this post was submitted on 04 Jan 2024
495 points (98.2% liked)

People Twitter

5228 readers
2032 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

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

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] mateomaui@reddthat.com 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

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 -5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.com 10 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 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.