Slashdot Mirror
You're An Adult, But Your Brain Might Not Be, Researchers Say (cnn.com)
"The human brain reaches its adult volume by age 10, but the neurons that make it up continue to change for years after that," reports the New York Times, citing a new paper by neuroscience researchers that questions when "adulthood" really begins. An anonymous reader writes:
One of the paper's authors -- an associate psychology professor at Harvard -- tells CNN that "There is no agreed-on benchmark that, when reached, would allow a neuroscientist to say 'Aha! This brain is fully developed'. However, it is safe to say that by almost any metric, the brain is continuing to develop actively well past the age of 18..."
"Some children, researchers have found, have neural networks that look as if they belong to an adult..." adds the Times, noting that adolescents also "do about as well as adults on cognition tests, for instance. But if they're feeling strong emotions, those scores can plummet. The problem seems to be that teenagers have not yet developed a strong brain system that keeps emotions under control."
And this cuts both ways, according to a psychologist at Temple University who wants the voting age lowered to 16. ("Sixteen-year-olds are just as good at logical reasoning as older people are," he tells the Times) But he also believes judges should consider the lack of emotional control when sentencing defendants -- even if they're in their early 20s. "Most crime situations that young people are involved in are emotionally arousing situations -- they're scared, or they're angry, intoxicated or whatever."
"Some children, researchers have found, have neural networks that look as if they belong to an adult..." adds the Times, noting that adolescents also "do about as well as adults on cognition tests, for instance. But if they're feeling strong emotions, those scores can plummet. The problem seems to be that teenagers have not yet developed a strong brain system that keeps emotions under control."
And this cuts both ways, according to a psychologist at Temple University who wants the voting age lowered to 16. ("Sixteen-year-olds are just as good at logical reasoning as older people are," he tells the Times) But he also believes judges should consider the lack of emotional control when sentencing defendants -- even if they're in their early 20s. "Most crime situations that young people are involved in are emotionally arousing situations -- they're scared, or they're angry, intoxicated or whatever."
"If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain"
those scientists & doctors must be liberals
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
I would be more willing to grow up if I saw it worked better for others.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
ask the car insurance companies: above a certain age - way above 18 usually - their rates suddenly drop dramatically. The insurance companies don't make that age up: it comes from their accidents statistics.
It's pretty clear certain age groups get more into accidents than others: it's because they're not really mature enough to be good drivers, even after years of driving experience. Nothing reveals immaturity in a person more than their way of behaving on the road.
I'm saying this as a general rule of course: clearly there are good young drivers and incompetent old timers. But for the population in general, the insurance statistics don't lie.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
You are liberal at a young age until you look at the withholding and deductions from your pay stub.
You are a conservative when older until you see the Social Security and Medicare benefits to which you are eligible.
"Sixteen-year-olds are just as good at logical reasoning as older people are,"
Voting has nothing to do with logical reasoning. First, IQ and reasoning are not EXPLICITLY required. We let retards vote. Some states let people of an "unsound mind" vote. We count the votes of people with deeply below average IQ and learning disabilities the exact same as those who have received great academic achievements.
Second, IQ and reasoning are only barely involved in politics at all. Emotions are the biggest motivators. When a politician wants to convince you, he doesn't just lay his case out and connect points, he makes you feel proud of him, happy with the way things will be with his help, scared of the other guy, scared what the other guy represents, etc. Elections are entirely emotions.
If a professor is trying to allow 16 year olds to vote- people who are, by law, required to spend every day in a government institution- he probably has some other reasoning behind that.
So I googled it real fast.
Lawrence Steinburg is the professor in question. Here he is discussing the younger of the two Boston Bombers, a 19 year old:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/op...
Here's his quote from that article:
"If neurobiological immaturity makes adolescents inherently less responsible for their crimes, and if science now demonstrates that the brain is still maturing well into the early 20s, should we rethink where we draw the boundary between adolescence and adulthood under the law? The Boston Marathon bombing trial is important not only because the crime was so horrific, but because it forces us to ask hard questions about how best to judge the behavior of those who are legal adults, but in many respects neurobiological adolescents."
In this article, he is overall arguing for less culpability for a multiple murderer, based on his presumed lack of neural development. So according to this professor, a 16 year old should be able to vote, but a 19 year old should be held to a lower standard for his crimes. If you spend years arguing for the lack of developmental progression, why then suddenly pop up and claim that a 16 year old should be able to vote? The claim stands in contrast to his other positions. A reasonable argument from his positions and data seems to be raising the voting age to 25. But then we would run into issues where you would have soldiers (in some cases, theoretically draftees, as we had a draft the last time this sort of conversation happened) unable to vote on politicians who may or may not be sending them to their doom.
A 16 year old without a home is a problem for the state. A 16 year old without resources is a problem for the state. A 16 year old does not have a guaranteed right to work in all places, and may have many restrictions and benefits placed upon them by the state. A 16 year old is not liable for their crimes in the same way an 18 year old is, the details of which vary from place to place. Voting has much more to do with this than any form of cognition. If cognition were the test, then we'd literally give cognition tests. If emotional maturity were the test, then we'd give those tests. Instead, we vest citizens with the responsibility of voting at the same time we vest them with a wide array of other responsibilities and civic duties. If he were arguing for lowering the age of adulthood, I could see his point- but instead he has a set of oddly specific and contradictory statements, based on a fundamentally unsound assumption about what makes a citizen. It is responsibilities, not intellect. Half of people are stupider than average, after all, and they get the same voice politically.
Plus it just doesn't seem smart to let students be told how to vote by their high school teachers. Way too much peer pressure, you could probably get extremely high compliance rates, especially given that schools would inevitably force their students to vote there in person when possible.
The justification for leniency makes no sense to me. If a criminal is driven by impulse and lack of emotional control, shouldn't he (and it is usually a "he") get a longer sentence, since he is a greater danger to other people?
In the US, rental cars will cost you about 50% more if you're under 25 than over.
I support vote right at 16, since at 16 one can work, and hence pay taxes, and deciding on tax allocation is the root of democracy.
Maturity cannot be a filter, since we precisely do not know how to define it.
Teens shouldn't vote. We already have an excess of emotion and hormones at the voting booth including some aging slashdotters. Voting should be based upon rational evaluation of verifiable facts. Anyone who gets their information from sources biased in only one direction should be disqualified.
Teens are capable of rational thought. You can find them at science fairs and other exceptional events. It's just that the masses of teens are up to their elbows in Twitter, Fecebook, etc, and drift in the winds of public opinion.
There are many who quietly believe that the General Public should not vote. Most are ignorant, superstitious and many are just plain dumb. Voters should take a qualifying test before being allowed to vote. Every voter should have read and understood the US Constitution (It's not that hard- even immigrants and fifth graders can do it). If they can't find their state on a map of the USA- no vote. If they can't name the mayor of their town or city- no vote. If they think Africa is a country or Rush Limbaugh is a Supreme Court Justice- fuggedaboudit ... etc.
...omphaloskepsis often...
It certainly wasn't news 35 years ago when we had kids. The phrase then was "keep them alive 'till they're 25." Essentially, you continue to develop your sense of what is foolish (at least behind the wheel) until then. Research shows that people continue to develop their ability to handle concurrent tasks until their early thirties Think Hannibal, Napoleon, even Bobby Fisher when they were in their early thirties. Overall your judgement continues to improve, and overcomes your loss of handling concurrent tasks until you are about 60. If you are the argumentative type who says prove it, just Google Adam Gazzaley. That will get you started. I am not arguing for or against when you should vote, drink, or drive here. Just that the premise of the article is valid. You are not fully developed until around 25 or later.
Everything in the world does not piss me off. How weird is that?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
And that's exactly what TFA notes - that younger brains do OK with cognitive issues until the amygdala (in part responsible for emotional behaviors) swamps the frontal cortex (responsible for responsible things, mostly responsible for damping down the rest of the brain).
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Yes! I love a legal system where you get to plead that killing your victim was an insane thing to do and the prosecution has to argue "No, it was a perfectly rational thing to do". And you only get punished if he succeeds in convincing them that it was rational to murder your victim.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
You can fake tits, but not brains.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Now that people are learning to drive later in life
That's something you'll need to backup with facts. In the past 10 years where I've lived various governments have caved under pressure to let kids get their L plates at an earlier and earlier age.
Someone who learns to drive at 25 is not particularly safer after 5 years (at 30) than someone who started driving at 16 after 5 years (at 21).
Didn't say they were. What I said is Insurance is complicated. It's a multi-variable equation with lots of emphasis on the multi bit. Driving history has always had a larger influence on insurance prices than age has, when you have that history to go on.
In general, car insurance companies are not particularly good at estimating individual risk.
That would have a lot to do with very little information being passed onto them and people complaining about it everytime they do. How they would love to know how many hours you spend behind the wheel, as you already alluded to :-)
but spending a day of classroom and on-the-road training in how to handle vehicles and other drivers while operating radios and sirens doesn't count
Not only did it count for me, the insurance company promoted the classes and I was able to claim back the cost of the class from the insurance company.
Becoming a pilot didn't count either,
Really to be fair, flying a plane is a very different skill set than driving a car. It is a much more refined skill with a metric shitload of inference based on information provided by instrumentation. Where looking out the window becomes important a lot of information is incredibly subtle (at height the landscape can appear almost unmoving) By comparison one of the biggest problems with new drivers is they spend too much time looking at instruments in a scenario where pretty much anything can jump out infront of their windscreen at any moment. It's a very different kind of situational awareness, and personally I don't believe that being a pilot would make you a better (or worse) driver on the road but I would be happy to see some stats to correct me.
That said defensive driving courses should be mandatory. People shouldn't just learn how to drive, they should learn what to do when it all goes wrong, something that pilots do get extensive training in. People should learn what to do if tires slip, if they need to avoid a vehicle or obstacle, and should learn to drive on ice and water. Instead we take them for a lap around the local school zone at 40km/h.
Slightly irrelevant but funny side story last week my aunt had an accident (other car indicated, started turning but then changed it's mind) and aunt then t-boned the other car so incredibly lightly that the only damage to her car was to her license plate. It would have ended there if the other driver didn't panic, force another car in the oncoming lane off the road into a pole, proceed to hit 3 parked cars and then drive quite ironically into the wall of a car repair shop.