5 ms·

This seems relevant: "It doesn’t matter how smart teens are or how well they scored on the SAT or ACT. Good judgment isn’t something they can excel in, at leas

This seems relevant: "It doesn’t matter how smart teens are or how well they scored on the SAT or ACT. Good judgment isn’t something they can excel in, at least not yet." "The rational part of a teen’s brain isn’t fully developed and won’t be until age 25 or so." "In fact, recent research has found that adult and teen brains work differently. Adults think with the prefrontal cortex, the brain’s rational part. This is the part of the brain that responds to situations with good judgment and an awareness of long-term consequences. Teens process information with the amygdala. This is the emotional part." https://www.stanfordchildrens.org/en/topic/default?id=understanding-the-teen-brain-1-3051 https://www.stanfordchildrens.org/en/topic/default?id=unders...

robin_reala 1y ago
So… block people below 25 from anything that requires good judgement like choice of intoxicants, driving, operating heavy machinery, joining the military, having children, getting married? Or accept that growing up is part of life, and that there are short term consequences of political choice too that groups of people are currently denied?
- shakna 1y ago
  Since when have the ramifications of political choice ever been "short term"? Liz Truss was only PM for 49 days. How much impact on the economy did she have?
  - robin_reala 1y ago
    “The U.K.’s stock and bond markets have shed at least $500 billion in value since Liz Truss was formally appointed to succeed Boris Johnson as prime minister on Sept. 5.” https://fortune.com/europe/2022/09/27/uk-stock-bond-markets-lost-500-billion-liz-truss-tenure/ https://fortune.com/europe/2022/09/27/uk-stock-bond-markets-... The article was published 22 days into her tenue.
    - shakna 1y ago
      So... Not short term, then?
      - robin_reala 1y ago
        Are we talking around each other? 22 days feels fairly short term.
        shakna 1y ago
        The impact of the individual, the damage, outlasts even a short appointment. Thus, no political choice, is short term.
  - pjc50 1y ago
    Liz Truss was over 25 at the time.
anonymous_sorry 1y ago
If adults thought completely rationally they wouldn't vote at all, since the chance of their single vote making any difference is insignificant. Or even if they did, the amount of effort they'd put in researching, considering and modelling the potential outcomes would would be commensurate to the impact they would expect their vote to have. I suspect for a good chunk of adult voters, this is in fact the case. So it's not obvious to me that including more voters whose decision-making is more emotional will necessarily produce worse outcomes. It's conceivable it'll produce better outcomes. Edit: I'm being downvoted. To be clear, I'm an ardent democrat, but the idea that people vote analytically and rationally doesn't make sense for the above reason. The most informed voters are, in my experience, often highly emotional.
- roenxi 1y ago
  If adults were rational they'd use their communication skills to form broad coalitions to make sure that policies they like get put in place. Which is largely what happens. > Or even if they did, the amount of effort they'd put in... This is actually quite an interesting area if you look into the game theory of making choices in a group setting. Strong strategies typically often don't involve doing much research, but they are rather frustrating for the people who take an interest in politics. Real-world behaviours are arguably quite reasonable on this front too, although they are limited by the ability of the average person to reason their way through the policy suggestions being made by though leaders. Although I do agree that more voters isn't better. There is a certain level of objective correctness in political decisions if we admit basic ideas like "policies should be tested to see whether they achieve the goals that they were intended to" as a measure of success and the point should be to design systems that optimise on it to some degree.
  - anonymous_sorry 1y ago
    > If adults were rational they'd use their communication skills to form broad coalitions Yes. And in detail, with this model of a rational electorate, skilled influencers put the effort in to devise a policy platform and convince others that it is good for them. The majority pick a platform that they are convinced by. It's worth it for the influencers, because they have an outsized impact. It's worth it for everyone else only if choosing a coalition is very low-effort. Or if they are entertained by the influencers. Again, I'm an ardent democrat. I'm just pointing out the flaws in any argument that assumes rational voters are a good thing - because it's rational to not waste much time on voting. Instead, democracy works best when voters feel an arguably irrational sense of duty and civic pride.
bigfudge 1y ago
Should we include an equivalent analysis of the declines in cognitive function after 70. In my experience they are much more marked than any deficits teenagers may have.
- _heimdall 1y ago
  Why not go further and also consider the cognitive implications of being ill, depressed, obese, stressed, parent of a newborn, or any other condition that could have short or long term implications on mental sharpness? I really hate when these ideas come of that effectively boil down to creating some kind of litmus test for who can be "trusted" to vote. We have an age limit, maybe the UK wants a lower limit, but at least that's a pretty simple and clear line to be drawn.
- NoGravitas 1y ago
  Although with the current generation of over 70s, that's complicated by their intake of tetraethyl lead.
- pjc50 1y ago
  It's important to note the current discourse that Biden (82) is far too old and in a cognitive decline, while Trump (79) has a state of health that is beyond question.
Sharlin 1y ago
> "In fact, recent research has found that adult and teen brains work differently. Adults think with the prefrontal cortex, the brain’s rational part. This is the part of the brain that responds to situations with good judgment and an awareness of long-term consequences. Teens process information with the amygdala. This is the emotional part." This is a ridiculous claim. If you believe children think at all, they do it with the prefrontal cortex, just like every other mammal.
- leereeves 1y ago
  Emotional decision making, even against reason and willpower, definitely exists. Whether you call it "thinking" is just semantics.
  - Sharlin 1y ago
    I know. The point was the ridiculous claim that adults think with brain part X but teens instead do it with Y. The amygdala is not going to do your math homework, that's for sure. And adults, obviously, are nowhere near free from emotional decision-making.
    - leereeves 1y ago
      You seem to be saying it's a "ridiculous claim" because you're limiting the word "think" to math homework. The article is using "think" in a broader sense that includes decision making, a process that involves the limbic system and other primitive parts of the brain. It's certainly true that those parts of the brain continue to influence decision making in adults. Nonetheless, research has shown that those parts of the brain are far more influential in teens.
_Algernon_ 1y ago
The lack of maturity also needs to be stacked up against the stake youth has in the future. Why should a 90-year old with little stake in the future be allowed to vote while young people who will live for another 70 years be at the mercy of that 90-year old's voting? I think there is a good argument to be made that young people are the biggest stakeholders in our future, and should have a say.
Jach 1y ago
This is one of the more damaging pop culture beliefs of our times. Probably worse than the pop culture interpretation of Dunning-Kruger. It's mostly wrong. Here's a brief review: https://slate.com/technology/2022/11/brain-development-25-year-old-mature-myth.html https://slate.com/technology/2022/11/brain-development-25-ye...
- leereeves 1y ago
  It's an oversimplification to be sure, but based on solid science. There's no hard line "with seemingly magical properties" at 25, but there are enormous changes between 16ish and 25ish. The author you cited agrees, on the same site, in a different article: > A growing body of research strongly suggests that brain development continues well into people’s 20s and beyond. ... There is strong scientific consensus that people’s decision-making abilities can evolve between their early and late 20s https://slate.com/technology/2022/12/teen-brains-neuroscience-justice-law-supreme-court.html https://slate.com/technology/2022/12/teen-brains-neuroscienc...
  - Jach 1y ago
    That's a good followup article, but it doesn't really contradict anything and the myth is still a myth. So no, it is not based on solid science, and the whole framing should be discarded because it will just be used to rescue the hard line oversimplification. (fMRI research by itself is also not solid science; it can definitely be a useful tool and can support things, especially if paired with other behavioral and developmental science, but it has many flaws with methodology in interpreting data as well as often being statistically underpowered. At least the papers themselves are typically better than press in using appropriately uncertain language. e.g. an imaging study mentioned in the article found huge variation in actual age with a "maturation index", showing 8-12 year olds can have the same maturity as 25-30 year olds, the r^2 for their asymptotic growth curve was only 0.555.) Some things that are better supported by multiple lines of scientific research, to quote two consecutive bits from the second article: "young people’s general cognitive skills, including their ability to reason, don’t change much after the age of 14 or so." "What does change with age is the ability to reason while distracted; emotions and peer pressure are more likely to hamper decision making in teens and early twentysomethings." These things are really outside of the pop idea of "your brain isn't fully developed until 25".
pjc50 1y ago
I would like to link this "under 25 are babies who are too young to do anything" thread to yesterday's "why is nobody having children any more, especially young people" thread.
- leereeves 1y ago
  I'm certainly not saying "under 25 are babies who are too young to do anything", but in response, I would point out that if adults weren't working so hard to prevent it, a lot more young people would have babies by 16.

robin_reala 1y ago

So… block people below 25 from anything that requires good judgement like choice of intoxicants, driving, operating heavy machinery, joining the military, having children, getting married? Or accept that growing up is part of life, and that there are short term consequences of political choice too that groups of people are currently denied?

shakna 1y ago
Since when have the ramifications of political choice ever been "short term"? Liz Truss was only PM for 49 days. How much impact on the economy did she have?
- robin_reala 1y ago
  “The U.K.’s stock and bond markets have shed at least $500 billion in value since Liz Truss was formally appointed to succeed Boris Johnson as prime minister on Sept. 5.” https://fortune.com/europe/2022/09/27/uk-stock-bond-markets-lost-500-billion-liz-truss-tenure/ https://fortune.com/europe/2022/09/27/uk-stock-bond-markets-... The article was published 22 days into her tenue.
  - shakna 1y ago
    So... Not short term, then?
    - robin_reala 1y ago
      Are we talking around each other? 22 days feels fairly short term.
      - shakna 1y ago
        The impact of the individual, the damage, outlasts even a short appointment. Thus, no political choice, is short term.
- pjc50 1y ago
  Liz Truss was over 25 at the time.

anonymous_sorry 1y ago

If adults thought completely rationally they wouldn't vote at all, since the chance of their single vote making any difference is insignificant. Or even if they did, the amount of effort they'd put in researching, considering and modelling the potential outcomes would would be commensurate to the impact they would expect their vote to have. I suspect for a good chunk of adult voters, this is in fact the case. So it's not obvious to me that including more voters whose decision-making is more emotional will necessarily produce worse outcomes. It's conceivable it'll produce better outcomes. Edit: I'm being downvoted. To be clear, I'm an ardent democrat, but the idea that people vote analytically and rationally doesn't make sense for the above reason. The most informed voters are, in my experience, often highly emotional.

roenxi 1y ago
If adults were rational they'd use their communication skills to form broad coalitions to make sure that policies they like get put in place. Which is largely what happens. > Or even if they did, the amount of effort they'd put in... This is actually quite an interesting area if you look into the game theory of making choices in a group setting. Strong strategies typically often don't involve doing much research, but they are rather frustrating for the people who take an interest in politics. Real-world behaviours are arguably quite reasonable on this front too, although they are limited by the ability of the average person to reason their way through the policy suggestions being made by though leaders. Although I do agree that more voters isn't better. There is a certain level of objective correctness in political decisions if we admit basic ideas like "policies should be tested to see whether they achieve the goals that they were intended to" as a measure of success and the point should be to design systems that optimise on it to some degree.
- anonymous_sorry 1y ago
  > If adults were rational they'd use their communication skills to form broad coalitions Yes. And in detail, with this model of a rational electorate, skilled influencers put the effort in to devise a policy platform and convince others that it is good for them. The majority pick a platform that they are convinced by. It's worth it for the influencers, because they have an outsized impact. It's worth it for everyone else only if choosing a coalition is very low-effort. Or if they are entertained by the influencers. Again, I'm an ardent democrat. I'm just pointing out the flaws in any argument that assumes rational voters are a good thing - because it's rational to not waste much time on voting. Instead, democracy works best when voters feel an arguably irrational sense of duty and civic pride.

bigfudge 1y ago

Should we include an equivalent analysis of the declines in cognitive function after 70. In my experience they are much more marked than any deficits teenagers may have.

_heimdall 1y ago
Why not go further and also consider the cognitive implications of being ill, depressed, obese, stressed, parent of a newborn, or any other condition that could have short or long term implications on mental sharpness? I really hate when these ideas come of that effectively boil down to creating some kind of litmus test for who can be "trusted" to vote. We have an age limit, maybe the UK wants a lower limit, but at least that's a pretty simple and clear line to be drawn.
NoGravitas 1y ago
Although with the current generation of over 70s, that's complicated by their intake of tetraethyl lead.
pjc50 1y ago
It's important to note the current discourse that Biden (82) is far too old and in a cognitive decline, while Trump (79) has a state of health that is beyond question.

Sharlin 1y ago

> "In fact, recent research has found that adult and teen brains work differently. Adults think with the prefrontal cortex, the brain’s rational part. This is the part of the brain that responds to situations with good judgment and an awareness of long-term consequences. Teens process information with the amygdala. This is the emotional part." This is a ridiculous claim. If you believe children think at all, they do it with the prefrontal cortex, just like every other mammal.

leereeves 1y ago
Emotional decision making, even against reason and willpower, definitely exists. Whether you call it "thinking" is just semantics.
- Sharlin 1y ago
  I know. The point was the ridiculous claim that adults think with brain part X but teens instead do it with Y. The amygdala is not going to do your math homework, that's for sure. And adults, obviously, are nowhere near free from emotional decision-making.
  - leereeves 1y ago
    You seem to be saying it's a "ridiculous claim" because you're limiting the word "think" to math homework. The article is using "think" in a broader sense that includes decision making, a process that involves the limbic system and other primitive parts of the brain. It's certainly true that those parts of the brain continue to influence decision making in adults. Nonetheless, research has shown that those parts of the brain are far more influential in teens.

_Algernon_ 1y ago

The lack of maturity also needs to be stacked up against the stake youth has in the future. Why should a 90-year old with little stake in the future be allowed to vote while young people who will live for another 70 years be at the mercy of that 90-year old's voting? I think there is a good argument to be made that young people are the biggest stakeholders in our future, and should have a say.

Jach 1y ago

This is one of the more damaging pop culture beliefs of our times. Probably worse than the pop culture interpretation of Dunning-Kruger. It's mostly wrong. Here's a brief review: https://slate.com/technology/2022/11/brain-development-25-year-old-mature-myth.html https://slate.com/technology/2022/11/brain-development-25-ye...

leereeves 1y ago
It's an oversimplification to be sure, but based on solid science. There's no hard line "with seemingly magical properties" at 25, but there are enormous changes between 16ish and 25ish. The author you cited agrees, on the same site, in a different article: > A growing body of research strongly suggests that brain development continues well into people’s 20s and beyond. ... There is strong scientific consensus that people’s decision-making abilities can evolve between their early and late 20s https://slate.com/technology/2022/12/teen-brains-neuroscience-justice-law-supreme-court.html https://slate.com/technology/2022/12/teen-brains-neuroscienc...
- Jach 1y ago
  That's a good followup article, but it doesn't really contradict anything and the myth is still a myth. So no, it is not based on solid science, and the whole framing should be discarded because it will just be used to rescue the hard line oversimplification. (fMRI research by itself is also not solid science; it can definitely be a useful tool and can support things, especially if paired with other behavioral and developmental science, but it has many flaws with methodology in interpreting data as well as often being statistically underpowered. At least the papers themselves are typically better than press in using appropriately uncertain language. e.g. an imaging study mentioned in the article found huge variation in actual age with a "maturation index", showing 8-12 year olds can have the same maturity as 25-30 year olds, the r^2 for their asymptotic growth curve was only 0.555.) Some things that are better supported by multiple lines of scientific research, to quote two consecutive bits from the second article: "young people’s general cognitive skills, including their ability to reason, don’t change much after the age of 14 or so." "What does change with age is the ability to reason while distracted; emotions and peer pressure are more likely to hamper decision making in teens and early twentysomethings." These things are really outside of the pop idea of "your brain isn't fully developed until 25".

pjc50 1y ago

I would like to link this "under 25 are babies who are too young to do anything" thread to yesterday's "why is nobody having children any more, especially young people" thread.

leereeves 1y ago
I'm certainly not saying "under 25 are babies who are too young to do anything", but in response, I would point out that if adults weren't working so hard to prevent it, a lot more young people would have babies by 16.