Prefrontal cortex vs Amygdala and why the children (and teens) should not lead

[Safiel]

I am going to keep this short. Just a brief statement on why the children (and teens) should not lead and CAN not lead.

The issue is NOT guns in this thread. The issue is the children and teens.

We have seen them should off their mouths. We have seem them get angry. We have seen them all but hold their breaths and turn blue. But in the end, that is pretty much the significance of their so called "contribution."

The human brain and central nervous system takes many years to fully mature. Conclusive studies and research show that the 100% mental maturity is not reached until about age 25 or age 26. One of the last areas of the brain to fully mature is the prefrontal cortex. Highly significant as the prefrontal cortex is the center of rational thought in the human being. Even at age 18, it is still significantly underdeveloped.

On the other hand, the amygdala is fully developed at age 18 and is still dominant. It part of the primitive brain and directs our emotions and impulsive behavior.

In the absence of a fully developed prefrontal cortex, teens lack the ability for rational decision making to a large extent and are rather driven by the emotionally driven decision making of the amygdala.

The bottom line is that the teens demonstrating for and against gun control are doing so in the absence of the full ability to rationally understand the consequences of their actions. More abstract concepts such as rights do not dominate their thinking. They have learned what rights are in high school, but lack the ability to fully appreciate them. That will come with age and the maturation of the prefrontal cortex.

The bottom line is that rational adults should ignore the kids and understand that they lead NOTHING. IN reality, they are tools, puppets on a string to a great degree. While David Hogg's anger at losing his friends is genuine and justified, his actions emanating from the basal emotional driven amygdala are nothing more than a person lashing out in anger.

This applies equally to the kids on the pro-gun side and kids demonstrating on any issue.

Everybody here, including myself, were once teenagers. I expressed views as a teenager that I rejected when I grew older.

For example, lets take criminal justice. In high school and college, my view on the death penalty was fry em all and let god sort em out. Obviously, I have long repented of that viewpoint and have become a strong civil libertarian and I am extremely cautious of the death penalty. I also believe that mercy should have a role in the criminal justice system, a view I would have ridiculed as a teen.

I grew as person and in the ability for rational thought due to basic well known biological reasons. After age 25, I was certainly a far more rational person than I was as an 18 year old.

Kids should be learning, not leading, at this age.

[Samm]

I’m sure glad you kept that short.

[Sponge Bob]

"Kids should be learning, not leading, at this age."

agreed 100%

The opportunity to learn subjects that will be important in adult life, and concentrate a significant amount of time on them, are right here, right now, for the teenager in high school.

When missed out, it is more difficult to learn them in adulthood, when community college may also come with a part or full time job, family responsibilities if having any by the time they pursue these missed educational opportunities.

Those under 18 are not allowed to vote.

Why are they being given such a say with this march?

[reflechissez]

"Kids should be learning, not leading, at this age."

agreed 100%

The opportunity to learn subjects that will be important in adult life, and concentrate a significant amount of time on them, are right here, right now, for the teenager in high school.

When missed out, it is more difficult to learn them in adulthood, when community college may also come with a part or full time job, family responsibilities if having any by the time they pursue these missed educational opportunities.

Those under 18 are not allowed to vote.

Why are they being given such a say with this march?

He should be 18 soon. You can pay attention to him then.

[Safiel]

"Kids should be learning, not leading, at this age."

agreed 100%

The opportunity to learn subjects that will be important in adult life, and concentrate a significant amount of time on them, are right here, right now, for the teenager in high school.

When missed out, it is more difficult to learn them in adulthood, when community college may also come with a part or full time job, family responsibilities if having any by the time they pursue these missed educational opportunities.

Those under 18 are not allowed to vote.

Why are they being given such a say with this march?

They certainly have the right march and blather on. But when we listen to them,, we should understand that until age 25 or 26, they lack the full rational capacity of an adult and their message should be discounted accordingly.

I frankly would raise the voting age. Maybe not up to 25 or 26, but at least to 21 or 22, when the prefrontal cortex has significantly matured.

[Samm]

He should be 18 soon. You can pay attention to him then.

Why? Will his message suddenly make sense?

[Samson Corwell]

I am going to keep this short. Just a brief statement on why the children (and teens) should not lead and CAN not lead.

The issue is NOT guns in this thread. The issue is the children and teens.

We have seen them should off their mouths. We have seem them get angry. We have seen them all but hold their breaths and turn blue. But in the end, that is pretty much the significance of their so called "contribution."

The human brain and central nervous system takes many years to fully mature. Conclusive studies and research show that the 100% mental maturity is not reached until about age 25 or age 26. One of the last areas of the brain to fully mature is the prefrontal cortex. Highly significant as the prefrontal cortex is the center of rational thought in the human being. Even at age 18, it is still significantly underdeveloped.

On the other hand, the amygdala is fully developed at age 18 and is still dominant. It part of the primitive brain and directs our emotions and impulsive behavior.

In the absence of a fully developed prefrontal cortex, teens lack the ability for rational decision making to a large extent and are rather driven by the emotionally driven decision making of the amygdala.

The bottom line is that the teens demonstrating for and against gun control are doing so in the absence of the full ability to rationally understand the consequences of their actions. More abstract concepts such as rights do not dominate their thinking. They have learned what rights are in high school, but lack the ability to fully appreciate them. That will come with age and the maturation of the prefrontal cortex.

The bottom line is that rational adults should ignore the kids and understand that they lead NOTHING. IN reality, they are tools, puppets on a string to a great degree. While David Hogg's anger at losing his friends is genuine and justified, his actions emanating from the basal emotional driven amygdala are nothing more than a person lashing out in anger.

This applies equally to the kids on the pro-gun side and kids demonstrating on any issue.

Everybody here, including myself, were once teenagers. I expressed views as a teenager that I rejected when I grew older.

For example, lets take criminal justice. In high school and college, my view on the death penalty was fry em all and let god sort em out. Obviously, I have long repented of that viewpoint and have become a strong civil libertarian and I am extremely cautious of the death penalty. I also believe that mercy should have a role in the criminal justice system, a view I would have ridiculed as a teen.

I grew as person and in the ability for rational thought due to basic well known biological reasons. After age 25, I was certainly a far more rational person than I was as an 18 year old.

Kids should be learning, not leading, at this age.

Disagree.

[Samm]

Disagree.

Elaborate.

[Safiel]

Disagree.

Well, that does not really help the discussion much, disagree with what???

BTW, my statements on the prefrontal cortex vs the amygdala are based on solid peer reviewed science, so if that is what your disagreeing with, your going to have to refute peer reviewed science to do so.

[southernmoderate]

While I completely agree with your viewpoint on the science of it (kids don't really know much and certainly are not fully mature in terms of brain development until 25 or so), I also think that a person much younger than that can rationally understand a threat to their life, and a policy or series of policies that exists that may threaten their life, both at a local or national level. So I see nothing wrong with them having a say, but yes their immaturity does make it hard for them to meaningfully engage in a rational and substantive debate on the issue.

Case in point, where Ingram apologized to Hogg over her disparaging remark, he refused to accept her apology. That was an act of immaturity imo. If someone says a bad thing about me and then apologizes, I'm going to accept their apology and give them a chance to conduct themselves in a better manner in the future. But that doesn't seem to fit Hogg's need to continue to continue to play up the emotional trauma angle of his side and what he has experienced.

[Samm]

While I completely agree with your viewpoint on the science of it (kids don't really know much and certainly are not fully mature in terms of brain development until 25 or so), I also think that a person much younger than that can rationally understand a threat to their life, and a policy or series of policies that exists that may threaten their life, both at a local or national level. So I see nothing wrong with them having a say, but yes their immaturity does make it hard for them to meaningfully engage in a rational and substantive debate on the issue.

Case in point, where Ingram apologized to Hogg over her disparaging remark, he refused to accept her apology. That was an act of immaturity imo. If someone says a bad thing about me and then apologizes, I'm going to accept their apology and give them a chance to conduct themselves in a better manner in the future. But that doesn't seem to fit Hogg's need to continue to continue to play up the emotional trauma angle of his side and what he has experienced.

Minors have the right to express their concerns ... and they deserve to be heard. But they do not have the right to demand specific solutions, particularly when none of them would actually address their concerns. They are simply parroting things they have heard from anti-gun groups and have done no analysis of those things before adopting them on their list of demands.

And even more disturbing is that when adults who have done that analysis attempt to debate them on those points, they are immediately attacked as being insensitive to the children and worse yet, often accused of wanting kids to die. These kids are being manipulated and are too immature to even realize it.

[jezcoe]

They certainly have the right march and blather on. But when we listen to them,, we should understand that until age 25 or 26, they lack the full rational capacity of an adult and their message should be discounted accordingly.

I frankly would raise the voting age. Maybe not up to 25 or 26, but at least to 21 or 22, when the prefrontal cortex has significantly matured.

I am not really buying into your rationalization since I think that.... without diving too deep into it .... looks like internet hokum.

But even if we were to take this idea at face value.... personally I was much more Libertarian/Ayn Rand/ Rush Limbaugh/Conservative in my early twenties than I am now in my mid forties.

Does that mean that my former judgement was immature?

[Safiel]

I am not really buying into your rationalization since I think that.... without diving too deep into it .... looks like internet hokum.

This is 100% solid peer reviewed science. While there is technically no "last word" in science, due to the nature of the scientific method, I can confidently refer to my statements in the OP as being scientific fact.

But even if we were to take this idea at face value.... personally I was much more Libertarian/Ayn Rand/ Rush Limbaugh/Conservative in my early twenties than I am now in my mid forties.

Does that mean that my former judgement was immature?

Not at all. But it does indicate that the way you REACHED your earlier judgements may have been immature. People move in BOTH directions as they mature. Some move leftward, some move rightward.

I was more of a purist economic conservative when I was younger and into the "law and order" thing. As I reached my mid 20's, I starting becoming more pragmatic on the economic front, but have become a civil libertarian as opposed to a law and order type. I have no doubt that my greater rational abilities from my mid 20's forward played a role in those changes in my views.

It is NOT that the views you hold when you are younger are immature.

It is the METHOD by which you come to your views when you are younger.

It is quite possible that a person could have at age 26 the same views they did at age 18. But their ability to articulate and justify those views will be much greater.

[jezcoe]

This is 100% solid peer reviewed science. While there is technically no "last word" in science, due to the nature of the scientific method, I can confidently refer to my statements in the OP as being scientific fact.



Not at all. But it does indicate that the way you REACHED your earlier judgements may have been immature. People move in BOTH directions as they mature. Some move leftward, some move rightward.

I was more of a purist economic conservative when I was younger and into the "law and order" thing. As I reached my mid 20's, I starting becoming more pragmatic on the economic front, but have become a civil libertarian as opposed to a law and order type. I have no doubt that my greater rational abilities from my mid 20's forward played a role in those changes in my views.

It is NOT that the views you hold when you are younger are immature.

It is the METHOD by which you come to your views when you are younger.

It is quite possible that a person could have at age 26 the same views they did at age 18. But their ability to articulate and justify those views will be much greater.

I simply see the argument as a form of scientific ageism.

I am sure that if I wanted to, I could find all sorts of disqualifying factors for whole swaths of people and base it on "science"

Judge an argument by the validity of the argument, not by a supposed scale of development.

Thats all.