Board Thread:News and Announcements/@comment-6493589-20150619172544/@comment-226878-20150626052006

I was referring to the instance in Search and Destroy (the only moment I witnessed small Nevermores apparently "fleeing") were probably instead preparing to dive attack Blake, but she killed them before such an assumption could be proven either way.

Christopherweeblingjr wrote:

What happened to 'A=B, B=C, but A=/=C.' Also, I didn't have to take Geometry to point out that, mathematically, A would equal C. If line A is congruent to line B, and line B is congruent to line C, then by extension, line A is congruent to line C.

I'm obviously losing something with my choice of verb. The statement "Size/Strength correlates to Age" is equivalent to A = B, while the statement "Age is correlated to Intelligence" is equivalent to B = C. Correlation does not imply causation. The older Grimm being perhaps stronger and larger is coincidence and not directly nor even implicitly causatively linked to their intelligence.

Also, I wasn't referring to the birdie Ruby hit. Nevermores roughly the same size were seen in Search and Destroy mentioned here. It can be assumed due to context that by "normal" the crew meant normal to encounter. As neither Blake nor Oobleck made any note about the surprisingly small size of the Nevermores, it can be assumed these are what people normally expect. Assuming the possibility Nevermores could actually be even smaller, it makes little difference regardless.

My quote does not prove your case. You can't prove your presumption at all, and that is exactly what it is. You read the quote as if power is a necessity to the longevity of a Grimm, but I read it as the Grimm survived in combat, learned from its experience and then grew to power by avoiding conflict.

Until such time that someone in-universe or at RT states explicitly that Size/Power = Intelligence, I suggest we go with what is known based on what has been stated. Age = Intelligence. That much we know.