Weird News

[footfootfoot]

Hell yes. It's obvious that the job of a parent isn't over at 18. There is no 'child safety cap' for teenage activities other than vigilant and involved parents. I've read that the human brain isn't fully developed in the decision making areas until about the age of 25. I'd be willing to bet that 20,000 years ago (and earlier, obviously) lackadaisical parenting led to the culling of the herd with those types of parenting approaches. Now we have a whole new set of concerns to take the place of cougars, dire wolves, and other dangerous beasties.

It is sad.

The frontal lobes of the brain have been implicated in behavioral inhibition, the ability to control emotions and impulses. The frontal lobes are also thought to be the place where decisions about right and wrong, as well as cause-effect relationships are processed. In contrast, the amygdala is part of the limbic system of the brain and is involved in instinctive “gut” reactions, including “fight or flight” responses. Lower activity in the frontal lobe could lead to poor control over behavior and emotions, while an overactive amygdala may be associated with high levels of emotional arousal and reactionary decision-making.
The results from the McLean study suggest that while adults can to use rational decision making processes when facing emotional decisions, adolescent brains are simply not yet equipped to think through things in the same way. For example, when deciding whether to ride in a car driven by a drunk friend, an adult can usually put aside her desire to conform and is more likely to make the rational decision against drunk driving. However, a teenager’s immature frontal lobes may not be capable of such a coolly rational approach, and the emotional feelings of friendship may be likely to win the battle. As Dr. Yurgelun-Todd told U.S. News, “Good judgment is learned, but you can’t learn it if you don’t have the necessary hardware.”

[Sundae]

In many places around the world, the parental tie isn't actually cut until the parent dies.
It's still common for men to live with their parents after marriage even in this country if they are second generation immigrants. It makes financial sense, especially if they work in a family business. Free childcare, shared bills, communal cooking and the parents are looked after in old age.

Certainly my Grandparents still lived in Nanny Doyle's house after marriage, it was only WWII that got in the way. My Nanny always said it was a mixed blessing. Auntie Alice lived with her parents until they died, as was expected of a spinster. The War changed many expectations as councils built new houses in new places and suddendly families weren't on the next landing or down the hall. And freedom and privacy, once tasted, are hard to take back.

[tw]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

Hell yes.

These concepts were discussed in previous threads: Creative Gun Control Proposal

Originally Posted by tw

... those who need unrestricted big guns typically act like adult children. An adult, using the brain that forms after age 16, would not post personal attacks. Adults reply with logic; not with the emotional brain that characterizes children.

The emotional (adults who are still children) will adamently deny that reality.

Science also says some adults never form / use their pre-frontal cortex. ... Children and adults who are still children can be told how to think. Will reply with anger, emotion, and cheapshots when manipulation is exposed.

And elsewhere in:
Guns don't kill people ....
Watching the Republicans - Runaway Train
Creative Gun Control Proposal

Originally Posted by tw

"Blue you ignorant slut ..." is not from a stable adult. Unfortunately many who post emotional - who demonstrate no prefrontal cortex - also need big guns. To defend against a government conspiring to ... well, what exactly is government conspiring to do? ...

Just so you do not get confused by upwelling anger. Where are statistics that prove we all need big guns? Where, using hard facts, is an actual threat?

Fears and other emotions are found when a prefrontal cortex has not yet learned to controls a child's emotional brain. This function does not appear until after 16. In some, it does not develop until 24. The text books also say some never fully form a prefrontal cortex. Then facts and numbers remains illusive and rrelevant to emotions inspired by advertising and other brainwashing methods.

This discussion continues farther in science and law. Does someone whose prefrontal cortex never fully developed or clearly shows signs of damage (and therefore subject to emotional outbursts)- is it really Constitutional to apply the death penalty to such a person? Since an adult without or with a minimal prefrontal cortex is an adult who is still a child. Therefore entertains their emotions rather than think logically.

And finally:

Originally Posted by tw

Age has more to do with it. In particular, how a prefrontal cortex grows. With age, we think less with our emotions (those lower level functions that children use). And more from a brain lobe less influenced by emotion. It is the process of becoming an adult. Or more adult.

... You were called old. The emotional would feel insulted. You were called older. And the underlying science says why that is good. An adult who is still more of a child would be insulted. An adult thinking logically saw what was only posted in that paragraph.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by tw

is it really Constitutional to apply the death penalty to such a person?

I think the overwhelming majority of people in prison and on death row suffer from poor impulse control.

[Griff]

That is very likely. I spend my days with a lot of children who have poor impulse control. It can usually be learned, but less likely if a child's life is chaotic. Don't let the frontal lobe argument be a cop-out for poor parenting. Teens will do dumb stuff but they can usually be parented to a point that keeps them from becoming a societal nuisance.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Griff

Teens will do dumb stuff but they can usually be parented to a point that keeps them from becoming a societal nuisance.

Before 16, kids are taught and therefore memorize what is and is not acceptable. The parent trains them similar to how a dog is trained. That process is completely different from another brain function that has decisions (and impulse control) from logical thinking (often referred to as higher brain functions).

Ironically, ScienceNow (on PBS) is replaying reports on how animal and child brains operate. How, for example, a child (who later has lower SAT scores) could not control an impulse to take one piece of candy. Decision was easy. Eat one candy now. Or get many candies in a few minutes. Only children who later demonstrated better formed intelligence were able to wait.

[Sundae]

Meh. Part of that is conditioning too.

If I was told NOT to eat something, I would never have eaten it, no way.
Because I would have been terrified of the repercussions.

If I was told I COULD eat it, but it would be better if I waited, I would have eaten it. Because grown-ups lie.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Sundae

Because grown-ups lie.

We knew you could not trust anyone over 30. Today, it means we cannot trust anyone over 77 (Deja vue Nam).

[glatt]

Maybe this isn't so weird, but it is remarkable. China is planning to build a canal through Nicaragua. And Nicaragua just approved it. $40 Billion.

China is flexing its muscle. Building a bigger better canal than the Panama canal and controlling it for the next 50 years.

[tw]

Originally Posted by glatt

China is planning to build a canal through Nicaragua. And Nicaragua just approved it. $40 Billion.

Only $40 billion? That number is many times too small. Suggesting these are only speculators; not serious builders.

[glatt]

Articles say there have been at least 3 attempts in the past to build a canal through Nicaragua, and none succeeded. Apparently the fractured political climate in Nicaragua is not conducive to getting big projects done. That's why I made sure to say they were "planning" a canal. We will see.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by tw

Only $40 billion? That number is many times too small. Suggesting these are only speculators; not serious builders.

That's the price of the shovels... China will provide all the hand-laborers.

[glatt]

Panama is so skinny, it seemed like Nicaragua would be much more difficult to cut through, but spending a couple minutes in Google Earth shows it actually wouldn't be so bad.

You'd want to cut a canal to Lake Nicaragaua. It's 12 miles from the Pacific to Lake Nicaragua, and you have to use locks to get up over a 1,200 foot mountain range and back down again to the lake. I'd guess about 50 locks total there. The lake is something like 100 feet elevation, and is about 30 miles from the Atlantic. But there is this nice wide meandering river that could be dredged. With a couple locks put in around rapids where it drops the 100 feet to the sea, it's really pretty doable. It is nowhere near as bad a location as I first suspected.

[glatt]

So there was the news yesterday that the supreme court ruled in Myriad Genetics that you can't patent genes that are naturally occurring. That pleases me, but it means that other genetically engineered genes can still be patented if they are new and man-made, so it's not a huge game changer.

The weird news part of it is that Justice Scalia agreed with the ruling in most ways, but wouldn't agree with some of the nitty gritty molecular biology because it conflicted with his personal (presumably religious) beliefs.

I join the judgment of the Court, and all of its opinion except Part I–A and some portions of the rest of the opinion going into fine details of molecular biology. I am unable to affirm those details on my own knowledge or even my own belief.

[Lamplighter]

The part about "naturally occurring" human genes vs synthesised DNA" is going to lead to legal confusion.

To the layman, it may seem clear-cut, but when you get into DNA vs cDNA, retro-viruses,
"normal" vs "mutation" and/or "birth defect" and, animal genes vs human genes, etc.
it gets very murky very quickly.

In reality, this is probably more of a political than a legal (constitutionality) decision.
It satisfies those of us who object to someone patenting "my genes",
and yet saves the companies who have invested in creating lab tests.

And since it is a 9-0 decision, it's going to stand for a long time.