The Connection between Hat Size and Intelligence - Coursework Example

The Connection Between Hat Size and Intelligence Introduction There are many definitions of intelligence. For Howard Gardner proponent of the Multiple Intelligences Theory, intelligence be defined as “the capacity to solve problems or fashion products that are valued in one or more cultural settings” (Gardner & Hatch, 1989: 5). Yet, one has to realize that this definition came only in the early 1980s. In the days of antiquity, intelligence has always been connected with a person’s ability to score high in exams of the capability to perform well in school. Using this second definition of intelligence, people were classified as “prodigies, idiot savants, autistic” (Gardner, 1983: 48) among others. While Gardner has already proven that man have different capacities for processing information, schools today continue to focus on language and locigal-mathematics as a measure of a child’s scholastic success. However, for the purpose of clarity, these capabilities which can be measured through mental test questions are now referred to as psychometric intelligences. Other intelligences mentioned by Gardner include capacities in music, visual-spatial conceptualization, bodily-kinesthetic skills, knowledge of other persons, knowledge of ourselves (Gardner, 1983: 48). Hat Sizes, Brain Sizes and Intelligence Over the years, new studies attempting to discover the origin of intelligences of have been launched, but despite these researches, our knowledge of the topic is still incomplete. From the beginning, however, intelligence has been related with the brain. In the 1500s, Greek and Roman philosophers thought that the more efficient brain had “the right amount of the four humours, blood, phlegm, and black and yellow bile” (Deary, 2001: Chapter 3). In the 19th century as technology started developing, scientists have focused on one factor to determine a person’s intelligence: the size of the brain. To measure the size of the brain, scientists used the principles of craniology to estimate the figure. “Brains were weighted after people died, skulls were filled with lead shot or other handy materials to found out how big the brain was that once resided there, and, more often, the size of the head (hat size, effectively) was measured” (Deary, 2001: Chapter 3). The idea of using hat sizes to measure brain size (hence, a person’s intelligence) came from Paul Broca who said, “the brain is larger in mature adults than in the elderly, in men than that in women, in eminent men than in men of mediocre talent… Other things equal, there is a remarkable relationship between the development of intelligence and the volume of brain” (as quoted in Gould, 1996: 33). While there have been researches that corroborated Broca’s claim, several studies have tried to disprove the connection between hat size and intelligence. In 1925, Popular Science published the article Why You May Wear a Small Hat and Still Have a Big Mind (Grahame) which attempted to compare hat sizes of famous men like President James A. Garfield, Theodore Roosevelt, etc. to those of the common American. Through the simple comparison, the article concluded that there is no connection between the hat size (hence, the size of the brain) and intelligence. To quote, “There seems to be a closer connection between the size of a man’s body and the size of his brain than there is between the size of his brain and the power of his mind” (Grahame, 1925: 16). While Arthur Grahame’s article has shown early on that a person’s hat size cannot be used to measure his intellect, his claims were not readily accepted because he did not use statistical analysis to prove his point. H.T. Epstein utilized data on the head circumferences of white Bostonians and their vocational status to show that there is no correlation between these two variables. Research Goal, Problem Statement and Hypothesis The main research question for this paper is: Does a person’s head circumference determines his or her vocational status? Null hypothesis is H0= mean head circumference of the different groups are equal to each other. Epstein’s original table is reproduced in table 1 below. Table 1: Mean and Standard Deviation (in mm) of Head Circumference for People of Various Vocational Status VOCATIONAL STATUS N MEAN SD Professional 25 569.9 1.9 Semiprofessional 61 566.5 1.5 Clerical 107 566.2 1.1 Trades 194 565.7 0.8 Public Service 25 564.1 2.5 Skilled Trades 351 562.9 0.6 Personal Services 262 562.7 0.7 Laborers 647 560.7 0.3 Vocational status in this study is regarded as a measure of a person’s intellectual capacity. When a person is intelligent, the assumption is that he or she can gain better employment opportunities. By looking at the descriptive statistics from table 1, one can say that Broca’s claim that hat size and a person’s intellectual capacity are related. Yet, one question arises, what kind of relationship do these two variables have? Through the one-way ANOVA, one can get a better understanding of the statistics shown here. Instructions for this paper notes that the column labeled SD in table 1 is not really the standard deviation but rather the standard error. Hence, there is a need to recomputed the ANOVA table. Moreover, it is important to discover the variance and standard deviation for the table above to see how each subject in a group compares to the other. Meanwhile, the new ANOVA table can discover how one group compares with the others and the Tukey Kramer’s Procedure allows the researcher to discover which of the groups differ from each other. Because only the sample means are available for recomputation, the researcher has to result to calculator work to compute the variance and standard deviation. To compute the ANOVA table, the researcher utilized an online service (http://statpages.org/anova1sm.html). Tukey’s Honesty Significant Difference (HSD) was also computed manually. Discussion and Analysis Computing for Standard Deviation and Variance The standard deviation utilized for table 1 above is actually the standard deviation (SD) of the means. For the purpose of clarity the SD column in table 1 will be relabeled as SE. Because only the summary data was available, standard deviation cannot be computed directly, hence, the researcher computed for variance first. To compute for SD, we assume that SD = σ2. Because the only known values are σM and N, the following formula was tweaked where σM = standard error of the mean σ = standard deviation of the original distribution N = sample size The formula used for variance is now: and SD = Table 2 below is an expanded version of table 1. It shows the huge discrepancy in the variance and SD among the respondents, hence, one can already doubt the connection between head circumference and vocational status. With SD at 10, one can say that the variance of head circumferences in the group is huge, hence the reliability of hat size as a measure of intelligence can be doubted. If the SD and variance already provides an insight into the connection between the variables, ANOVA is able to determine whether or not the head circumference means of different vocational status are different from each other. Table 2: Vocational Status, Population, Mean Head Circumference, Variance and SD VOCATIONAL STATUS POPULATION MEAN SE VARIANCE SD (1) professional 25 569.9 1.9 1187.50 34.46 (2) semiprofessional 61 566.5 1.5 5581.50 74.71 (3) Clerical 107 566.2 1.1 12593.90 112.22 (4) Trades 194 565.7 0.8 30108.80 173.52 (5) public service 25 564.1 2.5 1562.50 39.53 (6) skilled trades 351 562.9 0.6 73920.60 271.88 (7) personal services 262 562.7 0.7 48050.80 219.20 (8) Laborers 647 560.7 0.3 125582.70 354.38 Computing For the F-Test Statistic Table 3 below shows a recomputed ANOVA table using the original SD column and as the standard error. From table 3 below, one can already see that F (7,1664) = 11.1833, p Read More