>[...] reported that some normal adults, apparently cured of childhood hydrocephaly, had no more than 5 % of the volume of normal brain tissue [...]
Can somebody explain this?
Were that saying that we only use 10% of our brains right in a way after all?
Or is there something off with the measurements or their interpretations? Does it mean we have a lot more capacity if some can function well and have 100+ IQ with such small volumes of brain?
>Dr Lorber systematically studied hydrocephalus and documented over 600 scans of people with this condition. He divided them into four groups: people with nearly normal brains; those with between 50 per cent and 70 per cent of the cranium filled with fluid; those with 70 per cent to 90 per cent of the cranium filled with fluid; those with 95 per cent of the cranium filled with fluid. The latter group constituted less than 10 per cent of the study and half of these people were profoundly mentally disabled. However, the other half had IQs over 100.
Can't post the sources here so you need to DuckDuckGo them.
Can somebody explain this?
Were that saying that we only use 10% of our brains right in a way after all?
Or is there something off with the measurements or their interpretations? Does it mean we have a lot more capacity if some can function well and have 100+ IQ with such small volumes of brain?
>Dr Lorber systematically studied hydrocephalus and documented over 600 scans of people with this condition. He divided them into four groups: people with nearly normal brains; those with between 50 per cent and 70 per cent of the cranium filled with fluid; those with 70 per cent to 90 per cent of the cranium filled with fluid; those with 95 per cent of the cranium filled with fluid. The latter group constituted less than 10 per cent of the study and half of these people were profoundly mentally disabled. However, the other half had IQs over 100.
Can't post the sources here so you need to DuckDuckGo them.
