HW/FW security researcher & Demoscene elder.
I started having arguments online back on Fidonet and Usenet. I’m too tired to care now.
… 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
No, it’s not a fact. That’s the whole point.
You need to follow @garwboy@ohai.social
Start here: https://ohai.social/@Garwboy/113944647175536159
Your brain works fine when you’re under 25 (no matter how ‘inconvenient’ this fact may be)
In-lieu of the young guys working on Musk’s behalf, the old “Your brain isn’t fully developed until your 25 claim” has emerged yet again
Here’s why it’s BS
That sounds problematic. Where do they detail this?
Wikipedia:
Google Safe Browsing “conducts client-side checks. If a website looks suspicious, it sends a subset of likely phishing and social engineering terms found on the page to Google to obtain additional information available from Google’s servers on whether the website should be considered malicious”.
But why are random people visiting your instance?
If you were just selfhosting services for you and your family, would really browsers be flagging your site?
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.