We know that, in general, older frontal lobes are better developed. But if you take that where this author wants it to go - that we should remove most choices f

We know that, in general, older frontal lobes are better developed. But if you take that where this author wants it to go - that we should remove most choices from teens' lives until their brains are fully developed - would their brains ever develop? That is, do we think brain development is a function of time, or a function of experience? If it's simply a function of time, then perhaps keeping those under 25 in a padded cell will make the world a better place. But I have a suspicion it's not - that teens who are parented according to this advice will have worse judgement down the road than those who are allowed to make mistakes. Incidentally, I'd argue that the dangers of teens and alcohol are ~90% related to driving. The rhetoric around suburbia at its inception was "a safe place to raise your kids" but it is in fact car-dependent culture that makes alcohol so dangerous for teens. City kids can stumble home on public transit; teenagers in "Real America" have a choice between driving drunk or not coming home that night. The more your parents favor the padded cell approach, the more you fear not coming home, the more likely you are to drive drunk. Perverse incentives and the law of unintended consequences are as alive in parenting as they are in policymaking.