• Zoboomafoo@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    I don’t see what’s wrong with Musk’s tweet, other than it’s by Musk so I’m sure I’m missing some nefarious context.

    Any baby born by C-section because their head is too big will move the average up, since they aren’t dying during childbirth

    • mateomaui@reddthat.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      You mean other than being completely factually wrong?

      Brain size hasn’t been historically limited by the size of the birth canal, it doesn’t work like that, most growth takes place after birth. The fact that some children develop faster in the womb and require a c-section doesn’t make it true either.

      The context is that he’s replying to a known pusher of eugenics. It’s not completely apparent in the post Elon replied to, but if you see enough of that user’s posts it becomes apparent.

      edit: it’s also worth mentioning that sometimes a larger child is simply due to genetics from one parent. I know many very tall, large people whose mothers are very tiny, petite people. It could be considered a miracle when the birth happens naturally in those cases, but doesn’t have anything to do with the child having a larger brain. They’re just generally relatively larger than their mother.

      • Zoboomafoo@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        If brain size means nothing, then why have humans evolved larger brains over time?

        Wouldn’t the increased risk of death during birth for large heads lead to a reduction in brain size over time?

        And lastly, why are you being a dick about it?

        • mateomaui@reddthat.comOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          No one said brain size doesn’t mean anything, although there is no documented correlation between brain size and intelligence, and since we don’t use most of our brains anyway, more volume mostly equals more unused volume.

          What was said is that historically brain size wasn’t determined by the size of the birth canal, because most growth happens after birth anyway, and that’s the main functional reason for the skull to still be soft and need more protection than later. Else we would come out with fully formed brains and fully formed, hardened skulls.

          Which should be obvious to you if you compare the size of any infant’s head with any adult’s head.

          And why are you so sensitive about being asked what’s wrong with it other than it being completely factually wrong?

          • Zoboomafoo@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            Here’s your correlation.

            And you might want to double check that “don’t use most of our brains” part

            Also, I never mentioned intelligence, that was all you.

            I’ll break it down:

            Before c-sections:

            1. Head size is genetic

            2. Some babies have heads too large for birth

            3. Those babies die, and don’t pass on their genes

            Add c-section technology:

            1. Head size is genetic

            2. Some babies have heads too large for birth

            3. Those babies get c-sections and live

            4. Big head babies pass on their big head genes to the next generation

            • mateomaui@reddthat.comOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              Your add-on breakdown wasn’t necessary, you’re not informing me of anything, I already provided the relevant info in other replies.

              You didn’t mention intelligence, but that’s the only logical conclusion to draw from suggesting larger brains in our current population is an advantage or important, or “means nothing”/anything.

              If you want to get on the eugenics train, Elon is available for discussion.

              • Zoboomafoo@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                6 months ago

                You’re putting words in my mouth, I’m only talking about the Homo genus’s increase in brain size due to evolution, and how c-sections will affect that over time

                I’m not commenting on intelligence variation in Homo sapiens

                • mateomaui@reddthat.comOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  6 months ago

                  And plenty of people smarter than you have debunked the notion that the size of the birth canal historically was significant to the size of brains, since most children experience most of their size increase after being born. That more children are saved via c-sections because they’re larger from earlier development or because they’re just relatively larger than their mother isn’t statistically significant for brain size or the practical results of that increase.

                  This has been covered in other replies and it’s obvious you’re being obtuse about it, so I’m ending the conversation from my end here. Enjoy arguing with someone else about it.

    • mako@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      You not seeing what’s wrong with his tweet means that you already accepted that it was a factually true statement, which it is not. Humanity wasn’t been held down by small-brained babies until the advent of the C-section.

      Secondarily, what point do you think he’s trying to make? I’d bet that it’s about humanity being more intelligent now that these giant-brained babies have an alternative escape route. I’d bet all his ill-gained wealth that he was a C-section and he’s also bragging about how intelligent he must be. One commenter also already mentioned that Musk is replying to a eugenics-pusher.

      It’s never a good idea to read something that lacks and requires credible citation and say, “I guess that sounds right.” Intentionally or not, you often add that to some folder of “true stuff I read” in your brain and start repeating it back as fact when relevant.

      Oh, and Musk is a vile fuckwit.

      • AVincentInSpace@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        as we all know, of course, the size of one’s head is directly proportional to IQ. Intelligence is famously possible to objectively measure, especially as a single quantity, and IQ is a highly accurate, not at all pseudoscientific measurement of it. So is craniometry.

      • Zoboomafoo@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Humanity wasn’t been held down by small-brained babies until the advent of the C-section

        What in the hell are you talking about? Do you think Cephalopelvic Disproportion is a fake condition made up by Big Pharma? https://americanpregnancy.org/healthy-pregnancy/labor-and-birth/cephalopelvic-disproportion/

        You seem to think that because Musk is a bad person that he is always lying. I even said in my comment that he was likely saying that for nefarious reasons, but I’m not going to deny evolution just because someone I dislike also talks about it.

        • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          they aren’t saying this doesn’t exist, they’re saying that humanity didn’t get smarter because only dumb people didn’t get their heads stuck in the birth canal.

          Having a C section and being smart are very unlikely to be closely correlated.

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Is this him trying to bury this in the search engine results?

    In a new Musk biography by Walter Isaacson, which goes into detail about Musk’s life, his relationships, and his children, Grimes reveals that Musk took a photo of her while she was having a C-section for their baby X Æ A-Xii and circulated it without her consent.

    • mateomaui@reddthat.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      More likely just him being stupid and bringing it up in search results more due to some Streisand effect. But your theory is also entirely plausible with him.