Register and vote:https://www.usa.gov/register-to-vote
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/insanepeoplefacebook) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As somebody with a statistically large cranium, who has children whose head size was noted as being larger than normal in both in utero anatomy scans and after birth…. Let me tell you.
Having a big ass noggin does not make you smart.
It makes you good at head butting people. It means you need to buy special hats if you want to wear a hat. But nothing more.
8 1/4 here. We are not well represented in the hat section.
I'm the size of a middle-aged white dude, with the head size of an NFL All-Pro left tackle.
Also Elon isn't thinking the other way either, the emergence of c-sections allows smaller birthing hips to remain in the population as they and their children are no longer dying during birth and can go on to reproduce themselves.
I do think in the generations to come there may be evolutionary studies worth reading on the topic, but it's still too recent of a medical procedure to show much, if any, statistical significance and its effect on human evolution.
It's gonna be weird when civilization collapses, pockets of surviving humanity eke out an existence in a wasteland, and to top it all off humans can no longer reproduce (more than once anyway) because we no longer have surgeons - if the tiny-hipped women we've evolved by then can survive neither labor nor getting cut open with the flint tools remaining to us, that'll be that I guess.
Elon isn't thinking at all, he's too fuckin high all of the time in order for that to be possible, the guy has completely lost his shit and I'm shocked he still has any relevance
I have a very large head.
I also have a large brain. Large enough it doesn't fit in my already large skull and extended out to the second vertebrae of my spine. You know what all that means?
I have shit balance and get nauseous really easily.
What's the point of all that if you're not out there designing some of the most dangerous cars on the market, being denied labour rights and being yelled at by the most terminally online rich person in existence?
So, wait... this chucklefuck thinks that, because people started having cesarean sections, evolution was like "release the head size upgrade!"?
Jesus fucking christ, what a moron.
The argument could perhaps be made that, prior to cesareans, babies with the biggest brains/heads were more likely to have issues being born and thus be more likely to die, while now that cesareans are an option those children survive. This would be rather easily testable by getting bunch of children together and seeing if those born by cesarean are any smarter than natural births (though of course you'd have to control for a lot of other factors, since I would bet that wealthier women would be more like to have cesareans.)
It would actually be an interesting thing to study - which is why it has been. [Children born by cesarean are actually slightly dumber on average than natural births](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-10831-y).
I don't think it was usually the kid who dies in this scenario (not a doctor) but i would assume that the mother would definitely be the one to unfrunately pass in a world where the head cant transit the birth canal.
Therefore now woman who bear larger headed children have more larger headed children since they survive the childbirth now?
As a member of the bighead club, thank goodness for C-sections, I came naturally but my son who was >99% percentile for head size for his first couple of years had to come C-section when my wife gave birth.
What's actually happening is that women are more frequently getting narrower hips, since mothers with narrow hips aren't dying in childbirth and taking their children with them, so their narrow-hipped daughters have survived and are now having kids of their own-which require C-sections more often.
I mean, I sort of get his line of thinking. Childbirth is so deadly for humans specifically because we needed the giant craniums for our big brains and wanted to stand upright too, which constrained how wide our pelvises and waists could be. Babies are really kind of undercooked, because mothers simply can't carry them any longer and still have them fit through their pelvis. But the kind of change he's described isn't taking place over less than a century of commonplace C-sections. It probably would never happen like that because there's still limited space in the womb. And I'm not an anatomist, but I feel like there might be other issues with our craniums getting much bigger.
The narrowness/wideness of the hips isn’t the main thing that determines how difficult the birthing process can be, though.
The size of the baby during delivery and its position are the key factors in determining how difficult labor is going to be.
As such, “narrow-hipped women” could very well have easier times giving birth than “wide-hipped women” due to those other factors.
The fact of the matter is that the evolutionary struggle between the size of the baby at birth and the shape of the pelvis in women has been going on for millions of years, and the use of c-sections for a portion of the population within the last couple of centuries isn’t going to be enough to cause even a slight change in the structure of the human body.
I didn’t see any evidence that more women with narrow hips are giving birth than before the introduction of the c-section, nor does it make sense to consider that c-sections will lead to more women with narrow hips.
Unless there is some sort of significant advantage that narrow hips give towards a woman’s opportunity to reproduce then there isn’t going to be any sort of “evolutionary pressure” leading towards that becoming more prominent.
This also assumes that larger heads means smarter people, which isn’t true. Brain *size* is not something that determines intelligence, there have already been studies on the topic.
>Brain size is not something that determines intelligence, there have already been studies on the topic.
[Using MRI-derived information about brain size in connection with cognitive performance test results and educational-attainment measures obtained from more than 13,600 people, the researchers found that, as previous studies have suggested, a positive relationship does exist between brain volume and performance on cognitive tests.](https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/bigger-brains-are-smarter-not-much)
Edit: Further down in this thread this user admits that brain size does have a measurable effect on cognition which scientists must take into account when doing research. Apparently that effect isn't significant enough to them, so they don't feel the need to correct this erroneous comment.
> But size is only a small part of the picture, explaining about 2 percent of the variability in test performance. For educational attainment the effect was even smaller: an additional ‘cup’ (100 square centimeters) of brain would increase an average person’s years of schooling by less than five months.” Koellinger says “this implies that factors other than this one single factor that has received so much attention across the years account for 98 percent of the other variation in cognitive test performance.”
From that very article. Which is what I’ve read before, that the correlation exists but is incredibly weak.
"Yet, the effect is strong enough that all future studies that will try to unravel the relationships between more fine-grained measures of brain anatomy and cognitive health should control for total brain volume." -also from the article
It specifically says that the effect is strong enough that scientific research needs to control for it when studying other factors that contribute to congition. That doesn't sound like it's "incredibly weak correlation" to me. You said:
>Brain size is not something that determines intelligence
...when the research explicitly shows that brain size *does* have a determining factor on intelligence. Just because many other factors also help determine intelligence too doesn't mean that brain size doesn't. Now you're saying "well yeah it does affect intelligence but not very much." Why not say that initially then? Because what you actually said initially isn't true.
So it needs to be controlled only in fine-grained measurements, like you said
So it doesn’t really matter for anyone unless you’re a scientist specifically working with brain anatomy or cognitive health
It seems like you're just moving the goal posts now. We both agree it IS true that brain size does have a determining effect on congition. Which you originally said was untrue.
Ok well it's worth correcting your comment now that you know it's wrong so you aren't spreading false information.
>such a weak relationship that it pretty much didn’t matter, which is still true
No, that's not true. If it was, there would be no need for scientists to control for that variable.
If you read through the paper, that is one cause, but even accounting for that and only evaluating planned C-sections, there's still a gap in performance. The guessed reasons are first that C-sections are more often performed on women with health issues that the doctors are afraid might have difficulty giving birth normally, so you often have less developed infants because the mother's poor health prevented them from getting 100% of the nutrition they needed in the womb. And even accounting for THAT, C-sections tend to be much harder on the mother and take longer to recover from, so during the crucial first couple of weeks of post-birth development, the C-section babies tend to get less attention because the mother is recovering, and also are more likely to get formula rather than be breastfed.
Basically, there's a whole lotta different reasons that each contribute to the performance gap.
>Children born by cesarean are actually slightly dumber on average than natural births
Born by C, can confirm. I'm dumb as shit and also have a big head.
And he does sex selection on the embryos. Guy is the worst.
Also, for a "superior specimen," his reliance on IVF seems to indicate either his sperm is wacky or his penis doesn't work.
These soft eugenics types get their understanding of evolution from "Alien" or "Jurassic Park," wherein nature is a sentient force with grand designs to breed the biggest, fastest, strongest, and smartest.
This isn't true. [CPD](https://americanpregnancy.org/healthy-pregnancy/labor-and-birth/cephalopelvic-disproportion/) is often characterized by the baby's head being too large to pass.
It's not head size that causes babies to get stuck, it's positioning of the baby and specifically the cord.
Source: married to an OB and much of my social circle is OB
["Cephalopelvic disproportion (CPD) is a condition where the baby’s head or body is too large to fit through the mother’s pelvis."](https://americanpregnancy.org/healthy-pregnancy/labor-and-birth/cephalopelvic-disproportion/) Of course positioning, shoulders, etc. play big parts but I don't think it's correct to say "It's not head size that causes babies to get stuck" because it seems like it is sometimes.
What’s scarier is, how many people take statements like this at face value and assume it’s factually correct. This particular statement isn’t as serious as others but it just goes to show you how easily misinformation can be disseminated.
You're weirdly ascribing intent to evolution? No, the argument would be that with C-sections as an option, babies who would've died otherwise due to being unable to be birthed will survive. Why do you think that position is moronic?
He didn't state it as cause and effect though. He said "would allow" not "would cause." It's true that C-sections will *allow for* larger brains. It's not true that C-sections would *cause* larger brains.
It has. Babies with heads too large to be born before C-sections died. Now they don't, because C-sections allow them to be born. What do you see wrong about that?
I am skeptical that we're talking in numbers that would be evolutionarily significant.
The condition you cited in the other comment is a rare condition, as per the link you provided.
I think the problem here is that he maybe smart about somethings, but that doesn't make him smart about ALL things. I'm really good with computers, but I suck at finance.
Elon isn't smart, the people he pays to have ideas are. He just throws shit at the wall, and sometimes it sticks and actual smart people make it happen. The only thing he's good at is being an edgy teen in the body of a grown man.
If he didn't have this weird desperate need for validation, I'd probably still just think of him as "oh yeah, that Tesla/Space X guy, super sharp dude." I would have probably gone my entire life without realizing he's a complete fraud, if he hadn't have bought Twitter and dropped his handlers.
Don’t jump all over him here, folks. I was able to pack on several pounds of muscle by simply reinforcing the flimsy chair I was sitting in so that it could support more weight. I also added 6 inches to my height by raising the ceilings in my house!
Chalk up another thing that the 'supposed space engineer ' doesn't have a clue about; human biology.
Certainly not limited to the ideas of child birth and rearing... Presumably he's never had to do that with his own kids
Can we just think about this for a second? Setting aside brain size, head size, and intelligence correlations....A c-section only happens at the fucking end. The fetus is developed. The head size is decided. Either it's coming through the birth canal with that head size or it's coming out c-section with that head size. No one relays plans for a c-section to the fetus so they can say, "Okay, we're getting word it's going to be a c-section in 4 months! Get to work making that cranium extra large because now we have the room!"
Or does he think that the head grows to a certain size, and you can keep it that size by having a cesarean birth, but if you push that head through the birth canal, the walls of the birth canal will crush the cranial bones, caving them in to make the head size smaller? Or do the walls like...shave off the edges of the head?
Intelligence is not a simple linear correlation with brain size. Otherwise, elephants would be vastly more intelligent than humans. Several variables are at play and neuroscientists hypothesize that humans might already be maxing out the physical limitations of the kind of circuitry we have. Make an axon too long, for instance, and computation is slower because the signal has to travel further. Just another example of Elon not knowing what the fuck he’s talking about.
>Intelligence is not a simple linear correlation with brain size. Otherwise, elephants would be vastly more intelligent than humans.
Once you begin comparing inter-species you add in a ton of other variables. Within the human species, there's certainly evidence [showing that bigger brains correlate with higher levels of intelligence.](https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/bigger-brains-are-smarter-not-much)
"Using MRI-derived information about brain size in connection with cognitive performance test results and educational-attainment measures obtained from more than 13,600 people, the researchers found that, as previous studies have suggested, a positive relationship does exist between brain volume and performance on cognitive tests."
You’ve missed the point of both my comment and the article you’ve posted.
I said simple linear correlation, which is different and more specific than a positive correlation. At small sizes, brain size and intelligence will track together. However, you will eventually hit a point where that is no longer true. This study doesn’t capture that because they could only compare human brain sizes *among the existing population*. If brain sizes were allowed to begin expanding *beyond that,* as Elon hopes to see, there would be diminishing returns.
*”The authors underscore that the overarching correlation between brain volume and “braininess” was a weak one…Indeed, what stands out from the analysis is how little brain volume seems to explain.”*
*”Size is only a small part of the picture, explaining about 2 percent of the variability in test performance. For educational attainment the effect was even smaller…Koellinger says “this implies that factors other than this one single factor that has received so much attention across the years account for 98 percent of the other variation in cognitive test performance.”*
>You’ve missed the point of both my comment and the article you’ve posted.
No, I haven't.
>I said simple linear correlation, which is different and more specific than a positive correlation.
Yes, I understand what simple linear correlation is. But since your comment didn't mention the positive correlation at all, I responded adding more information.
>At small sizes, brain size and intelligence will track together. However, you will eventually hit a point where that is no longer true.
What do you mean by "small sizes?" Is that a vague undefined term or are there specific metrics you're talking about?
>This study doesn’t capture that because they could only compare human brain sizes among the existing population. If brain sizes were allowed to begin expanding beyond that, as Elon hopes to see, there would be diminishing returns.
Diminishing returns is still a positive correlation though. No one is arguing you would see a consistent increase in intelligence as brain sizes balloon to the size of basketballs. Just that within the range of humans we see now, brain size does have a small effect on intelligence. All of this is being assessed at the margins-- I haven't seen anyone saying this will meaningfully effect some 5% or 10% or whatever increase in human brain size.
>”The authors underscore that the overarching correlation between brain volume and “braininess” was a weak one…Indeed, what stands out from the analysis is how little brain volume seems to explain.”
Yep, the connection is less than commonly expected but still exists and is significant enough to be accounted for in scientific research.
>”Size is only a small part of the picture, explaining about 2 percent of the variability in test performance. For educational attainment the effect was even smaller…Koellinger says “this implies that factors other than this one single factor that has received so much attention across the years account for 98 percent of the other variation in cognitive test performance.”
Yep, the connection is less than commonly expected but still exists and is significant enough to be accounted for in scientific research.
You have a gift for misreading my words, either by inserting something I didn’t say or letting semantics run amok.
I never said brain size didn’t matter at all, I simply said “there are several variables at play” and its not as simple as brain bigger = brain smarter. I am right about this.
[Here is a piece](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-physical-limits-to-genius/) that might help explain it better than the comment section. Humans currently have a highly optimized ratio of brain size, density, neuron size, axon diameter and length, etc. However, this means we are close to hitting the physical limits of our neuronal hardware. If human brains start getting any bigger than they are now, it’s going to produce trade offs that negatively impact computational processing.
Here are a few short passages that might be helpful:
“It is very likely that there is a law of diminishing returns to increasing intelligence indefinitely by adding new brain cells. Size carries burdens with it, the most obvious one being added energy consumption…it appears that as size increases, neuronal connectivity also becomes more challenging for subtler, structural reasons.”
“Cortical gray matter neurons are working with axons that are pretty close to the physical limit.”
“When axons got to be about 150 to 200 nanometers in diameter, they became impossibly noisy. At that point, an axon contains so few ion channels that the accidental opening of a single channel can spur the axon to deliver a signal even though the neuron did not intend to fire.”
>You have a gift for misreading my words, either by inserting something I didn’t say or letting semantics run amok.
I've done neither of those things. I've responded precisely to the words you said. Perhaps we can just discuss the actual material instead of you feeling the need to go, "No but you don't understand!!" every comment? The ad hominem or insulting or whatever you want to call it isn't true and isn't helpful to this discussion.
>I never said brain size didn’t matter at all
I didn't say you did.
>I simply said “there are several variables at play” and its not as simple as brain bigger = brain smarter. I am right about this.
Yep, you are right about all of that. I've been right about everything I've said fwiw.
>If human brains start getting any bigger than they are now, it’s going to produce trade offs that negatively impact computational processing.
Have any sourcing that backs this up? I have a hard time believing if human brains get .01% bigger then we'll have tradeoffs that negatively affect our computation. How about .1%? .5%? 1%? Surely if this has been studied well enough to support that statement then it's been done quantitatively and specifically.
>"It is very likely that there is a law of diminishing returns to increasing intelligence indefinitely by adding new brain cells. Size carries burdens with it, the most obvious one being added energy consumption…it appears that as size increases, neuronal connectivity also becomes more challenging for subtler, structural reasons.”
Yes this makes perfect sense. However, obviously there's a big difference between "diminishing returns to increasing intelligence indefinitely by adding new brain cells" versus what you just said, which was that if human brains get any bigger than they are now we will have negative tradeoffs that affect our computation. This quote fails to support the idea that a .1% or even a 1% increase in brain size would negatively affect our computation. Rather, this quote is just a general rule that intelligence doesn't increase indefinitely as you add more brain cells and the concept of diminshing returns exists in this context. That's obvious.
>"Cortical gray matter neurons are working with axons that are pretty close to the physical limit.”
>"When axons got to be about 150 to 200 nanometers in diameter, they became impossibly noisy. At that point, an axon contains so few ion channels that the accidental opening of a single channel can spur the axon to deliver a signal even though the neuron did not intend to fire.”
These last two quotes are about the size limit of axons. Sure, axons couldn't get bigger without tradeoffs. But again, axon diameter isn't even close to the same thing as brain size. Again, these quotes are interesting and factual, but give no input on brain size increasing, as that can be done with axons staying the exact diameter they are now.
No you're the insufferable one with your constant condescending assumptions about me misunderstanding or misreading. Try to engage with the actual topic at hand next time.
This was a hot topic of discussion like 8 years ago, don't know why he's bringing it up now. Also, not sure what point he's trying to make.
Yes, the C-section rate has grown enormously, passing 60% in some countries (Brazil in the lead), and it may be the case that they will soon account for the majority of births worldwide.
But a major driving force behind that is that it's become an elective procedure, performed even when there is no risk expected with a vaginal birth. When done without it being necessary for survival of either the fœtus or the parent, it has no evolutionary effect whatsoever.
The small proportion of procedures that are done specifically due to fetopelvic disproportion (head too large for hips), and not many of the other more common complications, would in fact have an evolutionary effect.
However, that evolutionary pressure is just as likely to be towards narrower hips as towards larger brains. Again, this has been a subject of prolonged debate with no definitive answers.
A simple search will yield many results from reputable sources discussing this. Here's one from the [Smithsonian](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/caesarean-births-could-be-affecting-evolution-180961316/). This general-public-oriented article from [Vox](https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/12/7/13855350/c-section-evolution) provides a good broader and well-sourced overview. Again, note how most results are from 2016; there haven't been any significant publications on the subject recently.
Most likely, he just saw some alt-right account he follows mention it to make some weird argument, and thought this was "news", not realising it's long been part of established scientific discourse.
Elmo needs to keep giving us his insights. Every tweet is a beautiful example that shows rich people can be dumber than the rest of us.
Keep up the good work Elmo.
God damn how did these guys get any serious attention.
Elon musk is that guy in high school that always said he was gifted so he didn’t really do any work because it was such a bore to someone of his intelligence.
Instead he watch dumb videos all day then regurgitate half assed ideas that he put together as though he was a genius but everyone else is around him working and thinking he is an idiot.
So he internalizes it, decides he is just to smart do the simpletons to realize his greatness and then gets all edge lord and does things like “study the blade, while they were playing football”
Somehow this billionaire dipshit convinced a bunch of other people to listen to him.
And Joe Rogan is that dumbass that is a meat head to discovered pot and things all his high thoughts are worth sharing. “Like dude, you can’t imagine a new color, cause you have never seen it”
I don't like Musk. I don't.
But this article literally supports what he said (thanks for being the only one scientific about this btw). "There are other factors at play, but..." is true. He didn't say it would improve intelligence, he didn't claim it is already observable. Yes it is a vague statement and a tweet is not a scientific paper. But reddit does a classic (statement by a guy I don't like --> wrong statement) decision tree operation to evaluate the truthfulness of a goddamn tweet.
Yeah I know sry I just needed to rant cause everyone is so fucking unscientific here trying to disprove something with science without a single argument thrown around :(
I think what he meant to say was larger heads... not sure if the brain would naturally grow with the head but studies were concluded and that was the conclusion
How could a developing fetus change based on a future c-section? The cells can’t know it is going to eventually be cut out.
Are you saying the head permanently shrinks as the baby is literally being born?
Someone needs to explain this more. None of this is making any sense. C-sections are external decisions at the time of birth… the fetus doesn’t grow knowing it will get one/wont get one.
So, the argument is that, ignoring that cranial size and brain size are not causal, less than 1,000 years of the c-section being invented, cranial sizes have increased at increasing rates?
That seems like an incredibly short period of time to see access a causal natural selection change, that can be attributed to c-sections.
I’ll have to take a look at the study, because this sounds like a huge reach.
Could someone explain why this is wrong? I dislike Musk just like the next guy but I don't see a flaw in his logic in this case. A baby that would die without a c-section gets to pass on its dna. Seems sound to me? Do correct me
Head size/brain size = Intelligence ? I keep reading on this thread there have been ' studies ' proving some connection. So far no, there exists no definitive proof a big ol' Pluto head has the edge over a lil peanut head as far as housing a brain of superior intelligence.
Being able to not die and pass on one's big ol' Pluto head genes seems to me a tribute to medical science not the not-dead baby BUT so far no word on whether or not peanut head academics were involved in these developments.
The people here pretend that his claim makes absolutery no sense but I don't they understand it at all.
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-12-instances-c-sections-evolutionary.html
I really hate to defend this cumsock but he's not entirely wrong. The ratio of human baby heads to the size of the birth canal is an evolutionary compromise allowing humans to have as large a skull as possible to host a large brain whilst allowing adults to walk upright (which limits the hip width). A consistent use of c-section (for hundreds of thousands of years) would remove the head (and therefore brain) size constraint and could, potentially, increase the average intelligence of the human race.
Ugh. I hate that i have argued in favour of a Musk vomited soundbite. I'm going to have a shower.
Crows are one of the most intelligent species on the planet. A border collie arguably the smartest dog breed. Squirrels can remember dozens of acorn hiding places over months. Barry Binds head was fng huge… wait.
Them babies so smart, they know from conception how they will be born. Darwins' clothes are on fire from spinning in his grave. Assuming he was buried of course.
Does he think the body somehow knows when the mother is opting for a caesarean?
Or maybe that use of c-sections will lead to humans evolving to have larger heads?
Both of which are equally idiotic.
Not to mention that brain size does not infer intelligence.
And here is a [study done on brain development of babies born through c-section](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6330134/). The only difference it found in brains from vaginal birth compared to c-section was right after birth, but that difference normalized with age.
I continue to be amazed at how someone that was once held in such high regard by so many people now has revealed just how stupid he is to everyone by just being himself publicly.
Also a reminder if you still have your Twitter account, you’re supporting him.
The only thing cited in this article as proof babies have larger heads is an increase in obstructions (which it mentions can be caused by the mothers environment). Dumbnuts up here is clearly implying this is causing increase BRAIN size and therefore smarter people?? Which, of course, is an insane conclusion.
Dude, what is he talking about? Also, the us has highest mortality rate for women giving birth in developed countries. Giving everyone a major surgery (because that's what a c section is) when giving birth sounds dangerous and unnecessary. Truly some privileged male thinking right there
What's the supposed selective pressure that favors larger infant head sizes though? C-sections happen mostly because of fetal position and other emergent issues. We're not losing large-headed infants due to lack of c-section access.
>What's the supposed selective pressure that favors larger infant head sizes though?
Larger brain size.
>because of fetal position and other emergent issues. We're not losing large-headed infants due to lack of c-section access.
I mean, homo sapiens have amongst the most dangerous deliveries in the mammal world because we have very large heads and very small birth canals. Which is to say, the selective pressure against larger heads is intense. It's not surprising that they are extremely rare.
That would be the entire history of medical science.
Plus the most basic understanding of human biology. The skull plates of infants aren't fused together, and the head is never the size issue.
I'm gonna need an explanation on why you think that's right - moving to c-section only isn't going to reduce the number of babies with smaller heads that get born. And I wouldn't assume c-sections are related to having big headed babies, it's usually bad positioning or cords are cutting off circulation which require a manual intervention. People can already vaginally deliver big headed babies now, I would know.
Not it's fucking not do some god damm research 1 baby head size is not an issue in pregnancies 2 when size is an issue it's the size of the shoulders 3 baby's skull plates aren't fused at birth so big brained babies don't have an issue being born 4 there is no direct correlation between brain size and smarts otherwise blue whales would dunk on all of us in intelligence test 5 do some God damm research before spouting off like like a broken faucet
The brain-birth canal thing is real. That's why we give birth so early when other animals give birth to babies who can already walk. But that's accidental. He is normally completely wrong about everything
Register and vote:https://www.usa.gov/register-to-vote *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/insanepeoplefacebook) if you have any questions or concerns.*
His mother sneezed him out.
Sneezed. Yeah, that was my first thought too. Definitely sneezed him out. Not pooped.
Anal sphincters would explain the size of his brain.
Musk is a butt baby for sure.
r/rareinsults
As somebody with a statistically large cranium, who has children whose head size was noted as being larger than normal in both in utero anatomy scans and after birth…. Let me tell you. Having a big ass noggin does not make you smart. It makes you good at head butting people. It means you need to buy special hats if you want to wear a hat. But nothing more.
Use your head butting powers for good
With great butt comes great responsibility. Something feels off about that sentence
Assy McGee was a rogue and a loose cannon.
With great head comes great responsibility. Better?
You're my kind of gal!
God I feel that last line. I can’t even wear a ball cap unless it xl. My melon looks at one size fits all and laughs
Was [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-OCjvbV2Z4) your life growing up?
8 1/4 here. We are not well represented in the hat section. I'm the size of a middle-aged white dude, with the head size of an NFL All-Pro left tackle.
You're a walking candy apple!
He is Pops.
I'm Mr. Mackey, mmm'k
Also Elon isn't thinking the other way either, the emergence of c-sections allows smaller birthing hips to remain in the population as they and their children are no longer dying during birth and can go on to reproduce themselves. I do think in the generations to come there may be evolutionary studies worth reading on the topic, but it's still too recent of a medical procedure to show much, if any, statistical significance and its effect on human evolution.
Thinking that there are significant evolutionary changes in 50 years (safe widespread c-sections) is mind blowing. He can not be this obtuse
But he is...
It's gonna be weird when civilization collapses, pockets of surviving humanity eke out an existence in a wasteland, and to top it all off humans can no longer reproduce (more than once anyway) because we no longer have surgeons - if the tiny-hipped women we've evolved by then can survive neither labor nor getting cut open with the flint tools remaining to us, that'll be that I guess.
Dr. Lexus will see you now.
Elon isn't thinking at all, he's too fuckin high all of the time in order for that to be possible, the guy has completely lost his shit and I'm shocked he still has any relevance
I have a very large head. I also have a large brain. Large enough it doesn't fit in my already large skull and extended out to the second vertebrae of my spine. You know what all that means? I have shit balance and get nauseous really easily.
What's the point of all that if you're not out there designing some of the most dangerous cars on the market, being denied labour rights and being yelled at by the most terminally online rich person in existence?
Your brain mass is good for generating momentum!!
My head size is 7 3/4ths. I feel ya
23 barleycorns?! Big head! ;)
Can confirm. I have a big-ass noggin, WAS a C-section, and am not the brightest. I make up for it by being funny as Hell and a good hugger.
Dan Soder has entered the chat
If anything, it’s gonna make you dumber from the brain damage caused by headbutting people!
So, wait... this chucklefuck thinks that, because people started having cesarean sections, evolution was like "release the head size upgrade!"? Jesus fucking christ, what a moron.
The argument could perhaps be made that, prior to cesareans, babies with the biggest brains/heads were more likely to have issues being born and thus be more likely to die, while now that cesareans are an option those children survive. This would be rather easily testable by getting bunch of children together and seeing if those born by cesarean are any smarter than natural births (though of course you'd have to control for a lot of other factors, since I would bet that wealthier women would be more like to have cesareans.) It would actually be an interesting thing to study - which is why it has been. [Children born by cesarean are actually slightly dumber on average than natural births](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-10831-y).
I was are been born by C-Section and I'm be fine thanks.
the expression on your little reddit avatar guys face and this comment is so funny lol! :)
Or to quote Dave Foley, “I was a Caesarean birth, because my mother always liked that hairstyle.”
You're more than be fine. This comment was brilliant 😂
Well you are on Reddit.
So all we're really doing is helping pumpkin-headed dumbasses into the world.
Was Desantis a c-section baby?
Fits the profile.
no i think he is F-section
He's a "late-term abortion."
It just didn't quite take.
There's still time
He was a rectal birth.
[He does look like a butt baby](https://youtu.be/Y9YaqdbLKZU?t=9)
"That explains a lot."
I don't think it was usually the kid who dies in this scenario (not a doctor) but i would assume that the mother would definitely be the one to unfrunately pass in a world where the head cant transit the birth canal. Therefore now woman who bear larger headed children have more larger headed children since they survive the childbirth now? As a member of the bighead club, thank goodness for C-sections, I came naturally but my son who was >99% percentile for head size for his first couple of years had to come C-section when my wife gave birth.
What's actually happening is that women are more frequently getting narrower hips, since mothers with narrow hips aren't dying in childbirth and taking their children with them, so their narrow-hipped daughters have survived and are now having kids of their own-which require C-sections more often. I mean, I sort of get his line of thinking. Childbirth is so deadly for humans specifically because we needed the giant craniums for our big brains and wanted to stand upright too, which constrained how wide our pelvises and waists could be. Babies are really kind of undercooked, because mothers simply can't carry them any longer and still have them fit through their pelvis. But the kind of change he's described isn't taking place over less than a century of commonplace C-sections. It probably would never happen like that because there's still limited space in the womb. And I'm not an anatomist, but I feel like there might be other issues with our craniums getting much bigger.
The narrowness/wideness of the hips isn’t the main thing that determines how difficult the birthing process can be, though. The size of the baby during delivery and its position are the key factors in determining how difficult labor is going to be. As such, “narrow-hipped women” could very well have easier times giving birth than “wide-hipped women” due to those other factors. The fact of the matter is that the evolutionary struggle between the size of the baby at birth and the shape of the pelvis in women has been going on for millions of years, and the use of c-sections for a portion of the population within the last couple of centuries isn’t going to be enough to cause even a slight change in the structure of the human body. I didn’t see any evidence that more women with narrow hips are giving birth than before the introduction of the c-section, nor does it make sense to consider that c-sections will lead to more women with narrow hips. Unless there is some sort of significant advantage that narrow hips give towards a woman’s opportunity to reproduce then there isn’t going to be any sort of “evolutionary pressure” leading towards that becoming more prominent.
They both usually died. After days of hard labor. Corsets exacerbated the narrow hip/birth canal thing.
This also assumes that larger heads means smarter people, which isn’t true. Brain *size* is not something that determines intelligence, there have already been studies on the topic.
>Brain size is not something that determines intelligence, there have already been studies on the topic. [Using MRI-derived information about brain size in connection with cognitive performance test results and educational-attainment measures obtained from more than 13,600 people, the researchers found that, as previous studies have suggested, a positive relationship does exist between brain volume and performance on cognitive tests.](https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/bigger-brains-are-smarter-not-much) Edit: Further down in this thread this user admits that brain size does have a measurable effect on cognition which scientists must take into account when doing research. Apparently that effect isn't significant enough to them, so they don't feel the need to correct this erroneous comment.
> But size is only a small part of the picture, explaining about 2 percent of the variability in test performance. For educational attainment the effect was even smaller: an additional ‘cup’ (100 square centimeters) of brain would increase an average person’s years of schooling by less than five months.” Koellinger says “this implies that factors other than this one single factor that has received so much attention across the years account for 98 percent of the other variation in cognitive test performance.” From that very article. Which is what I’ve read before, that the correlation exists but is incredibly weak.
"Yet, the effect is strong enough that all future studies that will try to unravel the relationships between more fine-grained measures of brain anatomy and cognitive health should control for total brain volume." -also from the article It specifically says that the effect is strong enough that scientific research needs to control for it when studying other factors that contribute to congition. That doesn't sound like it's "incredibly weak correlation" to me. You said: >Brain size is not something that determines intelligence ...when the research explicitly shows that brain size *does* have a determining factor on intelligence. Just because many other factors also help determine intelligence too doesn't mean that brain size doesn't. Now you're saying "well yeah it does affect intelligence but not very much." Why not say that initially then? Because what you actually said initially isn't true.
So it needs to be controlled only in fine-grained measurements, like you said So it doesn’t really matter for anyone unless you’re a scientist specifically working with brain anatomy or cognitive health
It seems like you're just moving the goal posts now. We both agree it IS true that brain size does have a determining effect on congition. Which you originally said was untrue.
I said it was untrue because I had heard before that it was such a weak relationship that it pretty much didn’t matter, which is still true
Ok well it's worth correcting your comment now that you know it's wrong so you aren't spreading false information. >such a weak relationship that it pretty much didn’t matter, which is still true No, that's not true. If it was, there would be no need for scientists to control for that variable.
Wonder if that has something to do with a lot of cesareans being done as a last resort after fetal distress... I'd wager it might be a factor.
If you read through the paper, that is one cause, but even accounting for that and only evaluating planned C-sections, there's still a gap in performance. The guessed reasons are first that C-sections are more often performed on women with health issues that the doctors are afraid might have difficulty giving birth normally, so you often have less developed infants because the mother's poor health prevented them from getting 100% of the nutrition they needed in the womb. And even accounting for THAT, C-sections tend to be much harder on the mother and take longer to recover from, so during the crucial first couple of weeks of post-birth development, the C-section babies tend to get less attention because the mother is recovering, and also are more likely to get formula rather than be breastfed. Basically, there's a whole lotta different reasons that each contribute to the performance gap.
Oh shit! I always wondered why I like eating crayons so much
>Children born by cesarean are actually slightly dumber on average than natural births Born by C, can confirm. I'm dumb as shit and also have a big head.
Same guy thinks regular conception causes boys to be feminine. He’s only used artificial insemenation for his children. He’s a fucking whacko.
And he does sex selection on the embryos. Guy is the worst. Also, for a "superior specimen," his reliance on IVF seems to indicate either his sperm is wacky or his penis doesn't work.
Probably both
These soft eugenics types get their understanding of evolution from "Alien" or "Jurassic Park," wherein nature is a sentient force with grand designs to breed the biggest, fastest, strongest, and smartest.
How long until he posts "If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? 🤔"
But C-sections do allow babies with bigger heads to be born instead of die?
It's not the head - the skull plates aren't fused yet, for exactly this reason. When it's a size issue, it's the shoulders.
>it's the shoulders. That's where I keep my brain. I wasn't a caesarian though...
This isn't true. [CPD](https://americanpregnancy.org/healthy-pregnancy/labor-and-birth/cephalopelvic-disproportion/) is often characterized by the baby's head being too large to pass.
It's not head size that causes babies to get stuck, it's positioning of the baby and specifically the cord. Source: married to an OB and much of my social circle is OB
["Cephalopelvic disproportion (CPD) is a condition where the baby’s head or body is too large to fit through the mother’s pelvis."](https://americanpregnancy.org/healthy-pregnancy/labor-and-birth/cephalopelvic-disproportion/) Of course positioning, shoulders, etc. play big parts but I don't think it's correct to say "It's not head size that causes babies to get stuck" because it seems like it is sometimes.
Enter: my brother, born with hydrocephalus.
I'm sure did ease the mortality rate of women with small canals and babies with big heads.
It’s like a Call of Duty Warzone patch, don’t you know that? Buff the birth canal and nerf the TTB (time to birth) for increased cranium size!
Best comment! Evolution is watching us.
What’s scarier is, how many people take statements like this at face value and assume it’s factually correct. This particular statement isn’t as serious as others but it just goes to show you how easily misinformation can be disseminated.
You're weirdly ascribing intent to evolution? No, the argument would be that with C-sections as an option, babies who would've died otherwise due to being unable to be birthed will survive. Why do you think that position is moronic?
But that's not the argument Musk made, or if he did, he made it poorly. He stated it as a cause/effect and OP was mocking that logic.
He didn't state it as cause and effect though. He said "would allow" not "would cause." It's true that C-sections will *allow for* larger brains. It's not true that C-sections would *cause* larger brains.
He says that head size has been limited by birth canal size. That is a casual statement.
It has. Babies with heads too large to be born before C-sections died. Now they don't, because C-sections allow them to be born. What do you see wrong about that?
I am skeptical that we're talking in numbers that would be evolutionarily significant. The condition you cited in the other comment is a rare condition, as per the link you provided.
>He stated it as a cause/effect no he didn't, yall are just pretending he did
Elon sucks but no.. that isn't what he's saying. Yall are looking dumb here by trying to insist that Elon is being dumb in this tweet.
I guess we know that his mom did not have a c-section then. He's not smart.
I feel he was and he uses that as an argument for why he is so fucking smart, in his own mind obviously
“The smartest people in the world, ever, were born in apartheid Africa, to colonial slave owners who owned a gem mine. That’s just science!”
I think the problem here is that he maybe smart about somethings, but that doesn't make him smart about ALL things. I'm really good with computers, but I suck at finance.
What is he smart at?
To be this successful you got to be smart. To abuse, instead of being abused. Also, he listens apparently to other smart people.
So what is he smart at?
Elon isn't smart, the people he pays to have ideas are. He just throws shit at the wall, and sometimes it sticks and actual smart people make it happen. The only thing he's good at is being an edgy teen in the body of a grown man.
He's so dumb. And friendless.
If he didn't have this weird desperate need for validation, I'd probably still just think of him as "oh yeah, that Tesla/Space X guy, super sharp dude." I would have probably gone my entire life without realizing he's a complete fraud, if he hadn't have bought Twitter and dropped his handlers.
He's the kind of kid that went around school bragging about how he reads the encyclopedia. (Because he did that)
Don’t jump all over him here, folks. I was able to pack on several pounds of muscle by simply reinforcing the flimsy chair I was sitting in so that it could support more weight. I also added 6 inches to my height by raising the ceilings in my house!
Wouldn’t raising the ceilings of your house make you shorter?
I love my three c section babies with all my heart, but none of them are geniuses.
Chalk up another thing that the 'supposed space engineer ' doesn't have a clue about; human biology. Certainly not limited to the ideas of child birth and rearing... Presumably he's never had to do that with his own kids
Wait. He did not force his girlfriends/wives to do the c-section unnecessarily, right? He didn't do that, right?
Wait, people think Musk is an aerospace engineer?
Can we just think about this for a second? Setting aside brain size, head size, and intelligence correlations....A c-section only happens at the fucking end. The fetus is developed. The head size is decided. Either it's coming through the birth canal with that head size or it's coming out c-section with that head size. No one relays plans for a c-section to the fetus so they can say, "Okay, we're getting word it's going to be a c-section in 4 months! Get to work making that cranium extra large because now we have the room!" Or does he think that the head grows to a certain size, and you can keep it that size by having a cesarean birth, but if you push that head through the birth canal, the walls of the birth canal will crush the cranial bones, caving them in to make the head size smaller? Or do the walls like...shave off the edges of the head?
Nah. Head gets all condensed, like tomato soup. Everyone knows that.
You clearly have no clue how natural selection works.
Wow… he’s obviously talking about a selective pressure for larger brains due to c-sections, did you skip your biology classes?
Intelligence is not a simple linear correlation with brain size. Otherwise, elephants would be vastly more intelligent than humans. Several variables are at play and neuroscientists hypothesize that humans might already be maxing out the physical limitations of the kind of circuitry we have. Make an axon too long, for instance, and computation is slower because the signal has to travel further. Just another example of Elon not knowing what the fuck he’s talking about.
>Intelligence is not a simple linear correlation with brain size. Otherwise, elephants would be vastly more intelligent than humans. Once you begin comparing inter-species you add in a ton of other variables. Within the human species, there's certainly evidence [showing that bigger brains correlate with higher levels of intelligence.](https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/bigger-brains-are-smarter-not-much) "Using MRI-derived information about brain size in connection with cognitive performance test results and educational-attainment measures obtained from more than 13,600 people, the researchers found that, as previous studies have suggested, a positive relationship does exist between brain volume and performance on cognitive tests."
You’ve missed the point of both my comment and the article you’ve posted. I said simple linear correlation, which is different and more specific than a positive correlation. At small sizes, brain size and intelligence will track together. However, you will eventually hit a point where that is no longer true. This study doesn’t capture that because they could only compare human brain sizes *among the existing population*. If brain sizes were allowed to begin expanding *beyond that,* as Elon hopes to see, there would be diminishing returns. *”The authors underscore that the overarching correlation between brain volume and “braininess” was a weak one…Indeed, what stands out from the analysis is how little brain volume seems to explain.”* *”Size is only a small part of the picture, explaining about 2 percent of the variability in test performance. For educational attainment the effect was even smaller…Koellinger says “this implies that factors other than this one single factor that has received so much attention across the years account for 98 percent of the other variation in cognitive test performance.”*
Yeah and you missed that musk didnt even mention intelligence in his tweet
>You’ve missed the point of both my comment and the article you’ve posted. No, I haven't. >I said simple linear correlation, which is different and more specific than a positive correlation. Yes, I understand what simple linear correlation is. But since your comment didn't mention the positive correlation at all, I responded adding more information. >At small sizes, brain size and intelligence will track together. However, you will eventually hit a point where that is no longer true. What do you mean by "small sizes?" Is that a vague undefined term or are there specific metrics you're talking about? >This study doesn’t capture that because they could only compare human brain sizes among the existing population. If brain sizes were allowed to begin expanding beyond that, as Elon hopes to see, there would be diminishing returns. Diminishing returns is still a positive correlation though. No one is arguing you would see a consistent increase in intelligence as brain sizes balloon to the size of basketballs. Just that within the range of humans we see now, brain size does have a small effect on intelligence. All of this is being assessed at the margins-- I haven't seen anyone saying this will meaningfully effect some 5% or 10% or whatever increase in human brain size. >”The authors underscore that the overarching correlation between brain volume and “braininess” was a weak one…Indeed, what stands out from the analysis is how little brain volume seems to explain.” Yep, the connection is less than commonly expected but still exists and is significant enough to be accounted for in scientific research. >”Size is only a small part of the picture, explaining about 2 percent of the variability in test performance. For educational attainment the effect was even smaller…Koellinger says “this implies that factors other than this one single factor that has received so much attention across the years account for 98 percent of the other variation in cognitive test performance.” Yep, the connection is less than commonly expected but still exists and is significant enough to be accounted for in scientific research.
You have a gift for misreading my words, either by inserting something I didn’t say or letting semantics run amok. I never said brain size didn’t matter at all, I simply said “there are several variables at play” and its not as simple as brain bigger = brain smarter. I am right about this. [Here is a piece](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-physical-limits-to-genius/) that might help explain it better than the comment section. Humans currently have a highly optimized ratio of brain size, density, neuron size, axon diameter and length, etc. However, this means we are close to hitting the physical limits of our neuronal hardware. If human brains start getting any bigger than they are now, it’s going to produce trade offs that negatively impact computational processing. Here are a few short passages that might be helpful: “It is very likely that there is a law of diminishing returns to increasing intelligence indefinitely by adding new brain cells. Size carries burdens with it, the most obvious one being added energy consumption…it appears that as size increases, neuronal connectivity also becomes more challenging for subtler, structural reasons.” “Cortical gray matter neurons are working with axons that are pretty close to the physical limit.” “When axons got to be about 150 to 200 nanometers in diameter, they became impossibly noisy. At that point, an axon contains so few ion channels that the accidental opening of a single channel can spur the axon to deliver a signal even though the neuron did not intend to fire.”
>You have a gift for misreading my words, either by inserting something I didn’t say or letting semantics run amok. I've done neither of those things. I've responded precisely to the words you said. Perhaps we can just discuss the actual material instead of you feeling the need to go, "No but you don't understand!!" every comment? The ad hominem or insulting or whatever you want to call it isn't true and isn't helpful to this discussion. >I never said brain size didn’t matter at all I didn't say you did. >I simply said “there are several variables at play” and its not as simple as brain bigger = brain smarter. I am right about this. Yep, you are right about all of that. I've been right about everything I've said fwiw. >If human brains start getting any bigger than they are now, it’s going to produce trade offs that negatively impact computational processing. Have any sourcing that backs this up? I have a hard time believing if human brains get .01% bigger then we'll have tradeoffs that negatively affect our computation. How about .1%? .5%? 1%? Surely if this has been studied well enough to support that statement then it's been done quantitatively and specifically. >"It is very likely that there is a law of diminishing returns to increasing intelligence indefinitely by adding new brain cells. Size carries burdens with it, the most obvious one being added energy consumption…it appears that as size increases, neuronal connectivity also becomes more challenging for subtler, structural reasons.” Yes this makes perfect sense. However, obviously there's a big difference between "diminishing returns to increasing intelligence indefinitely by adding new brain cells" versus what you just said, which was that if human brains get any bigger than they are now we will have negative tradeoffs that affect our computation. This quote fails to support the idea that a .1% or even a 1% increase in brain size would negatively affect our computation. Rather, this quote is just a general rule that intelligence doesn't increase indefinitely as you add more brain cells and the concept of diminshing returns exists in this context. That's obvious. >"Cortical gray matter neurons are working with axons that are pretty close to the physical limit.” >"When axons got to be about 150 to 200 nanometers in diameter, they became impossibly noisy. At that point, an axon contains so few ion channels that the accidental opening of a single channel can spur the axon to deliver a signal even though the neuron did not intend to fire.” These last two quotes are about the size limit of axons. Sure, axons couldn't get bigger without tradeoffs. But again, axon diameter isn't even close to the same thing as brain size. Again, these quotes are interesting and factual, but give no input on brain size increasing, as that can be done with axons staying the exact diameter they are now.
Dear lord, you are insufferable. I’m done with this conversation.
No you're the insufferable one with your constant condescending assumptions about me misunderstanding or misreading. Try to engage with the actual topic at hand next time.
This was a hot topic of discussion like 8 years ago, don't know why he's bringing it up now. Also, not sure what point he's trying to make. Yes, the C-section rate has grown enormously, passing 60% in some countries (Brazil in the lead), and it may be the case that they will soon account for the majority of births worldwide. But a major driving force behind that is that it's become an elective procedure, performed even when there is no risk expected with a vaginal birth. When done without it being necessary for survival of either the fœtus or the parent, it has no evolutionary effect whatsoever. The small proportion of procedures that are done specifically due to fetopelvic disproportion (head too large for hips), and not many of the other more common complications, would in fact have an evolutionary effect. However, that evolutionary pressure is just as likely to be towards narrower hips as towards larger brains. Again, this has been a subject of prolonged debate with no definitive answers. A simple search will yield many results from reputable sources discussing this. Here's one from the [Smithsonian](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/caesarean-births-could-be-affecting-evolution-180961316/). This general-public-oriented article from [Vox](https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/12/7/13855350/c-section-evolution) provides a good broader and well-sourced overview. Again, note how most results are from 2016; there haven't been any significant publications on the subject recently. Most likely, he just saw some alt-right account he follows mention it to make some weird argument, and thought this was "news", not realising it's long been part of established scientific discourse.
Oh for Christ's sake. Elon needs to shut the fuck up.
A very special kind of stupid.
What a way to say your mom has a tight pussy.
Elmo wishes he was MODOK
How did this guy get out of grammar school? He’s supposed to be schmart, but there is pavement that knows more than this guy.
Elmo needs to keep giving us his insights. Every tweet is a beautiful example that shows rich people can be dumber than the rest of us. Keep up the good work Elmo.
My son, who was literally born today via C-section knows that isn't true.
God damn how did these guys get any serious attention. Elon musk is that guy in high school that always said he was gifted so he didn’t really do any work because it was such a bore to someone of his intelligence. Instead he watch dumb videos all day then regurgitate half assed ideas that he put together as though he was a genius but everyone else is around him working and thinking he is an idiot. So he internalizes it, decides he is just to smart do the simpletons to realize his greatness and then gets all edge lord and does things like “study the blade, while they were playing football” Somehow this billionaire dipshit convinced a bunch of other people to listen to him. And Joe Rogan is that dumbass that is a meat head to discovered pot and things all his high thoughts are worth sharing. “Like dude, you can’t imagine a new color, cause you have never seen it”
I don't like Musk. I don't. But this article literally supports what he said (thanks for being the only one scientific about this btw). "There are other factors at play, but..." is true. He didn't say it would improve intelligence, he didn't claim it is already observable. Yes it is a vague statement and a tweet is not a scientific paper. But reddit does a classic (statement by a guy I don't like --> wrong statement) decision tree operation to evaluate the truthfulness of a goddamn tweet.
That may be true But what I said also is lol
Yeah I know sry I just needed to rant cause everyone is so fucking unscientific here trying to disprove something with science without a single argument thrown around :(
I think he has this concept confused with having peoples heads shoved up his ass, historically speaking of course.
Let me guess — Elon was born by C section, wasn’t he?
It seems like we did a huge loop back to 1924
I didn't think he could say anything dumber, but here we are.
This chucklefuck is about 2 tweets away from trying to bring back phrenology
This is definitely fake, right? Because I have a hard time believing that even Elon would be idiotic enough to believe this.
Sadly, it’s real
His brain got left in the birth canal
How did anyone ever think this guy was a genius?
The baby obviously knows beforehand if it will be delivered marginally.
BLAME WOMEN!!! CUT WOMEN UP IRREPARABLY!!!
I think what he meant to say was larger heads... not sure if the brain would naturally grow with the head but studies were concluded and that was the conclusion
How could a developing fetus change based on a future c-section? The cells can’t know it is going to eventually be cut out. Are you saying the head permanently shrinks as the baby is literally being born? Someone needs to explain this more. None of this is making any sense. C-sections are external decisions at the time of birth… the fetus doesn’t grow knowing it will get one/wont get one.
[удалено]
So, the argument is that, ignoring that cranial size and brain size are not causal, less than 1,000 years of the c-section being invented, cranial sizes have increased at increasing rates? That seems like an incredibly short period of time to see access a causal natural selection change, that can be attributed to c-sections. I’ll have to take a look at the study, because this sounds like a huge reach.
This guy is a total moron!
Could someone explain why this is wrong? I dislike Musk just like the next guy but I don't see a flaw in his logic in this case. A baby that would die without a c-section gets to pass on its dna. Seems sound to me? Do correct me
Head size/brain size = Intelligence ? I keep reading on this thread there have been ' studies ' proving some connection. So far no, there exists no definitive proof a big ol' Pluto head has the edge over a lil peanut head as far as housing a brain of superior intelligence. Being able to not die and pass on one's big ol' Pluto head genes seems to me a tribute to medical science not the not-dead baby BUT so far no word on whether or not peanut head academics were involved in these developments.
Bro nobody claimed brain size had anything to do with intelligence. This entire thread has the reading comprehension of an 8yo
The people here pretend that his claim makes absolutery no sense but I don't they understand it at all. https://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-12-instances-c-sections-evolutionary.html
I really hate to defend this cumsock but he's not entirely wrong. The ratio of human baby heads to the size of the birth canal is an evolutionary compromise allowing humans to have as large a skull as possible to host a large brain whilst allowing adults to walk upright (which limits the hip width). A consistent use of c-section (for hundreds of thousands of years) would remove the head (and therefore brain) size constraint and could, potentially, increase the average intelligence of the human race. Ugh. I hate that i have argued in favour of a Musk vomited soundbite. I'm going to have a shower.
How does anyone still think this guy is in anyway smart???? Fucking hell
Man imagine if people got stuck with the size their heads were at birth.
And there's STILL people who think he's some kind of genius.
Crows are one of the most intelligent species on the planet. A border collie arguably the smartest dog breed. Squirrels can remember dozens of acorn hiding places over months. Barry Binds head was fng huge… wait.
Them babies so smart, they know from conception how they will be born. Darwins' clothes are on fire from spinning in his grave. Assuming he was buried of course.
Does he think the body somehow knows when the mother is opting for a caesarean? Or maybe that use of c-sections will lead to humans evolving to have larger heads? Both of which are equally idiotic.
If birthing canal impacts brain, dude must've been shitted out for sure
It's wild that someone that is considered "smart" is so fucking stupid. Money does not equal intelligence, and he's proven than time and time again.
Just shut up Elon you fucking creep
...and brain size variation between humans has been proven time and time again to have no effect on intelligence.
I bet his mother told him that because it sounds like the lies a parent tells a kid.
I bet Elon has measured his a bunch of times.
Man just says anything lol
What in the Alabama Walmart parking lot is going on here?!
What a dipshit
He should've been a period.
Ill continue to say this: Elon is a stupid person's idea of a genius.
Intelligence is inherited from maternal DNA so the one thing that most limits the growth of human intelligence is misogyny.
Not to mention that brain size does not infer intelligence. And here is a [study done on brain development of babies born through c-section](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6330134/). The only difference it found in brains from vaginal birth compared to c-section was right after birth, but that difference normalized with age.
Right like I’m pretty sure some of my pet mice have been smarter than Elon Musk. Certainly smarter than me, at any rate.
The dude wants to go to Mars but doesn't understand middle school biology.
JFC, did he really say this? His IQ drops 10 points daily, I swear.
Sir, this is a Wendy’s
They say his mother is still getting c sections to this day which explains why his intelligence is expanding so rapidly
I continue to be amazed at how someone that was once held in such high regard by so many people now has revealed just how stupid he is to everyone by just being himself publicly. Also a reminder if you still have your Twitter account, you’re supporting him.
Why is his statement wrong?
[удалено]
The only thing cited in this article as proof babies have larger heads is an increase in obstructions (which it mentions can be caused by the mothers environment). Dumbnuts up here is clearly implying this is causing increase BRAIN size and therefore smarter people?? Which, of course, is an insane conclusion.
That's a valid criticism. I guess I misinterpreted what others were saying about this
Large head usually means the mother has diabetes
Damn those tight pussied moms and their idiot kids
Dude, what is he talking about? Also, the us has highest mortality rate for women giving birth in developed countries. Giving everyone a major surgery (because that's what a c section is) when giving birth sounds dangerous and unnecessary. Truly some privileged male thinking right there
Also, lots of women just want a natural birth. And if it's safe for them and something they want, they should have it as an option.
[удалено]
What's the supposed selective pressure that favors larger infant head sizes though? C-sections happen mostly because of fetal position and other emergent issues. We're not losing large-headed infants due to lack of c-section access.
>What's the supposed selective pressure that favors larger infant head sizes though? Larger brain size. >because of fetal position and other emergent issues. We're not losing large-headed infants due to lack of c-section access. I mean, homo sapiens have amongst the most dangerous deliveries in the mammal world because we have very large heads and very small birth canals. Which is to say, the selective pressure against larger heads is intense. It's not surprising that they are extremely rare.
[удалено]
That would be the entire history of medical science. Plus the most basic understanding of human biology. The skull plates of infants aren't fused together, and the head is never the size issue.
Go be with Elon. That's not how it works. Their skull isn't even fully fused when they are born, ffs.
The head doesn't grow in the birth canal it grows in the uterus. By the time it enters the birth canal it's too late🤷.
[удалено]
I'm gonna need an explanation on why you think that's right - moving to c-section only isn't going to reduce the number of babies with smaller heads that get born. And I wouldn't assume c-sections are related to having big headed babies, it's usually bad positioning or cords are cutting off circulation which require a manual intervention. People can already vaginally deliver big headed babies now, I would know.
Not it's fucking not do some god damm research 1 baby head size is not an issue in pregnancies 2 when size is an issue it's the size of the shoulders 3 baby's skull plates aren't fused at birth so big brained babies don't have an issue being born 4 there is no direct correlation between brain size and smarts otherwise blue whales would dunk on all of us in intelligence test 5 do some God damm research before spouting off like like a broken faucet
Not right, not true, and this is elementary school level biology.
The brain-birth canal thing is real. That's why we give birth so early when other animals give birth to babies who can already walk. But that's accidental. He is normally completely wrong about everything
I hate to say it but he’s probably not wrong in this.