Thoughts on H. macrocephalus

Encounter

Is there a human subspecies existing right under our noses? I first encountered the concept of this possible subspecies of human existing in the wider field of humanity in Michael Ferguson’s piece on a possible variety or branch of Homo known as H. macrocephalus, or “big–headed human.” [1]

Pathography

My brain capacity is 1813cc or just above the average 1750cc criterion that Mr. Ferguson equates with mean H. macrocephalus cranial capacity. My honestly assessed IQ equates roughly to 150 standard deviation 15, that being from official and not official sources (the average of some 40+ tests of all varieties), making me an average macrocephalic as Mr. Ferguson describes it. My expected IQ, according to his formula;

IQ = 0.2 x CC – 181

is roughly 180. As this represents a ratio IQ, which actually follows a natural deviation of 24, not 16, that would make my deviation IQ (sd=15), roughly 150, that estimate statistically matching my actual IQ. My scores on autism tests like the AQ are all ceiling scores, although, to tell the truth, I do not accept it as autism and have never bothered to be officially, “diagnosed.”

Too, I trade speed for depth of processing. I am often slow to respond to people, taking time to process the nuanced nature of what was said and what might be said. It’s not better necessarily, it’s just different.

I am pedomorphic, meaning, retention of juvenile features into adulthood. An uncle of mine, upon seeing in my 50s, said, “You look just like you did at 12 years of age.” Really–I thought, how absurd. Too, I never get headaches. Smart people I’ve met, majoring in physics and mathematics for instance, working in the computer industry, were often exhausted, had headaches, nosebleeds, etc. I left, at the end of each school or work day, as if I had done nothing really. Not exhausted, no headaches, etc.

Comments and Speculations

Every population has a dense core that diffuses and becomes more sparse as we approach its boundary, be it physical, mental, behavioral, etc.

This phenomenological configuration compels evolution in a variety of ways.

H. macrocephalus is a relatively new, at the very least, variety of human that lives and propagates at the behavioral boundary of the genus Homo.

H. macrocephalus is showing up as false positive autistic due to medical or political bias, not science.

Neuropsychologia 42 (2004) [2], did a study on head size and IQ and found that those with head circumferences greater than 2 standard deviations “always” had high IQ, that being defined as greater than 120 standard deviation 15. Did this group stumble across H. macrocephalus? The brain volume estimates for males in this high IQ group was 1657.7cc and for females, 1467.3cc. The average IQ for this group was 124.0 ± 5.3, well correlated with Mr. Ferguson’s estimate of 131, that is;

IQ=0.2×V- 181.

H. macrocephalus shows up as autistic due to proximity within the topology of humans, that is, due to behavioral differences brought on by morphological changes, not as some mental defect.

H. macrocephalus is socially disconnected from H. sapien, even H. sapien extremus, which as Mr. Ferguson noted in a comment to an extreme IQ score 160+ but small brain size, indicates the natural variation of intelligence within H. sapien, not some wholly new variety of the genus Homo. Too, as evidenced by the above, high IQ can show up even with a cranial capacity below the mean. In fact, 40% of the cases in the -2 to 0 standard deviation group were indeed, high IQ.

So, H. macrocephalus, is not strictly a function of increased intelligence. Rather, it is a confluence of, physical changes (increased brain size), behavioral and mental changes and social disconnectedness from the H. sapien variety of human.

It is, as Mr. Ferguson pointed out, not about increased speed and accuracy of processing, but rather something qualitatively different that is occurring when doing such problems.

Of course, as Mr. Ferguson points out, brain morphology, that is, bigger brains do not necessarily mean smarter brains. In other words, like H. sapien, H. macrocephalus has its variation and too, must not be confused with such disorders like Hydrocephalus, for instance. For example, when I use this calculator; Simulconsult, I get a > 99 percentile or +4.5 standard deviation from norm reading with a nice little message indicating, “See Warning.” That’s because the expectation is that, something is amiss; it’s not normal for a male my age to possess a 61.5cm head circumference, and I am only 170cm tall.

Mr. Ferguson is of course wrong in his assessment that high IQ people are “inappropriately” excluded. If, as he speculates, there exists such a creature as H. macrocephalus, would the H. sapien club, especially the H. sapien extremus, want such a type of human within their club?

Hence, from that point of view, it would behoove H. sapien to exclude such people, albeit from the same genus Homo, yet being something qualitatively different. In other words, would H. sapien want H. erectus as a member? Of course not.

H. macrocephalus may have different brain organization due to size differences. This is where the qualitative line would be drawn, what it would be like to live at the periphery. Perhaps better ability to simulate possibilities, for instance. Who knows? Maybe its a matter of better prediction and interpretation of the daily grind that sets these two apart? Maybe H. macrocephalus is a simply a species of dreamers with an internal life that makes the external world seem mundane, simplistic in a sense.

It seems H. macrocephalus is probably more philosophical, wispy if you will. Less prone to the technological drive of H. sapien and its need to dominate the planet, more inclined to accept the world as it is, not as they would like it to be, less projective and more introspective.

Though, how do we take different brains, H. macrocephalus and H. sapiens and derive different minds? An enigma, to say the least. Does it start with simple topology? Does it entail behavioral differences, perhaps even less prone to violence and seeking a more just and ethical world? What does H. macrocephalus culture look like, for instance? Is it, if it exists, that much different than H. sapiens or does it simply wash out with the greater proportion of H. sapiens in existence.

H. macrocephalus would be a more “diverse” group than H. sapiens. This, because of overt complexity changes, that is, more gross material to work with and hence more imaginative genetic creation of neural pathways, for instance.

H. macrocephalus are often perplexed by H. sapien behavior, seeing it as so “out of whack” with reality.

H. sapiens become irritated with H. macrocephalus in conversation. Why? H. sapiens are quick, get it done now, time obsessed. Perhaps H. macrocephalus has a more haughty, rhetorical style of speech, slow, with increased depth of processing, well beyond even the high IQ H. sapien type. Perhaps H. macrocephalus is simply annoying, verbose, to affected for H. sapien. Maybe the its “like this” drives the quick minded H. sapien to react, whereas the H. macrocephalus simply watches in amazement. Who knows? Perhaps H. macrocephalus has a brain that appears dumber to H. sapiens. Perhaps with its increased brain capacity it can compel minus signs in calculating its final behavioral outcome. Bigger brains, in other words, may enable their possessors to “tone down their response,” to the world. This appears totally foreign to H. sapiens, whose typical behavioral outcomes are not calculated at all, simply reactive. Where H. sapiens do arithmetic, H. macrocephalus does abstract algebra. In other words, what H. macrocephalus does not do in life is as important as what it does. However, and this is important, it is this non responsive nature and as such interpreted by H. sapien much of the time as something well nigh of what it is. So, trying to determine the differences in H. sapiens and H. macrocephalus based on IQ alone, is like trying to fight a person with a clandestine weapon, you never no what is likely to hit you or when.

Remember though, and after all, these are speculative and open interpretations and as such vulnerable to whatever may come.

1. Michael Ferguson, H. macrocephalus. https://michaelwferguson.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_9997.html

2. Ivanovic DM, Leiva BP, Pérez HT, Olivares MG, Díaz NS, Urrutia MS, Almagià AF, Toro TD, Miller PT, Bosch EO, Larraín CG. Head size and intelligence, learning, nutritional status and brain development. Head, IQ, learning, nutrition and brain. Neuropsychologia. 2004;42(8):1118-31. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2003.11.022. PMID: 15093150. https://repositorio.uchile.cl/bitstream/handle/2250/124054/Ivanovic_Daniza_Head.pdf?sequence%3D1

Kenneth Myers 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Reprogramming Bacteria for Symbiont Conversion: A Review

Bacteria are prokaryotic cells some of which have positive effects upon the human organism and some of which have negative effects. I coined the term “symbiont conversion” for methods that convert, or reprogram, bacteria (and other cells, such as tumor cells) that have a negative effect to cells that have a positive effect. With such methods the urgent problem of antibiotic resistance could be solved. [Volko2025] This short paper is about such methods, but in a more broad context – I want to review different approaches towards the reprogramming of bacteria and not necessarily in the context of symbiont conversion, although symbiont conversion is the motivation for doing this literature survey. Basically a literature survey shows that there are two different approaches towards the reprogramming of bacteria: On the one hand, bacteria can be reprogrammed by altering their genes, for example by using bacteriophages (viruses that target bacteria) or methods like CRISPR/Cas9. These approache...
Read more

A Proof of the CTMU - Sketch

The CTMU is a theoretic model proposed by Christopher Langan. More information on it can be found at: https://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/ The core statement of the CTMU is: The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe is a language that describes itself. Another statement is: The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe is equivalent to Reality. From this follows: The universe is a language that describes itself. A language is a set of words that are generated using a set of rules called a formal grammar. A language can describe other languages - for example, English can describe French - and it can also describe itself - English can describe English. There is nothing that exists outside of the universe - everything that exists does so inside the universe. For this reason whatever describes the universe, as well as the language using which it does it, exists inside the universe. Therefore it it is legitimate to state that the universe describes itself. Since the language using which the...
Read more

Summary of "The Inappropriately Excluded"

The late Michael Wells Ferguson was the author of the article "The Inappropriately Excluded", which I consider a classic and a must-read. Many highly intelligent people dream of reaching high positions in society, such as becoming university professors or winning the Nobel Prize. Ferguson shows that professors, doctors, judges, etc. are on average not that smart and that people with far above average intelligence usually do not get into these positions. The reason is not that these people have shortcomings but that highly intelligent people are systematically discriminated against. <<In the popular culture, IQ has become a point of contention. Many people credulously accept that the eminent have very high IQs and that people of ordinary accomplishment have ordinary IQs. For example, it was widely reported that Garry Kasparov has an IQ of 190. In truth, his IQ is verified to be 135.>> <<Over an extensive range of studies and with remarkable consisten...
Read more