politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
That's the opposite of my claim. The claim is that there's no such thing as "fully developed". Development is continous throughout our whole lives. There's no "line" at 25. You could just as well use 20 or 30. Or 5. Or 50.
Your issue is that you believe that the field of neuroscience claims something it doesn't. You've been given plenty of sources with quotes from neuroscientists on exactly how that myth came to be.
You still choose to believe the myth.
I choose to believe the consensus. It's getting tiring saying the same thing.
You're sources are junk, I'm afraid. They are magazine articles written to excite readers rather than get at the truth. I'm finding it hard to explain this to you without sounding patronising so maybe you should educate yourself on the veracity of source types.
So your claim is that there's no "fully developed"? That then does not support your original assertion that we shouldn't go easier on people who are younger for making bad decisions. They remain significantly less developed than their mature counterparts, whether or not someone in their 40s still has the potential for development (of course they do). Neural plasticity doesn't suddenly 'switch off, but it does appear to peak and fall quite quickly in the late twenties (of course, this is not an iron rule: everyone is different). I can source this claim with any number of studies if you like.
I'm sorry I feel I picked on you a bit, really I just wanted a dialogue. I've seen this notion going round that "our brains not being fully developed until after 25 has been debunked" and I've been meaning to read into it for a while to see if it's true. I'm going to keep looking at it, but I don't see any evidence that scientific understanding of prefrontal development has changed. I'm a scientist by education so I am perfectly capable of charging my mind if I believe there is evidence to do so. In fact I find that process thrilling and it's literally one of the reasons I get out of bed in the morning. I'm not stubborn or dogmatic in the slightest. But I am hard to convince. Sorry about that.
You believe there to be a consensus that doesn't exist. That's the point the neuroscientists make in the links I've given you.
Here's a recent paper that could be used to claim it's 20, not 25, if you want to draw a line: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-42540-8
There is plenty of evidence for consensus. Medical institutions and departments national and international all claim that brain maturity is not reached until the mid to late twenties. Google "prefrontal cortex development age". There very much is a consensus, unless we are using different meanings for the word "consensus". Or perhaps we're not talking about the same fact that there's consensus over. If course there's no consensus on the exact age, and that's all the articles were saying, but that has no bearing on the fact that development doesn't peak and fall until the twenties.
... yeah about that "sources" thing you mentioned. Those would not belong to "scientific consensus". Neuroscientists claiming there is no such consensus however are valid sources, papers showing something else than the claimed consensus do too.
No, because down that road of argument lies the validation of antivax views.
hahahaha no, most definitely not :D
Anyway, it's pretty clear you have some other reason than science behind not accepting you're in the wrong here. The Nature study with its very clear graphs should be enough when it comes to science papers and there are numerous neuroscientists quoted in the other links I've given. You seem to believe "Slate" becomes the source when they quote one, but that's not how sourcing works.
You haven't given me a source other than Slate.
And look, if you can't see how that argument generalises to antivax acceptance then you are part of the problem frankly.
I'm going to stop here because you're dug in, and starting to project ad hominems.