[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/sci/ - Science & Math


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.




File: limbic.png (190 KB, 860x658)
190 KB
190 KB PNG
One of the big theories going on in Neuroscience right now is Dual Systems Model. Basically, it theorizes that cognition matures in the mid-teens, but the limbic system is immature until the mid-twenties.

This is a scatter plot that supposedly shows proof of that. The researchers however, drew an upwards curve that the data didn't reflect (outside of 2 big outliers). Instead, the data implies around the mid-teens onwards, the limbic system in the prefrontal cortex is mature.

So, if the limbic system isn't immature going off by their own data, how did they draw these conclusions?
>>
>>14596081
If the scatter plot of data from roughly 14/15 onward is in almost entirely the same range, how can it be used to say that the limbic system matures in the mid-twenties? You can see a clear upwards curve in before the mid-teens, but starting from around that range, a straight line would be just as accurate. Why would researchers miscontrue their data this way?
>>
Let's see the original paper
>>
>>14596162
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6970937/#!po=17.3729

This is where I believe the chart originates from.

Basically, they are using neuroscience to try and justify raising the age of adulthood. Not just by social means, but seemingly by biological means. 10-24 is what they consider (for some reason) adolescence.

However, their data does not show this by any metric.
>>
>>14596166
The proposal is usually pushed by a number of researchers, most notably Laurence Steinberg.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2396566/

>There is, after all, a long history of failed attempts to explain everything adolescent as biologically determined dating back not only toHall (1904), but to early philosophical treatises on the period (Lerner & Steinberg, 2004). These caveats notwithstanding, the current state of our knowledge about adolescent brain development (both structural and functional) and possible brain-behavior links during this period, although incomplete, is nonetheless sufficient to offer some insight into “emerging directions” in the study of adolescent risk-taking.

He often uses psychosocial maturity tests to engage when the people mature emotionally or in what is known as hot cognition. However, most countries do not plateau at 25 and keep increasing past the age of 30. Cognitive maturity however is commonly reached between 14-16, but in China it has been recorded to increase linearly well past 30. I believe this puts into question how accurate these tests are for measuring biological processes versus it just being a product of environment.

They'll usually say younger people and people under a certain age perform worse on these tests and have a higher amygdala activation, and that therefore they think with this part of the brain. However, most of them (in a lot of tests I've seen) score within the adult range of the no-go task. Typically 75% or more.
>>
>>14596166
>by biological means. 10-24 is what they consider adolescence

Honestly, this should be the norm nowadays no ? I mean, the simple cycle of school-university-job-family(adulthood after 18) is not working anymore.
In between these stages of life some people need to do some soul searching to see what they are really doing before shooting themselves in the foot, and ended up being specialized in something that they hate it.
I believe you are a fucking child until your 20s, depending on what early education (out of institutions) your parents could give to you
>>
It is also proven that gray matter myelination of the prefrontal cortex does not finish in the mid-twenties, so that cannot be a valid metric either. neither is synaptic density. In fact, both are recorded to continue after the 20s and into the 30s, usually plateauing around late 40s/50s.

>>14596180
You seem confused. They consider it adolesence BECAUSE they often go to college and do not enter the work force until later.

You're also confusing social norm with biologically inherent norms. How can adolescence be said to biologically end at age 25 when there is little evidence supporting it?
>>
>>14596173
I stumbled on something a little while ago that pointed to shifts in musical taste with age or something along that line they used electrical tests of some kind I think it was russian research
>>
>>14596187
>You seem confused. They consider it adolesence BECAUSE they often go to college and do not enter the work force until later.
>You're also confusing social norm with biologically inherent norms. How can adolescence be said to biologically end at age 25 when there is little evidence supporting it?

I think what I'm speaking is about the 'Social Maturation' of an individual. Adolescence can finish, let's say, 19-20 years old ? But your Social Maturation will continue depending on what kind of education you receive.
>>
>>14596214
The main topic is that the researchers are implicating adolescence as a biological thing past the cessation of puberty.

While you could easily argue adults in their 20s are culturally in an extended adolescence, it would be dishonest to say biologically they are not adults.
>>
>>14596219
Adulthood was historically defined as sexual maturity wasn't it?
>>
>>14596221
Yes. Typically, you reach true sexual maturity when you enter tanner stage 5 of puberty. This is roughly mid teens. You don't stop growing then of course, but men and women are recorded to fill out in their late twenties and even early thirties.
Could growth after that age range really be said to be part of puberty or is it more an incremental growth? The clavicle can grow until your late twenties. However, the growth of it from roughly mid teens to late twenties on average is rather small. Musculature often grows until age 30. However, a 20 year old is definitely well developed, as is an 18 or a 16 year old.
>>
>>14596219
>While you could easily argue adults in their 20s are culturally in an extended adolescence, it would be dishonest to say biologically they are not adults

Yes, basically, you could be a 17yo who read Shakespeare and had a breakthrough of your entire life or just be following like a drone, in your 20s-30s, some kind of corporate path because it was demanded for you to do so.
>>
>>14596226
Don't the nose and ears continue growing into old age?
>>
Why not just have some sort of exam?
>>
Consider this.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/emxpSVew5qLP/
>>
>>14596081
1) Stop talking to yourself you schizo
2) If this is where you "believe" the data comes from, why is this graph not in the paper.
3) Obvious answer is that they use a statistical model that doesn't have an upper limit. Most models biologist use aren't actually that sophisticated, they don't try and partition the data into blocks, so the whole range of data contributes to produce a single weak curve over the range, rather than having inflection points.
>>
>>14596234
That'd be racist
>>
File: sneed.png (103 KB, 708x489)
103 KB
103 KB PNG
>>14596246
>1) Stop talking to yourself you schizo
I'm replying to my post with further information, my dimwitted anon.

>2) why is the graph not in the paper
I believe I made a bit of a mistake. In the emerging adulthood paper, I believe there is a citation further down the article that leads to a chart showing cingulum maturity in mid-twenties.

This is the chart. It is not hard to find if you scroll down.
>>
>>14596246
Was able to relocate it.

https://www.academia.edu/33834593/Microstructural_maturation_of_the_human_brain_from_childhood_to_adulthood
>>
>>14596214
>I think what I'm speaking is about the 'Social Maturation' of an individual
This is a neurology thread, take your social constructs and get out retard.
>>
I think this warrants further discussion.
>>
>>14596081
It's just an approximation. Perhaps a spline model would be better, but I honestly doubt the performance would change much.

You could go through and do this though, if you're so inclined, just fit two polynomials onto the data and move the knot point around until you reach a 'best fit' point.

The upward curve across the body of the data isn't a bad fit though.
>>
>>14598222
The upward curve is rather inappropriate though. The scatters of data are almost entirely within the same range. It is too premature to say if the limbic system takes until the mid-twenties to reach adult levels if even the mid-teens get extremely similar scores. There is an noticeable upward curve prior to the mid-teens, but not really after.
>>
>>14596166
>Basically, they are using neuroscience to try and justify raising the age of adulthood. Not just by social means, but seemingly by biological means.
that's you own conclusion. the paper says nothing about legal status of adulthood.
there are a fuckton of papers that explore biological origins of crime, this doesn't mean crime is going to become legal
>>
>>14596219
Puberty is lifelong no? People look more masculine in their thirties/forties than their twenties. Also transsexualism seems to show changes occur at any age as T gets female canaries singing. So it stands to reason the brain would change also throughout this period of time. Also any change in body will result in change of brain state to accommodate for it, like leg injuries etc.
Maturation is probably a bad term. Beginnings of senescence might be better.
>>
>>14598271
Except a lot of the people who fund these sorts of papers (including Laurence Steinberg) want to raise age of criminal responsibility to 21.

>>14598276
Can it really be called puberty if sexual maturation is more or less complete? We know that people are growing muscles up until their 30s, but can that really be said to be part of puberty?
>>
File: ly8rffuf7d791.jpg (86 KB, 640x853)
86 KB
86 KB JPG
>>
>>14596081
>Is neuroscience usually this bad
If you have to ask this question, you haven't studied neuroscience
>>
>>14598531
>>14596081
But to explain, the whole of psychology has been facing a crisis since its conception that it's human minds studying human minds, therefore every single bias you can think of affects the field, since no human can truly detach themselves from the flaws of humanity.

In other words, nobody can be objective, everybody sucks
>>
>>14598280
>Except a lot of the people who fund these sorts of papers (including Laurence Steinberg) want to raise age of criminal responsibility to 21.
that kind of stuff doesn't work. If you wanted criminal law based on science then no one is criminally responsible. criminal law isn't about responsibility, it's about justice, preventing crime by adding risk of punishment and removing dangerous individuals from society
>>
>>14598256
I mean, it's a very slight upward curve with a high variance. It's really only inappropriate if you separate the slight upward curvature from the variance.

To me, it looks like a very good fit. There's nothing 'inappropriate' about it other than retards not understanding statistical modeling and separating a fit from its noise. Again, you'd probably get a marginally better fit with a spline, but the upward curve at the end is very slight (it's practically 0) indicating what you've already noticed.
>>
>>14599122
Also, you know you can just write a comment to this paper and suggest a better fit right? It's not really that hard to comment on papers. Why don't you email the original authors with your thoughts?



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.