compared to elephants, they look downright stoopid...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does a bigger brain necessarily mean they had a higher IQ ? Yes of course .
That 's why horses are so smart : they 've got bigger heads .
But compared to elephants , they look downright stoopid.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does a bigger brain necessarily mean they had a higher IQ?Yes of course.
That's why horses are so smart: they've got bigger heads.
But compared to elephants, they look downright stoopid...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606658</id>
	<title>Wow</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1262282340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And brain SIZE has nothing to do with "intelligence", otherwise whales would have invented space travel a long time ago. Male brains are roughly 150cc bigger than female brains, however no studies can show that females (given the same chances at education) are 10\% "dumber" than their male counterparts.</p><p>The claim is sensationalistic BS that is absolutely meaningless, unless we can actually analyze the brain TISSUE and see how many ganglia per unit volume and how many fibers it consisted of. THEN we can have an estimate of "intelligence".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And brain SIZE has nothing to do with " intelligence " , otherwise whales would have invented space travel a long time ago .
Male brains are roughly 150cc bigger than female brains , however no studies can show that females ( given the same chances at education ) are 10 \ % " dumber " than their male counterparts.The claim is sensationalistic BS that is absolutely meaningless , unless we can actually analyze the brain TISSUE and see how many ganglia per unit volume and how many fibers it consisted of .
THEN we can have an estimate of " intelligence " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And brain SIZE has nothing to do with "intelligence", otherwise whales would have invented space travel a long time ago.
Male brains are roughly 150cc bigger than female brains, however no studies can show that females (given the same chances at education) are 10\% "dumber" than their male counterparts.The claim is sensationalistic BS that is absolutely meaningless, unless we can actually analyze the brain TISSUE and see how many ganglia per unit volume and how many fibers it consisted of.
THEN we can have an estimate of "intelligence".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606126</id>
	<title>Re:As always... Wikipedia provides some sanity</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1262279820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The Discover article is a bunch of garbage. the idea that this was some sort of homonid species has been debuniked over 50 years ago.</i></p><p>I know Richard casually, from his role as head of the Dartmouth Cognitive Neuroscience institute, and he's quite the smart cookie and seeming intellectually rigorous.  His CV is impressive as well, and it seems unlikely that he was simply snowed by ancient research.  He's had a tough couple years recently, but it doesn't seem likely that he's trying to perpetrate a massive fraud on the scientific community.  Unless it's a grand experiment.</p><p>Actually, that makes more sense than that he's simply confused.  Either way a Discover article is too thin to really tell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Discover article is a bunch of garbage .
the idea that this was some sort of homonid species has been debuniked over 50 years ago.I know Richard casually , from his role as head of the Dartmouth Cognitive Neuroscience institute , and he 's quite the smart cookie and seeming intellectually rigorous .
His CV is impressive as well , and it seems unlikely that he was simply snowed by ancient research .
He 's had a tough couple years recently , but it does n't seem likely that he 's trying to perpetrate a massive fraud on the scientific community .
Unless it 's a grand experiment.Actually , that makes more sense than that he 's simply confused .
Either way a Discover article is too thin to really tell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Discover article is a bunch of garbage.
the idea that this was some sort of homonid species has been debuniked over 50 years ago.I know Richard casually, from his role as head of the Dartmouth Cognitive Neuroscience institute, and he's quite the smart cookie and seeming intellectually rigorous.
His CV is impressive as well, and it seems unlikely that he was simply snowed by ancient research.
He's had a tough couple years recently, but it doesn't seem likely that he's trying to perpetrate a massive fraud on the scientific community.
Unless it's a grand experiment.Actually, that makes more sense than that he's simply confused.
Either way a Discover article is too thin to really tell.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30610180</id>
	<title>"Don't worry Scro, lots of tards livin kick-ass.."</title>
	<author>Ozlanthos</author>
	<datestamp>1262256420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"My ex-wife is tarded, now she's a pilot"
<br>
Apparently these guys have never seen idiocracy. If they had, they might have come to the conclusion that maybe because these hominids were smarter, they made more conscientious decisions concerning the carrying-capacity of their environs. As such, they would most likely have had fewer children, and been monogamous, while their less intelligent cousins were eating or screwing anything that didn't run fast enough to evade capture (the same way modern hominids act when they drink too much). Either that or they mastered space travel about 7000 years ago and bailed this dumb-assed planet
<br>
<br>
-Oz.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" My ex-wife is tarded , now she 's a pilot " Apparently these guys have never seen idiocracy .
If they had , they might have come to the conclusion that maybe because these hominids were smarter , they made more conscientious decisions concerning the carrying-capacity of their environs .
As such , they would most likely have had fewer children , and been monogamous , while their less intelligent cousins were eating or screwing anything that did n't run fast enough to evade capture ( the same way modern hominids act when they drink too much ) .
Either that or they mastered space travel about 7000 years ago and bailed this dumb-assed planet -Oz .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"My ex-wife is tarded, now she's a pilot"

Apparently these guys have never seen idiocracy.
If they had, they might have come to the conclusion that maybe because these hominids were smarter, they made more conscientious decisions concerning the carrying-capacity of their environs.
As such, they would most likely have had fewer children, and been monogamous, while their less intelligent cousins were eating or screwing anything that didn't run fast enough to evade capture (the same way modern hominids act when they drink too much).
Either that or they mastered space travel about 7000 years ago and bailed this dumb-assed planet


-Oz.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30608892</id>
	<title>Did they die out or just leave?</title>
	<author>kawabago</author>
	<datestamp>1262292060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe they didn't die out, maybe they went somewhere with less hostile neighbours.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe they did n't die out , maybe they went somewhere with less hostile neighbours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe they didn't die out, maybe they went somewhere with less hostile neighbours.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605660</id>
	<title>Aliens?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262277540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>What if they didn't really go extinct? What if they really are the "aliens" we keep hearing about? Cue the "time machine" storyline.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What if they did n't really go extinct ?
What if they really are the " aliens " we keep hearing about ?
Cue the " time machine " storyline .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if they didn't really go extinct?
What if they really are the "aliens" we keep hearing about?
Cue the "time machine" storyline.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605942</id>
	<title>Re:We know how things go in our Idiocracy</title>
	<author>steelfood</author>
	<datestamp>1262279100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Idiocracy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Idiocracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Idiocracy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30608198</id>
	<title>Re:Size doesn't matter... when it comes to brains.</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1262288280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course it isn't brain size alone, but one factor is brain size vs the animal's size. Elephants are far momre than three times our size. They are very intelligent animals, though, and like us are social animals.</p><p>The ancient Thais (who have a 5,000 year history) used elephants for the same things modern Thais use bulldozers, cranes, etc. for. Elephants have to be pretty smart to be trained to do the things they do, despite thir limited brain size to body weight disadvantage. Of course, the ancient humans had to be a whole lot smarter than the elephants, or iit would be humans doing their bidding.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course it is n't brain size alone , but one factor is brain size vs the animal 's size .
Elephants are far momre than three times our size .
They are very intelligent animals , though , and like us are social animals.The ancient Thais ( who have a 5,000 year history ) used elephants for the same things modern Thais use bulldozers , cranes , etc .
for. Elephants have to be pretty smart to be trained to do the things they do , despite thir limited brain size to body weight disadvantage .
Of course , the ancient humans had to be a whole lot smarter than the elephants , or iit would be humans doing their bidding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course it isn't brain size alone, but one factor is brain size vs the animal's size.
Elephants are far momre than three times our size.
They are very intelligent animals, though, and like us are social animals.The ancient Thais (who have a 5,000 year history) used elephants for the same things modern Thais use bulldozers, cranes, etc.
for. Elephants have to be pretty smart to be trained to do the things they do, despite thir limited brain size to body weight disadvantage.
Of course, the ancient humans had to be a whole lot smarter than the elephants, or iit would be humans doing their bidding.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605432</id>
	<title>Typical Evolutionary muddle</title>
	<author>mbone</author>
	<datestamp>1262276340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Assume the hypothesis is true.</p><p>Those big brains would not have <b>evolved</b> without an evolutionary advantage of some sort, lack of literary hard drives or no. Now, their relative fitness against <i>homo sapiens</i> is another matter - that could depend on things like population size, climate change, and the accidents of history. ("<i>The race is not always to the swift</i>" and all that.)</p><p>I bet that, if this is true, someone starts looking for these genes in the current human population. They should be able to get some DNA from those 10,000 year old bones to compare against.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Assume the hypothesis is true.Those big brains would not have evolved without an evolutionary advantage of some sort , lack of literary hard drives or no .
Now , their relative fitness against homo sapiens is another matter - that could depend on things like population size , climate change , and the accidents of history .
( " The race is not always to the swift " and all that .
) I bet that , if this is true , someone starts looking for these genes in the current human population .
They should be able to get some DNA from those 10,000 year old bones to compare against .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Assume the hypothesis is true.Those big brains would not have evolved without an evolutionary advantage of some sort, lack of literary hard drives or no.
Now, their relative fitness against homo sapiens is another matter - that could depend on things like population size, climate change, and the accidents of history.
("The race is not always to the swift" and all that.
)I bet that, if this is true, someone starts looking for these genes in the current human population.
They should be able to get some DNA from those 10,000 year old bones to compare against.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605340</id>
	<title>Re:IQ is a relative scale, not an objective one</title>
	<author>Mistah Bunny</author>
	<datestamp>1262275980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article refers to the average Boskop IQ as 150 on our own scale as a way of comparison. It's not too useful to answer "100" whenever asked the average IQ of a species.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article refers to the average Boskop IQ as 150 on our own scale as a way of comparison .
It 's not too useful to answer " 100 " whenever asked the average IQ of a species .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article refers to the average Boskop IQ as 150 on our own scale as a way of comparison.
It's not too useful to answer "100" whenever asked the average IQ of a species.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607124</id>
	<title>Re:As always... Wikipedia provides some sanity</title>
	<author>mister\_playboy</author>
	<datestamp>1262283900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are just trying to protect their jobs.  Why pay ridiculous sums of money to go to college if you can just learn from Wikipedia?</p><p>Wikipedia isn't always accurate, but neither are college professors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are just trying to protect their jobs .
Why pay ridiculous sums of money to go to college if you can just learn from Wikipedia ? Wikipedia is n't always accurate , but neither are college professors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are just trying to protect their jobs.
Why pay ridiculous sums of money to go to college if you can just learn from Wikipedia?Wikipedia isn't always accurate, but neither are college professors.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605952</id>
	<title>Re:Does a bigger brain really mean higher IQ?</title>
	<author>danlip</author>
	<datestamp>1262279100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly, by that logic whales and elephants are vastly more intelligent than humans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly , by that logic whales and elephants are vastly more intelligent than humans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly, by that logic whales and elephants are vastly more intelligent than humans.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605350</id>
	<title>Re:Does a bigger brain really mean higher IQ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262276040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Given that identity, self, is a holographic issue it may very well imply that.

Also the notion that the intelligence was "no use" seems to smack of jealousy.  Intelligence is always useful.  Increased or better filtered perception would be a given.  I would hypothesise that disease wiped them out before they really got going.  Intelligence actually seems to increase risky behaviour to a point.  Curiosity does that.  It might counter the revulsion and fear we have to death and disease that has helped us survive in the past.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Given that identity , self , is a holographic issue it may very well imply that .
Also the notion that the intelligence was " no use " seems to smack of jealousy .
Intelligence is always useful .
Increased or better filtered perception would be a given .
I would hypothesise that disease wiped them out before they really got going .
Intelligence actually seems to increase risky behaviour to a point .
Curiosity does that .
It might counter the revulsion and fear we have to death and disease that has helped us survive in the past .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given that identity, self, is a holographic issue it may very well imply that.
Also the notion that the intelligence was "no use" seems to smack of jealousy.
Intelligence is always useful.
Increased or better filtered perception would be a given.
I would hypothesise that disease wiped them out before they really got going.
Intelligence actually seems to increase risky behaviour to a point.
Curiosity does that.
It might counter the revulsion and fear we have to death and disease that has helped us survive in the past.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607756</id>
	<title>SNL already figured it out</title>
	<author>FrenchSilk</author>
	<datestamp>1262286360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Saturday Night Live had a brilliant sketch back in the 70's or 80's that perfectly illustrated why the large-brained tend to go extinct.  The sketch had a small band of caveman hunters gathered around the campfire at night after the hunt.  Brutus, the leader of the band was a muscular and stupid jock who kept walking through the fire and burning his feet while boasting of his hunting prowess.  One of the others, a proto-nerd played by Bill Murray, decided it would be a good time to bring up an idea he had about how they could catch more game if, rather than just chase after their prey, they could surround it and close in on it from all directions, making it harder for it to escape.  The other cave men seemed to begin to grasp the concept until Brutus walked around behind the Murray character and dropped a boulder on his head.   It remains my all-time favorite SNL sketch.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Saturday Night Live had a brilliant sketch back in the 70 's or 80 's that perfectly illustrated why the large-brained tend to go extinct .
The sketch had a small band of caveman hunters gathered around the campfire at night after the hunt .
Brutus , the leader of the band was a muscular and stupid jock who kept walking through the fire and burning his feet while boasting of his hunting prowess .
One of the others , a proto-nerd played by Bill Murray , decided it would be a good time to bring up an idea he had about how they could catch more game if , rather than just chase after their prey , they could surround it and close in on it from all directions , making it harder for it to escape .
The other cave men seemed to begin to grasp the concept until Brutus walked around behind the Murray character and dropped a boulder on his head .
It remains my all-time favorite SNL sketch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Saturday Night Live had a brilliant sketch back in the 70's or 80's that perfectly illustrated why the large-brained tend to go extinct.
The sketch had a small band of caveman hunters gathered around the campfire at night after the hunt.
Brutus, the leader of the band was a muscular and stupid jock who kept walking through the fire and burning his feet while boasting of his hunting prowess.
One of the others, a proto-nerd played by Bill Murray, decided it would be a good time to bring up an idea he had about how they could catch more game if, rather than just chase after their prey, they could surround it and close in on it from all directions, making it harder for it to escape.
The other cave men seemed to begin to grasp the concept until Brutus walked around behind the Murray character and dropped a boulder on his head.
It remains my all-time favorite SNL sketch.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30611410</id>
	<title>Nerds</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1262267220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Jocks drove them to extinction.</p><p>There's only so many times one can get stuffed in their locker or so many wedgies the genetic material can take before one gives up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Jocks drove them to extinction.There 's only so many times one can get stuffed in their locker or so many wedgies the genetic material can take before one gives up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Jocks drove them to extinction.There's only so many times one can get stuffed in their locker or so many wedgies the genetic material can take before one gives up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605318</id>
	<title>Apples?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262275920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Boskop is the german name for a specific sort of apples.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>I knew it. Apples do have a brain.</p><p>http://lepetitcadeau.typepad.com/.a/6a010535cfb36d970b0120a5de6516970b-800wi<br>http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3573/3323907067\_8113d65bc5.jpg</p><p>harhar</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Boskop is the german name for a specific sort of apples .
: - ) I knew it .
Apples do have a brain.http : //lepetitcadeau.typepad.com/.a/6a010535cfb36d970b0120a5de6516970b-800wihttp : //farm4.static.flickr.com/3573/3323907067 \ _8113d65bc5.jpgharhar</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Boskop is the german name for a specific sort of apples.
:-)I knew it.
Apples do have a brain.http://lepetitcadeau.typepad.com/.a/6a010535cfb36d970b0120a5de6516970b-800wihttp://farm4.static.flickr.com/3573/3323907067\_8113d65bc5.jpgharhar</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605972</id>
	<title>Re:As always... Wikipedia provides some sanity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262279220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article doesnt seem to directly support your claim.. Did I miss something?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article doesnt seem to directly support your claim.. Did I miss something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article doesnt seem to directly support your claim.. Did I miss something?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606040</id>
	<title>Re:IQ is a relative scale, not an objective one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262279460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I like how you say "diagnosed" with a 150 IQ, like some sort of ironic tip of the hat to the curse of intelligence<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like how you say " diagnosed " with a 150 IQ , like some sort of ironic tip of the hat to the curse of intelligence ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like how you say "diagnosed" with a 150 IQ, like some sort of ironic tip of the hat to the curse of intelligence ;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607466</id>
	<title>Re:This is really old news</title>
	<author>Opyros</author>
	<datestamp>1262285220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do you mean <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2009/02/titanoboa\_-\_thirteen\_metres\_one\_tonne\_largest\_snake\_ever.php" title="scienceblogs.com">Titanoboa cerrejonesis</a> [scienceblogs.com]? If so, the linked article (from February) could serve as TFA &mdash; maybe that wouldn't be old news by Slashdot standards.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you mean Titanoboa cerrejonesis [ scienceblogs.com ] ?
If so , the linked article ( from February ) could serve as TFA    maybe that would n't be old news by Slashdot standards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you mean Titanoboa cerrejonesis [scienceblogs.com]?
If so, the linked article (from February) could serve as TFA — maybe that wouldn't be old news by Slashdot standards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605552</id>
	<title>Re:Brain size and birth</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262277000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Computers used to take up entire floors on building and now we have more processing power in our laptops and cellphones.  Size != efficiency.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Computers used to take up entire floors on building and now we have more processing power in our laptops and cellphones .
Size ! = efficiency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Computers used to take up entire floors on building and now we have more processing power in our laptops and cellphones.
Size != efficiency.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30608328</id>
	<title>Not neccessarily extinct</title>
	<author>Spy Handler</author>
	<datestamp>1262288940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We are assuming that these were an indigenous hominid species in Africa that went extinct 10,000 years ago.<br> <br>

However an alternate hypothesis is that a Sectoid scoutship on a research mission got stranded in South Africa 10,000 years ago for whatever reason (mechanical failure?) and the crew died there, leaving their skulls behind.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We are assuming that these were an indigenous hominid species in Africa that went extinct 10,000 years ago .
However an alternate hypothesis is that a Sectoid scoutship on a research mission got stranded in South Africa 10,000 years ago for whatever reason ( mechanical failure ?
) and the crew died there , leaving their skulls behind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are assuming that these were an indigenous hominid species in Africa that went extinct 10,000 years ago.
However an alternate hypothesis is that a Sectoid scoutship on a research mission got stranded in South Africa 10,000 years ago for whatever reason (mechanical failure?
) and the crew died there, leaving their skulls behind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605166</id>
	<title>Yes we all know size is everything...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262274900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Increased brain size means more intelligence? That's just as silly as that other correlation we always hear about.
<br> <br>
Oh, and in before "IT'S... IQ OVER 9000"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Increased brain size means more intelligence ?
That 's just as silly as that other correlation we always hear about .
Oh , and in before " IT 'S... IQ OVER 9000 "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Increased brain size means more intelligence?
That's just as silly as that other correlation we always hear about.
Oh, and in before "IT'S... IQ OVER 9000"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607326</id>
	<title>This is not science; stop publishing this crap</title>
	<author>dirkdodgers</author>
	<datestamp>1262284680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Their work here has already been discredited in academic circles. Stop misinforming the public by giving it traction in the popular press. Had these neuroscientists had the sense to review their hypotheses with current scientists in anthropology and evolutionary biology they would have saved themselves a great deal of embarrassment.</p><p>There is no science occurring here. There is no new discovery here. This is simply two scientists in a completely unrelated field (neuroscience), looking at very old, discredited data, and pulling a headline grabbing book and promotional magazine article out of their asses. However well meaning they were, they failed to do their footwork here, and the result is embarrassing. I guess we should ask snopes to start writing an article on this now before this nonsense spreads.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Their work here has already been discredited in academic circles .
Stop misinforming the public by giving it traction in the popular press .
Had these neuroscientists had the sense to review their hypotheses with current scientists in anthropology and evolutionary biology they would have saved themselves a great deal of embarrassment.There is no science occurring here .
There is no new discovery here .
This is simply two scientists in a completely unrelated field ( neuroscience ) , looking at very old , discredited data , and pulling a headline grabbing book and promotional magazine article out of their asses .
However well meaning they were , they failed to do their footwork here , and the result is embarrassing .
I guess we should ask snopes to start writing an article on this now before this nonsense spreads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their work here has already been discredited in academic circles.
Stop misinforming the public by giving it traction in the popular press.
Had these neuroscientists had the sense to review their hypotheses with current scientists in anthropology and evolutionary biology they would have saved themselves a great deal of embarrassment.There is no science occurring here.
There is no new discovery here.
This is simply two scientists in a completely unrelated field (neuroscience), looking at very old, discredited data, and pulling a headline grabbing book and promotional magazine article out of their asses.
However well meaning they were, they failed to do their footwork here, and the result is embarrassing.
I guess we should ask snopes to start writing an article on this now before this nonsense spreads.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30609422</id>
	<title>Size doesn't matter</title>
	<author>ThatsNotPudding</author>
	<datestamp>1262251860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And I will blindly hold to that belief, even over the sound of my own inconsolable weeping.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And I will blindly hold to that belief , even over the sound of my own inconsolable weeping .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I will blindly hold to that belief, even over the sound of my own inconsolable weeping.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30611912</id>
	<title>Re:Does a bigger brain really mean higher IQ?</title>
	<author>KermitJunior</author>
	<datestamp>1262273580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, whales have bigger brains than humans.  That is why alien species made contact with them early on and the lack of communication with them in a few centuries will render all of our technology useless.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , whales have bigger brains than humans .
That is why alien species made contact with them early on and the lack of communication with them in a few centuries will render all of our technology useless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, whales have bigger brains than humans.
That is why alien species made contact with them early on and the lack of communication with them in a few centuries will render all of our technology useless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30610842</id>
	<title>Maybe they invented mainstream economics...</title>
	<author>Paul Fernhout</author>
	<datestamp>1262261700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And the internal competition did them in?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>I wrote my undergraduate senior thesis on the topic of the limits of intelligence in relation to evolution and survival about twenty five years ago ("Why Intelligence: Object, Stability, Evolution, Model"). A lot depends on context. Also, how did these people cooperate? And what were their values, assumptions, and choices of tools of thought? What was their culture? Were they symbiotic with other species like dogs? Lots of specific issues. With that said, studies seem to indicate the human brain has been getting bigger over the last 5000 years or so. There may be plenty of value to intelligence in the right context. Whales and dolphins that have much bigger brains than humans seem pretty happy.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And the internal competition did them in ?
: - ) I wrote my undergraduate senior thesis on the topic of the limits of intelligence in relation to evolution and survival about twenty five years ago ( " Why Intelligence : Object , Stability , Evolution , Model " ) .
A lot depends on context .
Also , how did these people cooperate ?
And what were their values , assumptions , and choices of tools of thought ?
What was their culture ?
Were they symbiotic with other species like dogs ?
Lots of specific issues .
With that said , studies seem to indicate the human brain has been getting bigger over the last 5000 years or so .
There may be plenty of value to intelligence in the right context .
Whales and dolphins that have much bigger brains than humans seem pretty happy .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the internal competition did them in?
:-)I wrote my undergraduate senior thesis on the topic of the limits of intelligence in relation to evolution and survival about twenty five years ago ("Why Intelligence: Object, Stability, Evolution, Model").
A lot depends on context.
Also, how did these people cooperate?
And what were their values, assumptions, and choices of tools of thought?
What was their culture?
Were they symbiotic with other species like dogs?
Lots of specific issues.
With that said, studies seem to indicate the human brain has been getting bigger over the last 5000 years or so.
There may be plenty of value to intelligence in the right context.
Whales and dolphins that have much bigger brains than humans seem pretty happy.
:-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30609112</id>
	<title>That's nothing...</title>
	<author>Baldrson</author>
	<datestamp>1262293140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar\_6.htm" title="world-mysteries.com">Pre-Inca skulls from the Paracas area of Peru have been estimated to have a cranial capacity of 2500ccs</a> [world-mysteries.com].</p><p>Of course, it cannot possibly be the case that a culture of humans somewhere at some time in the past had the intelligence to develop breeding techniques  and then got the bright idea that maybe breeding for even greater intelligence was desirable.  For them to have done so would have required that they be either Jews or Nazis and we all know Jews and Nazis didn't exist until WW II.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pre-Inca skulls from the Paracas area of Peru have been estimated to have a cranial capacity of 2500ccs [ world-mysteries.com ] .Of course , it can not possibly be the case that a culture of humans somewhere at some time in the past had the intelligence to develop breeding techniques and then got the bright idea that maybe breeding for even greater intelligence was desirable .
For them to have done so would have required that they be either Jews or Nazis and we all know Jews and Nazis did n't exist until WW II .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pre-Inca skulls from the Paracas area of Peru have been estimated to have a cranial capacity of 2500ccs [world-mysteries.com].Of course, it cannot possibly be the case that a culture of humans somewhere at some time in the past had the intelligence to develop breeding techniques  and then got the bright idea that maybe breeding for even greater intelligence was desirable.
For them to have done so would have required that they be either Jews or Nazis and we all know Jews and Nazis didn't exist until WW II.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605424</id>
	<title>Linked article</title>
	<author>digitalhermit</author>
	<datestamp>1262276280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh my goodness, what a surprise... The linked article on SA was one for a question that I had submitted 10 years ago to "Ask the Experts"!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh my goodness , what a surprise... The linked article on SA was one for a question that I had submitted 10 years ago to " Ask the Experts " !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh my goodness, what a surprise... The linked article on SA was one for a question that I had submitted 10 years ago to "Ask the Experts"!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605332</id>
	<title>Nerds vs. Jocks</title>
	<author>Sponge Bath</author>
	<datestamp>1262275980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>humans with big brains... they eventually gave way to smaller-brained, possibly less advanced Homo sapiens</i></p><p>A triumph of wedgies and swirlies paving the way for the modern day high school.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>humans with big brains... they eventually gave way to smaller-brained , possibly less advanced Homo sapiensA triumph of wedgies and swirlies paving the way for the modern day high school .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> humans with big brains... they eventually gave way to smaller-brained, possibly less advanced Homo sapiensA triumph of wedgies and swirlies paving the way for the modern day high school.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605856</id>
	<title>Re:Brain size and birth</title>
	<author>satchmodian</author>
	<datestamp>1262278680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And they can't all have an average IQ of 150.  A 100 IQ is, by definition, the average.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And they ca n't all have an average IQ of 150 .
A 100 IQ is , by definition , the average .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And they can't all have an average IQ of 150.
A 100 IQ is, by definition, the average.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607346</id>
	<title>Re:Does a bigger brain really mean higher IQ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262284740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A bigger brain does not necessarily mean higher IQ (looky here http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Myths/br-si-bo.htm).<br>One of the reasons (AFAIK) postulated for human intelligence is the wrinkles in the brain allow for a greater amount of gray matter which is in the surface.<br>An argument in favor of intelligence as a positive adaptation could be:</p><p>There was an hominid with greater brain mass but its brain was not too wrinkled, a mutation evolved which caused more wrinkles allowing for greater intelligence with a smaller more energy efficient brain. Since we are postulating intelligence allowed the hominid better survival, the mutation spread by natural selection until the hominid evolved into the smaller brained yet more intelligent homo-sapiens.</p><p>Of course I have no idea whether this argument is even plausible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A bigger brain does not necessarily mean higher IQ ( looky here http : //www.highnorth.no/Library/Myths/br-si-bo.htm ) .One of the reasons ( AFAIK ) postulated for human intelligence is the wrinkles in the brain allow for a greater amount of gray matter which is in the surface.An argument in favor of intelligence as a positive adaptation could be : There was an hominid with greater brain mass but its brain was not too wrinkled , a mutation evolved which caused more wrinkles allowing for greater intelligence with a smaller more energy efficient brain .
Since we are postulating intelligence allowed the hominid better survival , the mutation spread by natural selection until the hominid evolved into the smaller brained yet more intelligent homo-sapiens.Of course I have no idea whether this argument is even plausible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A bigger brain does not necessarily mean higher IQ (looky here http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Myths/br-si-bo.htm).One of the reasons (AFAIK) postulated for human intelligence is the wrinkles in the brain allow for a greater amount of gray matter which is in the surface.An argument in favor of intelligence as a positive adaptation could be:There was an hominid with greater brain mass but its brain was not too wrinkled, a mutation evolved which caused more wrinkles allowing for greater intelligence with a smaller more energy efficient brain.
Since we are postulating intelligence allowed the hominid better survival, the mutation spread by natural selection until the hominid evolved into the smaller brained yet more intelligent homo-sapiens.Of course I have no idea whether this argument is even plausible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605480</id>
	<title>And yet, I can not help but think about ...</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1262276640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The dolphins. They were assumed to be similar IQ to man, until they figured out that they have 6x the glial cells that man does. So what it comes down to is that size != IQ.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The dolphins .
They were assumed to be similar IQ to man , until they figured out that they have 6x the glial cells that man does .
So what it comes down to is that size ! = IQ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The dolphins.
They were assumed to be similar IQ to man, until they figured out that they have 6x the glial cells that man does.
So what it comes down to is that size != IQ.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606428</id>
	<title>Our Cetacean Masters</title>
	<author>dtjohnson</author>
	<datestamp>1262281560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most cetaceans have brain sizes much bigger than ours.  For example, a "killer" whale's brain is about 6,000 cc or 400 percent larger than ours and even the lowly bottlenose dolphin has a brain 7 percent larger than ours.  Maybe it's time to recognize the superiority of our cetacean masters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most cetaceans have brain sizes much bigger than ours .
For example , a " killer " whale 's brain is about 6,000 cc or 400 percent larger than ours and even the lowly bottlenose dolphin has a brain 7 percent larger than ours .
Maybe it 's time to recognize the superiority of our cetacean masters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most cetaceans have brain sizes much bigger than ours.
For example, a "killer" whale's brain is about 6,000 cc or 400 percent larger than ours and even the lowly bottlenose dolphin has a brain 7 percent larger than ours.
Maybe it's time to recognize the superiority of our cetacean masters.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606112</id>
	<title>Re:Does a bigger brain really mean higher IQ?</title>
	<author>MBGMorden</author>
	<datestamp>1262279760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>from what I remember in highschool science class, it isn't the direct size of the brain but the ratio of the brain to the rest of the body.</p></div><p>So someone born with no legs is a genius?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>I kid, but realistically such estimates end up being just "rules of thumb", and can't be universally applied.  You're hinging a lot on that assumption if by saying that their large brain indicates intelligence, and therefore their extinction indicates that intelligence doesn't always correlate to better survival.</p><p>Indeed, based on what I've seen, I'd reverse that, and say that their extinction indicates a lack of intelligence, and that in turn, it also indicates that a large brain doesn't always correlate to high intelligence.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>from what I remember in highschool science class , it is n't the direct size of the brain but the ratio of the brain to the rest of the body.So someone born with no legs is a genius ?
: ) I kid , but realistically such estimates end up being just " rules of thumb " , and ca n't be universally applied .
You 're hinging a lot on that assumption if by saying that their large brain indicates intelligence , and therefore their extinction indicates that intelligence does n't always correlate to better survival.Indeed , based on what I 've seen , I 'd reverse that , and say that their extinction indicates a lack of intelligence , and that in turn , it also indicates that a large brain does n't always correlate to high intelligence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>from what I remember in highschool science class, it isn't the direct size of the brain but the ratio of the brain to the rest of the body.So someone born with no legs is a genius?
:)I kid, but realistically such estimates end up being just "rules of thumb", and can't be universally applied.
You're hinging a lot on that assumption if by saying that their large brain indicates intelligence, and therefore their extinction indicates that intelligence doesn't always correlate to better survival.Indeed, based on what I've seen, I'd reverse that, and say that their extinction indicates a lack of intelligence, and that in turn, it also indicates that a large brain doesn't always correlate to high intelligence.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607500</id>
	<title>surprising?  hardly</title>
	<author>goffster</author>
	<datestamp>1262285340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Brainy guys don't get the girls and therefore don't proliferate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Brainy guys do n't get the girls and therefore do n't proliferate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Brainy guys don't get the girls and therefore don't proliferate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606644</id>
	<title>I don't believe in evolution</title>
	<author>Sam36</author>
	<datestamp>1262282220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know the guy on the left, and I know the guy on the right, but who are these guys in the middle? <br>
<a href="http://www.shirtcity.us/blog/files/2009/09/evolution.jpg" title="shirtcity.us" rel="nofollow">http://www.shirtcity.us/blog/files/2009/09/evolution.jpg</a> [shirtcity.us]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know the guy on the left , and I know the guy on the right , but who are these guys in the middle ?
http : //www.shirtcity.us/blog/files/2009/09/evolution.jpg [ shirtcity.us ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know the guy on the left, and I know the guy on the right, but who are these guys in the middle?
http://www.shirtcity.us/blog/files/2009/09/evolution.jpg [shirtcity.us]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607908</id>
	<title>idiots took over</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262286900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the Boskops were probably all murdered by the kind of apes we have running around today</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the Boskops were probably all murdered by the kind of apes we have running around today</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the Boskops were probably all murdered by the kind of apes we have running around today</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607490</id>
	<title>Re:Does a bigger brain really mean higher IQ?</title>
	<author>bcrowell</author>
	<datestamp>1262285280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Yep, the article is total nonsense.
</p><p>
If you compare <i>across species</i>, there is some correlation between brain size and intelligence, but not much. For instance, a whale's brain is a lot bigger than a human's, but there's no evidence that whales are all that much smarter than humans. Hamsters' brains are a lot smaller than horses', but they aren't dramatically dumber. The correlation gets somewhat stronger if you rate each species in terms of the ratio of brain size to body size. But in any case, the correlation is fairly weak, and is only a cross-species correlation. If you compare humans, there is no correlation between brain size and intelligence. Women have smaller heads than men on the average, but they're not less intelligent.
The scientific consensus is  that Boskop is not a separate species from H. Sapiens. Even if it was, the cross-species correlation is extremely loose, so you can't infer anything about one specific species. By the way, neanderthals also had bigger brains than humans, but the evidence is that they weren't any more intelligent. For example, there are areas where neanderthals and humans lived side by side for thousands of years, using identical types of tools. If the neanderthals were that much smarter than the humans, you'd think they'd have had fancier tools. Later on, humans started using more sophisticated tools (e.g., fish hooks and needles carved from bone), but IIRC the big-brained neanderthals never did.
</p><p>
Human intelligence depends a lot on specific genes, such as FOXP2. These genes have dramatic effects on intellectual ability, e.g., verbal ability. Families with abnormal FOXP2 have problems with language, but their brains are normal in size, and you wouldn't be able to tell them from normal humans based on their skulls. When you splice FOXP2 into mice, the baby mice vocalize differently than normal mice. But again, you wouldn't be able to tell the mice were abnormal based on their skulls. FOXP2 has been sequenced from DNA from Neanderthal fossils at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, and the result is that neanderthals have the same FOXP2 as modern humans. Note that they had to use molecular biology to find this out, though; you can't detect it by any amount of staring at the fossilized skulls.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep , the article is total nonsense .
If you compare across species , there is some correlation between brain size and intelligence , but not much .
For instance , a whale 's brain is a lot bigger than a human 's , but there 's no evidence that whales are all that much smarter than humans .
Hamsters ' brains are a lot smaller than horses ' , but they are n't dramatically dumber .
The correlation gets somewhat stronger if you rate each species in terms of the ratio of brain size to body size .
But in any case , the correlation is fairly weak , and is only a cross-species correlation .
If you compare humans , there is no correlation between brain size and intelligence .
Women have smaller heads than men on the average , but they 're not less intelligent .
The scientific consensus is that Boskop is not a separate species from H. Sapiens. Even if it was , the cross-species correlation is extremely loose , so you ca n't infer anything about one specific species .
By the way , neanderthals also had bigger brains than humans , but the evidence is that they were n't any more intelligent .
For example , there are areas where neanderthals and humans lived side by side for thousands of years , using identical types of tools .
If the neanderthals were that much smarter than the humans , you 'd think they 'd have had fancier tools .
Later on , humans started using more sophisticated tools ( e.g. , fish hooks and needles carved from bone ) , but IIRC the big-brained neanderthals never did .
Human intelligence depends a lot on specific genes , such as FOXP2 .
These genes have dramatic effects on intellectual ability , e.g. , verbal ability .
Families with abnormal FOXP2 have problems with language , but their brains are normal in size , and you would n't be able to tell them from normal humans based on their skulls .
When you splice FOXP2 into mice , the baby mice vocalize differently than normal mice .
But again , you would n't be able to tell the mice were abnormal based on their skulls .
FOXP2 has been sequenced from DNA from Neanderthal fossils at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology , and the result is that neanderthals have the same FOXP2 as modern humans .
Note that they had to use molecular biology to find this out , though ; you ca n't detect it by any amount of staring at the fossilized skulls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Yep, the article is total nonsense.
If you compare across species, there is some correlation between brain size and intelligence, but not much.
For instance, a whale's brain is a lot bigger than a human's, but there's no evidence that whales are all that much smarter than humans.
Hamsters' brains are a lot smaller than horses', but they aren't dramatically dumber.
The correlation gets somewhat stronger if you rate each species in terms of the ratio of brain size to body size.
But in any case, the correlation is fairly weak, and is only a cross-species correlation.
If you compare humans, there is no correlation between brain size and intelligence.
Women have smaller heads than men on the average, but they're not less intelligent.
The scientific consensus is  that Boskop is not a separate species from H. Sapiens. Even if it was, the cross-species correlation is extremely loose, so you can't infer anything about one specific species.
By the way, neanderthals also had bigger brains than humans, but the evidence is that they weren't any more intelligent.
For example, there are areas where neanderthals and humans lived side by side for thousands of years, using identical types of tools.
If the neanderthals were that much smarter than the humans, you'd think they'd have had fancier tools.
Later on, humans started using more sophisticated tools (e.g., fish hooks and needles carved from bone), but IIRC the big-brained neanderthals never did.
Human intelligence depends a lot on specific genes, such as FOXP2.
These genes have dramatic effects on intellectual ability, e.g., verbal ability.
Families with abnormal FOXP2 have problems with language, but their brains are normal in size, and you wouldn't be able to tell them from normal humans based on their skulls.
When you splice FOXP2 into mice, the baby mice vocalize differently than normal mice.
But again, you wouldn't be able to tell the mice were abnormal based on their skulls.
FOXP2 has been sequenced from DNA from Neanderthal fossils at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, and the result is that neanderthals have the same FOXP2 as modern humans.
Note that they had to use molecular biology to find this out, though; you can't detect it by any amount of staring at the fossilized skulls.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605784</id>
	<title>Re:Brain size and birth</title>
	<author>Rinikusu</author>
	<datestamp>1262278380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, it'd be a new evolutionary pressure that would favor women with larger birth canals.  Sure the regular birth canals women would probably die in childbirth, but the ones that could handle the larger craniums would surive to produce many more children.  The population would soon stabilize and larger birth canals and bigger brains would be the norm.  But we're also talking about several thousand years for this homogeneity kind of homogeneity to emerge.</p><p>In modern times, it wouldn't be as big a deal due to things like C-Sections and what not.  We could have babies with heads the size of basketballs and as long as they were birthed under the knife, the mother's mortality wouldn't be in danger (any more so than the millions of other c-sections out there).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , it 'd be a new evolutionary pressure that would favor women with larger birth canals .
Sure the regular birth canals women would probably die in childbirth , but the ones that could handle the larger craniums would surive to produce many more children .
The population would soon stabilize and larger birth canals and bigger brains would be the norm .
But we 're also talking about several thousand years for this homogeneity kind of homogeneity to emerge.In modern times , it would n't be as big a deal due to things like C-Sections and what not .
We could have babies with heads the size of basketballs and as long as they were birthed under the knife , the mother 's mortality would n't be in danger ( any more so than the millions of other c-sections out there ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, it'd be a new evolutionary pressure that would favor women with larger birth canals.
Sure the regular birth canals women would probably die in childbirth, but the ones that could handle the larger craniums would surive to produce many more children.
The population would soon stabilize and larger birth canals and bigger brains would be the norm.
But we're also talking about several thousand years for this homogeneity kind of homogeneity to emerge.In modern times, it wouldn't be as big a deal due to things like C-Sections and what not.
We could have babies with heads the size of basketballs and as long as they were birthed under the knife, the mother's mortality wouldn't be in danger (any more so than the millions of other c-sections out there).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606654</id>
	<title>Wait a minute!</title>
	<author>tverbeek</author>
	<datestamp>1262282340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not extinct!</p><p>I was just resting!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not extinct ! I was just resting !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not extinct!I was just resting!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30610462</id>
	<title>Utter nonsense, 4D6963!@!!!</title>
	<author>sgt\_doom</author>
	<datestamp>1262258220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>erroneous</i> is absolutely correct!</p><p>You are factually, historically and scientifically mistaken, dood!  The lowbrow has always been, and will always be, the bane of the civilized and intelligent!  The Roman soldier who slew Archimedes most probably didn't realize who he was, and therefore didn't kill him because he was the tactical support of his Grecian state, it was the soldier's natural lowbrow impulse.  Genghis Khan a genius?  Judging by his descendants, difficult to prove!</p><p>You aren't seriously suggesting Bush, Bernanke, Greenspan, Paulson, Geithner, Blankfein are truly superior?  Try asking any of them to code a simple program!  Nope, in the long run the sociopath wins, which is why humanity will have a short run indeed....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>erroneous is absolutely correct ! You are factually , historically and scientifically mistaken , dood !
The lowbrow has always been , and will always be , the bane of the civilized and intelligent !
The Roman soldier who slew Archimedes most probably did n't realize who he was , and therefore did n't kill him because he was the tactical support of his Grecian state , it was the soldier 's natural lowbrow impulse .
Genghis Khan a genius ?
Judging by his descendants , difficult to prove ! You are n't seriously suggesting Bush , Bernanke , Greenspan , Paulson , Geithner , Blankfein are truly superior ?
Try asking any of them to code a simple program !
Nope , in the long run the sociopath wins , which is why humanity will have a short run indeed... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>erroneous is absolutely correct!You are factually, historically and scientifically mistaken, dood!
The lowbrow has always been, and will always be, the bane of the civilized and intelligent!
The Roman soldier who slew Archimedes most probably didn't realize who he was, and therefore didn't kill him because he was the tactical support of his Grecian state, it was the soldier's natural lowbrow impulse.
Genghis Khan a genius?
Judging by his descendants, difficult to prove!You aren't seriously suggesting Bush, Bernanke, Greenspan, Paulson, Geithner, Blankfein are truly superior?
Try asking any of them to code a simple program!
Nope, in the long run the sociopath wins, which is why humanity will have a short run indeed....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30610554</id>
	<title>Re:We know how things go in our Idiocracy</title>
	<author>An Onerous Coward</author>
	<datestamp>1262259120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>Oh really? The census reports indicate some pretty disturbing trends. Educated people are having fewer, if any children, while less and uneducated people are increasing in numbers. This isn't fantasy.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>Yeah, yeah, the stupocalypse is upon us.  Heard it all before, don't believe it.</p><p>For the purposes of this posting, I will define "The Stupocalypse" as the oft-predicted fall of civilization due to an intellectually diminished human race finding themselves no longer able to deal with the complexity of running said civilization. There are a lot of reasons to think that no such thing will ever happen.</p><p>First, even with an intentional eugenics program, it takes many, many generations for a trait to really take effect.  Think where we'll be in ten generations.  That's two hundred years, my good man!  If we're not rewriting our genes daily by then -- hell, if we still *have* genes by then -- I will be flummoxed.  So for any dumb genes that are trying to drive out the smart genes, the clock is ticking.</p><p>But of course, no such eugenics program exists.  So the stupocalypse requires that the "smart" and "dumb" populations (if in fact such populations exist) self-segregate at least as effectively as a eugenics program, in order to beat the clock.  That's not going to happen, due to a combination of odd couplings, infidelity, nontraditional reproductive strategies (sperm banking, egg harvesting, etc.), and the just plain random weirdness that governs our sexual activities.</p><p>There is another trend that the stupocalypse has to race against:  less and less of the intelligent behavior of the human species is related directly to the innate capacities of the human brain.  It started way back when we started talking to each other, accelerated when we started painting our thoughts on cave walls, really got revved up with the Gutenberg press, and culminated this morning, when I noticed that you can get a terabyte hard drive on NewEgg for $90.</p><p>But all that data has to be collated through a human brain before useful decisions can be made about it, right?  Increasingly, no.  NetFlix has terabytes of ratings data that it uses to make suggestions, but no human is involved.  Same with Amazon's "you might also like" suggestions.  Google indexes the web mostly automatically.  Tons of stock trading is done automatically (though it's not clear what good comes from much of it).  Increasingly sophisticated non-human agents react to increasingly rich data feeds on the web.</p><p>We, as a species, would have to get very dumb very fast to overcome this trend.</p><p>Finally, I'd like to focus on the specific evidence:  that less educated people are outbreeding more educated people.  I think the correlation between "educated" and "intelligent" is incredibly weak.  I have a stat that I like to cite when people trot out the old canards about wealth and education being signs of innate superiority.  Right now in the United States, the most academically successful children of the very poor are slightly less likely to graduate college than the most academically inept children of the very wealthy.</p><p>So there are two possibilities:  either the children of the wealthy are so much more intellectually gifted than the children of the poor that the dumbest rich kid is smarter than the smartest poor kid, or the belief that we live in a meritocracy where everyone has an equal chance to succeed is a fairy tale.</p><p>Or to be blunt, society is stratified, but not by intelligence.  So the fact that one strata may be outbreeding another says next-to-nothing about long-term intelligence trends.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh really ?
The census reports indicate some pretty disturbing trends .
Educated people are having fewer , if any children , while less and uneducated people are increasing in numbers .
This is n't fantasy .
Yeah , yeah , the stupocalypse is upon us .
Heard it all before , do n't believe it.For the purposes of this posting , I will define " The Stupocalypse " as the oft-predicted fall of civilization due to an intellectually diminished human race finding themselves no longer able to deal with the complexity of running said civilization .
There are a lot of reasons to think that no such thing will ever happen.First , even with an intentional eugenics program , it takes many , many generations for a trait to really take effect .
Think where we 'll be in ten generations .
That 's two hundred years , my good man !
If we 're not rewriting our genes daily by then -- hell , if we still * have * genes by then -- I will be flummoxed .
So for any dumb genes that are trying to drive out the smart genes , the clock is ticking.But of course , no such eugenics program exists .
So the stupocalypse requires that the " smart " and " dumb " populations ( if in fact such populations exist ) self-segregate at least as effectively as a eugenics program , in order to beat the clock .
That 's not going to happen , due to a combination of odd couplings , infidelity , nontraditional reproductive strategies ( sperm banking , egg harvesting , etc .
) , and the just plain random weirdness that governs our sexual activities.There is another trend that the stupocalypse has to race against : less and less of the intelligent behavior of the human species is related directly to the innate capacities of the human brain .
It started way back when we started talking to each other , accelerated when we started painting our thoughts on cave walls , really got revved up with the Gutenberg press , and culminated this morning , when I noticed that you can get a terabyte hard drive on NewEgg for $ 90.But all that data has to be collated through a human brain before useful decisions can be made about it , right ?
Increasingly , no .
NetFlix has terabytes of ratings data that it uses to make suggestions , but no human is involved .
Same with Amazon 's " you might also like " suggestions .
Google indexes the web mostly automatically .
Tons of stock trading is done automatically ( though it 's not clear what good comes from much of it ) .
Increasingly sophisticated non-human agents react to increasingly rich data feeds on the web.We , as a species , would have to get very dumb very fast to overcome this trend.Finally , I 'd like to focus on the specific evidence : that less educated people are outbreeding more educated people .
I think the correlation between " educated " and " intelligent " is incredibly weak .
I have a stat that I like to cite when people trot out the old canards about wealth and education being signs of innate superiority .
Right now in the United States , the most academically successful children of the very poor are slightly less likely to graduate college than the most academically inept children of the very wealthy.So there are two possibilities : either the children of the wealthy are so much more intellectually gifted than the children of the poor that the dumbest rich kid is smarter than the smartest poor kid , or the belief that we live in a meritocracy where everyone has an equal chance to succeed is a fairy tale.Or to be blunt , society is stratified , but not by intelligence .
So the fact that one strata may be outbreeding another says next-to-nothing about long-term intelligence trends .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Oh really?
The census reports indicate some pretty disturbing trends.
Educated people are having fewer, if any children, while less and uneducated people are increasing in numbers.
This isn't fantasy.
Yeah, yeah, the stupocalypse is upon us.
Heard it all before, don't believe it.For the purposes of this posting, I will define "The Stupocalypse" as the oft-predicted fall of civilization due to an intellectually diminished human race finding themselves no longer able to deal with the complexity of running said civilization.
There are a lot of reasons to think that no such thing will ever happen.First, even with an intentional eugenics program, it takes many, many generations for a trait to really take effect.
Think where we'll be in ten generations.
That's two hundred years, my good man!
If we're not rewriting our genes daily by then -- hell, if we still *have* genes by then -- I will be flummoxed.
So for any dumb genes that are trying to drive out the smart genes, the clock is ticking.But of course, no such eugenics program exists.
So the stupocalypse requires that the "smart" and "dumb" populations (if in fact such populations exist) self-segregate at least as effectively as a eugenics program, in order to beat the clock.
That's not going to happen, due to a combination of odd couplings, infidelity, nontraditional reproductive strategies (sperm banking, egg harvesting, etc.
), and the just plain random weirdness that governs our sexual activities.There is another trend that the stupocalypse has to race against:  less and less of the intelligent behavior of the human species is related directly to the innate capacities of the human brain.
It started way back when we started talking to each other, accelerated when we started painting our thoughts on cave walls, really got revved up with the Gutenberg press, and culminated this morning, when I noticed that you can get a terabyte hard drive on NewEgg for $90.But all that data has to be collated through a human brain before useful decisions can be made about it, right?
Increasingly, no.
NetFlix has terabytes of ratings data that it uses to make suggestions, but no human is involved.
Same with Amazon's "you might also like" suggestions.
Google indexes the web mostly automatically.
Tons of stock trading is done automatically (though it's not clear what good comes from much of it).
Increasingly sophisticated non-human agents react to increasingly rich data feeds on the web.We, as a species, would have to get very dumb very fast to overcome this trend.Finally, I'd like to focus on the specific evidence:  that less educated people are outbreeding more educated people.
I think the correlation between "educated" and "intelligent" is incredibly weak.
I have a stat that I like to cite when people trot out the old canards about wealth and education being signs of innate superiority.
Right now in the United States, the most academically successful children of the very poor are slightly less likely to graduate college than the most academically inept children of the very wealthy.So there are two possibilities:  either the children of the wealthy are so much more intellectually gifted than the children of the poor that the dumbest rich kid is smarter than the smartest poor kid, or the belief that we live in a meritocracy where everyone has an equal chance to succeed is a fairy tale.Or to be blunt, society is stratified, but not by intelligence.
So the fact that one strata may be outbreeding another says next-to-nothing about long-term intelligence trends.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605180</id>
	<title>One problem ...</title>
	<author>oldspewey</author>
	<datestamp>1262275020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Evolution may favour the most clever and the most adaptable, but this homonid suffered from one utterly fatal genetic flaw: it was delicious.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Evolution may favour the most clever and the most adaptable , but this homonid suffered from one utterly fatal genetic flaw : it was delicious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Evolution may favour the most clever and the most adaptable, but this homonid suffered from one utterly fatal genetic flaw: it was delicious.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606608</id>
	<title>How do you compute brain size for an extinct speci</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262282100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its an interesting question<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. how does one go about the task of computing brain size for a distinct species assuming DNA was still avaliable.  Obviously the size crackpottery doesn't fly.</p><p>Roughly half of the information stored in our DNA is devoted to the brain.  Most of that is so dizzingly compressed providing just a sort of scaffolding or attractors for local growth that any computation or simulation seems infeasable given current technology.  Maybe we could compare with humans and reverse engineer the deltas somehow to get an idea.</p><p>Anyway as others have pointed out bigger brains does not equal bigger intelligence... Although it is very true whales have themselves a very nice secret moon base they keep cloked from prying eyes on the far side of the moon.  If you mind meld with them and feed them several buckets of fish they'll even tell you how to get there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its an interesting question .. how does one go about the task of computing brain size for a distinct species assuming DNA was still avaliable .
Obviously the size crackpottery does n't fly.Roughly half of the information stored in our DNA is devoted to the brain .
Most of that is so dizzingly compressed providing just a sort of scaffolding or attractors for local growth that any computation or simulation seems infeasable given current technology .
Maybe we could compare with humans and reverse engineer the deltas somehow to get an idea.Anyway as others have pointed out bigger brains does not equal bigger intelligence... Although it is very true whales have themselves a very nice secret moon base they keep cloked from prying eyes on the far side of the moon .
If you mind meld with them and feed them several buckets of fish they 'll even tell you how to get there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its an interesting question .. how does one go about the task of computing brain size for a distinct species assuming DNA was still avaliable.
Obviously the size crackpottery doesn't fly.Roughly half of the information stored in our DNA is devoted to the brain.
Most of that is so dizzingly compressed providing just a sort of scaffolding or attractors for local growth that any computation or simulation seems infeasable given current technology.
Maybe we could compare with humans and reverse engineer the deltas somehow to get an idea.Anyway as others have pointed out bigger brains does not equal bigger intelligence... Although it is very true whales have themselves a very nice secret moon base they keep cloked from prying eyes on the far side of the moon.
If you mind meld with them and feed them several buckets of fish they'll even tell you how to get there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607432</id>
	<title>Don't forget sex!</title>
	<author>Chemisor</author>
	<datestamp>1262285100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As most Slashdotters already know, a higher IQ is a great way to die a virgin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As most Slashdotters already know , a higher IQ is a great way to die a virgin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As most Slashdotters already know, a higher IQ is a great way to die a virgin.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605628</id>
	<title>Re:As always... Wikipedia provides some sanity</title>
	<author>Ragzouken</author>
	<datestamp>1262277360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wasn't aware that the only way to inform someone was to cite peer reviewed sources.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was n't aware that the only way to inform someone was to cite peer reviewed sources .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wasn't aware that the only way to inform someone was to cite peer reviewed sources.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30618964</id>
	<title>Outdated news?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1230825480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This Boskop stuff was first postulated in 1913.</p><p>And IQ is intended, by design, to be objective. It is not called a "Human" Quotient.</p><p>This Boskop stuff began in 1913. It seems the greatest secrets really ARE kept secret by consensual incredulity.</p><p>In regards to IQ:<br>Rotating a square object to fit in a square hole is the same problem for all, regardless of species. The question is, can you do it, and how well? The answer to this question = IQ. I am not, however, stating that our measurment methods are perfect.</p><p>In regards to evolution:<br>Biological evolution DEFINATELY has a goal - it just depends on how you define it. One example might be: To extract the most efficient use of sustainable energy, and optimise the output, within a given environment. Non reproductive mechanical evolution is happy to fall into entropic death. I dont think there is a great deal of life that embraces death, and if there is, it wont be around too long. Living without unexpectedly dying IS a goal. And there is bound to be a way to do it "better".</p><p>When one accepts this and takes a macroscopic view, one can make certain predictions on the direction of evolution. e.g:</p><p>A theoretical hippy could soundly postulate the theory that the goal of life is to create a psuedo-biological entity, with a close-to-zero-energy economy, who's substrate spans the entire universe, creating non-local quantum decoherance - a Bose-condensate - a single organism governed by the universal wavefunction. And it would be VERY difficult to launch a coherant attack on this theory.</p><p>Scientists needs to beware the pitfalls of the human psychology also. A justified, concerted and prolonged attack on creationism and intelligent design has the potential to alter subjective perceptions of the universe and reality, and it shouldn't. Simply because people make unsubstantiated claims about the universe is no reason to universally rule out any apparently similair patterns that are independently witnessed.</p><p>Just an idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This Boskop stuff was first postulated in 1913.And IQ is intended , by design , to be objective .
It is not called a " Human " Quotient.This Boskop stuff began in 1913 .
It seems the greatest secrets really ARE kept secret by consensual incredulity.In regards to IQ : Rotating a square object to fit in a square hole is the same problem for all , regardless of species .
The question is , can you do it , and how well ?
The answer to this question = IQ .
I am not , however , stating that our measurment methods are perfect.In regards to evolution : Biological evolution DEFINATELY has a goal - it just depends on how you define it .
One example might be : To extract the most efficient use of sustainable energy , and optimise the output , within a given environment .
Non reproductive mechanical evolution is happy to fall into entropic death .
I dont think there is a great deal of life that embraces death , and if there is , it wont be around too long .
Living without unexpectedly dying IS a goal .
And there is bound to be a way to do it " better " .When one accepts this and takes a macroscopic view , one can make certain predictions on the direction of evolution .
e.g : A theoretical hippy could soundly postulate the theory that the goal of life is to create a psuedo-biological entity , with a close-to-zero-energy economy , who 's substrate spans the entire universe , creating non-local quantum decoherance - a Bose-condensate - a single organism governed by the universal wavefunction .
And it would be VERY difficult to launch a coherant attack on this theory.Scientists needs to beware the pitfalls of the human psychology also .
A justified , concerted and prolonged attack on creationism and intelligent design has the potential to alter subjective perceptions of the universe and reality , and it should n't .
Simply because people make unsubstantiated claims about the universe is no reason to universally rule out any apparently similair patterns that are independently witnessed.Just an idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This Boskop stuff was first postulated in 1913.And IQ is intended, by design, to be objective.
It is not called a "Human" Quotient.This Boskop stuff began in 1913.
It seems the greatest secrets really ARE kept secret by consensual incredulity.In regards to IQ:Rotating a square object to fit in a square hole is the same problem for all, regardless of species.
The question is, can you do it, and how well?
The answer to this question = IQ.
I am not, however, stating that our measurment methods are perfect.In regards to evolution:Biological evolution DEFINATELY has a goal - it just depends on how you define it.
One example might be: To extract the most efficient use of sustainable energy, and optimise the output, within a given environment.
Non reproductive mechanical evolution is happy to fall into entropic death.
I dont think there is a great deal of life that embraces death, and if there is, it wont be around too long.
Living without unexpectedly dying IS a goal.
And there is bound to be a way to do it "better".When one accepts this and takes a macroscopic view, one can make certain predictions on the direction of evolution.
e.g:A theoretical hippy could soundly postulate the theory that the goal of life is to create a psuedo-biological entity, with a close-to-zero-energy economy, who's substrate spans the entire universe, creating non-local quantum decoherance - a Bose-condensate - a single organism governed by the universal wavefunction.
And it would be VERY difficult to launch a coherant attack on this theory.Scientists needs to beware the pitfalls of the human psychology also.
A justified, concerted and prolonged attack on creationism and intelligent design has the potential to alter subjective perceptions of the universe and reality, and it shouldn't.
Simply because people make unsubstantiated claims about the universe is no reason to universally rule out any apparently similair patterns that are independently witnessed.Just an idea.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605218</id>
	<title>As always... Wikipedia provides some sanity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262275260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boskop\_Man" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boskop\_Man</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>The Discover article is a bunch of garbage. the idea that this was some sort of homonid species has been debuniked over 50 years ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boskop \ _Man [ wikipedia.org ] The Discover article is a bunch of garbage .
the idea that this was some sort of homonid species has been debuniked over 50 years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boskop\_Man [wikipedia.org]The Discover article is a bunch of garbage.
the idea that this was some sort of homonid species has been debuniked over 50 years ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605204</id>
	<title>epenis</title>
	<author>Qlither</author>
	<datestamp>1262275200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"His brain was bigger than your brain."

Lies, my brains are huge!

Lets mob rush the little prick.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" His brain was bigger than your brain .
" Lies , my brains are huge !
Lets mob rush the little prick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"His brain was bigger than your brain.
"

Lies, my brains are huge!
Lets mob rush the little prick.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605388</id>
	<title>Size doesn't matter... when it comes to brains.</title>
	<author>orsty3001</author>
	<datestamp>1262276160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>
<a href="http://www.scientificblogging.com/mark\_changizi/why\_doesn\%E2\%80\%99t\_size\_matter\%E2\%80\%A6\_brain" title="scientificblogging.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.scientificblogging.com/mark\_changizi/why\_doesn\%E2\%80\%99t\_size\_matter\%E2\%80\%A6\_brain</a> [scientificblogging.com]

This has been proven over and over that size doesn't relate to smarts. An elephant's brain is just over 3 times larger than ours and yet I didn't see any elephants walk on the moon or develop great civilizations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.scientificblogging.com/mark \ _changizi/why \ _doesn \ % E2 \ % 80 \ % 99t \ _size \ _matter \ % E2 \ % 80 \ % A6 \ _brain [ scientificblogging.com ] This has been proven over and over that size does n't relate to smarts .
An elephant 's brain is just over 3 times larger than ours and yet I did n't see any elephants walk on the moon or develop great civilizations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
http://www.scientificblogging.com/mark\_changizi/why\_doesn\%E2\%80\%99t\_size\_matter\%E2\%80\%A6\_brain [scientificblogging.com]

This has been proven over and over that size doesn't relate to smarts.
An elephant's brain is just over 3 times larger than ours and yet I didn't see any elephants walk on the moon or develop great civilizations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606446</id>
	<title>'Problem' of more complexity?</title>
	<author>allcaps</author>
	<datestamp>1262281620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"The history of evolutionary studies has been dogged by the almost irresistible idea that evolution leads to greater complexity, to animals that are more advanced than their predecessor, yet the existence of the Boskops argues otherwise"

Doesn't this assume the questionable idea that being smarter is somehow more 'evolutionarily complex'?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The history of evolutionary studies has been dogged by the almost irresistible idea that evolution leads to greater complexity , to animals that are more advanced than their predecessor , yet the existence of the Boskops argues otherwise " Does n't this assume the questionable idea that being smarter is somehow more 'evolutionarily complex ' ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The history of evolutionary studies has been dogged by the almost irresistible idea that evolution leads to greater complexity, to animals that are more advanced than their predecessor, yet the existence of the Boskops argues otherwise"

Doesn't this assume the questionable idea that being smarter is somehow more 'evolutionarily complex'?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30613272</id>
	<title>Re:Does a bigger brain really mean higher IQ?</title>
	<author>Eivind Eklund</author>
	<datestamp>1230810000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you compare humans, there is no correlation between brain size and intelligence.</p></div><p>That's a common myth.  A quick Google for "Human brain size vs intelligence" gives the following two results as number 3 and 4 (and the first two that seem relevant):</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience\_and\_intelligence#Brain\_size" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience\_and\_intelligence#Brain\_size</a> [wikipedia.org]<br><a href="http://www.sciencenetlinks.com/sci\_update.php?DocID=166" title="sciencenetlinks.com">http://www.sciencenetlinks.com/sci\_update.php?DocID=166</a> [sciencenetlinks.com]</p><p>Both indicate a correlation.</p><p>Quoting from Wikipedia (which is least definite): </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Within human population, studies have been conducted to determine whether there is a relationship between brain size and a number of cognitive measures. Studies have reported correlations that range from 0 to 0.6.[2]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>[2] <a href="http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/129/2/386" title="oxfordjournals.org">http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/129/2/386</a> [oxfordjournals.org]</p> </div><p>The newest relevant scientific review article seems to be  "Whole Brain Size and General Mental Ability: A Review",<br>J. Philippe Rushton and C. Davison Ankney, International Journal of Neuroscience vol 119 issue 5 pages 692-732 (2009), available from <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2668913/" title="nih.gov">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2668913/</a> [nih.gov]</p><p>Abstract:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>We review the literature on the relation between whole brain size and general mental ability (GMA) both within and between species. Among humans, in 28 samples using brain imaging techniques, the mean brain size/GMA correlation is 0.40 (N = 1,389; p &lt; 1010); in 59 samples using external head size measures it is 0.20 (N = 63,405; p &lt; 1010). In 6 samples using the method of correlated vectors to distill g, the general factor of mental ability, the mean r is 0.63. We also describe the brain size/GMA correlations with age, socioeconomic position, sex, and ancestral population groups, which also provide information about brain&ndash;behavior relationships. Finally, we examine brain size and mental ability from an evolutionary and behavior genetic perspective.</p></div><p>Eivind.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you compare humans , there is no correlation between brain size and intelligence.That 's a common myth .
A quick Google for " Human brain size vs intelligence " gives the following two results as number 3 and 4 ( and the first two that seem relevant ) : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience \ _and \ _intelligence # Brain \ _size [ wikipedia.org ] http : //www.sciencenetlinks.com/sci \ _update.php ? DocID = 166 [ sciencenetlinks.com ] Both indicate a correlation.Quoting from Wikipedia ( which is least definite ) : Within human population , studies have been conducted to determine whether there is a relationship between brain size and a number of cognitive measures .
Studies have reported correlations that range from 0 to 0.6 .
[ 2 ] ... [ 2 ] http : //brain.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/129/2/386 [ oxfordjournals.org ] The newest relevant scientific review article seems to be " Whole Brain Size and General Mental Ability : A Review " ,J. Philippe Rushton and C. Davison Ankney , International Journal of Neuroscience vol 119 issue 5 pages 692-732 ( 2009 ) , available from http : //www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2668913/ [ nih.gov ] Abstract : We review the literature on the relation between whole brain size and general mental ability ( GMA ) both within and between species .
Among humans , in 28 samples using brain imaging techniques , the mean brain size/GMA correlation is 0.40 ( N = 1,389 ; p Eivind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you compare humans, there is no correlation between brain size and intelligence.That's a common myth.
A quick Google for "Human brain size vs intelligence" gives the following two results as number 3 and 4 (and the first two that seem relevant):http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience\_and\_intelligence#Brain\_size [wikipedia.org]http://www.sciencenetlinks.com/sci\_update.php?DocID=166 [sciencenetlinks.com]Both indicate a correlation.Quoting from Wikipedia (which is least definite): Within human population, studies have been conducted to determine whether there is a relationship between brain size and a number of cognitive measures.
Studies have reported correlations that range from 0 to 0.6.
[2] ...[2] http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/129/2/386 [oxfordjournals.org] The newest relevant scientific review article seems to be  "Whole Brain Size and General Mental Ability: A Review",J. Philippe Rushton and C. Davison Ankney, International Journal of Neuroscience vol 119 issue 5 pages 692-732 (2009), available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2668913/ [nih.gov]Abstract:We review the literature on the relation between whole brain size and general mental ability (GMA) both within and between species.
Among humans, in 28 samples using brain imaging techniques, the mean brain size/GMA correlation is 0.40 (N = 1,389; p Eivind.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606156</id>
	<title>Re:Size doesn't matter... when it comes to brains.</title>
	<author>pnewhook</author>
	<datestamp>1262280000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the fundamental limitation of other animals demonstrating their intelligence (regardless of whether they are smarter or not) is that they didn't evolve opposable thumbs like we did.  This severely restricts the amount of invention you can do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the fundamental limitation of other animals demonstrating their intelligence ( regardless of whether they are smarter or not ) is that they did n't evolve opposable thumbs like we did .
This severely restricts the amount of invention you can do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the fundamental limitation of other animals demonstrating their intelligence (regardless of whether they are smarter or not) is that they didn't evolve opposable thumbs like we did.
This severely restricts the amount of invention you can do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606830</id>
	<title>cortical surface area</title>
	<author>jkbreuer</author>
	<datestamp>1262282880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The measure of brain computational power is not the volume or size of a brain.  Cortical surface area is the important factor.  The human brain is folded with gyri and sulci making up the ridges and the valleys of the folds.  This folding allows for much greater surface area to be packed into our smaller by volume brains.

So just because a hominid skull is found that is larger does not necessarily mean that hominid was more intelligent.  How complex was the brain in that big skull.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The measure of brain computational power is not the volume or size of a brain .
Cortical surface area is the important factor .
The human brain is folded with gyri and sulci making up the ridges and the valleys of the folds .
This folding allows for much greater surface area to be packed into our smaller by volume brains .
So just because a hominid skull is found that is larger does not necessarily mean that hominid was more intelligent .
How complex was the brain in that big skull .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The measure of brain computational power is not the volume or size of a brain.
Cortical surface area is the important factor.
The human brain is folded with gyri and sulci making up the ridges and the valleys of the folds.
This folding allows for much greater surface area to be packed into our smaller by volume brains.
So just because a hominid skull is found that is larger does not necessarily mean that hominid was more intelligent.
How complex was the brain in that big skull.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30608284</id>
	<title>Re:Does a bigger brain really mean higher IQ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262288760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>True, another MHz myth. Also depends if their brain was multi-core or how long was the pipe line.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>True , another MHz myth .
Also depends if their brain was multi-core or how long was the pipe line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True, another MHz myth.
Also depends if their brain was multi-core or how long was the pipe line.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605360</id>
	<title>Re:IQ is a relative scale, not an objective one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262276040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While you are correct that it's a relative scale, they are comparing it to the current population (i.e. 100\% homo sapiens sapiens) to arrive at the above average IQ figure.  It may be disingenuous since we know so little about the rest of their physiology, but it's a fair guess that compared to us they were a lot smarter (since intelligence is almost entirely derived from the upper region of the brain)</p><p>What I want to know is, can we clone them (vis-a-vis the de-extinction process discussed a few days ago) and create a clone army of super-brainiacs to do our bidding?  This could be the just the solution to outsourcing that the US has been hoping for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While you are correct that it 's a relative scale , they are comparing it to the current population ( i.e .
100 \ % homo sapiens sapiens ) to arrive at the above average IQ figure .
It may be disingenuous since we know so little about the rest of their physiology , but it 's a fair guess that compared to us they were a lot smarter ( since intelligence is almost entirely derived from the upper region of the brain ) What I want to know is , can we clone them ( vis-a-vis the de-extinction process discussed a few days ago ) and create a clone army of super-brainiacs to do our bidding ?
This could be the just the solution to outsourcing that the US has been hoping for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While you are correct that it's a relative scale, they are comparing it to the current population (i.e.
100\% homo sapiens sapiens) to arrive at the above average IQ figure.
It may be disingenuous since we know so little about the rest of their physiology, but it's a fair guess that compared to us they were a lot smarter (since intelligence is almost entirely derived from the upper region of the brain)What I want to know is, can we clone them (vis-a-vis the de-extinction process discussed a few days ago) and create a clone army of super-brainiacs to do our bidding?
This could be the just the solution to outsourcing that the US has been hoping for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30609400</id>
	<title>not surprising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262251680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think intelligence has anything to do with long term survival of a species. It's more luck and how much offspring you produce. Things that lay lots of eggs are typically the most succesful. What is your personal breeding plan to insure survival of the human race?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think intelligence has anything to do with long term survival of a species .
It 's more luck and how much offspring you produce .
Things that lay lots of eggs are typically the most succesful .
What is your personal breeding plan to insure survival of the human race ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think intelligence has anything to do with long term survival of a species.
It's more luck and how much offspring you produce.
Things that lay lots of eggs are typically the most succesful.
What is your personal breeding plan to insure survival of the human race?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607650</id>
	<title>What a sound conclusion!</title>
	<author>Zero\_\_Kelvin</author>
	<datestamp>1262285940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Obviously computers from the 1970s were much more powerful than the ones we have today.  Just look at how fscking big they are!  I'm forced to apply their method and conclude that these guys have really small forebrains<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously computers from the 1970s were much more powerful than the ones we have today .
Just look at how fscking big they are !
I 'm forced to apply their method and conclude that these guys have really small forebrains ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously computers from the 1970s were much more powerful than the ones we have today.
Just look at how fscking big they are!
I'm forced to apply their method and conclude that these guys have really small forebrains ;-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30638330</id>
	<title>A little research can go a long way</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1231101660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This article is pure nonsense, as is the book it is based on.</p><p>Read: http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/brain/paleo/lynch-granger-big-brain-boskops-2008.html<br>for a short review of the topic.</p><p>Hugh, it never hurts researching a little before helping idiocy spread.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This article is pure nonsense , as is the book it is based on.Read : http : //johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/brain/paleo/lynch-granger-big-brain-boskops-2008.htmlfor a short review of the topic.Hugh , it never hurts researching a little before helping idiocy spread .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article is pure nonsense, as is the book it is based on.Read: http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/brain/paleo/lynch-granger-big-brain-boskops-2008.htmlfor a short review of the topic.Hugh, it never hurts researching a little before helping idiocy spread.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30611512</id>
	<title>it isn't our intelligence that makes us dominant</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1262268180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>its our ability to communicate richly</p><p>i don't care what these hominid's brainpower was like. if all they could do is grunt and hoot, they're 150 iq points of nothing. whatever that went on in that braincase that was truly amazing doesn't mean a damn thing if it has no way to get out of that braincase. and lo and behold, they're extinct. completely unsurprising</p><p>social intelligence is far, far more important than things like spatial intelligence, mathematical intelligence, or even strategic intelligence. and the iq test doesn't test social intelligence. the whole cult of the iq test is really pointless. the iq test has a very limited specific application and it is given far too much weight than what it actually deserves in contemporary society. i think it has something to do with the panic the west was experiencing as the soviets overtook the west in the space race in the 1950s, and suddenly the emphasis on math and the sciences became paramount. but even in scientific disciplines, its the guys with the social intelligence that dominate: jobs, gates, ellison: these are business guys first, programmers second</p><p>a guy with subpar intelligence with good communication skills dominates the guy with the stellar iq who doesn't have very good communication skills. you see it in these forums: "i hate my phb boss". well, why is your phb boss your boss? simply because he communicates better than you. yeah, he's dumber than you. but he COMMUNICATES better than you. this is not some perverse warping of justice, this is very much in line with the way things should be. i don't care how many games of chess you can play in your head at the same time, if you have no charisma and you cannot communicate well, you have less influence, and therefore less power, and less money. its perfectly logical how this plays out</p><p>a bad idea communicated well is FAR more important than a good idea communicated badly. not because i say so, but simply because of how reality works. if there is any injustice in this world, its that someone told you because you have a high iq you somehow deserve something superior, or that you yourself believe you are superior because of a test that only determines how well you manipulate complex 3D topologies in your head. guess what: its an amazing skill, but it doesn't actually help you get ahead in life about the things that really matter. your social iq is what really matters, and if you don't have it, you won't go far in this world, no matter how much your iq score is off the charts. in fact, we have a name for people who are extremely brilliant in limited ways but can't communicate: autistic savants. in some iq tests they would be way off the charts. but, like in the movie "rainman", they can't tell the difference between the price of a car and the price of a candy bar</p><p>that's a hard cold truth a lot of people in these forums probably still haven't accepted, but its true: your iq score means far less than you think. meanwhile, the idiot down the hall who knows how to talk the panties off girls: he will be your boss some day</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>its our ability to communicate richlyi do n't care what these hominid 's brainpower was like .
if all they could do is grunt and hoot , they 're 150 iq points of nothing .
whatever that went on in that braincase that was truly amazing does n't mean a damn thing if it has no way to get out of that braincase .
and lo and behold , they 're extinct .
completely unsurprisingsocial intelligence is far , far more important than things like spatial intelligence , mathematical intelligence , or even strategic intelligence .
and the iq test does n't test social intelligence .
the whole cult of the iq test is really pointless .
the iq test has a very limited specific application and it is given far too much weight than what it actually deserves in contemporary society .
i think it has something to do with the panic the west was experiencing as the soviets overtook the west in the space race in the 1950s , and suddenly the emphasis on math and the sciences became paramount .
but even in scientific disciplines , its the guys with the social intelligence that dominate : jobs , gates , ellison : these are business guys first , programmers seconda guy with subpar intelligence with good communication skills dominates the guy with the stellar iq who does n't have very good communication skills .
you see it in these forums : " i hate my phb boss " .
well , why is your phb boss your boss ?
simply because he communicates better than you .
yeah , he 's dumber than you .
but he COMMUNICATES better than you .
this is not some perverse warping of justice , this is very much in line with the way things should be .
i do n't care how many games of chess you can play in your head at the same time , if you have no charisma and you can not communicate well , you have less influence , and therefore less power , and less money .
its perfectly logical how this plays outa bad idea communicated well is FAR more important than a good idea communicated badly .
not because i say so , but simply because of how reality works .
if there is any injustice in this world , its that someone told you because you have a high iq you somehow deserve something superior , or that you yourself believe you are superior because of a test that only determines how well you manipulate complex 3D topologies in your head .
guess what : its an amazing skill , but it does n't actually help you get ahead in life about the things that really matter .
your social iq is what really matters , and if you do n't have it , you wo n't go far in this world , no matter how much your iq score is off the charts .
in fact , we have a name for people who are extremely brilliant in limited ways but ca n't communicate : autistic savants .
in some iq tests they would be way off the charts .
but , like in the movie " rainman " , they ca n't tell the difference between the price of a car and the price of a candy barthat 's a hard cold truth a lot of people in these forums probably still have n't accepted , but its true : your iq score means far less than you think .
meanwhile , the idiot down the hall who knows how to talk the panties off girls : he will be your boss some day</tokentext>
<sentencetext>its our ability to communicate richlyi don't care what these hominid's brainpower was like.
if all they could do is grunt and hoot, they're 150 iq points of nothing.
whatever that went on in that braincase that was truly amazing doesn't mean a damn thing if it has no way to get out of that braincase.
and lo and behold, they're extinct.
completely unsurprisingsocial intelligence is far, far more important than things like spatial intelligence, mathematical intelligence, or even strategic intelligence.
and the iq test doesn't test social intelligence.
the whole cult of the iq test is really pointless.
the iq test has a very limited specific application and it is given far too much weight than what it actually deserves in contemporary society.
i think it has something to do with the panic the west was experiencing as the soviets overtook the west in the space race in the 1950s, and suddenly the emphasis on math and the sciences became paramount.
but even in scientific disciplines, its the guys with the social intelligence that dominate: jobs, gates, ellison: these are business guys first, programmers seconda guy with subpar intelligence with good communication skills dominates the guy with the stellar iq who doesn't have very good communication skills.
you see it in these forums: "i hate my phb boss".
well, why is your phb boss your boss?
simply because he communicates better than you.
yeah, he's dumber than you.
but he COMMUNICATES better than you.
this is not some perverse warping of justice, this is very much in line with the way things should be.
i don't care how many games of chess you can play in your head at the same time, if you have no charisma and you cannot communicate well, you have less influence, and therefore less power, and less money.
its perfectly logical how this plays outa bad idea communicated well is FAR more important than a good idea communicated badly.
not because i say so, but simply because of how reality works.
if there is any injustice in this world, its that someone told you because you have a high iq you somehow deserve something superior, or that you yourself believe you are superior because of a test that only determines how well you manipulate complex 3D topologies in your head.
guess what: its an amazing skill, but it doesn't actually help you get ahead in life about the things that really matter.
your social iq is what really matters, and if you don't have it, you won't go far in this world, no matter how much your iq score is off the charts.
in fact, we have a name for people who are extremely brilliant in limited ways but can't communicate: autistic savants.
in some iq tests they would be way off the charts.
but, like in the movie "rainman", they can't tell the difference between the price of a car and the price of a candy barthat's a hard cold truth a lot of people in these forums probably still haven't accepted, but its true: your iq score means far less than you think.
meanwhile, the idiot down the hall who knows how to talk the panties off girls: he will be your boss some day</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30609930</id>
	<title>Egyptians and the Great Sphinx</title>
	<author>NuShrike</author>
	<datestamp>1262254860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If dating the water erosion on the Sphinx holds any water, then it would date back to 10,000 B.C. when that area was grasslands and experience significant water fall.  If the Sphinx was built back then, it would align with the era of the last of the "Boskop Man" placing them in the area of the Nile.</p><p>Incidentally, the Egyptian pharaohs were usually depicted having large skulls, and married siblings (to preserve the bloodlines?).  Maybe there's some correlation between the knowledge to build the Pyramids and these Boskop Men.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If dating the water erosion on the Sphinx holds any water , then it would date back to 10,000 B.C .
when that area was grasslands and experience significant water fall .
If the Sphinx was built back then , it would align with the era of the last of the " Boskop Man " placing them in the area of the Nile.Incidentally , the Egyptian pharaohs were usually depicted having large skulls , and married siblings ( to preserve the bloodlines ? ) .
Maybe there 's some correlation between the knowledge to build the Pyramids and these Boskop Men .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If dating the water erosion on the Sphinx holds any water, then it would date back to 10,000 B.C.
when that area was grasslands and experience significant water fall.
If the Sphinx was built back then, it would align with the era of the last of the "Boskop Man" placing them in the area of the Nile.Incidentally, the Egyptian pharaohs were usually depicted having large skulls, and married siblings (to preserve the bloodlines?).
Maybe there's some correlation between the knowledge to build the Pyramids and these Boskop Men.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30613110</id>
	<title>Re:We know how things go in our Idiocracy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1230807180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>+1 the above. The truly smart know how to be stupid. <i>While I don't agree with a lot of what Bush did,</i> I don't think Bush was innately stupid, either. To me, he was merely trying to project a humanistic "People Have Flaws Too" type everyman, and that kind of trying to appeal on a deeper level reveals a bit more complexity to Bush's motives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>+ 1 the above .
The truly smart know how to be stupid .
While I do n't agree with a lot of what Bush did , I do n't think Bush was innately stupid , either .
To me , he was merely trying to project a humanistic " People Have Flaws Too " type everyman , and that kind of trying to appeal on a deeper level reveals a bit more complexity to Bush 's motives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+1 the above.
The truly smart know how to be stupid.
While I don't agree with a lot of what Bush did, I don't think Bush was innately stupid, either.
To me, he was merely trying to project a humanistic "People Have Flaws Too" type everyman, and that kind of trying to appeal on a deeper level reveals a bit more complexity to Bush's motives.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30613306</id>
	<title>Re:IQ is a relative scale, not an objective one</title>
	<author>bbn</author>
	<datestamp>1230810780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>50\% more intelligent is not IQ 150. That they think it is shows how much bs this article is.</p><p>IQ scales come with a standard deviation. 15 is the most common used, but 16 and 24 is also used. 130, 132 and 148 are all the same IQ on each of those three scales.</p><p>What is 50\% more intelligent? A good question. I don't know the answer, but you don't get it by simply adding 50\% to the IQ number.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>50 \ % more intelligent is not IQ 150 .
That they think it is shows how much bs this article is.IQ scales come with a standard deviation .
15 is the most common used , but 16 and 24 is also used .
130 , 132 and 148 are all the same IQ on each of those three scales.What is 50 \ % more intelligent ?
A good question .
I do n't know the answer , but you do n't get it by simply adding 50 \ % to the IQ number .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>50\% more intelligent is not IQ 150.
That they think it is shows how much bs this article is.IQ scales come with a standard deviation.
15 is the most common used, but 16 and 24 is also used.
130, 132 and 148 are all the same IQ on each of those three scales.What is 50\% more intelligent?
A good question.
I don't know the answer, but you don't get it by simply adding 50\% to the IQ number.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605408</id>
	<title>May be they had TV?</title>
	<author>mimiru</author>
	<datestamp>1262276220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I knew TV was not a new technology</htmltext>
<tokenext>I knew TV was not a new technology</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I knew TV was not a new technology</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605418</id>
	<title>Re:Does a bigger brain really mean higher IQ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262276280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Steven Jay Gould wrote a whole book on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Mismeasure\_of\_Man</p><p>Basically: </p><p>1) No, a bigger brain does not make you smarter.</p><p>2) There is no single measure of intelligence as claimed by proponents of IQ.</p><p>I wish I could find the section, but there was a neat part where he talks about historical attempts to figure out why some men of demonstrated genius have such small skulls and others of mediocre accomplishments have such large ones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Steven Jay Gould wrote a whole book on this : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The \ _Mismeasure \ _of \ _ManBasically : 1 ) No , a bigger brain does not make you smarter.2 ) There is no single measure of intelligence as claimed by proponents of IQ.I wish I could find the section , but there was a neat part where he talks about historical attempts to figure out why some men of demonstrated genius have such small skulls and others of mediocre accomplishments have such large ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Steven Jay Gould wrote a whole book on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Mismeasure\_of\_ManBasically: 1) No, a bigger brain does not make you smarter.2) There is no single measure of intelligence as claimed by proponents of IQ.I wish I could find the section, but there was a neat part where he talks about historical attempts to figure out why some men of demonstrated genius have such small skulls and others of mediocre accomplishments have such large ones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606088</id>
	<title>Re:Does a bigger brain really mean higher IQ?</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1262279640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does a bigger brain necessarily mean they had a higher IQ? </p><p>Yes, and I'll have you know it works the same way with computer chips. And imagine what an ENIAC may have done with such a volume!! Alas we men of the 21st century and our incredibly small chips may never find out...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does a bigger brain necessarily mean they had a higher IQ ?
Yes , and I 'll have you know it works the same way with computer chips .
And imagine what an ENIAC may have done with such a volume ! !
Alas we men of the 21st century and our incredibly small chips may never find out.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does a bigger brain necessarily mean they had a higher IQ?
Yes, and I'll have you know it works the same way with computer chips.
And imagine what an ENIAC may have done with such a volume!!
Alas we men of the 21st century and our incredibly small chips may never find out...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605338</id>
	<title>So does that mean</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262275980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>all of the swoll-belly waterheads with the flies buzzing around them that Sally Struthers used to cry about are also geniuses? Dirt farmers who poop in their drinking water? I think not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>all of the swoll-belly waterheads with the flies buzzing around them that Sally Struthers used to cry about are also geniuses ?
Dirt farmers who poop in their drinking water ?
I think not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>all of the swoll-belly waterheads with the flies buzzing around them that Sally Struthers used to cry about are also geniuses?
Dirt farmers who poop in their drinking water?
I think not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30608712</id>
	<title>Re:We know how things go in our Idiocracy</title>
	<author>poliscipirate</author>
	<datestamp>1262291040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1.  Education level of parents does not completely explain the intelligence levels of their children.</p><p>2.  Numbers have not always overruled technology and intelligence.  Intelligent actors usually feed that "dumb mob" their seemingly idiotic ideas and beliefs, and if you look at the actions the mob takes instead of what they say you find there is generally a rhyme and reason.  The oratories of Marc Antony and Brutus in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar are excellent examples of this.  Just because the common people ultimately acted on Antony's emotional speech instead of the rational speech made by Brutus doesn't mean their actions were unguided or unintelligently motivated.</p><p>3.  On your last paragraph, you are completely correct:  there have been no mass societal uprisings involving exclusively intelligent, educated people.  But relating to my second point, all societal uprisings that I know of have been motivated by intelligent, educated actors.  The French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the American Revolution, Fascism in Europe, the Communist Revolution in China... on and on, there is always an educated class that begins and motivates these mass uprisings, and the intended result of the uprising always benefits that class.</p><p>A large base of average/below-average intelligence people may be good for society, as long as the upper classes are pushing a rational, progressive agenda.  Those rallying behind the banner may not be the brightest, but those creating the ideas embodied by that banner are usually pretty intelligent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Education level of parents does not completely explain the intelligence levels of their children.2 .
Numbers have not always overruled technology and intelligence .
Intelligent actors usually feed that " dumb mob " their seemingly idiotic ideas and beliefs , and if you look at the actions the mob takes instead of what they say you find there is generally a rhyme and reason .
The oratories of Marc Antony and Brutus in Shakespeare 's Julius Caesar are excellent examples of this .
Just because the common people ultimately acted on Antony 's emotional speech instead of the rational speech made by Brutus does n't mean their actions were unguided or unintelligently motivated.3 .
On your last paragraph , you are completely correct : there have been no mass societal uprisings involving exclusively intelligent , educated people .
But relating to my second point , all societal uprisings that I know of have been motivated by intelligent , educated actors .
The French Revolution , the Russian Revolution , the American Revolution , Fascism in Europe , the Communist Revolution in China... on and on , there is always an educated class that begins and motivates these mass uprisings , and the intended result of the uprising always benefits that class.A large base of average/below-average intelligence people may be good for society , as long as the upper classes are pushing a rational , progressive agenda .
Those rallying behind the banner may not be the brightest , but those creating the ideas embodied by that banner are usually pretty intelligent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Education level of parents does not completely explain the intelligence levels of their children.2.
Numbers have not always overruled technology and intelligence.
Intelligent actors usually feed that "dumb mob" their seemingly idiotic ideas and beliefs, and if you look at the actions the mob takes instead of what they say you find there is generally a rhyme and reason.
The oratories of Marc Antony and Brutus in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar are excellent examples of this.
Just because the common people ultimately acted on Antony's emotional speech instead of the rational speech made by Brutus doesn't mean their actions were unguided or unintelligently motivated.3.
On your last paragraph, you are completely correct:  there have been no mass societal uprisings involving exclusively intelligent, educated people.
But relating to my second point, all societal uprisings that I know of have been motivated by intelligent, educated actors.
The French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the American Revolution, Fascism in Europe, the Communist Revolution in China... on and on, there is always an educated class that begins and motivates these mass uprisings, and the intended result of the uprising always benefits that class.A large base of average/below-average intelligence people may be good for society, as long as the upper classes are pushing a rational, progressive agenda.
Those rallying behind the banner may not be the brightest, but those creating the ideas embodied by that banner are usually pretty intelligent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607462</id>
	<title>Re:IQ is a relative scale, not an objective one</title>
	<author>hitmark</author>
	<datestamp>1262285160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the whole concept of IQ is odd, at best...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the whole concept of IQ is odd , at best.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the whole concept of IQ is odd, at best...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30611970</id>
	<title>Alas</title>
	<author>GrubLord</author>
	<datestamp>1262274480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they'd also evolved kitty-ears and a characteristic love of french-maid outfits, they would be the master race.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they 'd also evolved kitty-ears and a characteristic love of french-maid outfits , they would be the master race .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they'd also evolved kitty-ears and a characteristic love of french-maid outfits, they would be the master race.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30652868</id>
	<title>Rujiel</title>
	<author>FallenTabris</author>
	<datestamp>1231151760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the Intelligence Quota is an anthropocentric way to pin any amount of intellect.

Anyhow, this may coincide with another story about how genetically-same branches of human in Africa were separated for possibly over 100,000 years:
<a href="http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre60104l-us-antarctica-plane/" title="newsdaily.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre60104l-us-antarctica-plane/</a> [newsdaily.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the Intelligence Quota is an anthropocentric way to pin any amount of intellect .
Anyhow , this may coincide with another story about how genetically-same branches of human in Africa were separated for possibly over 100,000 years : http : //www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre60104l-us-antarctica-plane/ [ newsdaily.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the Intelligence Quota is an anthropocentric way to pin any amount of intellect.
Anyhow, this may coincide with another story about how genetically-same branches of human in Africa were separated for possibly over 100,000 years:
http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre60104l-us-antarctica-plane/ [newsdaily.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30608462</id>
	<title>Utter and complete bunk</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262289840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bunk. Utter bunk. This whole like of research was <a href="http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/brain/paleo/lynch-granger-big-brain-boskops-2008.html" title="johnhawks.net" rel="nofollow">abandoned in the 1950s</a> [johnhawks.net] because it became evident that the "Boskop" skull was simply an unusual individual, possibly suffering from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrocephalus" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">hydrocephalus</a> [wikipedia.org] (a condition where too much spinal fluid is produced, causing cranial overpressure and often an enlarged head).</p><p>The cranial volume of the skull is within the range of variation of the living human population. The volume is estimated at about 1800 ml, which is right in the distribution for male skulls.</p><p>And, in any event, it's been well established that there is no correlation between brain volume and apparent intelligence among modern humans (anyone alive 10,000 years ago is firmly in this category). For a detailed history of this quackery and hogwash, see Stephen Jay Gould's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Mismeasure-Man-Stephen-Jay-Gould/dp/0393314251" title="amazon.com" rel="nofollow">The Missmeasure of Man</a> [amazon.com].</p><p>Didn't anyone bother to Google "boskop"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bunk .
Utter bunk .
This whole like of research was abandoned in the 1950s [ johnhawks.net ] because it became evident that the " Boskop " skull was simply an unusual individual , possibly suffering from hydrocephalus [ wikipedia.org ] ( a condition where too much spinal fluid is produced , causing cranial overpressure and often an enlarged head ) .The cranial volume of the skull is within the range of variation of the living human population .
The volume is estimated at about 1800 ml , which is right in the distribution for male skulls.And , in any event , it 's been well established that there is no correlation between brain volume and apparent intelligence among modern humans ( anyone alive 10,000 years ago is firmly in this category ) .
For a detailed history of this quackery and hogwash , see Stephen Jay Gould 's The Missmeasure of Man [ amazon.com ] .Did n't anyone bother to Google " boskop " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bunk.
Utter bunk.
This whole like of research was abandoned in the 1950s [johnhawks.net] because it became evident that the "Boskop" skull was simply an unusual individual, possibly suffering from hydrocephalus [wikipedia.org] (a condition where too much spinal fluid is produced, causing cranial overpressure and often an enlarged head).The cranial volume of the skull is within the range of variation of the living human population.
The volume is estimated at about 1800 ml, which is right in the distribution for male skulls.And, in any event, it's been well established that there is no correlation between brain volume and apparent intelligence among modern humans (anyone alive 10,000 years ago is firmly in this category).
For a detailed history of this quackery and hogwash, see Stephen Jay Gould's The Missmeasure of Man [amazon.com].Didn't anyone bother to Google "boskop"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30609590</id>
	<title>Re:We know how things go in our Idiocracy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262252760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yup.  nothing's gotten better since the dark ages.  thank god the sumarians invented the internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yup .
nothing 's gotten better since the dark ages .
thank god the sumarians invented the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yup.
nothing's gotten better since the dark ages.
thank god the sumarians invented the internet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605834</id>
	<title>Re:As always... Wikipedia provides some sanity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262278560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/brain/paleo/lynch-granger-big-brain-boskops-2008.html" title="johnhawks.net" rel="nofollow">http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/brain/paleo/lynch-granger-big-brain-boskops-2008.html</a> [johnhawks.net] <br>
&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp; Full debunking of the Boskop bollocks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/brain/paleo/lynch-granger-big-brain-boskops-2008.html [ johnhawks.net ]     Full debunking of the Boskop bollocks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/brain/paleo/lynch-granger-big-brain-boskops-2008.html [johnhawks.net] 
  
  Full debunking of the Boskop bollocks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606028</id>
	<title>Re:As always... Wikipedia provides some sanity</title>
	<author>pnewhook</author>
	<datestamp>1262279400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> while cortical structures such as those controlling sensory and motor mechanisms stay unchanged.</p></div><p>Did you also know that 86\% of all statistics are completely fabricated?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>while cortical structures such as those controlling sensory and motor mechanisms stay unchanged.Did you also know that 86 \ % of all statistics are completely fabricated ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> while cortical structures such as those controlling sensory and motor mechanisms stay unchanged.Did you also know that 86\% of all statistics are completely fabricated?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606398</id>
	<title>Wow! I'm a hybrid!....well, maybe not</title>
	<author>CyberPhart</author>
	<datestamp>1262281380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have a large cranial capacity (hat size: 8 1/8) and I'm over 6 feet tall. I'm sure that my ancestors interbred with the Boskop, leading to me, a mentally AND physically superior humanoid! I began to make plans to rule the world, if not the known universe.

But my wife pointed out that the simplest explanation is often the best and that I'm probably just a big fathead.

Rats!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a large cranial capacity ( hat size : 8 1/8 ) and I 'm over 6 feet tall .
I 'm sure that my ancestors interbred with the Boskop , leading to me , a mentally AND physically superior humanoid !
I began to make plans to rule the world , if not the known universe .
But my wife pointed out that the simplest explanation is often the best and that I 'm probably just a big fathead .
Rats !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a large cranial capacity (hat size: 8 1/8) and I'm over 6 feet tall.
I'm sure that my ancestors interbred with the Boskop, leading to me, a mentally AND physically superior humanoid!
I began to make plans to rule the world, if not the known universe.
But my wife pointed out that the simplest explanation is often the best and that I'm probably just a big fathead.
Rats!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607322</id>
	<title>Boskop wasn't a race</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262284680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Boskop Man was once thought to be a unique and ancient hominid genus. The term "Boskop Man" is no longer used by anthropologists, and their supposedly unusual characteristics are considered to be a misinterpretation.<br> <br>

Both Lynch and Granger are experts in neuroscience, with a long list of publications on memory, cortical organization, and chemical regulation of brain activity. Neither of them is an anthropologist or archaeologist. Simple research on "Boskop", and you will discover that this has not been a going topic in human evolution for nearly fifty years. Most intellectual effort on the topic of "Boskopoids" happened between 1915 and 1930.<br> <br>

The supposed "Boskop race" was named after a South African skull found on a Transvaal farm in 1913. The skull is a large one, with an estimated endocranial volume of 1800 ml. But it is hardly complete, and arguments about its overall size have ranged from 1700 to 2000 ml. It is large, but well within the range of sizes found in recent males.<br> <br>

This concept of a "Boskop race" did not emerge from any clear understanding of the South African past. What provoked the racial category was a confusion about the relationships of recent and historical southern African remains. Anthropologists had attempted to apply primary racial categories such as "Negroid," "Bushman," etc corresponding to extant or recent tribes or other groups. However the distinctions between these categories did not appear to extend far into the prehistoric past. So anthropologists looked for the origins of these racial types within the sample of prehistoric crania -- constructing a "Boskopoid" type for those with later "Bush" or "Strandloper" resemblances.<br> <br>

This category became untenable as further information about the archaeology of South Africa came to light. Ronald Singer (1958, Singer R. The Boskop "race" problem. Man 58:173-178.) reviewed the "Boskop race" evidence as it existed by the 1950's. He concluded that there was no reason to maintain that any "big-headed, small-faced group" had existed in prehistory, separate from the current biological variability of "Bushman, Hottentot and Negro." But that view is unsupportable. This selection was initially done almost without any regard for archaeological or cultural association. Later, when a more systematic inventory of archaeological associations was entered into evidence, it became clear that the "Boskop race" was entirely a figment of anthropologists' imaginations. Instead, the MSA-to-LSA population of South Africa had a varied array of features, within the last 20,000 years trending toward those present in historic southern African peoples. Singer ends his paper thusly:<p><div class="quote"><p>"It is now obvious that what was justifiable speculation (because of paucity of data) in 1923, and was apparent as speculation in 1947, is inexcusable to maintain in 1958."</p></div><p>

Why would two neuroscientists, after going to all the trouble to write a book about the evolution of the human brain, use completely obsolete anthropological information without doing a simple research to see if the facts have stayed the same as in 1923?<br> <br>

Please Slashdot, file this story under category "science fiction"!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Boskop Man was once thought to be a unique and ancient hominid genus .
The term " Boskop Man " is no longer used by anthropologists , and their supposedly unusual characteristics are considered to be a misinterpretation .
Both Lynch and Granger are experts in neuroscience , with a long list of publications on memory , cortical organization , and chemical regulation of brain activity .
Neither of them is an anthropologist or archaeologist .
Simple research on " Boskop " , and you will discover that this has not been a going topic in human evolution for nearly fifty years .
Most intellectual effort on the topic of " Boskopoids " happened between 1915 and 1930 .
The supposed " Boskop race " was named after a South African skull found on a Transvaal farm in 1913 .
The skull is a large one , with an estimated endocranial volume of 1800 ml .
But it is hardly complete , and arguments about its overall size have ranged from 1700 to 2000 ml .
It is large , but well within the range of sizes found in recent males .
This concept of a " Boskop race " did not emerge from any clear understanding of the South African past .
What provoked the racial category was a confusion about the relationships of recent and historical southern African remains .
Anthropologists had attempted to apply primary racial categories such as " Negroid , " " Bushman , " etc corresponding to extant or recent tribes or other groups .
However the distinctions between these categories did not appear to extend far into the prehistoric past .
So anthropologists looked for the origins of these racial types within the sample of prehistoric crania -- constructing a " Boskopoid " type for those with later " Bush " or " Strandloper " resemblances .
This category became untenable as further information about the archaeology of South Africa came to light .
Ronald Singer ( 1958 , Singer R. The Boskop " race " problem .
Man 58 : 173-178 .
) reviewed the " Boskop race " evidence as it existed by the 1950 's .
He concluded that there was no reason to maintain that any " big-headed , small-faced group " had existed in prehistory , separate from the current biological variability of " Bushman , Hottentot and Negro .
" But that view is unsupportable .
This selection was initially done almost without any regard for archaeological or cultural association .
Later , when a more systematic inventory of archaeological associations was entered into evidence , it became clear that the " Boskop race " was entirely a figment of anthropologists ' imaginations .
Instead , the MSA-to-LSA population of South Africa had a varied array of features , within the last 20,000 years trending toward those present in historic southern African peoples .
Singer ends his paper thusly : " It is now obvious that what was justifiable speculation ( because of paucity of data ) in 1923 , and was apparent as speculation in 1947 , is inexcusable to maintain in 1958 .
" Why would two neuroscientists , after going to all the trouble to write a book about the evolution of the human brain , use completely obsolete anthropological information without doing a simple research to see if the facts have stayed the same as in 1923 ?
Please Slashdot , file this story under category " science fiction " !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Boskop Man was once thought to be a unique and ancient hominid genus.
The term "Boskop Man" is no longer used by anthropologists, and their supposedly unusual characteristics are considered to be a misinterpretation.
Both Lynch and Granger are experts in neuroscience, with a long list of publications on memory, cortical organization, and chemical regulation of brain activity.
Neither of them is an anthropologist or archaeologist.
Simple research on "Boskop", and you will discover that this has not been a going topic in human evolution for nearly fifty years.
Most intellectual effort on the topic of "Boskopoids" happened between 1915 and 1930.
The supposed "Boskop race" was named after a South African skull found on a Transvaal farm in 1913.
The skull is a large one, with an estimated endocranial volume of 1800 ml.
But it is hardly complete, and arguments about its overall size have ranged from 1700 to 2000 ml.
It is large, but well within the range of sizes found in recent males.
This concept of a "Boskop race" did not emerge from any clear understanding of the South African past.
What provoked the racial category was a confusion about the relationships of recent and historical southern African remains.
Anthropologists had attempted to apply primary racial categories such as "Negroid," "Bushman," etc corresponding to extant or recent tribes or other groups.
However the distinctions between these categories did not appear to extend far into the prehistoric past.
So anthropologists looked for the origins of these racial types within the sample of prehistoric crania -- constructing a "Boskopoid" type for those with later "Bush" or "Strandloper" resemblances.
This category became untenable as further information about the archaeology of South Africa came to light.
Ronald Singer (1958, Singer R. The Boskop "race" problem.
Man 58:173-178.
) reviewed the "Boskop race" evidence as it existed by the 1950's.
He concluded that there was no reason to maintain that any "big-headed, small-faced group" had existed in prehistory, separate from the current biological variability of "Bushman, Hottentot and Negro.
" But that view is unsupportable.
This selection was initially done almost without any regard for archaeological or cultural association.
Later, when a more systematic inventory of archaeological associations was entered into evidence, it became clear that the "Boskop race" was entirely a figment of anthropologists' imaginations.
Instead, the MSA-to-LSA population of South Africa had a varied array of features, within the last 20,000 years trending toward those present in historic southern African peoples.
Singer ends his paper thusly:"It is now obvious that what was justifiable speculation (because of paucity of data) in 1923, and was apparent as speculation in 1947, is inexcusable to maintain in 1958.
"

Why would two neuroscientists, after going to all the trouble to write a book about the evolution of the human brain, use completely obsolete anthropological information without doing a simple research to see if the facts have stayed the same as in 1923?
Please Slashdot, file this story under category "science fiction"!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606988</id>
	<title>Small brains</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262283420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My brain is 2/3 the size of a normal brain yet I have 130+ IQ.  If my English part of the brain was gooder it would be over 140 if not 150 (Yes I excel on all parts of the IQ test except the language part).  Smart but lack the full ability to articulate my smartness.</p><p>Brain Size does not equal intelligence.  They may have had potential but it would appear they where never able to exploit it.  It makes sense to me that stupid human would kill the potentially smarter species just compare how geeks are treated by jocks &ndash; it just how humans are wired.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My brain is 2/3 the size of a normal brain yet I have 130 + IQ .
If my English part of the brain was gooder it would be over 140 if not 150 ( Yes I excel on all parts of the IQ test except the language part ) .
Smart but lack the full ability to articulate my smartness.Brain Size does not equal intelligence .
They may have had potential but it would appear they where never able to exploit it .
It makes sense to me that stupid human would kill the potentially smarter species just compare how geeks are treated by jocks    it just how humans are wired .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My brain is 2/3 the size of a normal brain yet I have 130+ IQ.
If my English part of the brain was gooder it would be over 140 if not 150 (Yes I excel on all parts of the IQ test except the language part).
Smart but lack the full ability to articulate my smartness.Brain Size does not equal intelligence.
They may have had potential but it would appear they where never able to exploit it.
It makes sense to me that stupid human would kill the potentially smarter species just compare how geeks are treated by jocks – it just how humans are wired.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607770</id>
	<title>Re:Boskop wasn't a race</title>
	<author>OrtCloud</author>
	<datestamp>1262286420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thanks for posting this - it's a great SciFi story - not Science.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for posting this - it 's a great SciFi story - not Science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for posting this - it's a great SciFi story - not Science.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607016</id>
	<title>Re:Does a bigger brain really mean higher IQ?</title>
	<author>interploy</author>
	<datestamp>1262283540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, physical brain size does not directly correlate to intelligence. It used to be that rival scientists had their brains preserved and then measured to see who was smarter, then realized this was about as accurate as phrenology. What IS important size-wise is the body:brain ratio, as it's been repeatedly shown that the larger this ratio is, the higher the average intelligence of the species. But this only works on a species level, not individuals. It's primarily the brain's structure and the amount of resources the body devotes to brain function that determines its real ability.</p><p>But really, if these guys were so smart, why are they extinct? Our little, dumb human brains managed to figure it out, so...?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , physical brain size does not directly correlate to intelligence .
It used to be that rival scientists had their brains preserved and then measured to see who was smarter , then realized this was about as accurate as phrenology .
What IS important size-wise is the body : brain ratio , as it 's been repeatedly shown that the larger this ratio is , the higher the average intelligence of the species .
But this only works on a species level , not individuals .
It 's primarily the brain 's structure and the amount of resources the body devotes to brain function that determines its real ability.But really , if these guys were so smart , why are they extinct ?
Our little , dumb human brains managed to figure it out , so... ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, physical brain size does not directly correlate to intelligence.
It used to be that rival scientists had their brains preserved and then measured to see who was smarter, then realized this was about as accurate as phrenology.
What IS important size-wise is the body:brain ratio, as it's been repeatedly shown that the larger this ratio is, the higher the average intelligence of the species.
But this only works on a species level, not individuals.
It's primarily the brain's structure and the amount of resources the body devotes to brain function that determines its real ability.But really, if these guys were so smart, why are they extinct?
Our little, dumb human brains managed to figure it out, so...?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607096</id>
	<title>Re:Yes we all know size is everything...</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1262283780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I keep telling that to people, it's not the size that matters!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I keep telling that to people , it 's not the size that matters !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I keep telling that to people, it's not the size that matters!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606312</id>
	<title>Re:IQ is a relative scale, not an objective one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262280840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, total comprehension fail.... And objective is not the opposite of relative, "absolute" is the word you're looking for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , total comprehension fail.... And objective is not the opposite of relative , " absolute " is the word you 're looking for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, total comprehension fail.... And objective is not the opposite of relative, "absolute" is the word you're looking for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605514</id>
	<title>Bang Theory</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1262276880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can you imagine a civilization with only Sheldon Coopers? Is the kind of things that ends with a big bang.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you imagine a civilization with only Sheldon Coopers ?
Is the kind of things that ends with a big bang .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you imagine a civilization with only Sheldon Coopers?
Is the kind of things that ends with a big bang.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606738</id>
	<title>Did they really die off ?</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1262282580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>arent we rather arrogant and self indulged in expecting that any form of 'civilization' should exist by our standards ?</p><p>how do we know exactly whether they used decomposable material in their technological tools and all the equipment went back to nature after they disappeared ?</p><p>how do we know that whatever remains we find from their bodies are not from people who were buried in their 'burial grounds', or deposed of according to whatever tradition they have ?</p><p>how do we know that what population we were able to find were not the victims of some kind of disaster, natural or unnatural that caused their demise apart from their brethren around the world, whose remains we are not able to find yet ?</p><p>you are talking about average iq of 150 here. AVERAGE iq. not maximum iq. einstein's iq was estimated in between 160 and 180. this is basically saying that every single individual in this society was an practically an einstein. this aint no joke - since iq is a measure of the cognitive ability of recognizing relations and interactions in between the concepts and elements present in our nature, it would be utterly stupid to say that these people were not able to cope up with their natural environments. even early humans, which were unimaginably stupider compared to these, were able to cope up with nature by residing in caves and using clubs and simple spears to hunt and gather. if a comparably stupid early human was able to conceive a spear and hunt with it, leave aside realizing to collect food from the bushes, its a given that these species should have been more than able to do much more better in using tools to cope up with their environment.</p><p>there are underground cities which consist of more than 7 levels deep down, which has upper levels that can accommodate more than 50.000 people in western anatolia. its not know what lies even below, because beyond a certain level is rather dangerous to venture forth, due to various gases accummulated over millenium. tourists are only allowed to visit upper levels, lower levels are sealed. it is guessed that there is space for 250.000 people or so, and all the scattered complexes around a huge zone is interlinked at some level. it was said that these underground complexes were constructed by early christians escaping roman persecution, however recently it became evident that their numbers and technological means would not be able to create such a huge underground complex in the period they have been forced to escape persecution of society. (basically like from 50-100 AD to 250 AD or so).</p><p>then there are rumors and legends of even bigger complexes in various parts of the world, one being around tibed.</p><p>so then, how do we know exactly that those species died out ?</p><p>or rather, isnt it beyond stupid to assume that what we found merely by scratching the surface of our planet can paint us a surefire picture of what happened back in distant past ? the world is such a huge place, and there is much more stuff buried underground that we couldnt find yet, than we did.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>arent we rather arrogant and self indulged in expecting that any form of 'civilization ' should exist by our standards ? how do we know exactly whether they used decomposable material in their technological tools and all the equipment went back to nature after they disappeared ? how do we know that whatever remains we find from their bodies are not from people who were buried in their 'burial grounds ' , or deposed of according to whatever tradition they have ? how do we know that what population we were able to find were not the victims of some kind of disaster , natural or unnatural that caused their demise apart from their brethren around the world , whose remains we are not able to find yet ? you are talking about average iq of 150 here .
AVERAGE iq .
not maximum iq .
einstein 's iq was estimated in between 160 and 180. this is basically saying that every single individual in this society was an practically an einstein .
this aint no joke - since iq is a measure of the cognitive ability of recognizing relations and interactions in between the concepts and elements present in our nature , it would be utterly stupid to say that these people were not able to cope up with their natural environments .
even early humans , which were unimaginably stupider compared to these , were able to cope up with nature by residing in caves and using clubs and simple spears to hunt and gather .
if a comparably stupid early human was able to conceive a spear and hunt with it , leave aside realizing to collect food from the bushes , its a given that these species should have been more than able to do much more better in using tools to cope up with their environment.there are underground cities which consist of more than 7 levels deep down , which has upper levels that can accommodate more than 50.000 people in western anatolia .
its not know what lies even below , because beyond a certain level is rather dangerous to venture forth , due to various gases accummulated over millenium .
tourists are only allowed to visit upper levels , lower levels are sealed .
it is guessed that there is space for 250.000 people or so , and all the scattered complexes around a huge zone is interlinked at some level .
it was said that these underground complexes were constructed by early christians escaping roman persecution , however recently it became evident that their numbers and technological means would not be able to create such a huge underground complex in the period they have been forced to escape persecution of society .
( basically like from 50-100 AD to 250 AD or so ) .then there are rumors and legends of even bigger complexes in various parts of the world , one being around tibed.so then , how do we know exactly that those species died out ? or rather , isnt it beyond stupid to assume that what we found merely by scratching the surface of our planet can paint us a surefire picture of what happened back in distant past ?
the world is such a huge place , and there is much more stuff buried underground that we couldnt find yet , than we did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>arent we rather arrogant and self indulged in expecting that any form of 'civilization' should exist by our standards ?how do we know exactly whether they used decomposable material in their technological tools and all the equipment went back to nature after they disappeared ?how do we know that whatever remains we find from their bodies are not from people who were buried in their 'burial grounds', or deposed of according to whatever tradition they have ?how do we know that what population we were able to find were not the victims of some kind of disaster, natural or unnatural that caused their demise apart from their brethren around the world, whose remains we are not able to find yet ?you are talking about average iq of 150 here.
AVERAGE iq.
not maximum iq.
einstein's iq was estimated in between 160 and 180. this is basically saying that every single individual in this society was an practically an einstein.
this aint no joke - since iq is a measure of the cognitive ability of recognizing relations and interactions in between the concepts and elements present in our nature, it would be utterly stupid to say that these people were not able to cope up with their natural environments.
even early humans, which were unimaginably stupider compared to these, were able to cope up with nature by residing in caves and using clubs and simple spears to hunt and gather.
if a comparably stupid early human was able to conceive a spear and hunt with it, leave aside realizing to collect food from the bushes, its a given that these species should have been more than able to do much more better in using tools to cope up with their environment.there are underground cities which consist of more than 7 levels deep down, which has upper levels that can accommodate more than 50.000 people in western anatolia.
its not know what lies even below, because beyond a certain level is rather dangerous to venture forth, due to various gases accummulated over millenium.
tourists are only allowed to visit upper levels, lower levels are sealed.
it is guessed that there is space for 250.000 people or so, and all the scattered complexes around a huge zone is interlinked at some level.
it was said that these underground complexes were constructed by early christians escaping roman persecution, however recently it became evident that their numbers and technological means would not be able to create such a huge underground complex in the period they have been forced to escape persecution of society.
(basically like from 50-100 AD to 250 AD or so).then there are rumors and legends of even bigger complexes in various parts of the world, one being around tibed.so then, how do we know exactly that those species died out ?or rather, isnt it beyond stupid to assume that what we found merely by scratching the surface of our planet can paint us a surefire picture of what happened back in distant past ?
the world is such a huge place, and there is much more stuff buried underground that we couldnt find yet, than we did.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605662</id>
	<title>Re:Yes we all know size is everything...</title>
	<author>SchroedingersCat</author>
	<datestamp>1262277540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It ain't size of brains that matters for evolution purposes...</htmltext>
<tokenext>It ai n't size of brains that matters for evolution purposes.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It ain't size of brains that matters for evolution purposes...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606734</id>
	<title>Are we sure they went away?</title>
	<author>ex\_ottoyuhr</author>
	<datestamp>1262282580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Boskop skull shown in the Discover article is strongly dolichocephalic with a high forehead and no significant jaw protrusion, similar to the East African (Ethiopian, Somali) / Iberian (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady\_of\_Elche" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">pre-Roman Iberian</a> [wikipedia.org]; Basque; Georgian (Caucasus, not United States); Classical Greek; Welsh) type of skull. I'd be interested to see whether any DNA analysis of Boskop remains revealed Y-haplogroup R1b and mtDNA haplogroup H...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Boskop skull shown in the Discover article is strongly dolichocephalic with a high forehead and no significant jaw protrusion , similar to the East African ( Ethiopian , Somali ) / Iberian ( pre-Roman Iberian [ wikipedia.org ] ; Basque ; Georgian ( Caucasus , not United States ) ; Classical Greek ; Welsh ) type of skull .
I 'd be interested to see whether any DNA analysis of Boskop remains revealed Y-haplogroup R1b and mtDNA haplogroup H.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Boskop skull shown in the Discover article is strongly dolichocephalic with a high forehead and no significant jaw protrusion, similar to the East African (Ethiopian, Somali) / Iberian (pre-Roman Iberian [wikipedia.org]; Basque; Georgian (Caucasus, not United States); Classical Greek; Welsh) type of skull.
I'd be interested to see whether any DNA analysis of Boskop remains revealed Y-haplogroup R1b and mtDNA haplogroup H...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30619584</id>
	<title>Did BSG get it right after all?</title>
	<author>wallsg</author>
	<datestamp>1230832680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess I have to stop bad-mouthing the last episode of Battlestar Galactica...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess I have to stop bad-mouthing the last episode of Battlestar Galactica.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess I have to stop bad-mouthing the last episode of Battlestar Galactica...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30609466</id>
	<title>Re:Does a bigger brain really mean higher IQ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262252160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because their brain had more mass then ours, doesn't mean it was more complex. For all we know their brain was no better then ours, and ours simply evolved to the more compacted and kept the same complexity. It seems like having an oversized head could have been their downfall.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because their brain had more mass then ours , does n't mean it was more complex .
For all we know their brain was no better then ours , and ours simply evolved to the more compacted and kept the same complexity .
It seems like having an oversized head could have been their downfall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because their brain had more mass then ours, doesn't mean it was more complex.
For all we know their brain was no better then ours, and ours simply evolved to the more compacted and kept the same complexity.
It seems like having an oversized head could have been their downfall.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605342</id>
	<title>Brain size and birth</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1262275980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Homo Sapiens' brains are as large as they can get without being a significant disadvantage.  The large cranial size causes problems in birth, reducing the number of individuals that survive the process and reduces the reproduction rate.  A hominid with a larger brain size but not major other physiological changes would reproduce even more slowly and would be easy to kill off as a species, even if the adults males were harder to kill individually (the adult females would die in childbirth a lot more frequently than their smaller-skulled equivalents).  </p><p>
If, on the other hand, the rest of his skeleton was proportionally larger, then this would not have been a problem.  He would have been stronger, but possibly less able agile, and would have required more food.  In times of relative food shortage, the smaller-skeletoned variant would have had an evolutionary advantage.  He would be able to keep his muscle mass sufficient to move around quickly on a much more limited diet. </p><p>
There is quite a bit of evidence that skull sizes have been shrinking over the last few thousand years, but there's no evidence that this correlates with reduced mental ability.  Humans are far from having the largest brains of any modern mammals  (whales win that one by a long way).  You can't jump straight from brain size to IQ, you need to also look at how the brain is divided.  Dogs, for example, have a huge amount of their brain devoted to controlling their noses.  Dolphins have about as much brain tissue just devoted to turning sonar returns into a coherent picture of their environment as humans have in total.  It's possible that a hominid with a 50\% larger brain had an average IQ of 150, but it's also possible that it had an average IQ of 200 or of 50.  It's impossible to tell just from the skull.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Homo Sapiens ' brains are as large as they can get without being a significant disadvantage .
The large cranial size causes problems in birth , reducing the number of individuals that survive the process and reduces the reproduction rate .
A hominid with a larger brain size but not major other physiological changes would reproduce even more slowly and would be easy to kill off as a species , even if the adults males were harder to kill individually ( the adult females would die in childbirth a lot more frequently than their smaller-skulled equivalents ) .
If , on the other hand , the rest of his skeleton was proportionally larger , then this would not have been a problem .
He would have been stronger , but possibly less able agile , and would have required more food .
In times of relative food shortage , the smaller-skeletoned variant would have had an evolutionary advantage .
He would be able to keep his muscle mass sufficient to move around quickly on a much more limited diet .
There is quite a bit of evidence that skull sizes have been shrinking over the last few thousand years , but there 's no evidence that this correlates with reduced mental ability .
Humans are far from having the largest brains of any modern mammals ( whales win that one by a long way ) .
You ca n't jump straight from brain size to IQ , you need to also look at how the brain is divided .
Dogs , for example , have a huge amount of their brain devoted to controlling their noses .
Dolphins have about as much brain tissue just devoted to turning sonar returns into a coherent picture of their environment as humans have in total .
It 's possible that a hominid with a 50 \ % larger brain had an average IQ of 150 , but it 's also possible that it had an average IQ of 200 or of 50 .
It 's impossible to tell just from the skull .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Homo Sapiens' brains are as large as they can get without being a significant disadvantage.
The large cranial size causes problems in birth, reducing the number of individuals that survive the process and reduces the reproduction rate.
A hominid with a larger brain size but not major other physiological changes would reproduce even more slowly and would be easy to kill off as a species, even if the adults males were harder to kill individually (the adult females would die in childbirth a lot more frequently than their smaller-skulled equivalents).
If, on the other hand, the rest of his skeleton was proportionally larger, then this would not have been a problem.
He would have been stronger, but possibly less able agile, and would have required more food.
In times of relative food shortage, the smaller-skeletoned variant would have had an evolutionary advantage.
He would be able to keep his muscle mass sufficient to move around quickly on a much more limited diet.
There is quite a bit of evidence that skull sizes have been shrinking over the last few thousand years, but there's no evidence that this correlates with reduced mental ability.
Humans are far from having the largest brains of any modern mammals  (whales win that one by a long way).
You can't jump straight from brain size to IQ, you need to also look at how the brain is divided.
Dogs, for example, have a huge amount of their brain devoted to controlling their noses.
Dolphins have about as much brain tissue just devoted to turning sonar returns into a coherent picture of their environment as humans have in total.
It's possible that a hominid with a 50\% larger brain had an average IQ of 150, but it's also possible that it had an average IQ of 200 or of 50.
It's impossible to tell just from the skull.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605458</id>
	<title>Misunderstanding evolution</title>
	<author>UnknowingFool</author>
	<datestamp>1262276520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Evolution says the species that adapt to change easier than others will survive.  Sometimes it is being bigger or being smarter that gives a species an advantage over another.  But not necessarily one or the other.  A larger brain may mean that a species has the potential to be smarter but it comes with a cost.  A larger brain also means more energy requirements.  It also may mean a longer time to develop (longer childhood).
</p><p>If the environment changes and food becomes scarce, a larger brain might be a disadvantage if having more smarts does not lead to more food.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Evolution says the species that adapt to change easier than others will survive .
Sometimes it is being bigger or being smarter that gives a species an advantage over another .
But not necessarily one or the other .
A larger brain may mean that a species has the potential to be smarter but it comes with a cost .
A larger brain also means more energy requirements .
It also may mean a longer time to develop ( longer childhood ) .
If the environment changes and food becomes scarce , a larger brain might be a disadvantage if having more smarts does not lead to more food .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Evolution says the species that adapt to change easier than others will survive.
Sometimes it is being bigger or being smarter that gives a species an advantage over another.
But not necessarily one or the other.
A larger brain may mean that a species has the potential to be smarter but it comes with a cost.
A larger brain also means more energy requirements.
It also may mean a longer time to develop (longer childhood).
If the environment changes and food becomes scarce, a larger brain might be a disadvantage if having more smarts does not lead to more food.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605352</id>
	<title>theory of evolution..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262276040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is that those who <b>adapt</b> quickest to a changing environment survive (not the biggest, quickest or strongest). maybe thats what happened the Boskops couldn't adapt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is that those who adapt quickest to a changing environment survive ( not the biggest , quickest or strongest ) .
maybe thats what happened the Boskops could n't adapt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is that those who adapt quickest to a changing environment survive (not the biggest, quickest or strongest).
maybe thats what happened the Boskops couldn't adapt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605444</id>
	<title>Sleestack</title>
	<author>EvilBudMan</author>
	<datestamp>1262276460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was probably just a Sleestack. They failed because they only used logic and couldn't talk plain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was probably just a Sleestack .
They failed because they only used logic and could n't talk plain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was probably just a Sleestack.
They failed because they only used logic and couldn't talk plain.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30609768</id>
	<title>No surprise here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262253840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All you braniacs on Slashdot should know exactly why this hominid went extinct.<br>The possibility of successfully breading is inversely proportional to IQ.<br>Look in the mirror and sadly you know it's true.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All you braniacs on Slashdot should know exactly why this hominid went extinct.The possibility of successfully breading is inversely proportional to IQ.Look in the mirror and sadly you know it 's true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All you braniacs on Slashdot should know exactly why this hominid went extinct.The possibility of successfully breading is inversely proportional to IQ.Look in the mirror and sadly you know it's true.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607642</id>
	<title>Here is how they looked:</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1262285940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3far9oHZOsI" title="youtube.com">This video shows how they looked.</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This video shows how they looked .
[ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This video shows how they looked.
[youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606912</id>
	<title>Not smart enough to avoid the thallium shortage...</title>
	<author>jeffb (2.718)</author>
	<datestamp>1262283120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...that spoiled their tree-of-life crop, apparently.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...that spoiled their tree-of-life crop , apparently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...that spoiled their tree-of-life crop, apparently.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605738</id>
	<title>Re:IQ is a relative scale, not an objective one</title>
	<author>mce</author>
	<datestamp>1262278140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
It would still be 150 on *our* scale, which they are using because it is the only way for today's human audience to get some sort of feeling for what it means. (Note: I was diagnosed with 150 on our scale as well. If I were to use myself and my even smarter "twin brother" as the defining reference population, I'd sure be close to 100. But by that scale most of the population would be far below 100. Willing to used to that?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-))
</p><p>
My real problem with this summary/story, is that it uses little more than brain size to estimate something that is much more complex than the primitive "bigger is better" idea. Quoting the actual story: "<em>if brain size accounts for just 10 to 20 percent of an IQ test score<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... we can readily calculate<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... 149"</em>. Sounds like a lot of unfounded conjecture to me. The real key to IQ is in the connections, of which we can know nothing at all.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would still be 150 on * our * scale , which they are using because it is the only way for today 's human audience to get some sort of feeling for what it means .
( Note : I was diagnosed with 150 on our scale as well .
If I were to use myself and my even smarter " twin brother " as the defining reference population , I 'd sure be close to 100 .
But by that scale most of the population would be far below 100 .
Willing to used to that ?
; - ) ) My real problem with this summary/story , is that it uses little more than brain size to estimate something that is much more complex than the primitive " bigger is better " idea .
Quoting the actual story : " if brain size accounts for just 10 to 20 percent of an IQ test score ... we can readily calculate ... 149 " . Sounds like a lot of unfounded conjecture to me .
The real key to IQ is in the connections , of which we can know nothing at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
It would still be 150 on *our* scale, which they are using because it is the only way for today's human audience to get some sort of feeling for what it means.
(Note: I was diagnosed with 150 on our scale as well.
If I were to use myself and my even smarter "twin brother" as the defining reference population, I'd sure be close to 100.
But by that scale most of the population would be far below 100.
Willing to used to that?
;-))

My real problem with this summary/story, is that it uses little more than brain size to estimate something that is much more complex than the primitive "bigger is better" idea.
Quoting the actual story: "if brain size accounts for just 10 to 20 percent of an IQ test score ... we can readily calculate ... 149". Sounds like a lot of unfounded conjecture to me.
The real key to IQ is in the connections, of which we can know nothing at all.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30610144</id>
	<title>Re:We know how things go in our Idiocracy</title>
	<author>St.Creed</author>
	<datestamp>1262256120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> What is typical, however, is massive hordes of stupidity to rally under a particular banner or cause which results in massive change and/or destruction.</p></div><p>Because, as we all know, people who rail against the status quo must be stupid... I mean, I have a good life so if someone wants to upset that, he or she must be stupid, right?</p><p>As for the "lack" of intellectual uprisings: do you actually watch the news? Do you realize we have a state called 'Iran' somewhere, where this is happening as we speak? Does 'Tiananmen square' ring a bell? You know, students getting killed because they demanded democratic change?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What is typical , however , is massive hordes of stupidity to rally under a particular banner or cause which results in massive change and/or destruction.Because , as we all know , people who rail against the status quo must be stupid... I mean , I have a good life so if someone wants to upset that , he or she must be stupid , right ? As for the " lack " of intellectual uprisings : do you actually watch the news ?
Do you realize we have a state called 'Iran ' somewhere , where this is happening as we speak ?
Does 'Tiananmen square ' ring a bell ?
You know , students getting killed because they demanded democratic change ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> What is typical, however, is massive hordes of stupidity to rally under a particular banner or cause which results in massive change and/or destruction.Because, as we all know, people who rail against the status quo must be stupid... I mean, I have a good life so if someone wants to upset that, he or she must be stupid, right?As for the "lack" of intellectual uprisings: do you actually watch the news?
Do you realize we have a state called 'Iran' somewhere, where this is happening as we speak?
Does 'Tiananmen square' ring a bell?
You know, students getting killed because they demanded democratic change?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30611860</id>
	<title>the meek will inherent the earth</title>
	<author>Xanj</author>
	<datestamp>1262272620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the meek will inherent the earth, maybe we are the meek lol</htmltext>
<tokenext>the meek will inherent the earth , maybe we are the meek lol</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the meek will inherent the earth, maybe we are the meek lol</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606434</id>
	<title>evolution != always increased complexity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262281560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The history of evolutionary studies has been dogged by the almost irresistible idea that evolution leads to greater complexity, to animals that are more advanced than their predecessor, yet the existence of the Boskops argues otherwise..."</p><p>Evolution does *not* imply that things ordinarily increase in complexity.  They can do so, but there is no expectation that they must.  Besides the fact that "complexity" is a fiendishly difficult thing to measure anyway, there are many times when "simplification" is more optimal, and "simplification" trends often show up over evolutionary history.  "Simple" creatures are enormously successful today.  If there is any trend to evolution, it would be more accurate to say that the "complexity" of creatures broadens over evolutionary history, with plenty of "simple" creatures living alongside more "complex" ones.  Life <i>diversifies</i>.</p><p>Biological systems always involve tradeoffs, and while a larger brain in some environments might be of benefit, there would be associated costs (e.g., the challenges of maintaining bloodflow to that increased volume, greater difficulty of childbirth, slower development, etc.).  Worse, because of the relationships between different systems during development (i.e. the growth that occurs from conception to birth, and even afterwards) tweaking the genetics of one feature might have surprising side-effects on other systems that could be undesirable.  Maybe increased brain size didn't pay off sufficiently, or maybe the environment in which it did pay off went away over time, thus causing extinction of this variety.  Finally, perhaps brain size decreased over recent human history because evolution has been simultaneously pushing brainsize to increase "intelligence" (whatever that is), while optimizing the way the brain works and other systems to be more efficient about it -- i.e. maybe it has tweaked things to get better intelligence out of lesser volume, thus lowering some of the costs of a large brain.  A slightly smaller brain may be more optimal for the whole system.</p><p>All of this assumes that the original observation of "larger brain size" of these skulls is valid, which as other people have pointed out, <a href="http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/brain/paleo/lynch-granger-big-brain-boskops-2008.html" title="johnhawks.net" rel="nofollow">it probably isn't</a> [johnhawks.net].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The history of evolutionary studies has been dogged by the almost irresistible idea that evolution leads to greater complexity , to animals that are more advanced than their predecessor , yet the existence of the Boskops argues otherwise... " Evolution does * not * imply that things ordinarily increase in complexity .
They can do so , but there is no expectation that they must .
Besides the fact that " complexity " is a fiendishly difficult thing to measure anyway , there are many times when " simplification " is more optimal , and " simplification " trends often show up over evolutionary history .
" Simple " creatures are enormously successful today .
If there is any trend to evolution , it would be more accurate to say that the " complexity " of creatures broadens over evolutionary history , with plenty of " simple " creatures living alongside more " complex " ones .
Life diversifies.Biological systems always involve tradeoffs , and while a larger brain in some environments might be of benefit , there would be associated costs ( e.g. , the challenges of maintaining bloodflow to that increased volume , greater difficulty of childbirth , slower development , etc. ) .
Worse , because of the relationships between different systems during development ( i.e .
the growth that occurs from conception to birth , and even afterwards ) tweaking the genetics of one feature might have surprising side-effects on other systems that could be undesirable .
Maybe increased brain size did n't pay off sufficiently , or maybe the environment in which it did pay off went away over time , thus causing extinction of this variety .
Finally , perhaps brain size decreased over recent human history because evolution has been simultaneously pushing brainsize to increase " intelligence " ( whatever that is ) , while optimizing the way the brain works and other systems to be more efficient about it -- i.e .
maybe it has tweaked things to get better intelligence out of lesser volume , thus lowering some of the costs of a large brain .
A slightly smaller brain may be more optimal for the whole system.All of this assumes that the original observation of " larger brain size " of these skulls is valid , which as other people have pointed out , it probably is n't [ johnhawks.net ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The history of evolutionary studies has been dogged by the almost irresistible idea that evolution leads to greater complexity, to animals that are more advanced than their predecessor, yet the existence of the Boskops argues otherwise..."Evolution does *not* imply that things ordinarily increase in complexity.
They can do so, but there is no expectation that they must.
Besides the fact that "complexity" is a fiendishly difficult thing to measure anyway, there are many times when "simplification" is more optimal, and "simplification" trends often show up over evolutionary history.
"Simple" creatures are enormously successful today.
If there is any trend to evolution, it would be more accurate to say that the "complexity" of creatures broadens over evolutionary history, with plenty of "simple" creatures living alongside more "complex" ones.
Life diversifies.Biological systems always involve tradeoffs, and while a larger brain in some environments might be of benefit, there would be associated costs (e.g., the challenges of maintaining bloodflow to that increased volume, greater difficulty of childbirth, slower development, etc.).
Worse, because of the relationships between different systems during development (i.e.
the growth that occurs from conception to birth, and even afterwards) tweaking the genetics of one feature might have surprising side-effects on other systems that could be undesirable.
Maybe increased brain size didn't pay off sufficiently, or maybe the environment in which it did pay off went away over time, thus causing extinction of this variety.
Finally, perhaps brain size decreased over recent human history because evolution has been simultaneously pushing brainsize to increase "intelligence" (whatever that is), while optimizing the way the brain works and other systems to be more efficient about it -- i.e.
maybe it has tweaked things to get better intelligence out of lesser volume, thus lowering some of the costs of a large brain.
A slightly smaller brain may be more optimal for the whole system.All of this assumes that the original observation of "larger brain size" of these skulls is valid, which as other people have pointed out, it probably isn't [johnhawks.net].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30609152</id>
	<title>Re:We know how things go in our Idiocracy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262250240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reminds me of some lines in "The Man From Earth"<br>Great movie by the way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reminds me of some lines in " The Man From Earth " Great movie by the way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reminds me of some lines in "The Man From Earth"Great movie by the way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30608660</id>
	<title>Stupid people have more kids...</title>
	<author>pablo\_max</author>
	<datestamp>1262290740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From what I have seen, and I have lived in several states, the less educated and clever folks are, the more kids they tend to produce.<br>Conversely, the majority of my well educated and intelligent friends tend to have 1 child at most.</p><p>It would seem that a less advanced race of morons (i.e. Humans) could very quickly run these Uber-smarties to extinction just by our numbers alone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From what I have seen , and I have lived in several states , the less educated and clever folks are , the more kids they tend to produce.Conversely , the majority of my well educated and intelligent friends tend to have 1 child at most.It would seem that a less advanced race of morons ( i.e .
Humans ) could very quickly run these Uber-smarties to extinction just by our numbers alone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From what I have seen, and I have lived in several states, the less educated and clever folks are, the more kids they tend to produce.Conversely, the majority of my well educated and intelligent friends tend to have 1 child at most.It would seem that a less advanced race of morons (i.e.
Humans) could very quickly run these Uber-smarties to extinction just by our numbers alone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605298</id>
	<title>We know how things go in our Idiocracy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262275800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The smarter people will invariably be the minority overridden by the less smart masses for a variety of reasons in a variety of ways.  One only has to look at the dark ages to see that in action.  And every time we see politics manipulate science we see more of the same.</p><p>If 10,000 years ago a bunch of rock throwers witnessed the "magic" of these smarter people, they too might have believed they were evil or a threat to be destroyed.</p><p>With all that said, the premise of the discussion is completely guess-work.  Big brain doesn't mean big mind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The smarter people will invariably be the minority overridden by the less smart masses for a variety of reasons in a variety of ways .
One only has to look at the dark ages to see that in action .
And every time we see politics manipulate science we see more of the same.If 10,000 years ago a bunch of rock throwers witnessed the " magic " of these smarter people , they too might have believed they were evil or a threat to be destroyed.With all that said , the premise of the discussion is completely guess-work .
Big brain does n't mean big mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The smarter people will invariably be the minority overridden by the less smart masses for a variety of reasons in a variety of ways.
One only has to look at the dark ages to see that in action.
And every time we see politics manipulate science we see more of the same.If 10,000 years ago a bunch of rock throwers witnessed the "magic" of these smarter people, they too might have believed they were evil or a threat to be destroyed.With all that said, the premise of the discussion is completely guess-work.
Big brain doesn't mean big mind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30608468</id>
	<title>Re:We know how things go in our Idiocracy</title>
	<author>AniVisual</author>
	<datestamp>1262289840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ahh, yes, you mean like Kim Jong Il? What about that monkey who gave us Bushisms? The fact is, there is smart, and then there is not-so-smart-but-we-still-think-they-are-smart-because-evolution-made-us-this-way. Need more examples? Why does Celeb TV rule the media?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ahh , yes , you mean like Kim Jong Il ?
What about that monkey who gave us Bushisms ?
The fact is , there is smart , and then there is not-so-smart-but-we-still-think-they-are-smart-because-evolution-made-us-this-way .
Need more examples ?
Why does Celeb TV rule the media ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ahh, yes, you mean like Kim Jong Il?
What about that monkey who gave us Bushisms?
The fact is, there is smart, and then there is not-so-smart-but-we-still-think-they-are-smart-because-evolution-made-us-this-way.
Need more examples?
Why does Celeb TV rule the media?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605214</id>
	<title>Does a bigger brain really mean higher IQ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262275260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does a bigger brain necessarily mean they had a higher IQ?  Does it really work like that?  I get there could be the \_potential\_ for a higher IQ, but just because someone has more gray matter doesn't necessarily mean they are smarter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does a bigger brain necessarily mean they had a higher IQ ?
Does it really work like that ?
I get there could be the \ _potential \ _ for a higher IQ , but just because someone has more gray matter does n't necessarily mean they are smarter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does a bigger brain necessarily mean they had a higher IQ?
Does it really work like that?
I get there could be the \_potential\_ for a higher IQ, but just because someone has more gray matter doesn't necessarily mean they are smarter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30608128</id>
	<title>Re:IQ is a relative scale, not an objective one</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1262287980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There average when compared on OUR scale would be 150.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There average when compared on OUR scale would be 150 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There average when compared on OUR scale would be 150.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606534</id>
	<title>Re:Does a bigger brain really mean higher IQ?</title>
	<author>blai</author>
	<datestamp>1262281860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>more potential = more percentage of those with bigger brain with said IQ

so yes, unless the brain's structure is seriously different (which<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... in this case<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... you may guess it isn't) IQ will be expected higher than that of us.</htmltext>
<tokenext>more potential = more percentage of those with bigger brain with said IQ so yes , unless the brain 's structure is seriously different ( which ... in this case ... you may guess it is n't ) IQ will be expected higher than that of us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>more potential = more percentage of those with bigger brain with said IQ

so yes, unless the brain's structure is seriously different (which ... in this case ... you may guess it isn't) IQ will be expected higher than that of us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605542</id>
	<title>The explanation is on a bumper sticker</title>
	<author>david.emery</author>
	<datestamp>1262276940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"My kid beat up your honors student"</p><p>dave (who was usually on the receiving side of such efforts...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" My kid beat up your honors student " dave ( who was usually on the receiving side of such efforts... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"My kid beat up your honors student"dave (who was usually on the receiving side of such efforts...)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30614216</id>
	<title>Cause and effect</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1230827520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We don't know if these "smarter" humans were over run by less intelligent ones, or if some natural influence wiped them out ( like plague, or weather shifts ).</p><p>Making assumptions like this is a mockery of science.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We do n't know if these " smarter " humans were over run by less intelligent ones , or if some natural influence wiped them out ( like plague , or weather shifts ) .Making assumptions like this is a mockery of science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We don't know if these "smarter" humans were over run by less intelligent ones, or if some natural influence wiped them out ( like plague, or weather shifts ).Making assumptions like this is a mockery of science.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605384</id>
	<title>Re:One problem ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262276160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, their flaw was probably being arrogant and condescending.</p><p>A good number of Slashdotters should take heed. You days are numbered!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , their flaw was probably being arrogant and condescending.A good number of Slashdotters should take heed .
You days are numbered !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, their flaw was probably being arrogant and condescending.A good number of Slashdotters should take heed.
You days are numbered!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605370</id>
	<title>Selection bias and old news</title>
	<author>A beautiful mind</author>
	<datestamp>1262276100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'll just quote <a href="http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/brain/paleo/lynch-granger-big-brain-boskops-2008.html" title="johnhawks.net">an actual anthropologist</a> [johnhawks.net] about this "discovery".<blockquote><div><p>in fact, what happened is that a small set of large crania were taken from a much larger sample of varied crania, and given the name, "Boskopoid." This selection was initially done almost without any regard for archaeological or cultural associations -- any old, large skull was a "Boskop". Later, when a more systematic inventory of archaeological associations was entered into evidence, it became clear that the "Boskop race" was entirely a figment of anthropologists' imaginations.
Instead, the MSA-to-LSA population of South Africa had a varied array of features, within the last 20,000 years trending toward those present in historic southern African peoples. Singer ends his paper thusly:</p><blockquote><div><p>It is now obvious that what was justifiable speculation (because of paucity of data) in 1923, and was apparent as speculation in 1947, is inexcusable to maintain in 1958.</p></div></blockquote><p>

That is pretty much where matters have stood ever since. "Boskopoid" is used only in this historical sense; it is has not been an active unit of analysis since the 1950's. By 1963, Brothwell could claim that Boskop itself was nothing more than a large skull of Khoisan type, leaving the concept of a "Boskop race" far behind.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
So there you have it. There wasn't an extinct hominid with an IQ of 150, it was just the fallacy of selection bias exhibited by some anthropologists more than 70 years ago.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll just quote an actual anthropologist [ johnhawks.net ] about this " discovery " .in fact , what happened is that a small set of large crania were taken from a much larger sample of varied crania , and given the name , " Boskopoid .
" This selection was initially done almost without any regard for archaeological or cultural associations -- any old , large skull was a " Boskop " .
Later , when a more systematic inventory of archaeological associations was entered into evidence , it became clear that the " Boskop race " was entirely a figment of anthropologists ' imaginations .
Instead , the MSA-to-LSA population of South Africa had a varied array of features , within the last 20,000 years trending toward those present in historic southern African peoples .
Singer ends his paper thusly : It is now obvious that what was justifiable speculation ( because of paucity of data ) in 1923 , and was apparent as speculation in 1947 , is inexcusable to maintain in 1958 .
That is pretty much where matters have stood ever since .
" Boskopoid " is used only in this historical sense ; it is has not been an active unit of analysis since the 1950 's .
By 1963 , Brothwell could claim that Boskop itself was nothing more than a large skull of Khoisan type , leaving the concept of a " Boskop race " far behind .
So there you have it .
There was n't an extinct hominid with an IQ of 150 , it was just the fallacy of selection bias exhibited by some anthropologists more than 70 years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll just quote an actual anthropologist [johnhawks.net] about this "discovery".in fact, what happened is that a small set of large crania were taken from a much larger sample of varied crania, and given the name, "Boskopoid.
" This selection was initially done almost without any regard for archaeological or cultural associations -- any old, large skull was a "Boskop".
Later, when a more systematic inventory of archaeological associations was entered into evidence, it became clear that the "Boskop race" was entirely a figment of anthropologists' imaginations.
Instead, the MSA-to-LSA population of South Africa had a varied array of features, within the last 20,000 years trending toward those present in historic southern African peoples.
Singer ends his paper thusly:It is now obvious that what was justifiable speculation (because of paucity of data) in 1923, and was apparent as speculation in 1947, is inexcusable to maintain in 1958.
That is pretty much where matters have stood ever since.
"Boskopoid" is used only in this historical sense; it is has not been an active unit of analysis since the 1950's.
By 1963, Brothwell could claim that Boskop itself was nothing more than a large skull of Khoisan type, leaving the concept of a "Boskop race" far behind.
So there you have it.
There wasn't an extinct hominid with an IQ of 150, it was just the fallacy of selection bias exhibited by some anthropologists more than 70 years ago.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607168</id>
	<title>Re:epenis</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1262284080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What do you mean I have a small cranium? Hey, my girlfriend says it's HUGE! It can barely wrap around... I mean, she can barely wrap her hand... oh forget it...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you mean I have a small cranium ?
Hey , my girlfriend says it 's HUGE !
It can barely wrap around... I mean , she can barely wrap her hand... oh forget it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you mean I have a small cranium?
Hey, my girlfriend says it's HUGE!
It can barely wrap around... I mean, she can barely wrap her hand... oh forget it...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30610844</id>
	<title>Re:IQ is a relative scale, not an objective one</title>
	<author>kimb</author>
	<datestamp>1262261700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, yes it's 150 on "our" scale. Which makes this article
even more dumb. In what decade of the 20th century are
these "neuroscientists" living in?</p><p>IQ scale was originally (in 1905) designed to measure
children's' intelligence like so: ("mental age" [months] /
calendar age [months]) x 100. It is called the Binet-Simon scale,
and it's still used to measure cognitive development of
preschool children.</p><p>Now, apart from obvious problem of defining what exactly is
this "mental age" and what kind of cognitive tasks are appropriate
for any given calendar age, there is a problem with applying IQ
logic to adults. Cognitive development most likely peaks at the
age of 14 -- 15 (that is when we stop developing new cognitive
abilities, although further improvement is possible through
learning and optimisation). But of course, calendar age keeps on
going up. So how can you then apply IQ scale to adults? You
can't, and it's well known in psychometrics. And even when
dealing with children IQ is a statistically defective score. Long
story short -- even if it sound intuitively good to measure
intelligence in IQ, such a "score" actually means absolutely
nothing.</p><p>Serious (psychometrically speaking) intelligence (or more
precisely, cognitive abilities) tests use deviation scores
which are percentile and standard deviation based scores. And,
more importantly, they usually give different scores for
different abilities (spacial, verbal, etc.). These tests
explicitly acknowledge the fact that it is meaningless to compare
scores obtained from different populations and scales are
standardised for any given demographic population.</p><p>The irony with this objective (actually absolute) vs. relative
scale debate here is that IQ was designed to be an absolute
measurement of intelligence, that was it's whole purpose! But
yeah, when it was realised how dumb that was they started to warp
it in "standardisation" and made it look like a relative measure,
but that's just putting lipstick on a pig.</p><p>Nowadays, IQ is mostly used by MENSA types to show how fucking
smart Madonna is, or, as we see, "neuroscientists" claiming to have
discovered extinct uber-geek monkeys.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , yes it 's 150 on " our " scale .
Which makes this article even more dumb .
In what decade of the 20th century are these " neuroscientists " living in ? IQ scale was originally ( in 1905 ) designed to measure children 's ' intelligence like so : ( " mental age " [ months ] / calendar age [ months ] ) x 100 .
It is called the Binet-Simon scale , and it 's still used to measure cognitive development of preschool children.Now , apart from obvious problem of defining what exactly is this " mental age " and what kind of cognitive tasks are appropriate for any given calendar age , there is a problem with applying IQ logic to adults .
Cognitive development most likely peaks at the age of 14 -- 15 ( that is when we stop developing new cognitive abilities , although further improvement is possible through learning and optimisation ) .
But of course , calendar age keeps on going up .
So how can you then apply IQ scale to adults ?
You ca n't , and it 's well known in psychometrics .
And even when dealing with children IQ is a statistically defective score .
Long story short -- even if it sound intuitively good to measure intelligence in IQ , such a " score " actually means absolutely nothing.Serious ( psychometrically speaking ) intelligence ( or more precisely , cognitive abilities ) tests use deviation scores which are percentile and standard deviation based scores .
And , more importantly , they usually give different scores for different abilities ( spacial , verbal , etc. ) .
These tests explicitly acknowledge the fact that it is meaningless to compare scores obtained from different populations and scales are standardised for any given demographic population.The irony with this objective ( actually absolute ) vs. relative scale debate here is that IQ was designed to be an absolute measurement of intelligence , that was it 's whole purpose !
But yeah , when it was realised how dumb that was they started to warp it in " standardisation " and made it look like a relative measure , but that 's just putting lipstick on a pig.Nowadays , IQ is mostly used by MENSA types to show how fucking smart Madonna is , or , as we see , " neuroscientists " claiming to have discovered extinct uber-geek monkeys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, yes it's 150 on "our" scale.
Which makes this article
even more dumb.
In what decade of the 20th century are
these "neuroscientists" living in?IQ scale was originally (in 1905) designed to measure
children's' intelligence like so: ("mental age" [months] /
calendar age [months]) x 100.
It is called the Binet-Simon scale,
and it's still used to measure cognitive development of
preschool children.Now, apart from obvious problem of defining what exactly is
this "mental age" and what kind of cognitive tasks are appropriate
for any given calendar age, there is a problem with applying IQ
logic to adults.
Cognitive development most likely peaks at the
age of 14 -- 15 (that is when we stop developing new cognitive
abilities, although further improvement is possible through
learning and optimisation).
But of course, calendar age keeps on
going up.
So how can you then apply IQ scale to adults?
You
can't, and it's well known in psychometrics.
And even when
dealing with children IQ is a statistically defective score.
Long
story short -- even if it sound intuitively good to measure
intelligence in IQ, such a "score" actually means absolutely
nothing.Serious (psychometrically speaking) intelligence (or more
precisely, cognitive abilities) tests use deviation scores
which are percentile and standard deviation based scores.
And,
more importantly, they usually give different scores for
different abilities (spacial, verbal, etc.).
These tests
explicitly acknowledge the fact that it is meaningless to compare
scores obtained from different populations and scales are
standardised for any given demographic population.The irony with this objective (actually absolute) vs. relative
scale debate here is that IQ was designed to be an absolute
measurement of intelligence, that was it's whole purpose!
But
yeah, when it was realised how dumb that was they started to warp
it in "standardisation" and made it look like a relative measure,
but that's just putting lipstick on a pig.Nowadays, IQ is mostly used by MENSA types to show how fucking
smart Madonna is, or, as we see, "neuroscientists" claiming to have
discovered extinct uber-geek monkeys.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605394</id>
	<title>so we found the Ancients now where is the stargate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262276160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>so we found the Ancients now where is the stargate?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so we found the Ancients now where is the stargate ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so we found the Ancients now where is the stargate?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605992</id>
	<title>Re:What the FUCK</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262279280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It can be reasonable if you postulate that these creatures were very much like humans, just with bigger brains. There is a correlation between brain size and IQ, it is highly probable that it is causative, and so you can calculate the expected IQ of a human with a brain of a certain size. That is not unreasonable, you just have to know how the number came about so you have some sense of the uncertainties involved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It can be reasonable if you postulate that these creatures were very much like humans , just with bigger brains .
There is a correlation between brain size and IQ , it is highly probable that it is causative , and so you can calculate the expected IQ of a human with a brain of a certain size .
That is not unreasonable , you just have to know how the number came about so you have some sense of the uncertainties involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It can be reasonable if you postulate that these creatures were very much like humans, just with bigger brains.
There is a correlation between brain size and IQ, it is highly probable that it is causative, and so you can calculate the expected IQ of a human with a brain of a certain size.
That is not unreasonable, you just have to know how the number came about so you have some sense of the uncertainties involved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606284</id>
	<title>Re:Brain size and birth</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1262280660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> The large cranial size causes problems in birth, reducing the number of individuals that survive the process and reduces the reproduction rate.</p></div><p>I've also read (though this may not be quite right) that our large complex brains use lots of energy, and therefore require greater amounts of food.  That seemed interesting to me, since it might indicate that intelligence has an evolutionary downside that continues beyond child birth, and it might explain why animals generally don't select for intelligence.  If the intelligence isn't going to serve you very well, then you may as well save the calories.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The large cranial size causes problems in birth , reducing the number of individuals that survive the process and reduces the reproduction rate.I 've also read ( though this may not be quite right ) that our large complex brains use lots of energy , and therefore require greater amounts of food .
That seemed interesting to me , since it might indicate that intelligence has an evolutionary downside that continues beyond child birth , and it might explain why animals generally do n't select for intelligence .
If the intelligence is n't going to serve you very well , then you may as well save the calories .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The large cranial size causes problems in birth, reducing the number of individuals that survive the process and reduces the reproduction rate.I've also read (though this may not be quite right) that our large complex brains use lots of energy, and therefore require greater amounts of food.
That seemed interesting to me, since it might indicate that intelligence has an evolutionary downside that continues beyond child birth, and it might explain why animals generally don't select for intelligence.
If the intelligence isn't going to serve you very well, then you may as well save the calories.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30649782</id>
	<title>Re:We know how things go in our Idiocracy</title>
	<author>wwwchristianecon.com</author>
	<datestamp>1231080060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You assume "smart" engineers, generals, scientists, and whatever other valuable role players etc., etc. would never be at odds?  How naive.  Like the poster said, vide the dark ages for example.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You assume " smart " engineers , generals , scientists , and whatever other valuable role players etc. , etc .
would never be at odds ?
How naive .
Like the poster said , vide the dark ages for example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You assume "smart" engineers, generals, scientists, and whatever other valuable role players etc., etc.
would never be at odds?
How naive.
Like the poster said, vide the dark ages for example.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30608068</id>
	<title>Re:Does a bigger brain really mean higher IQ?</title>
	<author>justin12345</author>
	<datestamp>1262287680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here's a possible scenario where intelligence wouldn't be an evolutionary advantage:
<br> <br>
Isn't it popularly theorized now that a comet or meteor collided with the earth in the North American glacial region about 12,000 years ago, causing wide spread climate change including a dramatic rise in sea level? I believe I read that on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. a few months back.
<br> <br>
If these guys were in fact smarter then homo sapiens it stands to reason they probably would have begun building primitive cities. Usually when you build a city you do it near a water source, a natural harbor or a large river. If the sea levels go up, most of their cities would have been destroyed, or at least completely submerged. The survivors flee to higher ground, where they would begin interbreeding or attempting to interbreed with the still nomadic homo sapiens of the period. 2000 years later they are all but completely gone except in remote regions and even then coexisting with humans, who then either outbreed them or incorporate them into their genome.
<br> <br>
I'm not suggesting this was actually the case. Just some wild conjecture based on very shaky information. I'm just saying that if your intelligent enough to build cities and your competitors (humans) are not, and then suddenly those cities and the bulk of your species is underwater, then your intelligence is an evolutionary disadvantage.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a possible scenario where intelligence would n't be an evolutionary advantage : Is n't it popularly theorized now that a comet or meteor collided with the earth in the North American glacial region about 12,000 years ago , causing wide spread climate change including a dramatic rise in sea level ?
I believe I read that on / .
a few months back .
If these guys were in fact smarter then homo sapiens it stands to reason they probably would have begun building primitive cities .
Usually when you build a city you do it near a water source , a natural harbor or a large river .
If the sea levels go up , most of their cities would have been destroyed , or at least completely submerged .
The survivors flee to higher ground , where they would begin interbreeding or attempting to interbreed with the still nomadic homo sapiens of the period .
2000 years later they are all but completely gone except in remote regions and even then coexisting with humans , who then either outbreed them or incorporate them into their genome .
I 'm not suggesting this was actually the case .
Just some wild conjecture based on very shaky information .
I 'm just saying that if your intelligent enough to build cities and your competitors ( humans ) are not , and then suddenly those cities and the bulk of your species is underwater , then your intelligence is an evolutionary disadvantage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a possible scenario where intelligence wouldn't be an evolutionary advantage:
 
Isn't it popularly theorized now that a comet or meteor collided with the earth in the North American glacial region about 12,000 years ago, causing wide spread climate change including a dramatic rise in sea level?
I believe I read that on /.
a few months back.
If these guys were in fact smarter then homo sapiens it stands to reason they probably would have begun building primitive cities.
Usually when you build a city you do it near a water source, a natural harbor or a large river.
If the sea levels go up, most of their cities would have been destroyed, or at least completely submerged.
The survivors flee to higher ground, where they would begin interbreeding or attempting to interbreed with the still nomadic homo sapiens of the period.
2000 years later they are all but completely gone except in remote regions and even then coexisting with humans, who then either outbreed them or incorporate them into their genome.
I'm not suggesting this was actually the case.
Just some wild conjecture based on very shaky information.
I'm just saying that if your intelligent enough to build cities and your competitors (humans) are not, and then suddenly those cities and the bulk of your species is underwater, then your intelligence is an evolutionary disadvantage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605348</id>
	<title>Re:Yes we all know size is everything...</title>
	<author>ta bu shi da yu</author>
	<datestamp>1262275980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, I'm sure they found it easy to create a standardized and unbiased IQ test for an extinct family based solely on their postulated brain size. *snicker*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , I 'm sure they found it easy to create a standardized and unbiased IQ test for an extinct family based solely on their postulated brain size .
* snicker *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, I'm sure they found it easy to create a standardized and unbiased IQ test for an extinct family based solely on their postulated brain size.
*snicker*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30608516</id>
	<title>Re:Brain size and birth</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262290080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;Homo Sapiens' brains are as large as they can get without being a significant disadvantage. The large cranial size causes problems in birth,</p><p>I never understood this argument.  Our skulls grow quite a bit after being born.  We could have the same birth cranial size and twice todays adult cranial size with just a bit longer growth (or a faster growth rate) in childhood/adolescence. Sure, birth canal may limit birth cranial size, but so what?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; Homo Sapiens ' brains are as large as they can get without being a significant disadvantage .
The large cranial size causes problems in birth,I never understood this argument .
Our skulls grow quite a bit after being born .
We could have the same birth cranial size and twice todays adult cranial size with just a bit longer growth ( or a faster growth rate ) in childhood/adolescence .
Sure , birth canal may limit birth cranial size , but so what ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;Homo Sapiens' brains are as large as they can get without being a significant disadvantage.
The large cranial size causes problems in birth,I never understood this argument.
Our skulls grow quite a bit after being born.
We could have the same birth cranial size and twice todays adult cranial size with just a bit longer growth (or a faster growth rate) in childhood/adolescence.
Sure, birth canal may limit birth cranial size, but so what?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30610004</id>
	<title>Big brain but dead</title>
	<author>tchdab1</author>
	<datestamp>1262255280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about an infection? What if they couldn't get the vaccine injected intramuscularly through a bamboo needle?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about an infection ?
What if they could n't get the vaccine injected intramuscularly through a bamboo needle ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about an infection?
What if they couldn't get the vaccine injected intramuscularly through a bamboo needle?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30608334</id>
	<title>A predictable end</title>
	<author>hyades1</author>
	<datestamp>1262289000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Sadly, in spite of their great intelligence, these creatures (known to Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons as "Ugh-Geek") spent their lives in the back of their parents' caves, seldom venturing forth to engage directly in life.  As a result, they seldom had contact with the female of the species and died out. </p><p> They were, however, responsible for some spectacularly rude and imaginative cave paintings, which are currently barred from public view, and truly astonishing amounts of a DNA-bearing substance on the bedding material in their "cribs". </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly , in spite of their great intelligence , these creatures ( known to Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons as " Ugh-Geek " ) spent their lives in the back of their parents ' caves , seldom venturing forth to engage directly in life .
As a result , they seldom had contact with the female of the species and died out .
They were , however , responsible for some spectacularly rude and imaginative cave paintings , which are currently barred from public view , and truly astonishing amounts of a DNA-bearing substance on the bedding material in their " cribs " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Sadly, in spite of their great intelligence, these creatures (known to Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons as "Ugh-Geek") spent their lives in the back of their parents' caves, seldom venturing forth to engage directly in life.
As a result, they seldom had contact with the female of the species and died out.
They were, however, responsible for some spectacularly rude and imaginative cave paintings, which are currently barred from public view, and truly astonishing amounts of a DNA-bearing substance on the bedding material in their "cribs". </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605878</id>
	<title>Re:We know how things go in our Idiocracy</title>
	<author>tonyreadsnews</author>
	<datestamp>1262278800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>dark ages</p></div><p>I agree, 2000 to 2008 definitely seemed a dark age where less smart masses overrode many intelligent ideas and thoughts.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>dark agesI agree , 2000 to 2008 definitely seemed a dark age where less smart masses overrode many intelligent ideas and thoughts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>dark agesI agree, 2000 to 2008 definitely seemed a dark age where less smart masses overrode many intelligent ideas and thoughts.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607634</id>
	<title>Hey let's clone one and find out...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262285880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's only 10,000 years there must be some intact DNA kicking around somewhere out there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's only 10,000 years there must be some intact DNA kicking around somewhere out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's only 10,000 years there must be some intact DNA kicking around somewhere out there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606232</id>
	<title>Re:Does a bigger brain really mean higher IQ?</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1262280300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well it certainly doesn't literally mean that these creatures would score better on a conventional IQ test than we would.  If it's written, they wouldn't even know how to read.  If it was verbal, they wouldn't speak english.  I suppose the conjecture is that if these creatures were still around and we raised a bunch of them in our culture, they would probably generally score higher than normal humans on IQ tests.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well it certainly does n't literally mean that these creatures would score better on a conventional IQ test than we would .
If it 's written , they would n't even know how to read .
If it was verbal , they would n't speak english .
I suppose the conjecture is that if these creatures were still around and we raised a bunch of them in our culture , they would probably generally score higher than normal humans on IQ tests .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well it certainly doesn't literally mean that these creatures would score better on a conventional IQ test than we would.
If it's written, they wouldn't even know how to read.
If it was verbal, they wouldn't speak english.
I suppose the conjecture is that if these creatures were still around and we raised a bunch of them in our culture, they would probably generally score higher than normal humans on IQ tests.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30609304</id>
	<title>Yes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262251080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone knows elephants are way smarter than humans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone knows elephants are way smarter than humans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone knows elephants are way smarter than humans.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30613024</id>
	<title>Re:We know how things go in our Idiocracy</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1230805020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Educated people are having fewer</i> </p><p>Are you fucking thick? You said educated, not smart. How can you not see that the two have nothing at all in common? Education level depends mostly on socio-economical factors, very little on intelligence.

</p><p> <i>One smart soldier with a machine gun cannot beat 1000 stick wielding primitives.</i> </p><p>Oh really? What about the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle\_of\_Thermopylae" title="wikipedia.org">Battle of Thermopylae</a> [wikipedia.org]? Apparently 300 dudes standing in line with a big shield and a big spear can defeat over 10,000 guys. Probably because King Leonidas was a superior general? Actually as far as technology only is concerned a better example might be colonials making a massacre. And sure, given the right circumstances (if the gunner cannot be easily reached) and enough bullets one machine gunner can kill a thousand stick wielding dudes.

</p><p> <i>What is typical, however, is massive hordes of stupidity to rally under a particular banner or cause which results in massive change and/or destruction.</i> </p><p>Example please, and try not to Godwin yourself. The problem when you argue about anything intelligence-related on Slashdot is that people around here have very strange concepts of intelligence (often confused with wisdom, foresight or education) and stupidity (which can be just about anything around here).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Educated people are having fewer Are you fucking thick ?
You said educated , not smart .
How can you not see that the two have nothing at all in common ?
Education level depends mostly on socio-economical factors , very little on intelligence .
One smart soldier with a machine gun can not beat 1000 stick wielding primitives .
Oh really ?
What about the Battle of Thermopylae [ wikipedia.org ] ?
Apparently 300 dudes standing in line with a big shield and a big spear can defeat over 10,000 guys .
Probably because King Leonidas was a superior general ?
Actually as far as technology only is concerned a better example might be colonials making a massacre .
And sure , given the right circumstances ( if the gunner can not be easily reached ) and enough bullets one machine gunner can kill a thousand stick wielding dudes .
What is typical , however , is massive hordes of stupidity to rally under a particular banner or cause which results in massive change and/or destruction .
Example please , and try not to Godwin yourself .
The problem when you argue about anything intelligence-related on Slashdot is that people around here have very strange concepts of intelligence ( often confused with wisdom , foresight or education ) and stupidity ( which can be just about anything around here ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Educated people are having fewer Are you fucking thick?
You said educated, not smart.
How can you not see that the two have nothing at all in common?
Education level depends mostly on socio-economical factors, very little on intelligence.
One smart soldier with a machine gun cannot beat 1000 stick wielding primitives.
Oh really?
What about the Battle of Thermopylae [wikipedia.org]?
Apparently 300 dudes standing in line with a big shield and a big spear can defeat over 10,000 guys.
Probably because King Leonidas was a superior general?
Actually as far as technology only is concerned a better example might be colonials making a massacre.
And sure, given the right circumstances (if the gunner cannot be easily reached) and enough bullets one machine gunner can kill a thousand stick wielding dudes.
What is typical, however, is massive hordes of stupidity to rally under a particular banner or cause which results in massive change and/or destruction.
Example please, and try not to Godwin yourself.
The problem when you argue about anything intelligence-related on Slashdot is that people around here have very strange concepts of intelligence (often confused with wisdom, foresight or education) and stupidity (which can be just about anything around here).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606516</id>
	<title>Re:Does a bigger brain really mean higher IQ?</title>
	<author>Xyrus</author>
	<datestamp>1262281860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No it doesn't. Just look at people with autism. Usually they have larger skulls and brains, but that doesn't mean they are wired up correctly.</p><p>Other possibilities for a larger brain could be that the brain wasn't as well "packed" or specialized as ours.</p><p>Cranial capacity is a poor metric for determining intelligence.</p><p>~X~</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No it does n't .
Just look at people with autism .
Usually they have larger skulls and brains , but that does n't mean they are wired up correctly.Other possibilities for a larger brain could be that the brain was n't as well " packed " or specialized as ours.Cranial capacity is a poor metric for determining intelligence. ~ X ~</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No it doesn't.
Just look at people with autism.
Usually they have larger skulls and brains, but that doesn't mean they are wired up correctly.Other possibilities for a larger brain could be that the brain wasn't as well "packed" or specialized as ours.Cranial capacity is a poor metric for determining intelligence.~X~</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606502</id>
	<title>Re:We know how things go in our Idiocracy</title>
	<author>ex\_ottoyuhr</author>
	<datestamp>1262281800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also don't forget the saying that "there are some ideas so stupid, only an intellectual can believe them." Perhaps the Boskops invented birth control, or decided that the real cause of crime was society?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also do n't forget the saying that " there are some ideas so stupid , only an intellectual can believe them .
" Perhaps the Boskops invented birth control , or decided that the real cause of crime was society ?
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also don't forget the saying that "there are some ideas so stupid, only an intellectual can believe them.
" Perhaps the Boskops invented birth control, or decided that the real cause of crime was society?
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30609314</id>
	<title>Re:Does a bigger brain really mean higher IQ?</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1262251200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Correction, neanderthals did not have a bigger prefrontal cortex than H. sapiens sapiens, and by the theory you're criticizing here, would be expected to be less intelligent than modern man.  That you think the argument would suggest neanderthals would be more intelligent just proves you didn't understand the argument...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Correction , neanderthals did not have a bigger prefrontal cortex than H. sapiens sapiens , and by the theory you 're criticizing here , would be expected to be less intelligent than modern man .
That you think the argument would suggest neanderthals would be more intelligent just proves you did n't understand the argument.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correction, neanderthals did not have a bigger prefrontal cortex than H. sapiens sapiens, and by the theory you're criticizing here, would be expected to be less intelligent than modern man.
That you think the argument would suggest neanderthals would be more intelligent just proves you didn't understand the argument...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605206</id>
	<title>IQ is a relative scale, not an objective one</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1262275200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If it was their average intelligence, it wouldn't be a 150 IQ, now would it? It would be 100.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it was their average intelligence , it would n't be a 150 IQ , now would it ?
It would be 100 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it was their average intelligence, it wouldn't be a 150 IQ, now would it?
It would be 100.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30610210</id>
	<title>Usefulness?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262256660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FTA</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Longer brain pathways lead to larger and deeper memory hierarchies. These confer a greater ability to examine and discard more blind alleys, to see more consequences of a plan before enacting it. In general this enables us to think things through. If Boskops had longer chains of cortical networks&mdash;longer mental assembly lines&mdash;they would have created longer and more complex classification chains. When they looked down a road as far as they could, before choosing a path, they would have seen farther than we can: more potential outcomes, more possible downstream costs and benefits.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Perhaps the Boskops were trapped by their ability to see clearly where things would head. Perhaps they were prisoners of those majestic brains.</p></div><p>This conclusions strikes me as illogical.  After all, the world is a chaotic place, and even doubling the brain power would likely not allow the Boskops to see much farther down the road.  Supposing that each juncture in a hypothetical chain of events consists of 2 paths, the possibilities will grow exponentially of what may happen in the future.  So, for example, if we humans can process 64 events with our brain, then that would be about 6 steps into the future (since 2^6 = 64).  If the Boskops can process twice as many events, then that is only 1 more step into the future, which doesn't seem terribly useful.</p><p>On that same token, perhaps this is the reason that this species didn't thrive the same way humans did.  The extra brain wasn't particularly useful, yet still brought along problems (birthing, etc.).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>FTALonger brain pathways lead to larger and deeper memory hierarchies .
These confer a greater ability to examine and discard more blind alleys , to see more consequences of a plan before enacting it .
In general this enables us to think things through .
If Boskops had longer chains of cortical networks    longer mental assembly lines    they would have created longer and more complex classification chains .
When they looked down a road as far as they could , before choosing a path , they would have seen farther than we can : more potential outcomes , more possible downstream costs and benefits .
...Perhaps the Boskops were trapped by their ability to see clearly where things would head .
Perhaps they were prisoners of those majestic brains.This conclusions strikes me as illogical .
After all , the world is a chaotic place , and even doubling the brain power would likely not allow the Boskops to see much farther down the road .
Supposing that each juncture in a hypothetical chain of events consists of 2 paths , the possibilities will grow exponentially of what may happen in the future .
So , for example , if we humans can process 64 events with our brain , then that would be about 6 steps into the future ( since 2 ^ 6 = 64 ) .
If the Boskops can process twice as many events , then that is only 1 more step into the future , which does n't seem terribly useful.On that same token , perhaps this is the reason that this species did n't thrive the same way humans did .
The extra brain was n't particularly useful , yet still brought along problems ( birthing , etc .
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTALonger brain pathways lead to larger and deeper memory hierarchies.
These confer a greater ability to examine and discard more blind alleys, to see more consequences of a plan before enacting it.
In general this enables us to think things through.
If Boskops had longer chains of cortical networks—longer mental assembly lines—they would have created longer and more complex classification chains.
When they looked down a road as far as they could, before choosing a path, they would have seen farther than we can: more potential outcomes, more possible downstream costs and benefits.
...Perhaps the Boskops were trapped by their ability to see clearly where things would head.
Perhaps they were prisoners of those majestic brains.This conclusions strikes me as illogical.
After all, the world is a chaotic place, and even doubling the brain power would likely not allow the Boskops to see much farther down the road.
Supposing that each juncture in a hypothetical chain of events consists of 2 paths, the possibilities will grow exponentially of what may happen in the future.
So, for example, if we humans can process 64 events with our brain, then that would be about 6 steps into the future (since 2^6 = 64).
If the Boskops can process twice as many events, then that is only 1 more step into the future, which doesn't seem terribly useful.On that same token, perhaps this is the reason that this species didn't thrive the same way humans did.
The extra brain wasn't particularly useful, yet still brought along problems (birthing, etc.
).
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605306</id>
	<title>Not everything is used for abstract thought</title>
	<author>ErikZ</author>
	<datestamp>1262275800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had read that around the time Man domesticated dogs, the size of their brains changed.</p><p>The theory being that since we always had dogs with us, we didn't need large parts of the brain dedicated to smell anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had read that around the time Man domesticated dogs , the size of their brains changed.The theory being that since we always had dogs with us , we did n't need large parts of the brain dedicated to smell anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had read that around the time Man domesticated dogs, the size of their brains changed.The theory being that since we always had dogs with us, we didn't need large parts of the brain dedicated to smell anymore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605998</id>
	<title>Re:Size doesn't matter... when it comes to brains.</title>
	<author>steelfood</author>
	<datestamp>1262279340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But it does let them jump away as fast as humans when they see a mouse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But it does let them jump away as fast as humans when they see a mouse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But it does let them jump away as fast as humans when they see a mouse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605440</id>
	<title>Can't be that Intelligent</title>
	<author>SirAstral</author>
	<datestamp>1262276400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They did after all become extinct.  How smart can a species be to let that happen?  But then again, intelligence and smart are not necessarily equal.  There is more than one specific type of intelligence if you will.</p><p>Some people have excellent abilities to retain knowledge (photographic Memory) yet consistently prove that they are not able to properly utilize that knowledge in any meaningful way.  Some people can't seem to remember anything, but if you place them in front of a puzzle they will figure it out in record time.  And then there are autistic people that really stand as shining examples of extreme intelligent yet that intelligence is primarily focused in one direction like Math (Rain Man) or a particular art skill like Music where they can hear a song once and accurately reproduce it without need for sheet music, guides, or assistance.</p><p>Smart people are generally able to effectively utilize Intelligence, and being smart is more adaptively valuable than being extremely intelligent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They did after all become extinct .
How smart can a species be to let that happen ?
But then again , intelligence and smart are not necessarily equal .
There is more than one specific type of intelligence if you will.Some people have excellent abilities to retain knowledge ( photographic Memory ) yet consistently prove that they are not able to properly utilize that knowledge in any meaningful way .
Some people ca n't seem to remember anything , but if you place them in front of a puzzle they will figure it out in record time .
And then there are autistic people that really stand as shining examples of extreme intelligent yet that intelligence is primarily focused in one direction like Math ( Rain Man ) or a particular art skill like Music where they can hear a song once and accurately reproduce it without need for sheet music , guides , or assistance.Smart people are generally able to effectively utilize Intelligence , and being smart is more adaptively valuable than being extremely intelligent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They did after all become extinct.
How smart can a species be to let that happen?
But then again, intelligence and smart are not necessarily equal.
There is more than one specific type of intelligence if you will.Some people have excellent abilities to retain knowledge (photographic Memory) yet consistently prove that they are not able to properly utilize that knowledge in any meaningful way.
Some people can't seem to remember anything, but if you place them in front of a puzzle they will figure it out in record time.
And then there are autistic people that really stand as shining examples of extreme intelligent yet that intelligence is primarily focused in one direction like Math (Rain Man) or a particular art skill like Music where they can hear a song once and accurately reproduce it without need for sheet music, guides, or assistance.Smart people are generally able to effectively utilize Intelligence, and being smart is more adaptively valuable than being extremely intelligent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605316</id>
	<title>What the FUCK</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262275860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>With 30 percent larger brains than ours now, we can readily calculate that a population with a mean brain size of 1,750 cc would be expected to have an average IQ of 149</p></div></blockquote><p>That is wrong on so many different levels.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>With 30 percent larger brains than ours now , we can readily calculate that a population with a mean brain size of 1,750 cc would be expected to have an average IQ of 149That is wrong on so many different levels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With 30 percent larger brains than ours now, we can readily calculate that a population with a mean brain size of 1,750 cc would be expected to have an average IQ of 149That is wrong on so many different levels.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30608038</id>
	<title>Re:As always... Wikipedia provides some sanity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262287500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You really don't get it do you... He didn't cite it in some paper, he used it as a reference to prove his point. I'm sure if he was going to write an article about why this article was bullshit he would find better sources, but for just a common argument that's fine.</p><p>Also.. 9/10? Automatic Fs? I'm thinking you made that up. You should not cite encyclopedias, I'm not disagreeing with you there, but as far as I can tell you made that up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You really do n't get it do you... He did n't cite it in some paper , he used it as a reference to prove his point .
I 'm sure if he was going to write an article about why this article was bullshit he would find better sources , but for just a common argument that 's fine.Also.. 9/10 ? Automatic Fs ?
I 'm thinking you made that up .
You should not cite encyclopedias , I 'm not disagreeing with you there , but as far as I can tell you made that up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You really don't get it do you... He didn't cite it in some paper, he used it as a reference to prove his point.
I'm sure if he was going to write an article about why this article was bullshit he would find better sources, but for just a common argument that's fine.Also.. 9/10? Automatic Fs?
I'm thinking you made that up.
You should not cite encyclopedias, I'm not disagreeing with you there, but as far as I can tell you made that up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30611118</id>
	<title>Re:We know how things go in our Idiocracy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262264460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I also smell bullshit, Define "smart"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I also smell bullshit , Define " smart "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I also smell bullshit, Define "smart"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605464</id>
	<title>Re:Does a bigger brain really mean higher IQ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262276580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The two are loosely correlated. A much more important indicator than size is the complexity of the brain's internal structure. Density of neurons, number of interconnections, etc. To put a tech spin on it, a larger CPU might mean more processing power, but if it has fewer transistors per square inch, the computing power won't be any higher. These IQ comparisons always hold the internal structure to be constant.</p><p>By comparison, Homo neanderthalensis had a larger brain than Homo sapiens, on average. But while they are accepted to have been quite intelligent, they are seldom thought to have been more intelligent than H. sapiens.</p><p>It seems more likely that nature would select for a smaller, more densely packed brain than a larger, loosely packed brain. Big brain != more complex.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The two are loosely correlated .
A much more important indicator than size is the complexity of the brain 's internal structure .
Density of neurons , number of interconnections , etc .
To put a tech spin on it , a larger CPU might mean more processing power , but if it has fewer transistors per square inch , the computing power wo n't be any higher .
These IQ comparisons always hold the internal structure to be constant.By comparison , Homo neanderthalensis had a larger brain than Homo sapiens , on average .
But while they are accepted to have been quite intelligent , they are seldom thought to have been more intelligent than H. sapiens.It seems more likely that nature would select for a smaller , more densely packed brain than a larger , loosely packed brain .
Big brain ! = more complex .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The two are loosely correlated.
A much more important indicator than size is the complexity of the brain's internal structure.
Density of neurons, number of interconnections, etc.
To put a tech spin on it, a larger CPU might mean more processing power, but if it has fewer transistors per square inch, the computing power won't be any higher.
These IQ comparisons always hold the internal structure to be constant.By comparison, Homo neanderthalensis had a larger brain than Homo sapiens, on average.
But while they are accepted to have been quite intelligent, they are seldom thought to have been more intelligent than H. sapiens.It seems more likely that nature would select for a smaller, more densely packed brain than a larger, loosely packed brain.
Big brain != more complex.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30611044</id>
	<title>purpose</title>
	<author>Weezul</author>
	<datestamp>1262263800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd imagine their additional brain served some function, maybe mating related, maybe just carrying out other tasks less efficiently, very unclear exactly how they differed from us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd imagine their additional brain served some function , maybe mating related , maybe just carrying out other tasks less efficiently , very unclear exactly how they differed from us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd imagine their additional brain served some function, maybe mating related, maybe just carrying out other tasks less efficiently, very unclear exactly how they differed from us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605406</id>
	<title>Re:Does a bigger brain really mean higher IQ?</title>
	<author>jeffmeden</author>
	<datestamp>1262276220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While more gray matter isn't a direct cause of more brain power, we do know a little about how different parts of the brain work and which are more useful for what.  This creature has a lot more volume in the upper brain area, where more conscious thoughts and memories take place.  If it were just a bigger head overall, sure it wouldn't point to something inherently 'smarter'.  However, with more of the 'right stuff' in it's head it is highly likely that it was smarter than comparable creatures with smaller prefrontal/forebrain areas (particularly, humans).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While more gray matter is n't a direct cause of more brain power , we do know a little about how different parts of the brain work and which are more useful for what .
This creature has a lot more volume in the upper brain area , where more conscious thoughts and memories take place .
If it were just a bigger head overall , sure it would n't point to something inherently 'smarter' .
However , with more of the 'right stuff ' in it 's head it is highly likely that it was smarter than comparable creatures with smaller prefrontal/forebrain areas ( particularly , humans ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While more gray matter isn't a direct cause of more brain power, we do know a little about how different parts of the brain work and which are more useful for what.
This creature has a lot more volume in the upper brain area, where more conscious thoughts and memories take place.
If it were just a bigger head overall, sure it wouldn't point to something inherently 'smarter'.
However, with more of the 'right stuff' in it's head it is highly likely that it was smarter than comparable creatures with smaller prefrontal/forebrain areas (particularly, humans).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30610042</id>
	<title>Re:One problem ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262255460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, that didn't make them extinct.  Corrupt politicians did.  And the ice age of the time might have played a factor, especially as they were in Southern Africa.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , that did n't make them extinct .
Corrupt politicians did .
And the ice age of the time might have played a factor , especially as they were in Southern Africa .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, that didn't make them extinct.
Corrupt politicians did.
And the ice age of the time might have played a factor, especially as they were in Southern Africa.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607050</id>
	<title>Re:Brain size and birth</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1262283600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The large cranial size causes problems in birth, reducing the number of individuals that survive the process and reduces the reproduction rate.</i></p><p>Not if the female reproductive organs are likewise larger.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The large cranial size causes problems in birth , reducing the number of individuals that survive the process and reduces the reproduction rate.Not if the female reproductive organs are likewise larger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The large cranial size causes problems in birth, reducing the number of individuals that survive the process and reduces the reproduction rate.Not if the female reproductive organs are likewise larger.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607686</id>
	<title>Re:IQ is a relative scale, not an objective one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262286120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they are More intelligent than us on average...  And have adequate physical properties.</p><p>If we cloned them, I think it would be in our best interest to befriend them as much as possible.  Treating a more intelligent species as slaves would be our doom!!!</p><p>IROBOT IS TRUE!<br>PHERA THE ROBOTS!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they are More intelligent than us on average... And have adequate physical properties.If we cloned them , I think it would be in our best interest to befriend them as much as possible .
Treating a more intelligent species as slaves would be our doom ! !
! IROBOT IS TRUE ! PHERA THE ROBOTS !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they are More intelligent than us on average...  And have adequate physical properties.If we cloned them, I think it would be in our best interest to befriend them as much as possible.
Treating a more intelligent species as slaves would be our doom!!
!IROBOT IS TRUE!PHERA THE ROBOTS!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30608464</id>
	<title>Re:We know how things go in our Idiocracy</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1262289840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting that you assume smarter = using science. There were plenty of smart people enforcing the status quo during the dark ages. Don't assume because someone has a belief that is provable false(young earthers)  that they aren't smart.  They seem to have a mental disorder, but that is not the same thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting that you assume smarter = using science .
There were plenty of smart people enforcing the status quo during the dark ages .
Do n't assume because someone has a belief that is provable false ( young earthers ) that they are n't smart .
They seem to have a mental disorder , but that is not the same thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting that you assume smarter = using science.
There were plenty of smart people enforcing the status quo during the dark ages.
Don't assume because someone has a belief that is provable false(young earthers)  that they aren't smart.
They seem to have a mental disorder, but that is not the same thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607300</id>
	<title>Re:As always... Wikipedia provides some sanity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262284620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From that article:</p><p>"This man looked almost alien from a sci-fi perspective. He had a grayish skin color with a domed head. He may have built vehicles to the stars before modern homonids could conceive of such a thing. He may visit from time to time. Fossil records indicate he went extinct for no apparant reason but he may not have gone extinct."</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boskop\_Man</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From that article : " This man looked almost alien from a sci-fi perspective .
He had a grayish skin color with a domed head .
He may have built vehicles to the stars before modern homonids could conceive of such a thing .
He may visit from time to time .
Fossil records indicate he went extinct for no apparant reason but he may not have gone extinct .
" http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boskop \ _Man</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From that article:"This man looked almost alien from a sci-fi perspective.
He had a grayish skin color with a domed head.
He may have built vehicles to the stars before modern homonids could conceive of such a thing.
He may visit from time to time.
Fossil records indicate he went extinct for no apparant reason but he may not have gone extinct.
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boskop\_Man</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30609288</id>
	<title>Ruthlessness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262250960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In most of human history ruthlessness and tenacity would take you a lot further than a high IQ.</p><p>We only happen to be living in an age where smart people are generally not beaten to a bloody pulp.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In most of human history ruthlessness and tenacity would take you a lot further than a high IQ.We only happen to be living in an age where smart people are generally not beaten to a bloody pulp .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In most of human history ruthlessness and tenacity would take you a lot further than a high IQ.We only happen to be living in an age where smart people are generally not beaten to a bloody pulp.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607324</id>
	<title>Re:Does a bigger brain really mean higher IQ?</title>
	<author>Mex</author>
	<datestamp>1262284680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If that were true, Whales would be our newly welcomed overlords. I think the article is crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If that were true , Whales would be our newly welcomed overlords .
I think the article is crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If that were true, Whales would be our newly welcomed overlords.
I think the article is crap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605654</id>
	<title>Re:One problem ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262277540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Evolution favors the survival of the most clever???? You don't live in the United States, don't you? And you probably never been at MySpace as well...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Evolution favors the survival of the most clever ? ? ? ?
You do n't live in the United States , do n't you ?
And you probably never been at MySpace as well.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Evolution favors the survival of the most clever????
You don't live in the United States, don't you?
And you probably never been at MySpace as well...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606314</id>
	<title>Re:This is really old news</title>
	<author>HateBreeder</author>
	<datestamp>1262280900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey guess what? You could submit a new story about your snake. There's plenty of room for both.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey guess what ?
You could submit a new story about your snake .
There 's plenty of room for both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey guess what?
You could submit a new story about your snake.
There's plenty of room for both.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30611910</id>
	<title>Re:As always... Wikipedia provides some sanity</title>
	<author>A nonymous Coward</author>
	<datestamp>1262273520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Friends don't let Friends cite Wikipedia.</p><p>Nine out of Ten professors give automatic F's to students who cite Wikipedia in their papers.</p></div><p>Ten out of Ten English grammar professors give automatic Fs to students who put apostrophes in plurals.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Friends do n't let Friends cite Wikipedia.Nine out of Ten professors give automatic F 's to students who cite Wikipedia in their papers.Ten out of Ten English grammar professors give automatic Fs to students who put apostrophes in plurals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Friends don't let Friends cite Wikipedia.Nine out of Ten professors give automatic F's to students who cite Wikipedia in their papers.Ten out of Ten English grammar professors give automatic Fs to students who put apostrophes in plurals.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30610274</id>
	<title>Re:Not everything is used for abstract thought</title>
	<author>geekdom04</author>
	<datestamp>1262257080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I suspect I found the link talking about the work you're referring to by Dr. Colin Groves:
<a href="http://pubpages.unh.edu/~jel/512/dogs\_brains.html" title="unh.edu" rel="nofollow">http://pubpages.unh.edu/~jel/512/dogs\_brains.html</a> [unh.edu]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect I found the link talking about the work you 're referring to by Dr. Colin Groves : http : //pubpages.unh.edu/ ~ jel/512/dogs \ _brains.html [ unh.edu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect I found the link talking about the work you're referring to by Dr. Colin Groves:
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~jel/512/dogs\_brains.html [unh.edu]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30619056</id>
	<title>Re:Does a bigger brain really mean higher IQ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1230826500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"If you compare humans, there is no correlation between brain size and intelligence."</p><p>Incorrect.  The correlation is between 0.3 and 0.4.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain\_size#Human\_brain\_size</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" If you compare humans , there is no correlation between brain size and intelligence. " Incorrect .
The correlation is between 0.3 and 0.4. http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain \ _size # Human \ _brain \ _size</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If you compare humans, there is no correlation between brain size and intelligence."Incorrect.
The correlation is between 0.3 and 0.4.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain\_size#Human\_brain\_size</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605320</id>
	<title>This is really old news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262275920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The skull was found in the early 1900s.  There's been speculation about them for years.  And NOW Discovery is writing about them?  I think the better story to link to is about the giant snake they just found in a mine in South America.  40+ feet long, weighing in at over a ton, lived about 60 Million years ago, indicating that the temperature was significantly higher than it is now in the Equatorial Rain Forest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The skull was found in the early 1900s .
There 's been speculation about them for years .
And NOW Discovery is writing about them ?
I think the better story to link to is about the giant snake they just found in a mine in South America .
40 + feet long , weighing in at over a ton , lived about 60 Million years ago , indicating that the temperature was significantly higher than it is now in the Equatorial Rain Forest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The skull was found in the early 1900s.
There's been speculation about them for years.
And NOW Discovery is writing about them?
I think the better story to link to is about the giant snake they just found in a mine in South America.
40+ feet long, weighing in at over a ton, lived about 60 Million years ago, indicating that the temperature was significantly higher than it is now in the Equatorial Rain Forest.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607244</id>
	<title>It was already predicted</title>
	<author>abarrow</author>
	<datestamp>1262284380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Clearly these guys never read Kurt Vonnegut's "Galapagos"</p><p>"Thanks a lot, big brain"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly these guys never read Kurt Vonnegut 's " Galapagos " " Thanks a lot , big brain "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly these guys never read Kurt Vonnegut's "Galapagos""Thanks a lot, big brain"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606196</id>
	<title>Re:We know how things go in our Idiocracy</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1262280120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>The smarter people will invariably be the minority overridden by the less smart masses for a variety of reasons in a variety of ways.</i> </p><p>Persecution complex much? Just about everything you just whined about is utter bullshit. The smart have always ruled. The smart generals have triumphed from the less gifted leaders, helped by the inventions of the smart engineers, enabled by the discoveries of the smart scientists. Don't let your historical shortsightedness and your obsession with modern day American conservatives or even your movie-watching make you think otherwise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The smarter people will invariably be the minority overridden by the less smart masses for a variety of reasons in a variety of ways .
Persecution complex much ?
Just about everything you just whined about is utter bullshit .
The smart have always ruled .
The smart generals have triumphed from the less gifted leaders , helped by the inventions of the smart engineers , enabled by the discoveries of the smart scientists .
Do n't let your historical shortsightedness and your obsession with modern day American conservatives or even your movie-watching make you think otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The smarter people will invariably be the minority overridden by the less smart masses for a variety of reasons in a variety of ways.
Persecution complex much?
Just about everything you just whined about is utter bullshit.
The smart have always ruled.
The smart generals have triumphed from the less gifted leaders, helped by the inventions of the smart engineers, enabled by the discoveries of the smart scientists.
Don't let your historical shortsightedness and your obsession with modern day American conservatives or even your movie-watching make you think otherwise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606472</id>
	<title>Reproduce</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262281740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Never forget that Darwin's whole theory of evolution rests on the simple principle of survival to reproduce and thus influencing change. That is if most big eared penguins are able to survive long enough to copulate and have children, then over time the trend will be to produce big eared penguins and the poor small eared penguins slowly die out.</p><p>This goes a number of different ways. Being smart may be an advantage, but like anything it is more dependent on fscking than anything else.</p><p>So you could be mind blowingly smart, and only have a few kids, or an idiot but breed like rabbits. The key would be that balance of smart enough to gain survival advantage, yet be able to breed like the wind. So perhaps Darwin's theory likely moderates intelligence to a certain extent.</p><p>I believe there was a movie based on this principle, which stared Brendon Fraser, which surely in of itself shows that god may be an ironic jerk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Never forget that Darwin 's whole theory of evolution rests on the simple principle of survival to reproduce and thus influencing change .
That is if most big eared penguins are able to survive long enough to copulate and have children , then over time the trend will be to produce big eared penguins and the poor small eared penguins slowly die out.This goes a number of different ways .
Being smart may be an advantage , but like anything it is more dependent on fscking than anything else.So you could be mind blowingly smart , and only have a few kids , or an idiot but breed like rabbits .
The key would be that balance of smart enough to gain survival advantage , yet be able to breed like the wind .
So perhaps Darwin 's theory likely moderates intelligence to a certain extent.I believe there was a movie based on this principle , which stared Brendon Fraser , which surely in of itself shows that god may be an ironic jerk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Never forget that Darwin's whole theory of evolution rests on the simple principle of survival to reproduce and thus influencing change.
That is if most big eared penguins are able to survive long enough to copulate and have children, then over time the trend will be to produce big eared penguins and the poor small eared penguins slowly die out.This goes a number of different ways.
Being smart may be an advantage, but like anything it is more dependent on fscking than anything else.So you could be mind blowingly smart, and only have a few kids, or an idiot but breed like rabbits.
The key would be that balance of smart enough to gain survival advantage, yet be able to breed like the wind.
So perhaps Darwin's theory likely moderates intelligence to a certain extent.I believe there was a movie based on this principle, which stared Brendon Fraser, which surely in of itself shows that god may be an ironic jerk.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605436</id>
	<title>Re:Does a bigger brain really mean higher IQ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262276400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That was surprising to me too.  However the article states the following, which is interesting if true: </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Expanding the brain changes its internal proportions in highly predictable ways. From ape to human, the brain grows about fourfold, but most of that increase occurs in the cortex, not in more ancient structures. Moreover, even within the cortex, the areas that grow by far the most are the association areas, while cortical structures such as those controlling sensory and motor mechanisms stay unchanged.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That was surprising to me too .
However the article states the following , which is interesting if true : Expanding the brain changes its internal proportions in highly predictable ways .
From ape to human , the brain grows about fourfold , but most of that increase occurs in the cortex , not in more ancient structures .
Moreover , even within the cortex , the areas that grow by far the most are the association areas , while cortical structures such as those controlling sensory and motor mechanisms stay unchanged .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That was surprising to me too.
However the article states the following, which is interesting if true: Expanding the brain changes its internal proportions in highly predictable ways.
From ape to human, the brain grows about fourfold, but most of that increase occurs in the cortex, not in more ancient structures.
Moreover, even within the cortex, the areas that grow by far the most are the association areas, while cortical structures such as those controlling sensory and motor mechanisms stay unchanged.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607170</id>
	<title>Re:IQ is a relative scale, not an objective one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262284140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"What I want to know is, can we clone them (vis-a-vis the de-extinction process discussed a few days ago) and create a clone army of super-brainiacs to do our bidding?"</p><p>In the modern world that does favor intelligence how long do you really think THEY would be doing OUR bidding?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" What I want to know is , can we clone them ( vis-a-vis the de-extinction process discussed a few days ago ) and create a clone army of super-brainiacs to do our bidding ?
" In the modern world that does favor intelligence how long do you really think THEY would be doing OUR bidding ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"What I want to know is, can we clone them (vis-a-vis the de-extinction process discussed a few days ago) and create a clone army of super-brainiacs to do our bidding?
"In the modern world that does favor intelligence how long do you really think THEY would be doing OUR bidding?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30609928</id>
	<title>Re:Does a bigger brain really mean higher IQ?</title>
	<author>Dalambertian</author>
	<datestamp>1262254860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I recall that it's the number of connections that matter, not the sheer volume itself. Hence the wrinkles.  I don't study neuroscience, but I do watch TV and I think the appropriate response is "Fuck you dolphin! Fuck you whale!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>I recall that it 's the number of connections that matter , not the sheer volume itself .
Hence the wrinkles .
I do n't study neuroscience , but I do watch TV and I think the appropriate response is " Fuck you dolphin !
Fuck you whale !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I recall that it's the number of connections that matter, not the sheer volume itself.
Hence the wrinkles.
I don't study neuroscience, but I do watch TV and I think the appropriate response is "Fuck you dolphin!
Fuck you whale!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30608584</id>
	<title>Re:We know how things go in our Idiocracy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262290380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, the greedy, power-hungry people who don't let their conscience get in the way of their climb to the top have always ruled. Intelligence helps, but is not required.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , the greedy , power-hungry people who do n't let their conscience get in the way of their climb to the top have always ruled .
Intelligence helps , but is not required .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, the greedy, power-hungry people who don't let their conscience get in the way of their climb to the top have always ruled.
Intelligence helps, but is not required.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607512</id>
	<title>Re:We know how things go in our Idiocracy</title>
	<author>blahplusplus</author>
	<datestamp>1262285400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But size does matter to some extent, as a most basic component.  For instance if we had a die that didn't  use all its matter for transisters and much was left unetched, that would be a waste.  There's probably similar things that happen in human beings as well, just because you got the matter, doesn't mean it's well architectured or even that useful.</p><p>Ant -&gt; cat -&gt; human each one the size of one's brain allows for more perceptual and thought possibilities.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But size does matter to some extent , as a most basic component .
For instance if we had a die that did n't use all its matter for transisters and much was left unetched , that would be a waste .
There 's probably similar things that happen in human beings as well , just because you got the matter , does n't mean it 's well architectured or even that useful.Ant - &gt; cat - &gt; human each one the size of one 's brain allows for more perceptual and thought possibilities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But size does matter to some extent, as a most basic component.
For instance if we had a die that didn't  use all its matter for transisters and much was left unetched, that would be a waste.
There's probably similar things that happen in human beings as well, just because you got the matter, doesn't mean it's well architectured or even that useful.Ant -&gt; cat -&gt; human each one the size of one's brain allows for more perceptual and thought possibilities.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605492</id>
	<title>Re:As always... Wikipedia provides some sanity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262276700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Friends don't let Friends cite Wikipedia.</p><p>Nine out of Ten professors give automatic F's to students who cite Wikipedia in their papers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Friends do n't let Friends cite Wikipedia.Nine out of Ten professors give automatic F 's to students who cite Wikipedia in their papers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Friends don't let Friends cite Wikipedia.Nine out of Ten professors give automatic F's to students who cite Wikipedia in their papers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607114</id>
	<title>Cranium-at-birth:Breeding-Females-Hip-size ratio</title>
	<author>Banichi</author>
	<datestamp>1262283840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If we have complications from our "normal" sized skulls (requiring caesarean sections) how much more difficult would childbirth have been for these Boskops? This is a much more likely reason they failed to survive, rather than a purely social one like not being literate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If we have complications from our " normal " sized skulls ( requiring caesarean sections ) how much more difficult would childbirth have been for these Boskops ?
This is a much more likely reason they failed to survive , rather than a purely social one like not being literate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we have complications from our "normal" sized skulls (requiring caesarean sections) how much more difficult would childbirth have been for these Boskops?
This is a much more likely reason they failed to survive, rather than a purely social one like not being literate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607802</id>
	<title>Energy cost vs benefit</title>
	<author>spineboy</author>
	<datestamp>1262286480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would agree more intelligence is almost always useful - but how much?</p><p>From what I learned in Med school - brains use about 20-30\% of our caloric needs.  The Boskops with their larger brains probably would have used more.<br>So what is the cost of supporting such a large brain?  Is it useful to have a Porsche turbo, that can go 200 MPH, when all that is available are dirt roads with potholes? - No, it's a waste.<br>The amount of human knowledge at that time was meager, and the excess brain matter may have been overkill, and wasteful, and thereby a poor evolutionary survival strategy at that time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would agree more intelligence is almost always useful - but how much ? From what I learned in Med school - brains use about 20-30 \ % of our caloric needs .
The Boskops with their larger brains probably would have used more.So what is the cost of supporting such a large brain ?
Is it useful to have a Porsche turbo , that can go 200 MPH , when all that is available are dirt roads with potholes ?
- No , it 's a waste.The amount of human knowledge at that time was meager , and the excess brain matter may have been overkill , and wasteful , and thereby a poor evolutionary survival strategy at that time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would agree more intelligence is almost always useful - but how much?From what I learned in Med school - brains use about 20-30\% of our caloric needs.
The Boskops with their larger brains probably would have used more.So what is the cost of supporting such a large brain?
Is it useful to have a Porsche turbo, that can go 200 MPH, when all that is available are dirt roads with potholes?
- No, it's a waste.The amount of human knowledge at that time was meager, and the excess brain matter may have been overkill, and wasteful, and thereby a poor evolutionary survival strategy at that time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30609568</id>
	<title>Re:Typical Evolutionary muddle</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1262252700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Those big brains would not have <b>evolved</b> without an evolutionary advantage of some sort...</p></div><p>You're right, what you posted is "typical evolutionary muddle".  It's a common misconception that traits evolve because they pose some sort of advantage.  In fact, all traits, both advantageous and disadvantageous, evolve at random.  Traits don't necessarily persist because they're advantageous, either.  They do often disappear when a species is placed under stress if they are maladaptive, but only if they aren't paired with some other more adaptive trait (often completely randomly), and this is only if the species is stressed in such a way as to make the trait a significant disadvantage.  In short:</p><p>The fact that a trait evolved does <i>not</i> indicate that it was in any way an evolutionary advantage.</p><p>The fact that a trait persisted does <i>not necessarily</i> indicate that it was in any way advantageous.</p><p>The fact that a trait persisted does <i>not necessarily</i> indicate that it was not in any way disadvantageous.</p><p>The fact that a species persisted when others failed indicates that its entire package of traits was, considered as a whole, likely better for it that the competition, but this does not mean every single trait was advantageous, or that no traits were disadvantageous, even under the specific stressed they were subjected to.</p><p>During times when a species is not under stress, what traits evolve, and which increase or decrease in frequency, is essentially random and indicates nothing at all beyond population dynamics.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Those big brains would not have evolved without an evolutionary advantage of some sort...You 're right , what you posted is " typical evolutionary muddle " .
It 's a common misconception that traits evolve because they pose some sort of advantage .
In fact , all traits , both advantageous and disadvantageous , evolve at random .
Traits do n't necessarily persist because they 're advantageous , either .
They do often disappear when a species is placed under stress if they are maladaptive , but only if they are n't paired with some other more adaptive trait ( often completely randomly ) , and this is only if the species is stressed in such a way as to make the trait a significant disadvantage .
In short : The fact that a trait evolved does not indicate that it was in any way an evolutionary advantage.The fact that a trait persisted does not necessarily indicate that it was in any way advantageous.The fact that a trait persisted does not necessarily indicate that it was not in any way disadvantageous.The fact that a species persisted when others failed indicates that its entire package of traits was , considered as a whole , likely better for it that the competition , but this does not mean every single trait was advantageous , or that no traits were disadvantageous , even under the specific stressed they were subjected to.During times when a species is not under stress , what traits evolve , and which increase or decrease in frequency , is essentially random and indicates nothing at all beyond population dynamics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those big brains would not have evolved without an evolutionary advantage of some sort...You're right, what you posted is "typical evolutionary muddle".
It's a common misconception that traits evolve because they pose some sort of advantage.
In fact, all traits, both advantageous and disadvantageous, evolve at random.
Traits don't necessarily persist because they're advantageous, either.
They do often disappear when a species is placed under stress if they are maladaptive, but only if they aren't paired with some other more adaptive trait (often completely randomly), and this is only if the species is stressed in such a way as to make the trait a significant disadvantage.
In short:The fact that a trait evolved does not indicate that it was in any way an evolutionary advantage.The fact that a trait persisted does not necessarily indicate that it was in any way advantageous.The fact that a trait persisted does not necessarily indicate that it was not in any way disadvantageous.The fact that a species persisted when others failed indicates that its entire package of traits was, considered as a whole, likely better for it that the competition, but this does not mean every single trait was advantageous, or that no traits were disadvantageous, even under the specific stressed they were subjected to.During times when a species is not under stress, what traits evolve, and which increase or decrease in frequency, is essentially random and indicates nothing at all beyond population dynamics.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606412</id>
	<title>Big brains overheat</title>
	<author>grikdog</author>
	<datestamp>1262281440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I understand how geeks get excited about big brains, but in the absence of tool-using or any evidence of actual utility, the Boskops brain == Mensa minimum is a phony conclusion.  What did these big brained apes do all day?  Sit around and sing complex rhythms with bad lyrics while their females died of childbirth?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I understand how geeks get excited about big brains , but in the absence of tool-using or any evidence of actual utility , the Boskops brain = = Mensa minimum is a phony conclusion .
What did these big brained apes do all day ?
Sit around and sing complex rhythms with bad lyrics while their females died of childbirth ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I understand how geeks get excited about big brains, but in the absence of tool-using or any evidence of actual utility, the Boskops brain == Mensa minimum is a phony conclusion.
What did these big brained apes do all day?
Sit around and sing complex rhythms with bad lyrics while their females died of childbirth?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606914</id>
	<title>Or then again maybe they are the last of a dying</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1262283120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>species which have destroyed themselves through a possible disaster ? i mean, look at us, we have been at the brink of totally annihilating our own species since 1945. its a miracle it didnt happen, intentionally or by accident.</p><p>who says progress has always been forward ? who says the civilization wasnt blasted back to bits, and then again risen ? who says that what we have been able to find, arent the last remainders of a civilization/society which destroyed itself ? if wwiii happened, im sure there would be surviving small communities of humans around the world, only to die off eventually.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>species which have destroyed themselves through a possible disaster ?
i mean , look at us , we have been at the brink of totally annihilating our own species since 1945. its a miracle it didnt happen , intentionally or by accident.who says progress has always been forward ?
who says the civilization wasnt blasted back to bits , and then again risen ?
who says that what we have been able to find , arent the last remainders of a civilization/society which destroyed itself ?
if wwiii happened , im sure there would be surviving small communities of humans around the world , only to die off eventually .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>species which have destroyed themselves through a possible disaster ?
i mean, look at us, we have been at the brink of totally annihilating our own species since 1945. its a miracle it didnt happen, intentionally or by accident.who says progress has always been forward ?
who says the civilization wasnt blasted back to bits, and then again risen ?
who says that what we have been able to find, arent the last remainders of a civilization/society which destroyed itself ?
if wwiii happened, im sure there would be surviving small communities of humans around the world, only to die off eventually.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606596</id>
	<title>Slaves!</title>
	<author>wytcld</author>
	<datestamp>1262282040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It is sometimes argued that the illusion of free will arises from the fact that we can&rsquo;t adequately judge all possible moves, with the result that our choices are based on imperfect, sometimes impoverished, information.</p><p>Perhaps the Boskops were trapped by their ability to see clearly where things would head. Perhaps they were prisoners of those majestic brains.</p></div></blockquote><p>So you judge all possible moves and make one based on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... <i>what</i>? Can each move be cleanly ranked on the value of the odds of the outcomes that might follow from it, against some distinct set of measures that fully define a creature's goals, satisfactions and fears? Doesn't it require a particularly impoverished set of goals to do any such calculation as to the odds of their satisfaction following certain moves by oneself? Given the hypothesized more intelligent mind, whose pleasures in walking a Parisian boulevard might, this article also suggests, be far beyond our own in complexity, why should we presume that its satisfactions, like its pleasures, might also be far beyond our own? If the range of desirable goals becomes correspondingly more complex with a more complex brain - which is obviously the case when comparing Mozart or Einstein with the amoeba or your local gas station clerk - then the solution of the problem of the optimal path to <i>what</i> correspondingly becomes less certain.</p><p>If your choice of roads merely consists of one where you eat and one where you starve, it's pretty easy to model that under an assumption of determinism. But if on one road you perform a powerful piece of music, on another make an incredible scientific breakthrough, and on another simply watch a beautiful sunset - and you've got a mind fully capable of this range and far more - assuming that all these roads leave you well-fed, well-fucked, and pleased with the outcome, being smart doesn't so much simplify the solution of what to do as vastly complicate the choices to solve among. This "problem" isn't at all advanced by considering the free will implied by it an "illusion."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is sometimes argued that the illusion of free will arises from the fact that we can    t adequately judge all possible moves , with the result that our choices are based on imperfect , sometimes impoverished , information.Perhaps the Boskops were trapped by their ability to see clearly where things would head .
Perhaps they were prisoners of those majestic brains.So you judge all possible moves and make one based on ... what ? Can each move be cleanly ranked on the value of the odds of the outcomes that might follow from it , against some distinct set of measures that fully define a creature 's goals , satisfactions and fears ?
Does n't it require a particularly impoverished set of goals to do any such calculation as to the odds of their satisfaction following certain moves by oneself ?
Given the hypothesized more intelligent mind , whose pleasures in walking a Parisian boulevard might , this article also suggests , be far beyond our own in complexity , why should we presume that its satisfactions , like its pleasures , might also be far beyond our own ?
If the range of desirable goals becomes correspondingly more complex with a more complex brain - which is obviously the case when comparing Mozart or Einstein with the amoeba or your local gas station clerk - then the solution of the problem of the optimal path to what correspondingly becomes less certain.If your choice of roads merely consists of one where you eat and one where you starve , it 's pretty easy to model that under an assumption of determinism .
But if on one road you perform a powerful piece of music , on another make an incredible scientific breakthrough , and on another simply watch a beautiful sunset - and you 've got a mind fully capable of this range and far more - assuming that all these roads leave you well-fed , well-fucked , and pleased with the outcome , being smart does n't so much simplify the solution of what to do as vastly complicate the choices to solve among .
This " problem " is n't at all advanced by considering the free will implied by it an " illusion .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is sometimes argued that the illusion of free will arises from the fact that we can’t adequately judge all possible moves, with the result that our choices are based on imperfect, sometimes impoverished, information.Perhaps the Boskops were trapped by their ability to see clearly where things would head.
Perhaps they were prisoners of those majestic brains.So you judge all possible moves and make one based on ... what? Can each move be cleanly ranked on the value of the odds of the outcomes that might follow from it, against some distinct set of measures that fully define a creature's goals, satisfactions and fears?
Doesn't it require a particularly impoverished set of goals to do any such calculation as to the odds of their satisfaction following certain moves by oneself?
Given the hypothesized more intelligent mind, whose pleasures in walking a Parisian boulevard might, this article also suggests, be far beyond our own in complexity, why should we presume that its satisfactions, like its pleasures, might also be far beyond our own?
If the range of desirable goals becomes correspondingly more complex with a more complex brain - which is obviously the case when comparing Mozart or Einstein with the amoeba or your local gas station clerk - then the solution of the problem of the optimal path to what correspondingly becomes less certain.If your choice of roads merely consists of one where you eat and one where you starve, it's pretty easy to model that under an assumption of determinism.
But if on one road you perform a powerful piece of music, on another make an incredible scientific breakthrough, and on another simply watch a beautiful sunset - and you've got a mind fully capable of this range and far more - assuming that all these roads leave you well-fed, well-fucked, and pleased with the outcome, being smart doesn't so much simplify the solution of what to do as vastly complicate the choices to solve among.
This "problem" isn't at all advanced by considering the free will implied by it an "illusion.
"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605782</id>
	<title>Re:Does a bigger brain really mean higher IQ?</title>
	<author>ArsonSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1262278320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>from what I remember in highschool science class, it isn't the direct size of the brain but the ratio of the brain to the rest of the body.  Whether that was just a curious coloration or has always held true I don't know for sure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>from what I remember in highschool science class , it is n't the direct size of the brain but the ratio of the brain to the rest of the body .
Whether that was just a curious coloration or has always held true I do n't know for sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>from what I remember in highschool science class, it isn't the direct size of the brain but the ratio of the brain to the rest of the body.
Whether that was just a curious coloration or has always held true I don't know for sure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606994</id>
	<title>"Child-like face" claptrap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262283480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The soft tissues have not been preserved, how do you know what their faces looked like?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The soft tissues have not been preserved , how do you know what their faces looked like ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The soft tissues have not been preserved, how do you know what their faces looked like?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30608446</id>
	<title>Re:One problem ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262289720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally, I don't think there were any fatal flaws: the fact that they're no longer there just means that they learned how to make UFOs and invisibility cloaks.  I have no clue why they thought breeding us was a good idea, but as we know, high INT does not mean high WIS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I do n't think there were any fatal flaws : the fact that they 're no longer there just means that they learned how to make UFOs and invisibility cloaks .
I have no clue why they thought breeding us was a good idea , but as we know , high INT does not mean high WIS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I don't think there were any fatal flaws: the fact that they're no longer there just means that they learned how to make UFOs and invisibility cloaks.
I have no clue why they thought breeding us was a good idea, but as we know, high INT does not mean high WIS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606030</id>
	<title>Re:As always... Wikipedia provides some sanity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262279400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Friends don't let Friends cite Wikipedia.</p><p>Nine out of Ten professors give automatic F's to students who cite Wikipedia in their papers.</p></div><p>Crap! Nobody told me I was being graded on this. I thought this was just a stupid web forum for nerds to argue over trivial issues.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Friends do n't let Friends cite Wikipedia.Nine out of Ten professors give automatic F 's to students who cite Wikipedia in their papers.Crap !
Nobody told me I was being graded on this .
I thought this was just a stupid web forum for nerds to argue over trivial issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Friends don't let Friends cite Wikipedia.Nine out of Ten professors give automatic F's to students who cite Wikipedia in their papers.Crap!
Nobody told me I was being graded on this.
I thought this was just a stupid web forum for nerds to argue over trivial issues.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606676</id>
	<title>Re:Brain size and birth</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262282400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So you're saying we should genetically engineer women with bigger hips. I'm fine with this outcome.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So you 're saying we should genetically engineer women with bigger hips .
I 'm fine with this outcome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you're saying we should genetically engineer women with bigger hips.
I'm fine with this outcome.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606352</id>
	<title>Re:As always... Wikipedia provides some sanity</title>
	<author>babblefrog</author>
	<datestamp>1262281080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We are not hominids?</htmltext>
<tokenext>We are not hominids ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are not hominids?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607778</id>
	<title>Re:We know how things go in our Idiocracy</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1262286420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh really?  The census reports indicate some pretty disturbing trends.  Educated people are having fewer, if any children, while less and uneducated people are increasing in numbers.  This isn't fantasy.  Things are changing.  Numbers have always overruled superior tech and intelligence.  When you speak of smart general versus less smart general, you are talking about equal factors competing against each other on the basis of quality.  One smart soldier with a machine gun cannot beat 1000 stick wielding primitives.</p><p>As far as "conservative vs liberal" mentalities are concerned, I simply cannot subscribe to the two notions even existing as portrayed.  But I'd like to know what you mean by historical short-sightedness.  It is rare for any intellectual uprising ever to occur.  What is typical, however, is massive hordes of stupidity to rally under a particular banner or cause which results in massive change and/or destruction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh really ?
The census reports indicate some pretty disturbing trends .
Educated people are having fewer , if any children , while less and uneducated people are increasing in numbers .
This is n't fantasy .
Things are changing .
Numbers have always overruled superior tech and intelligence .
When you speak of smart general versus less smart general , you are talking about equal factors competing against each other on the basis of quality .
One smart soldier with a machine gun can not beat 1000 stick wielding primitives.As far as " conservative vs liberal " mentalities are concerned , I simply can not subscribe to the two notions even existing as portrayed .
But I 'd like to know what you mean by historical short-sightedness .
It is rare for any intellectual uprising ever to occur .
What is typical , however , is massive hordes of stupidity to rally under a particular banner or cause which results in massive change and/or destruction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh really?
The census reports indicate some pretty disturbing trends.
Educated people are having fewer, if any children, while less and uneducated people are increasing in numbers.
This isn't fantasy.
Things are changing.
Numbers have always overruled superior tech and intelligence.
When you speak of smart general versus less smart general, you are talking about equal factors competing against each other on the basis of quality.
One smart soldier with a machine gun cannot beat 1000 stick wielding primitives.As far as "conservative vs liberal" mentalities are concerned, I simply cannot subscribe to the two notions even existing as portrayed.
But I'd like to know what you mean by historical short-sightedness.
It is rare for any intellectual uprising ever to occur.
What is typical, however, is massive hordes of stupidity to rally under a particular banner or cause which results in massive change and/or destruction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30609358</id>
	<title>Re:Brain size and birth</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262251380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A hominid with a larger brain size <i>at birth</i> but not major other physiological changes would reproduce even more slowly...</p></div><p>Fixed that for you.  A large skull could belong to a species whose heads were the same size as ours at birth but simply grew faster or continued to grow over a longer period.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A hominid with a larger brain size at birth but not major other physiological changes would reproduce even more slowly...Fixed that for you .
A large skull could belong to a species whose heads were the same size as ours at birth but simply grew faster or continued to grow over a longer period .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A hominid with a larger brain size at birth but not major other physiological changes would reproduce even more slowly...Fixed that for you.
A large skull could belong to a species whose heads were the same size as ours at birth but simply grew faster or continued to grow over a longer period.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607764</id>
	<title>Re:As always... Wikipedia provides some sanity</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1262286360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, because if you can read it on Wikipedia, it <strong>must</strong> be the truth!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , because if you can read it on Wikipedia , it must be the truth !
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, because if you can read it on Wikipedia, it must be the truth!
:P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30608020</id>
	<title>Re:We know how things go in our Idiocracy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262287440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>The smarter people will invariably be the minority overridden by the less smart masses for a variety of reasons in a variety of ways.</i> </p><p>Persecution complex much? Just about everything you just whined about is utter bullshit. The smart have always ruled. The smart generals have triumphed from the less gifted leaders, helped by the inventions of the smart engineers, enabled by the discoveries of the smart scientists. Don't let your historical shortsightedness and your obsession with modern day American conservatives or even your movie-watching make you think otherwise.</p></div><p>Hate to disagree with you, especially when I disagree so much with the parent, but I don't think generals, engineers and scientists ever ruled much. Maybe generals a little bit, but not engineers and scientists.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The smarter people will invariably be the minority overridden by the less smart masses for a variety of reasons in a variety of ways .
Persecution complex much ?
Just about everything you just whined about is utter bullshit .
The smart have always ruled .
The smart generals have triumphed from the less gifted leaders , helped by the inventions of the smart engineers , enabled by the discoveries of the smart scientists .
Do n't let your historical shortsightedness and your obsession with modern day American conservatives or even your movie-watching make you think otherwise.Hate to disagree with you , especially when I disagree so much with the parent , but I do n't think generals , engineers and scientists ever ruled much .
Maybe generals a little bit , but not engineers and scientists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The smarter people will invariably be the minority overridden by the less smart masses for a variety of reasons in a variety of ways.
Persecution complex much?
Just about everything you just whined about is utter bullshit.
The smart have always ruled.
The smart generals have triumphed from the less gifted leaders, helped by the inventions of the smart engineers, enabled by the discoveries of the smart scientists.
Don't let your historical shortsightedness and your obsession with modern day American conservatives or even your movie-watching make you think otherwise.Hate to disagree with you, especially when I disagree so much with the parent, but I don't think generals, engineers and scientists ever ruled much.
Maybe generals a little bit, but not engineers and scientists.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605312</id>
	<title>The Devil's Dictionary had it right!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262275860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dullard - n. a member of the reigning dynasty. The Dullards came in with Adam and being both numerous and sturdy have overrun the habitable world. The secret of their power liies in their insensibility. They are immune to blows physical and metaphorical. They originate from Breotia whence they were driven by starvation, having bored their livestock out of existence. For some centuries they infested Philistia, and many of them are still referred to as Phiistines. After the Crusades they spread across Europe occupying high places in politics, art, literature, science, theology, commerce, and finance. There was a contingent aboard the Mayflower and many more have immigrated since. Their numbers in the United States today are considered to be in excess of one hundred fifty million. Their intellectual center and mecca is Wheeless Oklahoma.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dullard - n. a member of the reigning dynasty .
The Dullards came in with Adam and being both numerous and sturdy have overrun the habitable world .
The secret of their power liies in their insensibility .
They are immune to blows physical and metaphorical .
They originate from Breotia whence they were driven by starvation , having bored their livestock out of existence .
For some centuries they infested Philistia , and many of them are still referred to as Phiistines .
After the Crusades they spread across Europe occupying high places in politics , art , literature , science , theology , commerce , and finance .
There was a contingent aboard the Mayflower and many more have immigrated since .
Their numbers in the United States today are considered to be in excess of one hundred fifty million .
Their intellectual center and mecca is Wheeless Oklahoma .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dullard - n. a member of the reigning dynasty.
The Dullards came in with Adam and being both numerous and sturdy have overrun the habitable world.
The secret of their power liies in their insensibility.
They are immune to blows physical and metaphorical.
They originate from Breotia whence they were driven by starvation, having bored their livestock out of existence.
For some centuries they infested Philistia, and many of them are still referred to as Phiistines.
After the Crusades they spread across Europe occupying high places in politics, art, literature, science, theology, commerce, and finance.
There was a contingent aboard the Mayflower and many more have immigrated since.
Their numbers in the United States today are considered to be in excess of one hundred fifty million.
Their intellectual center and mecca is Wheeless Oklahoma.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30610104</id>
	<title>Re:Does a bigger brain really mean higher IQ?</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1262255880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Does a bigger brain necessarily mean they had a higher IQ? Does it really work like that?</i></p><p>Yes, but for the love of Pete get that penis pump out of your ear before you hurt yourself!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does a bigger brain necessarily mean they had a higher IQ ?
Does it really work like that ? Yes , but for the love of Pete get that penis pump out of your ear before you hurt yourself ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does a bigger brain necessarily mean they had a higher IQ?
Does it really work like that?Yes, but for the love of Pete get that penis pump out of your ear before you hurt yourself!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605484</id>
	<title>Re:As always... Wikipedia provides some sanity</title>
	<author>smolloy</author>
	<datestamp>1262276640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Posting to get rid of unintentional "funny" moderation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Posting to get rid of unintentional " funny " moderation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Posting to get rid of unintentional "funny" moderation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605560</id>
	<title>Civilization changes the meaning of "fittest"</title>
	<author>srobert</author>
	<datestamp>1262277060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once we started reading, writing, living in cities, etc., it was all downhill.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once we started reading , writing , living in cities , etc. , it was all downhill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once we started reading, writing, living in cities, etc., it was all downhill.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30608734</id>
	<title>Re:Or then again maybe they are the last of a dyin</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1262291160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who is to say? evidence, that's who. You ahve some evidence, bring it forward otherwise it's just a complete waste of time.</p><p>WWIII DID happen, it was just an economical war. I'm not sure why people assume WWIII would have had to have nukes detonating.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who is to say ?
evidence , that 's who .
You ahve some evidence , bring it forward otherwise it 's just a complete waste of time.WWIII DID happen , it was just an economical war .
I 'm not sure why people assume WWIII would have had to have nukes detonating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who is to say?
evidence, that's who.
You ahve some evidence, bring it forward otherwise it's just a complete waste of time.WWIII DID happen, it was just an economical war.
I'm not sure why people assume WWIII would have had to have nukes detonating.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606914</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30610462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30649782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606284
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30610042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30609928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30608712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30609358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30613024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30609590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30608284
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30610554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30610144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30610274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30609304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30608068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30609152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30608198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30613306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30610104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30608446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30611118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30608516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30610844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30608020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30609466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30619056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30608734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30611910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30613110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30608464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30608128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30608468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30608584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30613272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30611912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30609568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30608038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_1334257_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30609314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_1334257.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30608516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30609358
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_1334257.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606314
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_1334257.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30608462
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_1334257.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605352
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_1334257.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30608198
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_1334257.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605458
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_1334257.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30610042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30608446
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_1334257.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30608464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606196
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30649782
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30610462
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30611118
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30613110
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30608020
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607778
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30608712
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30610554
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30610144
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30613024
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30608584
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30608468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30609590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30609152
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_1334257.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607168
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_1334257.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30613306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605360
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607686
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30608128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605738
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30610844
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606040
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607462
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_1334257.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605408
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_1334257.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30608734
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_1334257.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605662
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607096
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_1334257.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605542
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_1334257.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605782
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30610104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30608284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605350
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30608068
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607802
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30609304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607490
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30619056
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30609928
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30609314
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30613272
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30611912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30609466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607016
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_1334257.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30610274
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_1334257.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606658
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_1334257.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30609568
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_1334257.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30613970
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_1334257.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606472
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_1334257.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605972
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605492
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605628
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30608038
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607124
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606028
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606030
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30611910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30606352
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_1334257.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605480
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_1334257.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30608660
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_1334257.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605992
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_1334257.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30605394
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_1334257.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_1334257.30607770
</commentlist>
</conversation>
