Paradise Split from LDS Scout Leader charged with several counts of criminal sexual conduct

[honorentheos]

Guys with no friends or a girlfriend won't go out to drink and won't get their own apartment because no one would help them pay the rent.

Guys who don't do anything, have no friends, and can't get a roommate aren't getting laid?

Huh.

[Res Ipsa]

What the chart doesn’t support is the conclusion that the 18-30 year old women aren’t having sex with 18-30 year old men. We’d need more information to reach that conclusion.

Let me put it differently.

A lot of women over 26 are getting with men in their 30s, but not enough young men in their early 20s are getting with younger women to make up for the difference.

Would that make more sense?

The missing information is the average number of partners. Without that, we can’t conclude anything about whether the women were having sex with men over 30.

So, I think there are likely several factors that resulted in the
divergence in numbers. To reach the conclusion you’ve argued for, I think we’d need to have more data, including changes in the age differentials between people having sex over time.

Women getting with the top guys and women over 26 dating older men explains the difference.

Yes, I think there is some data.

The article itself suggests three explanations that I think are consistent with the research published by South & Lei: lower participation in the labor force, men living longer with their parents, and technology, specifically video games. All of those sound plausible.

Yes, but South & Lei blame reduced sociability. Guys with no friends or a girlfriend won't go out to drink and won't get their own apartment because no one would help them pay the rent.

You’re still jumping to conclusions that the data don’t support. Where is the data that shows the changes in the dating patterns among the age groups you described. Changes in the number of partners in the last year also “explains” the difference. Other things may explain the difference as well. You don’t actually have the data that allows you to conclude which cause or combination of causes is correct.

Nothing in the South & Lei study attributes anything to not enough women willing to date men in specific age ranges, whether absolute or relative.

[Res Ipsa]

I’m not suggesting that you are intentionally cherry picking. It looks like the kind of confirmation bias we are all vulnerable to.

You are doing the same thing.

Only exposure to violence or experiences that involve a significant threat to the child were associated with this acceleration in the aging process.

And low-income areas and countries don't have higher rates of violence and child abuse? "Experts say the stress that families living in poverty face is likely contributing to high rates of child abuse"

And the aging process in that study observed involved 1.puberty 2. cellular aging 3. brain development.

I’d guess that all this research has something to do with explaining your experience with dating the younger Mexican woman you’ve mentioned.

Yes.

This would be a fatal flaw in your approach, regardless of how many studies you find that you think support a theory you’ve formulated. Tweaking the phrasing of your conclusion doesn’t address this basic problem in your reasoning.

You know very well it is hard to prove things in science. Just look at the mess in nutritional science.
I was sharing some studies, and here is what we do know "For some that could be as early as age 18 or as late as age 30. But the average is around 25 years of age."
https://wexnermedical.osu.edu/blog/brain-myths

So wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that a large percentage of the 18 year olds live (or lived) in low-income areas? Or do you think at 18 is just an anomaly like someone claimed earlier?

It’s not cherry picking for me to point out the part of a paper you cited as evidence that actually contradicts the point you are arguing. And, in fact, you cherry picked again by leaving out the part of what I said that contradicts your claim. Here is what you left out when you quoted me:

Experiences involving deprivation, like neglect, or poverty did not predict this acceleration.

No, it’s not reasonable to assume that poverty is a cause based on a study that says it wasn’t.

I’m not talking about “proving” anything. I’m talking about drawing inferences supported by the evidence. You’ve shown me to studies that show that the brain changes you’re talking about are not caused by poverty or differences in socioeconomic status. It’s not reasonable to infer from those studies that the brain changes are caused by poverty.

And you’re ignoring the most fundamental point of all. Nothing that you will find in the scientific literature will ever explain anything that happened between you and the young woman you dated. No papers are going to tell you where in the distribution of characteristics this young woman falls. It’s all about differences in averages.

[Marcus]

…Nothing in the South & Lei study attributes anything to not enough women willing to date men in specific age ranges, whether absolute or relative.

All the more reason for DT to explain this

Women getting with the top guys…

What do you mean by this?

[doubtingthomas]

No, it’s not reasonable to assume that poverty is a cause based on a study that says it wasn’t.

Sir, I understand you are busy and you probably missed what I said,

Please note that poverty itself probably doesn't cause brain development to accelerate.

And low-income areas and countries don't have higher rates of violence and child abuse?

differences in socioeconomic status.

Here is what the nature paper says " We argue that higher childhood SES is associated with protracted structural brain development and a prolonged trajectory of functional network segregation, ultimately leading to more efficient cortical networks in adulthood. We hypothesize that greater exposure to chronic stress accelerates brain maturation, whereas greater access to novel positive experiences decelerates maturation."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41583-021-00457-5

It’s all about differences in averages

So what is the average in Mexico or in low-income areas?

[doubtingthomas]

Guys with no friends or a girlfriend won't go out to drink and won't get their own apartment because no one would help them pay the rent.

Guys who don't do anything, have no friends, and can't get a roommate aren't getting laid?

Huh.

Probably not?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

So, you were dating a girl around 18-years-old?

- Doc

Oh my god, was she younger than 18?

- Doc

[Marcus]

Women getting with the top guys…

What do you mean by this?

Hi, DT, since you're here answering questions, i'm reposting this one.

[Res Ipsa]

No, it’s not reasonable to assume that poverty is a cause based on a study that says it wasn’t.

Sir, I understand you are busy and you probably missed what I said,

Please note that poverty itself probably doesn't cause brain development to accelerate.

And low-income areas and countries don't have higher rates of violence and child abuse?

differences in socioeconomic status.

Here is what the nature paper says " We argue that higher childhood SES is associated with protracted structural brain development and a prolonged trajectory of functional network segregation, ultimately leading to more efficient cortical networks in adulthood. We hypothesize that greater exposure to chronic stress accelerates brain maturation, whereas greater access to novel positive experiences decelerates maturation."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41583-021-00457-5

It’s all about differences in averages

So what is the average in Mexico or in low-income areas?

I didn’t miss what you said at all. You are arguing that, despite what papers you cite to say, poverty causes the accelerated development. If poverty caused the accelerated brain development through the mechanism you suggest, then the papers wouldn’t say what they say.

No, you’re still not understanding. The scientific papers are about averages. They are meaningless in determining whether the young woman you dated experienced the accelerated brain development and how that affected her interactions with you. The papers cannot do what you want them to.

As for the nature paper, again you are ignoring critical language in the paper, including this:

In this Perspective, we have considered evidence that experiences associated with childhood SES affect not only the outcome but also the pace of brain development, with potential influences on brain plasticity throughout life. We argue that low exposure to stress and high exposure to novel positive experiences promote protracted structural brain development, which gives rise to a later, longer trajectory of functional network segregation, ultimately leading to more efficient cortical networks in adulthood.

However, this model is based on incomplete data. Studies to date have not been fully representative of human diversity, focusing primarily on Western populations with nutritional excess168,169,170. Studies have also been limited by methodological challenges, cross-sectional samples, lack of connection to adult research and correlational designs. Below, we discuss promising approaches to overcome these limitations and directly test our hypotheses in future research.

The authors themselves say that they have a hypothetical model that they argue may have explanatory value, but there isn’t sufficient data available to evaluate their hypothesis. That doesn’t permit you to draw sweeping conclusions about any groups of people, let alone your former girlfriend.

Averages of some unspecified index numbers for our neighborhoods or Mexico aren’t going to tell you anything. I’m certainly not going spend time researching those questions, even assuming that such numbers exist.

[doubtingthomas]

You are arguing that, despite what papers you cite to say, poverty causes the accelerated development. If poverty caused the accelerated brain development through the mechanism you suggest, then the papers wouldn’t say what they say.

No, you’re still not understanding. The scientific papers are about averages.

As I said, poverty itself probably doesn't. I said, "On average. For many it is around 30. It is around 19 for people in low-income households. We are all different. " Would you agree that violence, child abuse, and domestic violence are more common in low-income areas? So on average, it is plausible that low-income people have a faster brain development. Better?

Do you have any evidence that "unintentional grooming" makes the dudes more naïve and vulnerable?

So, you were dating a girl around 18-years-old?

- Doc

Why so interested? Some fantasy of yours? Makes me wonder why you are planning to go to Brazil .

I answered the question a few days ago. Ask Res Ipsa, I won't repeat myself. Troll!

Please allow me to have a conversation with the intelligent people here.

I'll talk to you trolls later, I promise, go talk to your friend Binger for now.