Unmasked: Musk’s secret DOGE goon squad—who are all under 26
The world’s richest man doesn’t want anyone knowing his right-hand people who are disrupting government.
Maybe read the link I posted? All the research on "25 years" stems from that being the cutoff year. The same developments continue throughout life.
I did. But that link is just opinion. The studies are real science. The claim that all the research stems from it being the cutoff year is unsupported by the article in the link, which, again, is one person's opinion. Weighted against the consensus of medical science, it's just not very convincing to me.
No, you didn't.
Why do people insist otherwise2? Unclear. But it’s not based on any particular scientific study or claim. At best, it seems to be a corruption/misunderstanding of a few older studies into brain development, ones which mentioned, or only used subjects under the age of, 25.
... and those statements in that neuroscientist's "opinion" are linked to sources. If you click on those, you'll end up at this article which cites scholars and references the studies where people got this myth from:
https://slate.com/technology/2022/11/brain-development-25-year-old-mature-myth.html
Enjoy learning something new with your ever changing brain.
I did.
That Slate article argues that there's nothing special about the age of 25, not that brains are still in development at that age.
If you can't find a scholarly, reliable source for your claim that our brains are fully developed at 25, then I'm afraid you're not going to convince me. The reason for that is this: I'm not hubristic enough to believe I know better than the field of neuroscience, and I'm not credulous enough to believe one person's opinion that they do.
Nothing you have shown me contradicts the fact that the prefrontal cortex isn't fully developed in people in their early twenties. In fact your latest source repeats the claim multiple times.
for your claim that our brains are fully developed at 25
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.
I know better than the field of neuroscience
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.
for your claim that our brains are fully developed at 25
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.
I know better than the field of neuroscience
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.
