494
Genius at work
(i.imgur.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Jan 2024
494 points (98.2% liked)
People Twitter
5162 readers
1702 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a tweet or similar
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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?
They are, in that region of the brain.
Oranges are divided into multiple sections, while apples are generally homogeneous in the edible section
Sugar gliders are little rodents, while flying squirrels are generally edible in the home. Section divided multiply G.
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?
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:
Head size is genetic
Some babies have heads too large for birth
Those babies die, and don't pass on their genes
Add c-section technology:
Head size is genetic
Some babies have heads too large for birth
Those babies get c-sections and live
Big head babies pass on their big head genes to the next generation
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.
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
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.
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.
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.”
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.
Other than the leg symptoms, not according to the article I linked:
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
Which addresses the leg symptoms improving, and that his relatively normal neuropsychological results didn't change.
From you:
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.
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.
Whales and dolphins have larger brains than humans. Correlation rejected.
Musk mentioned intelligence. That's the current topic of conversation.
I was talking about in primates, why are you talking about dolphins?
Wait, are you calling dolphins dumb?