Musk claims birth by C-section leads to bigger brains - but as he constantly proves its not size that matter but intelligence

[IwantToRetire]

By the way I really dont care about the total rubbish he posts, and do feel the media gives him much too much coverage.

But this one is just hilarious. But then Trump has appointed a covid denier to be Health Secretary, so why not a fantasist to cut waste as the head of the* *Department of Government Efficiency (Doge).

I cant wait to see what bonkers method he will put in place.

Maybe just fire everybody and say they were a waste.

(Forgot to add link) https://vajenda.substack.com/p/thoughts-on-brain-size-birth-and

Not sure why you're getting wound up by his comment. Doesn't look particularly controversial to me

Who said I was wound up.

Its hilarious that someone so stupid is still being presented as competent.

Luckily I dont live in the US so good luck to them.

Fancy having in Government someone who every time he opens his mouth displays his ignorance.

Of course maybe you belief this. Just like a men who go round saying men are smarter than women because their brains are bigger.

I used to think that Musk was just misunderstood but he’s gradually outed himself as being a genuinely arrogant twat.

There will be a big fallout between him and Trump at some point as neither ego likes being second-best. I do wonder where Zuck fits into all of this too as he’s clearly got a hardon for some of the action.

Musk seems to have given up any attempt at truth and now just spouts any random thought as if it’s an actual fact.

He’s not worth a second of my time, and I’m not reading any more of his bullshit. Same goes for Trump. Unbelievably America voted the corrupt clown in for a second time - I’m not watching democracy being dismantled. It’s one thing not agreeing with the policies of the party in charge - it’s quite another to witness open fraud and corruption. I just feel sorry for anyone living in the US that didn’t vote for him and has to live with the consequences.

FWIW, I’m not a fan of the Democrats either - their ineptitude is what left enough of a gap for Trump to have a chance. But the Republicans party voting for a felon to represent the best of them? Words fail me.

But aside from the shitshow in the US right now, thanks for posting that article. Ignoring Musk’s pointless and irrelevant comment, it made for interesting reading. My two were premature and tiny, and also C-section, so they definitely didn’t have larger heads or brains!

I think he sounds confused. We may need c-sections or cutting sometimes because our heads are so big but I’m not sure where he got that c-sections increase head size. Bewildering.

This is a follow on from evolutionary psychology which teaches that as humans developed, and their brains got bigger, the women who could give birth without the babies heads getting stuck meant that human evolution could progress at such a fast rate. This is basic stuff taught in universities for decades. So c sections allow for the birth of babies with larger heads. It doesn't mean that having a c section makes babies heads bigger.

And people continually starting threads moaning about Musk being given too much coverage...erm thats what you just did.

Large head circumference is linked to ASD.

What has this got to do with sex and gender? I know! It is because Musk has stopped people being banned on X for pointing out it is impossible to change sex 🤔

Oh to be as thick as Musk so my business enterprises do as poorly as his…

C sections do increase brain (or at the very least head) size at a population level. This isn't in dispute. Musk is still a wanker though.

I think the problem here is in him suggesting any causal pattern, rather than correlation.

How can a procedure that happens AFTER gestation affect anything that happens during gestation? Does the C section act retrospectively?

It is to be expected that more large sized babies are born by C section because they are too big for vaginal birth. This would be correlation at a population level; the large baby with large brain (head) is causing the C section not the other way around.

So if he is using these stats to argue that C section produces (causes) babies with bigger heads /brains he is a simpleton.

I have assumed that he is talking about brain size at birth? Beyond birth there are many environmental factors that might affect subsequent growth.

And you can tell from the bumps on the head if they're going to grow up to be idiots, the bigger the bumps the bigger the idiot. When your whole heads one big bump you're Elon Musk.

It's a well known scientific fact don't you know. 🤣🤣🤣

The process of having a c section increases the head circumference of a baby?

Or do you mean the average head circumference of babies born by c section is greater than the average of babies born vaginally?

Very different.

C-sections increase head size on a population level because they allow babies with larger head circumference (and mothers producing babies with larger head circumference) to survive and reproduce meaning more babies with larger heads. Simple evolutionary genetics.

The number of people who have commented on this thread to mock Musk's tweet without reading or comprehending it is more of an indication of intelligence on population level than anything he has said. That includes OP who seems to have misunderstood his quote to mean delivery by C-section causes big heads and others who believed her.

This is what Musk said (see photo) and there is nothing controversial about it. C-section has allowed babies with large heads and hence brains to be born and allowed human evolution to continue in the direction of larger brains beyond the limit of the birth canal.

What matters more - size, intelligence or money, pots of money.

There also seem to be a large number of posters (here and on other threads) equating not being able to understand, or not agreeing with, something someone said with lack of intelligence of that person rather than themselves.

It's not false though. He's speaking from a vast, evolutionary scale and has nothing to do with a single anecdotal claim of csections creating bigger heads. In fact, the people interpreting his statement as ridiculous are proving him right because they aren't smart enough to understand what he's talking about.

1. Human birth evolved to be extremely dangerous due to the size of the baby's head. Babies are already being born at the earliest possible time without potentially killing a lot of the mothers.

2. That also explains why human infancy and babyhood is ridiculously difficult compared to the infancy of animals. The brain is essentially maturing and growing for years after birth at the cost of independence and survival skills.

3. If, for whatever reason, humankind adopted 100% csection policy over thousands of years then the brain and birth canal size would cease to be an issue. It would be unpredictable how human gestation would evolve as a result of this.

4. Babies may end up being born later as they can survive without the risk of mother and child dying during birth. The head and brain size might start increasing because this is no longer a factor for mortality.

5. It would also mean that at some point in humanity's distant future, becoming pregnant without access to csection care would be a death sentence. It could have dramatic impact on birth control, society, medical care etc.

6. It could also mean that humans end up evolving into two different races similar to homo sapiens and neanderthals. One tribe would be similar to today with the ability to give birth naturally. One would be solely reliant on csections to the huge size of the babies. Going logically, the smarter and wealthier class would be those with mandatory csection.

If, for whatever reason, humankind adopted 100% csection policy over thousands of years then the brain and birth canal size would cease to be an issue.

It doesn’t need a 100% CS rate, just CS whenever necessary.

This theory has been around for a while. I don't know if it's true but it's a reasonable theory I think and not beyond the realms of possibility.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38210837

"In fact, the people interpreting his statement as ridiculous are proving him right because they aren't smart enough to understand what he's talking about"

it's not so much about stupid/smart. it's more about confirmation bias. musk said it and we hate im so let's take worst possible interpretation.

There are a lot of "ifs" in that hypothesis though. I started writing out the way it could lead to the opposite happening but it felt quite eugenicsy so I didn't.

Its very very theoretical, the sort of discussion you might have while slightly stoned on "Do you think that we will all eventually evolve to have no toes due ...." Harmless as a random musing. But not something to be taken seriously and I think he really thinks his thoughts should be.

And brain volume depends more on the amount of wrinkles the brain has. A race of huge headed, smooth brained people bumbling about Mars 1 million years from now would be fun to see though.

Thank you to all of you who presumed to say I was stupid.

Actually I read the article.

If you read the article it might help you make a relevant comment.

And as i said up thread, I started this for a laugh because, as this is FWR, for years women were told they would never be as intelligent as men because their brains were smaller, because their heads were smaller.

But maybe despite this being FWR you aren't aware of this ludicrous claim.

So maybe some of you aren't as well informed as you think you are.

And apparently dont share my sense of humour.

Perhaps everyone is just bored with the relentless Elon Took My Dinner Money threads, but I didn't get the joke. I reread the article and still don't get the joke.

Brain size is not what determines intelligence. It is the density of the neural network.

To make an analogy: It is not the size of the building the library is in that determines how good a library is, it is the quality and quantity of the books and the way in which the books are organized.

If the large building is empty except for two books about the Kardashians, well ....

I don't think that's true - children have much denser neural networks than adults. The process of learning seems to be more about removing neural connections than creating them.

E.g. https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2018/05/17/Intelligence-is-correlated-with-fewer-neural-connections-not-more-study-finds/2041526572310/

Brain size correlates with about 9 to 16% of the variation in intelligence. Density of neural networks about 25%.