-5 points

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

permalink
report
reply
26 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-12 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Well played sir.

permalink
report
parent
reply
25 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points
*

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?

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points
*

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?

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

My brother is a 6ft+ white man who married a Mexican woman that’s barely 5ft tall. She wanted to do a natural birth for her first son, but he was over 9lbs and was actually tearing her apart. The pain killers weren’t working, she had a bunch of infections, they had to take a vacuum to get him out and she didn’t get better for at least a year.

She had another two sons with him, the second was 9.6 lbs. The third was 8lbs. They were both c-cection because she wasn’t going to go through natural births again.

(And yes, all 3 boys are much taller than their peers, they all inherited my brother’s tall gene the oldest is about 15 now and nearing 6ft)

They are normal kids despite their sizes.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

One of my best friends in college towered over me and his mom barely came up to my chin. His dad wasn’t even a tall guy either, he just inherited some recessive genes or something. It was a pretty usual thing for him and his mom to be standing side by side and she’d say something out loud like “I have no idea how you ever came out of me.”

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Also, our heads are still able to squish together as babies, the bones only solidifying after birth, precisely to get past the birth canal.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points
*

Yes, the soft cranial plates and sutures specifically allow for it, which unfortunately can result in brain damage if forceps are used to pull a larger kid out. I know of at least one case where a child never spoke until they eventually got treatments from a craniosacral therapist, and one day just straight asked for a glass of water to the total shock of the parents. They had been learning things normally, but cranial pressure affected the area responsible for speech. Which is one reason why we should be thankful c-sections are a safe option, instead of some conservatives saying people who get them aren’t technically mothers.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

Also, brain volume mostly doesn’t correlate to intelligence

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

True, pointed out here

https://reddthat.com/comment/6116928

it’s been a scattered thread

permalink
report
parent
reply
27 points

I get vibes of racist and debunked phrenology.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

The problem with his tweet is that he isn’t talking about statistics. He’s pretty much saying women should get heavy c-sections so that babies would be “smarter”.

Call me a skeptic but I very much doubt it would have a significant impact on intelligence. Better public education would probably have a much bigger impact than women having c-sections.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

Phrenology again?

permalink
report
reply
13 points
*

My god, who let him have the controls?

permalink
report
reply
26 points

That was a trainwreck to read. In slow motion.

permalink
report
reply
1 point

Who is Linda Yaccarino?

permalink
report
reply

People Twitter

!whitepeopletwitter@sh.itjust.works

Create post

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a tweet or similar
  4. No bullying.
  5. Be excellent to each other.

Community stats

  • 9.2K

    Monthly active users

  • 819

    Posts

  • 38K

    Comments