Babies sleep better when their head is near their mother's heart. This seems to be the obvious reason for the left-handed cradling bias [1].
If a baby sleeps better, it cries less. If it cries less, it attracts fewer predators and helps both parents sleep better at night and have more energy. It also allows the mother to do things with her dominant hand if she is right-handed.
Given the left-handed cradling bias exists even with left-handers, it means there is something specific with left-handedness and infant rearing. A baby in the left hand and a tool (or weapon) in the right is biologically efficient.
Most studies take this from the perspective of evolutionary advantage of the individual. They should take it from the perspective of evolutionary advantage of the family, without which the baby does not survive.
If the bias confers evolutionary advantages, that is also important for the longer childhood humans have compared to primates, which supports our larger brains. Any differential here would have a feedback effect.
Wouldn't it be interesting if a key reason humans are the way we are is a mother's love ♥?
There is also a bias for how babies are held [1]. It holds even with left-handers. Holding a baby's head near the mother's heart helps the baby get to sleep. Which means the baby doesn't cry (and attract predators) and also gives the parents more time to sleep at night.
It also allows right-handed mothers to do something with their dominant hand while cradling the baby in that position.
One of the things I love about this is while Alex Jones was definitely negligent in his case, this pretty much does exactly what he wanted.
One of the things I've discovered in my long career of people being wrong about everything is how strong the team sports dynamic of social politics really is. I was high school friends with a writer for the Daily Show and the thing I realized is how humor and dismissal was a way of creating social superiority and evasion of legitimate arguments.
Right now, the world is changing greatly. Lots of people are retreating into a shell of humor in order to avoid it. Mass cognitive dissonance about the nature of reality. But reality and life goes on.
I'm definitely not aware that the credibility of the US DOJ has been destroyed.
And I question why a 501c3 charity would need "field informants" and to launder money through shell corporations. Especially to leaders of these organizations who were (1) coordinating some of these rallies and (2) due to the materially dishonest treatment of the "fine people hoax" for years.
Is the SPLC an intelligence organization? Am I missing something?
My sole comment is that people who use verbiage like this are mentally ill. Not "mentally ill" like I'm calling them an epithet. But like, actually mentally ill.
There are things that are simply not pedagogically useful in the limited instructional period in school. There are things that are simply not appropriate during early childhood development.
People who abuse and manipulate language like this are exactly why more traditional instruction is desired in certain school districts. Postmodernism is wrong. There are actually things that are true without the miasma of an artificial (and exhausting) social construction of reality.
They are a theocratic regime which is not supported by 80% of its population. Being gay is punishable by death. They employ surveillance from China to ensure hijabs are worn by women at all times. They ban access to the internet. Chants of "Death to America" are their government's routine greeting for 50 years. They place military equipment in schools and hospitals deliberately, viewing US compassion as a weakness. They recruit child soldiers and have them publicly stationed at military targets.
There is definitely "antagonism," but to act as if the Iranian people would not bomb their own government if they could... it's a bit much.
> All of which is confirming my point.
No. It refutes your point "They employ surveillance from China to ensure hijabs are worn by women at all times." In addition I would contest other aspects of your statement as well, but that isn't my main point.
> The original person's implication that the "antagonism" towards the IRGC is novel to America is simply false.
You seem to not have understood what my point. What is most determinative of a countries fate in the Middle East isn't domestic policy, but obedience to the United States. Iran's problems are due to the fact that it is an enemy of the United States and hence sanctioned heavily, leading to severe economic problems. There are many other nations headed by regimes that are some combination of socially regressive, highly unpopular, and politically repressive that are counted as US allies and don't face the same set of difficulties (e.g. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain).
> When I think about the counterfactual me that grew up in a large American city, New York or L.A. instead of Toronto,
And just think, those are the American areas most common to Canada.
There are places in America where those counterfactuals do not exist, where the necessities aren't locked behind counters, where community is thriving, and where the normality of civic life is an expectation.
I expect no honors for those parts of the country. If Canada didn't have an air of superiority to comfort itself with, it would have nothing at all.
> If Canada didn't have an air of superiority to comfort itself with, it would have nothing at all.
Canada might be known for many things, but you're the first I've heard refer to an "air of superiority" that we carry around. "Nice" and "polite" maybe. Sorry you feel this way. Have a good day.
Canadians aren't crass enough to describe it as superiority, but it is true that the identity of English-speaking Canada is largely built on "not being America" and that the vast majority of the population is content as long as things are "better than in the USA".
ah yes, the places where women can expect to die if they happen to need medical care while pregnant and where LGBTQ people are not treated the same as most citizens. Sounds lovely.
Whatever the epithets, the truth of the matter is those urban areas are closer to what Canada aspires to be (and currently is). Whereas the parts of Canada she cares about are alive and well in the US (and used to be more like what Canada was).
The question becomes: if you're traveling on a line, and you see the destination looks dark ahead of you, do you turn around or keep going?
Canada's notoriously polite deference led them to align with those powerful tech, marketing, and financial hubs in the US. A cheerleader on the sidelines. But everyone gets to pick. There's a lack of acknowledgement that there's even a choice; the dog that didn't bark one could say. But it's part and parcel of why modern Canada is the way it is.
If a baby sleeps better, it cries less. If it cries less, it attracts fewer predators and helps both parents sleep better at night and have more energy. It also allows the mother to do things with her dominant hand if she is right-handed.
Given the left-handed cradling bias exists even with left-handers, it means there is something specific with left-handedness and infant rearing. A baby in the left hand and a tool (or weapon) in the right is biologically efficient.
Most studies take this from the perspective of evolutionary advantage of the individual. They should take it from the perspective of evolutionary advantage of the family, without which the baby does not survive.
If the bias confers evolutionary advantages, that is also important for the longer childhood humans have compared to primates, which supports our larger brains. Any differential here would have a feedback effect.
Wouldn't it be interesting if a key reason humans are the way we are is a mother's love ♥?
[1] https://sites.psu.edu/clarep/2024/04/12/the-left-cradling-bi...