Talk:Brain of Albert Einstein

message: Einstein had requested that his brain be donated to science after his death in 1955
I seem to distictly recall that Einstein's brain was removed against his wishes, but then again my memory might be failing me. So, can anyone point me to a source that supports the above claim? -- Koffieyahoo 07:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can search The Bizarre Odyssey of Einstein's Brain  on Amazon. From page 211 "Before haning up, (Otto) Nathan repeated what he had said to the Kansas City Times four years earlier: "Albert Einstein did not want his brain studied." Nathan knew that Einstein had never been so unequivocal himself. A few months before his death the physicist had written to biographer Carl Seelig that he liked the idea of donating his body to science, but he left no instructions on the matter since he feared it would be a "theatrical gesture." --Broom eater 08:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The article follows the information claimed by Steven Levy  that the brain was rediscovered by Levy in 1978. Other articles on his brain (look at the others linked at the bottom) do not mention this. Also, the various articles seem to indicate the brain is in pieces, which doesn't fit very well with the photograph of it. 
Barbara Shack 16:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I recall correctly (Ahem). the following book, although being a quote book contains some info on Einstein's brain: . -- Koffieyahoo 08:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Accuracy?

message: Here's another thing, it says in the article that he had an "enlarged Sylvian fissure" but two sentences later it claims that his "Lateral sulcus" (Another name for the Sylvian fissure, as noted in the article) is completely missing.  Clearly, a part of his brain cannot be both larger than normal and missing altogether.  If these are actually referring to different regions, it needs to be clarified.Scipio Carthage (talk) 14:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I came to the talk page to see if anyone else had brought this up.  There's another contradiction to this effect in the caption for the photo next to the paragraph you mentioned where it says his Sylvian Fissure was "truncated".  This definitely needs to be cleared up. --184.186.197.37 (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Direct Contradiction - Needs clarification

message: Wouldn't organic matter put in a cider box for twenty years dissolve? Can we at least source this, since it looks dubious as-is, and I'm probably not the only reader to raise an eyebrow. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 08:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the linked articles mentions that the brain was (sectioned) in two Mason Jars, the jars being hidden inside the cider box.: Stovaa
Barbara Shack 16:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Even if we could find the information, it's probably not relevant to this article. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Umm?

message: can anyone substantiate that the functions of this part of the lobe are indeed understood and or known? AFAIK there is little understanding of the functions much less agreement amongst specialists so the bit in this article seems a wee bitty wishful thinking IMHO.
--Hurkummer 13:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: inferior parietal lobe

message: There seem to be a number of different accounts floating around. Here is some brief sluething I did in some more respectable sources.
*The finding of the brain in 1978 by Levy is somewhat corroborated by an article from the time period: "Brain that Rocked Physics Rests in Cider Box", Science, New Series, Vol. 201, No. 4357. (Aug. 25, 1978), p. 696. Seems to be based off of Levy's account primarily, but at least it's some evidence that he's not just a quack. It says that brain was in number of mason jars in a cider box. The brain was indeed sectioned by not completely, "the parts of Einstein's brain which remain unsectioned are the cerebellum and a piece of the cerebral cortex." Additionally it doesn't say what the sectioning was -- if it was just sliced in half, there's no reason the pictures couldn't be of it. 
*Here is the bit on Einstein's brain from Ronald Clark's biography: "He had insisted that his brain should be used for research and that he be cremated." True? Not? In any event, it is a respectable source to quote, even if we also quote people saying something contradictory. --Fastfission 18:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some things

message: The section titled "Possible experiments" was removed; this entire sections is speculation and in no way relates to the factual information regarding Einstein's brain. This sections is also a violation of Wikipedia:No original research. Semiconscious • talk 21:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section removed

message: The article mentions someone named, "Altman" but it doesn't say who that person is. It doesn't even provide a first name. --Moogleii 08:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name clarification

message: :"... and apparent regularities or irregularities in the brain have been used to either prove or disprove various notions about correlations in neuroanatomy with general or mathematical intelligence."
Since when is anything proven or disproven in science?  Wonderstruck 07:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scratching my head... Since the invention of science you come up with a hypothesis and thry to prove or to disprove it by means of experiment? -- Koffieyahoo 07:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that you try to 'support' or 'refute' a hypothesis. -- Wonderstruck 06:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, we are doing a most correct language thing. Yes, to 'support' or 'refute' is probably more correct. Unless you're doing mathematics then it's perfectly okay to either prove or disprove. -- Koffieyahoo 08:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've updated the page, changing "prove or disprove various notions" to "support or refute various ideas". Wonderstruck 10:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've updated the page again, changing it to just "support various ideas", since refuting (more accurately, contradicting) an idea is the same as supporting the negative of the idea.  This way, it's less wordy and still conveys the important information. Wonderstruck 10:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Prove or disprove"... unscientific? (Resolved) 

message: The intro and an image caption briefly mention the brain was rediscovered in 1978, but there's nothing in the body about either the "loss" of the brain or its subsequent finding.  What happened? Pimlottc 21:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lost & Found 

message: I resent the claim that Einstein was speculated to have been autistic. This is inaccurate; he is speculated to have had Asperger's Syndrome. There is a difference. One is a disability, the other is not necessarily. Research these kinds of statements for god's sake, this is so inaccurate as to be offensive. Belueberry 00:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. Looie496 (talk) 05:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autism 

message: There is no reason to claim that Einstein had trouble with mathematics. The Albert Einstein article contradicts that. Netuser500 00:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I replaced it with a comment referencing Einstein's apparantly having Asperger's Syndrome. However I don't have a source. Anybody else care to source it for me? RadoxRedux
===============================
A quote attributed to Einstein goes like this, "These thoughts did not come in any verbal formulation. I rarely think in words at all. A thought comes, and I may try to express it in words afterward." I'm thinking this may have something to do with his operculum being malformed. The operculum contains Broca's area - important for language.. This might have been an advantage for him, as for most of us words come in the way of thinking..  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.207.3 (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dyslexia 

message: A quote attributed to Einstein goes like this, "These thoughts did not come in any verbal formulation. I rarely think in words at all. A thought comes, and I may try to express it in words afterward." I'm thinking this may have something to do with his operculum being malformed. The operculum contains Broca's area - important for language.. This might have been an advantage for him, as for most of us words come in the way of thinking..  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.207.3 (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: ===================

message: The link to "truncated" on the 3rd picture does not seem to be relevant. It links to a mathematical procedure.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.193.218.30 (talk) 13:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truncated 

message: Cubic millimeters is a very uncommon measurement of volume.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.41.148.101 (talk) 02:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, divide by mm^2 by 1000 to get cm^2.  Rklawton (talk) 14:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone convert the cubic millimeters into cubic centimeters?  Isn't it divide by 1,000? 

message: This page isn't well-cited.  I would appreciate it if someone with some expertise in this topic would look at http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(98)10327-6/fulltext in particular as it's the important 1999 study and doesn't seem to be properly cited. Fixentries (talk) 09:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Also several of the citations are dead links.  Really needs to be cleaned up before someone decides something in the article isn't true because it isn't cited. Fixentries (talk) 09:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  1999 study and citations 

message: look at modern mris of brains --- you can see the clear difference
einstein's brain as shown in the photos is unusually wide and flat,
perhaps some flattening occurred during preservation. but the lateral
sylvian fissure goes way up on the right side and is pointed out in
the photos with arrows.
most particularly, the article contains errors---the difference is not in the frontal lobe,
it is in the parietal lobe. well, there are frontal differences too, probably.
or is the original caption to the photo in error?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.159.191 (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  some clarifications 

message: See subject.
Shlishke (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I've added a reference to the article. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  New photos, article in _Brain_ to appear today 

message: This edit says that "no parietal operculum" is disputed in http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/11/14/brain.aws295.abstract%29, and that reference does says "Contrary to the literature, Einstein’s brain ... does not lack parietal opercula".
The article needs to be updated. Initially I thought that:
* "the Oxford Journal" should be replaced with the journal's name Brain
* the inline URL should be wrapped in ref tags
but the wording of the Brain article doesn't actually say that Harvey's findings were disputed - it's possible that Harvey didn't make that observation at all and that statement should be removed from our article. The ref for that paragraph  doesn't mention "parietal opercula" at all. I'm not a subject matter expert, so I'd like a few other opinions before I change it. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The source for that BBC story, , does state:  "In Einstein's brain, the parietal operculum was missing in each hemisphere".  Academic publications often avoid explicitly saying that they have refuted an earlier claim, so I don't think the lack of specific wording is a problem.  In my opinion, you can go ahead and make the change. Looie496 (talk) 15:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "no parietal operculum" disputed 

message: This article doesn’t even mention Dr. Elliot Krauss the chief pathologist at Princeton at plainsboro that has been in possession of the brain for years. 2601:18E:C101:BD00:602B:CF05:850F:4617 (talk) 21:14, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of brain now 

message: I have a question whos answer I couldn't find here:
Did Einstein consent to this procedure? If not, how could they legally do it? --Slow Phil (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It is covered in the article.  cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consent?