• mvirts@lemmy.world
    144·
    11 months ago

    Fysa, humans are born with moveable skull plates to accommodate brain growth and development after birth. You learn a lot being an active participant in parenting children.

    Also brain size correlates weakly with intelligence scores, but is not a major factor.

    • mutant_zz@lemmy.world
      35·
      11 months ago

      Obsessing over brain size and the hip width of women is a big eugenics / white supremacist thing… the kind of thing the nazis were really into… what a surprise to see Musk spouting this kind of bullshit

    • mateomaui@reddthat.comOPEnglish
      26·
      11 months ago

      To be clear, Elon is the idiot in that regard here, and the person he’s replying to, not myself. I understand that perfectly well. If you’re providing this info to the bigots on lemmy at large, good on you then.

      And it’s not so much “moveable bones” as it is bones that are still soft and connected by soft fascial sutures called fontanels that harden over time, most likely to make birth easier and to accommodate significant growth for the first stages.

    • undeffeined@lemmy.ml
      24·
      11 months ago

      You learn a lot being an active participant in parenting children.

      There’s the issue, like with most of his ventures, Elon outsources all the actual work.

    • Scubus@sh.itjust.works
      3·
      11 months ago

      From my understanding, the ratio of brain size to body size is a much better way of getting a general estimate for intelligence.

  • SomeonePrime@lemmy.world
    43·
    11 months ago

    Wow, at least it’s better than the “people who had c-sections never gave birth so are not mothers” belief. Still a ridiculous belief, though.

    • mateomaui@reddthat.comOPEnglish
      20·
      11 months ago

      … what?

      That’s actually an argument circulating around out there? Just when I thought the debate couldn’t get any lower.

      • SomeonePrime@lemmy.world
        7·
        11 months ago

        Yeah, as per usual it’s hard to tell when people are just trolling or if it’s just completely made up, but I’ve seen it from screenshots of some particularly deranged “moms only” Facebook groups.

        • mateomaui@reddthat.comOPEnglish
          5·
          11 months ago

          All I can do is shake my head at it. Someone carries a child to term, and opts for a manner of birth that was probably safer for their situation, and so the conservative party of family values decides they aren’t technically a mother. That is as dumb and insulting as it can get.

      • Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world
        3·
        11 months ago

        Yeah this is something that has been circulating right wing women’s groups, conservative mom fora, trad wife fora, trad/conservative family channels on YT, etc.

          • Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world
            2·
            11 months ago

            Yeah, cesarean birth has been around a long time. Our first real records of it being performed successfully to today’s standards, both mother and child survive, came form the 1500s. Since then various different places, and cultures, have had different views on it. This one being on that floated with others.

    • CallumWells@lemmy.mlEnglish
      10·
      11 months ago

      C-section babies can say they were considered important enough to be extracted. (with implications to covert operations)

    • yata@sh.itjust.works
      9·
      11 months ago

      Not sure if it is actually better. They both seem to be equally horrible and incredibly stupid takes to me.

      • SomeonePrime@lemmy.world
        4·
        11 months ago

        Hehe, perhaps. To me one seems to have more malice in it than the other, but I could just need some time to really warm up to despising Musk’s statement equally.

  • Blackmist@feddit.ukEnglish
    24·
    11 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.comOPEnglish
      9·
      11 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.

  • Zoboomafoo@slrpnk.net
    15·
    11 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

    • mako@lemmy.today
      30·
      11 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.socialEnglish
        25·
        11 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
        4·
        11 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
          22·
          11 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.

          • Kidplayer_666@lemm.ee
            1·
            11 months ago

            I mean, my feeling is that this was a shower thought of sorts. It kinda works on a very limited sense, but it is unlikely to be really relevant

    • mateomaui@reddthat.comOPEnglish
      26·
      11 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.

      • Sacha@lemmy.world
        9·
        11 months ago

        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.

        • mateomaui@reddthat.comOPEnglish
          5·
          11 months ago

          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.”

      • CitizenKong@lemmy.world
        8·
        11 months ago

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

        • mateomaui@reddthat.comOPEnglish
          8·
          11 months ago

          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.

      • Zoboomafoo@slrpnk.net
        3·
        11 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.comOPEnglish
          7·
          11 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
            1·
            11 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.comOPEnglish
              7·
              11 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
                1·
                11 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.comOPEnglish
                  10·
                  11 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.

            • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
              5·
              11 months ago

              Whales and dolphins have larger brains than humans. Correlation rejected.

              Musk mentioned intelligence. That’s the current topic of conversation.

              • Zoboomafoo@slrpnk.net
                1·
                11 months ago

                I was talking about in primates, why are you talking about dolphins?

                Wait, are you calling dolphins dumb?

            • mateomaui@reddthat.comOPEnglish
              4·
              11 months ago

              Correlation within the current human species only, there was development other than just size from ancient history that you aren’t accounting for.

              If you’re talking about the 10% myth, I wasn’t referring to that, but there are documented cases including at least one person missing most of their brain from a long-term condition where the brain filled with fluid, leaving a thin perimeter of brain matter, and they were otherwise still fully functional except for weakness in one leg. A total mystery, and provided proof that the brain can rewire itself and doesn’t need most of its volume to function correctly, and suggested evidence that the brain uses what’s needed, but that most of it isn’t required.

              edit:

              https://qz.com/722614/a-civil-servant-missing-most-of-his-brain-challenges-our-most-basic-theories-of-consciousness

              Note that while it does say he was of below average intelligence but not mentally disabled, that’s not the point. The point in me providing this here is that losing most of his brain over time didn’t affect the intelligence he naturally had, or affect other brain function, so he was fully functioning and normal as far as anyone was concerned until he went to check what was going on with his leg. Providing proof that most of the brain probably isn’t needed, and possibly redundant to compensate for loss.

              • Remmock@kbin.social
                1·
                11 months ago

                A single case is not proof and you should know this. It’s an outlier. A substantial majority of people with brain damage have affected function in some form or another. If you can show a statistically significant number of cases I may consider your evidence.

                More specifically to your example, they showed an impact to their functioning. In addition a neurosurgeon commented: “The patient was not missing brain, but because the skull is a fixed volume, it cannot expand to accommodate increased pressures so the brain instead gets pushed outwards by the fluid and compressed.”

                • mateomaui@reddthat.comOPEnglish
                  2·
                  11 months ago

                  A single case is not proof and you should know this. It’s an outlier. A substantial majority of people with brain damage have affected function in some form or another.

                  No shit, not sure what part of “documented cases including at least one person” you didn’t understand, but I only provided the most extreme example. Further, most people with brain damage didn’t experienced it from a condition that slowly happened over time where the brain could adapt. Most happen from malformation where the brain was never in a healthy state to begin with, or from immediate traumatic injury where it wouldn’t have had the time to adapt to it, and nobody expects that it would.

                  Also, I said “provided proof that the brain can rewire itself”, not that it will. There is a difference between what I said and your interpretation of my statement.

                  More specifically to your example, they showed an impact to their functioning.

                  Other than the leg symptoms, not according to the article I linked:

                  In theory, the frontal, parietal, temporal, and occipital lobes in the brain control motion, sensibility, language, vision, audition, and emotional and cognitive functions. But those these regions were all reduced in the Frenchman. He did not, however, suffer significant mental effects, suggesting that, if an injury occurs slowly over time, the brain can adapt to survive despite major damage in these regions.

                  It says the regions of the brain were reduced, but not his function, feel free to quote the exact phrases that say otherwise in significant fashion where he didn’t present as normal other than the leg issue.

                  or from the Lancet article:

                  https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(07)61127-1/fulltext

                  The leg weakness improved partly after neuroendoscopic ventriculocisternostomy, but soon recurred; however, after a ventriculoperitoneal shunt was inserted, the findings on neurological examination became normal within a few weeks. The findings on neuropsychological testing and CT did not change.

                  Which addresses the leg symptoms improving, and that his relatively normal neuropsychological results didn’t change.

                  From you:

                  In addition a neurosurgeon commented: “The patient was not missing brain, but because the skull is a fixed volume, it cannot expand to accommodate increased pressures so the brain instead gets pushed outwards by the fluid and compressed.”

                  This quote does not appear to be found in the original article or any that are linked from it, but regardless his brain was severely impacted as you can see from the brain images in the Lancet entry, yet he had no significant effects from it. Whether the brain was missing or quished into an tiny area makes no difference at all, he should have had severe symptoms but didn’t.

                  If you can show a statistically significant number of cases I may consider your evidence.

                  Fuck off. I don’t care if you’re willing to consider anything, I’m not writing a dissertation here. I’m not going to go around and build a portfolio to make you happy. Go try being amazed at something that the best neuroscientists don’t understand.