You're An Adult, But Your Brain Might Not Be, Researchers Say (cnn.com) 261
"The human brain reaches its adult volume by age 10, but the neurons that make it up continue to change for years after that," reports the New York Times, citing a new paper by neuroscience researchers that questions when "adulthood" really begins. An anonymous reader writes:
One of the paper's authors -- an associate psychology professor at Harvard -- tells CNN that "There is no agreed-on benchmark that, when reached, would allow a neuroscientist to say 'Aha! This brain is fully developed'. However, it is safe to say that by almost any metric, the brain is continuing to develop actively well past the age of 18..."
"Some children, researchers have found, have neural networks that look as if they belong to an adult..." adds the Times, noting that adolescents also "do about as well as adults on cognition tests, for instance. But if they're feeling strong emotions, those scores can plummet. The problem seems to be that teenagers have not yet developed a strong brain system that keeps emotions under control."
And this cuts both ways, according to a psychologist at Temple University who wants the voting age lowered to 16. ("Sixteen-year-olds are just as good at logical reasoning as older people are," he tells the Times) But he also believes judges should consider the lack of emotional control when sentencing defendants -- even if they're in their early 20s. "Most crime situations that young people are involved in are emotionally arousing situations -- they're scared, or they're angry, intoxicated or whatever."
"Some children, researchers have found, have neural networks that look as if they belong to an adult..." adds the Times, noting that adolescents also "do about as well as adults on cognition tests, for instance. But if they're feeling strong emotions, those scores can plummet. The problem seems to be that teenagers have not yet developed a strong brain system that keeps emotions under control."
And this cuts both ways, according to a psychologist at Temple University who wants the voting age lowered to 16. ("Sixteen-year-olds are just as good at logical reasoning as older people are," he tells the Times) But he also believes judges should consider the lack of emotional control when sentencing defendants -- even if they're in their early 20s. "Most crime situations that young people are involved in are emotionally arousing situations -- they're scared, or they're angry, intoxicated or whatever."
voting age at 16? (Score:3)
those scientists & doctors must be liberals
FICA (Score:5, Insightful)
You are liberal at a young age until you look at the withholding and deductions from your pay stub.
You are a conservative when older until you see the Social Security and Medicare benefits to which you are eligible.
Re:FICA (Score:5, Interesting)
You are liberal at a young age until you look at the withholding and deductions from your pay stub.
Wife and I 'give' away more than most people make.
Are still liberal.
(We grew up being helped by those commie programs).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably rich and having a heart, along with remembering how it was being young and dependent on social services...
The fun part is that poor people are actually gaining a LOT more from high taxes than they lose from their paycheck by them. But usually, the main reason people who are poor are poor is that they don't really understand how money really works. Which is probably why your system still works, smart people would have looked abroad and seen what they could have.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for giving back. Or paying it forward or whatever. Far too many don't regardless of their belief system.
Several times in my younger years, I had nothing & no one but the system to lean on & I know very well what it means to be "working poor".
Re:FICA (Score:5, Interesting)
Same here. My education is state funded and still I managed to get a degree from one of the best universities around. I could not have afforded a US college to the tune of a few 100 grand.
Today, I get roughly 50% of my paycheck. Rest goes into tax and other government related stuff. Not having any kids sure doesn't help to get any of that money back any time soon, but that's how the deal works. Someone paid for my education, and now I pay for someone else's. Maybe for the son of the person who paid for my degree. OK, not directly, but they paid tax back then (and now probably get a pension from taxes), I pay tax now, and someone will be able to learn a thing or two because of that, get a good job and pay my pension with his taxes.
That's the deal we enter here. I guess I could get a much worse deal. Like, say, having a crippling student loan on my back that I won't pay off in my lifetime.
Re: (Score:3)
The difference is mostly that I don't have to front the money, and that studying isn't really a risky undertaking.
I pay for it now that I can comfortably do so. I couldn't possibly pay that amount of money when I was still a student, but I can very easily pay it now.
But the real advantage is that there isn't an inherent risk involved. If you cannot finish your studies for whatever reason, you're not left with a huge bill and no way to cover it. That in turn means that more people dare to enter college and y
Re: (Score:3)
Some of us had nothing, no one, and no system to lean on.
And are you in favor of having such a system? Hard as it is when you're young & inexperienced, it can be disastrous when you're old.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny thing, some of the loudest conservatives I know are not only eligible, but drawing Social Security and Medicare benefits.
If you shout loud enough, nobody wants to argue with you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:FICA (Score:5, Insightful)
As one of those idiots I guess I should answer.
I will very likely never get even remotely the amount of money out of our social system that I pay into it. What I do get, is peace of mind, though. I am secure knowing that no matter what kind of sickness may befall me, my health insurance will take care of it. And I also know that everyone in my country has enough to lose that he won't kill me for the 20 bucks that may be in my wallet, for he could far easier just go over to the social services place and get way more legally.
Yes, I probably pay more in tax than you earn. And not because I make a few billions a month, if I did I probably wouldn't pay taxes and instead run for president in your country.
Re: (Score:2)
Some Americans think so, especially the geographically challenged, but actually I'm from the exact opposite end of the globe.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If gainful employment were to be made a condition of being eligible to vote, I could get behind that.
Just bring back poll taxes and the land ownership requirement, too, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If you live in society, you have skin in the game. The government should guarantee the right to have rights, even if you're unemployed.
There are lots of people who don't or can't work, some for very good reasons, some for bad ones. But they still all have rights including the right to vote.
Most of them do pay taxes, even if it's not payroll taxes.
Let's not forget that a lot of the "work" that many do, especially women, isn't and has never been paid.
But it's still work.
The coming AI / automation / robotics r
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Automation my ass. You smartphone is still hand-assembled. Just 'cause the work doesn't happen here where you can see it doesn't mean that nobody does it."
Except that *those* people don't vote where you or I live so they may as well be machines, or slaves
Trump's been saying loudly he's going to bring those jobs back? Talk is cheap. I've heard a lot of crap come out of his mouth in the past 40+ years.
I don't recall any of it being about rescuing the working man and he's never bothered to make sure the stuff
Re: (Score:2)
Claim: Automation will displace human workers to the point that almost no one will be employed.
Counter-argument: Automation is not nearly the force your think it is. Example: smartphones are hand-assembled by legions of human workers.
Rebuttal: Argle-bargle-Trump-OBama.
?????
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's still true for the boomers...
Re: (Score:2)
Then you're probably a US citizen who is interested in politics.
why exactly should I? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I make over $90k, and my house is paid off. I grew up, and it worked out just fine.
I paid off the house mostly at $55k or less, average in other words. Doesn't take much, a grown up attitude and a goal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How is money important? What I do is basically to look at my bank statement and as long as there's more in my account at the end of the month than at the beginning, everything's good.
Money is just the means to an end, not the end itself. If you ARE actually good, you don't need any of your shit. You'll earn more than you can spend without even trying.
Re:why exactly should I? (Score:5, Interesting)
You still failed to explain why I'd want to be a self-made millionaire.
The whole shit reminds me of the story of the fisher who was sitting on the pier in the sun when an investment banker came around asking him what he's doing here.
"Well, sitting here, enjoying the afternoon, relaxing."
"But couldn't you go out and catch some fish?"
"Sure, but why for, I have caught enough for today"
"Yes, but if you catch more, you could buy a bigger ship!"
"To do what?"
"To catch more fish, so you can build your own packing factory"
"What good would that do?"
"That way you could make even more money and retire early"
"And why would I wanna do that?"
"So you can enjoy your time, not having to work and relax"
"Well, that's what I'm doing right now, so what's your point?"
If you want to know when adulthood really starts (Score:5, Insightful)
ask the car insurance companies: above a certain age - way above 18 usually - their rates suddenly drop dramatically. The insurance companies don't make that age up: it comes from their accidents statistics.
It's pretty clear certain age groups get more into accidents than others: it's because they're not really mature enough to be good drivers, even after years of driving experience. Nothing reveals immaturity in a person more than their way of behaving on the road.
I'm saying this as a general rule of course: clearly there are good young drivers and incompetent old timers. But for the population in general, the insurance statistics don't lie.
Re: (Score:2)
It's pretty clear certain age groups get more into accidents than others: it's because they're not really mature enough to be good drivers, even after years of driving experience.
I don't think they're intellectually incapable as such, I have the impression that most drove responsibly alone. Pretty much all the really reckless driving I saw was showing off or egging each other on and nobody had the social maturity to stand up and be the uncool party pooper. I think it takes most people well into their 20s to get that self-confidence to stand your ground.
To some degree you can change what's cool so the herd mentality doesn't do it, smoking is now uncool. Wearing a condom is perhaps no
Re: (Score:3)
And that's exactly what TFA notes - that younger brains do OK with cognitive issues until the amygdala [wikipedia.org] (in part responsible for emotional behaviors) swamps the frontal cortex (responsible for responsible things, mostly responsible for damping down the rest of the brain).
Re: (Score:2)
That age used to be 25, until I turned 25, then they raised it to 30. When I turned 30, I got my first major accident/insurance claim from a hit and run driver in a stolen car. This myth that insurance rates go down is just that: mythical.
Smokers research & military research (Score:2)
Big tobacco found out 24 was the age where people transition to a state of mind where they can overcome addiction better. The younger ages need to get addicted before that age because it'll be written in more permanently. Implying your growing/training until about 24. Not directly connected, but the age is interesting.
Military. I talked with a military psychologist. They discovered stupid guys are less than 24 (stupid being his word for 18-23.) So, they mix older guys with younger guys because the 25 y
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing reveals immaturity in a person more than their way of behaving on the road.
May not be immaturity as much as it is a changing risk profile. Not that I was a stupid git on the road when I was young, but as a 21 year old if my car got impounded and my license suspended it would have been a nuisance. If it had caused me to loose my job, well I had a safety net of parents to fall back on, and no doubt my girlfriend would ridicule me.
If the same happened to me now it would almost definitely result in me losing my job, something which wouldn't make my wife very happy when we can no longe
Re: (Score:2)
"If you want to know when adulthood really starts..."
Adulthood starts when a nap changes from something you don't want to do into something you do want to do.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If you think that insurance calculation is so simple then you've clearly never looked at insurance pricing properly.
What you suggest is an aspect of it. But far from the only thing. There are age group cutoffs that come into it regardless of how long you've had your license, or how many accidents you've had. You are judged by risk, how long you've been driving only determines one part of that risk.
Re: (Score:3)
Now that people are learning to drive later in life
That's something you'll need to backup with facts. In the past 10 years where I've lived various governments have caved under pressure to let kids get their L plates at an earlier and earlier age.
Someone who learns to drive at 25 is not particularly safer after 5 years (at 30) than someone who started driving at 16 after 5 years (at 21).
Didn't say they were. What I said is Insurance is complicated. It's a multi-variable equation with lots of emphasis on the multi bit. Driving history has always had a larger influence on insurance prices than age has, when you have that history to go on.
In general, car insurance companies are not particularly good at estimating individual risk.
That would have a lot to do with very little information being
TRALALALALA (Score:2)
I can't hear you.
What an idiotic professor (Score:5, Insightful)
"Sixteen-year-olds are just as good at logical reasoning as older people are,"
Voting has nothing to do with logical reasoning. First, IQ and reasoning are not EXPLICITLY required. We let retards vote. Some states let people of an "unsound mind" vote. We count the votes of people with deeply below average IQ and learning disabilities the exact same as those who have received great academic achievements.
Second, IQ and reasoning are only barely involved in politics at all. Emotions are the biggest motivators. When a politician wants to convince you, he doesn't just lay his case out and connect points, he makes you feel proud of him, happy with the way things will be with his help, scared of the other guy, scared what the other guy represents, etc. Elections are entirely emotions.
If a professor is trying to allow 16 year olds to vote- people who are, by law, required to spend every day in a government institution- he probably has some other reasoning behind that.
So I googled it real fast.
Lawrence Steinburg is the professor in question. Here he is discussing the younger of the two Boston Bombers, a 19 year old:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/op... [bostonglobe.com]
Here's his quote from that article:
"If neurobiological immaturity makes adolescents inherently less responsible for their crimes, and if science now demonstrates that the brain is still maturing well into the early 20s, should we rethink where we draw the boundary between adolescence and adulthood under the law? The Boston Marathon bombing trial is important not only because the crime was so horrific, but because it forces us to ask hard questions about how best to judge the behavior of those who are legal adults, but in many respects neurobiological adolescents."
In this article, he is overall arguing for less culpability for a multiple murderer, based on his presumed lack of neural development. So according to this professor, a 16 year old should be able to vote, but a 19 year old should be held to a lower standard for his crimes. If you spend years arguing for the lack of developmental progression, why then suddenly pop up and claim that a 16 year old should be able to vote? The claim stands in contrast to his other positions. A reasonable argument from his positions and data seems to be raising the voting age to 25. But then we would run into issues where you would have soldiers (in some cases, theoretically draftees, as we had a draft the last time this sort of conversation happened) unable to vote on politicians who may or may not be sending them to their doom.
A 16 year old without a home is a problem for the state. A 16 year old without resources is a problem for the state. A 16 year old does not have a guaranteed right to work in all places, and may have many restrictions and benefits placed upon them by the state. A 16 year old is not liable for their crimes in the same way an 18 year old is, the details of which vary from place to place. Voting has much more to do with this than any form of cognition. If cognition were the test, then we'd literally give cognition tests. If emotional maturity were the test, then we'd give those tests. Instead, we vest citizens with the responsibility of voting at the same time we vest them with a wide array of other responsibilities and civic duties. If he were arguing for lowering the age of adulthood, I could see his point- but instead he has a set of oddly specific and contradictory statements, based on a fundamentally unsound assumption about what makes a citizen. It is responsibilities, not intellect. Half of people are stupider than average, after all, and they get the same voice politically.
Plus it just doesn't seem smart to let students be told how to vote by their high school teachers. Way too much peer pressure, you could probably get extremely high compliance rates, especially given that schools would inevitably force their students to vote there in person when possible.
When do we learn discernment about propaganda? (Score:2)
A lot of what we hear during elections is propaganda. We could guess that defences against it increase throughout life until senility. 16 years olds in particular still tend to live in the small cults that are nuclear families and thus lack an independence of thought. I wasn't qualified to vote until I was 30, and that's a level unachieved by a lot of people I know.
On the other hand, 0-17 year olds are completely unrepresented, yet have longer to live in the world. There's no solution to that, so there'
Taxes and vote (Score:3)
I support vote right at 16, since at 16 one can work, and hence pay taxes, and deciding on tax allocation is the root of democracy.
Maturity cannot be a filter, since we precisely do not know how to define it.
Re: (Score:2)
The details would, of course, be messy, but as a broad outline, I think it would immensely improve the quality of governance. All of a sudden, Medicare and Social
Re:Taxes and vote (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Democracy has flaws, but it is the lesser flawed of all political systems.
Take your proposal. It allows the elected power to choose the part of the People that will vote. For instance, it could collect all taxes on business (which will pass the cost to customers), reducing the voters to the people that get nothing from government benefits. Everyone else is excluded, even if they contribute more taxes (indirectly, as customers) than they get through government benefits. Don't you feel something wrong here?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
No government that tried to do what you suggest would be able to function.
Sure, but no government ever operated under the rules you proposed either. If you create a loophole to hold power forever while wrecking the economy, you could meet people that consider it attractive.
Re: (Score:2)
Deciding on when to commit your country to war would seem to be at least as important as how to tax the population.
Re: (Score:2)
Deciding on when to commit your country to war would seem to be at least as important as how to tax the population.
Agreed, but I meant that history has shown us that the motivation for the people to start a revolution is usually about deciding how the existing taxes should be spent. War commitment also plays a role, the first example that comes to my mind being Russia's 1917 revolution.
maturity required of voters (Score:3, Insightful)
Teens shouldn't vote. We already have an excess of emotion and hormones at the voting booth including some aging slashdotters. Voting should be based upon rational evaluation of verifiable facts. Anyone who gets their information from sources biased in only one direction should be disqualified.
Teens are capable of rational thought. You can find them at science fairs and other exceptional events. It's just that the masses of teens are up to their elbows in Twitter, Fecebook, etc, and drift in the winds of public opinion.
There are many who quietly believe that the General Public should not vote. Most are ignorant, superstitious and many are just plain dumb. Voters should take a qualifying test before being allowed to vote. Every voter should have read and understood the US Constitution (It's not that hard- even immigrants and fifth graders can do it). If they can't find their state on a map of the USA- no vote. If they can't name the mayor of their town or city- no vote. If they think Africa is a country or Rush Limbaugh is a Supreme Court Justice- fuggedaboudit ... etc.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is: you're describing a rule by minority. That's not likely to win a popular vote, much less the kind of majority required to make such a drastic modification to the constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
Our country was founded by land owners. They wrote the Constitution for themselves. There was no intention for common folk to meddle with the running of the country (Thomas Paine being an exception- poor, but well educated.). Things have changed. The Founding Fathers are gone and now we have President Trump by the vote of the common folk. Let's hope his leadership will reflect positively upon their example.
Re: (Score:2)
Or if you think Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama were good presidents.
Re: (Score:2)
Teens shouldn't vote. We already have an excess of emotion and hormones at the voting booth including some aging slashdotters. Voting should be based upon rational evaluation of verifiable facts. Anyone who gets their information from sources biased in only one direction should be disqualified.
I have no data, but my hunch this that most people get their information from sources biased in one direction. People tend to seek out views similar to their own and all news media are biased to some degree (although where the bias manifests will be different between media sources). I'm not sure what the solution is.
Re: (Score:2)
If they can't name the mayor of their town or city- no vote. ...).
What has knowing any persons name to do with voting? Especially if it is about presidentship?
I have no clue what the names of my roughly 25 mayors of my town (Karlsruhe/Germany) are (because I don't care about the bullshit they create
Nevertheless I want to have a vote in my countries destiny.
Re: (Score:2)
" names of my roughly 25 mayors of my town "
This is hard for me to comprehend. Most towns I'm aware of have only one mayor. Yours appears to be Lord Mayor Frank Mentrup. A lovely city, thank you for mentioning it.
I would suggest that all citizenship issues, including voting, are a matter of community. Community begins at home with our family and expands to include relatives, neighbors, co-workers, etc. As we mature we begin to understand that our city, county, parish are important also and deserve some of
Re: (Score:2)
" ... institute 'tests' to disqualify citizens from voting ... "
So you are suggesting that only people with money and power know the Constitution? And since you are against them, you are admitting that you don't know the Constitution. Do you know the mayor of your town? Can you name the capital city of Africa or the Secretary of State? Do you VOTE? That's what I thought. (at least one of those is a trick question) Please join the illiterates at some other venue..
Re: (Score:2)
Voters should take a qualifying test before being allowed to vote.
If you really believe that, then I think you're a bad American. I don't have to be happy with the way some people vote but I'm not going to rip up the Constitution for that reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Now, here's the big fat gotcha to what you had to say that will really bake your noodle: People like you, who think things like you presented here, always believe that they are going to be one of the 'chosen ones' allowed the privilege -- and you'd be completely and totally wrong in that regard.
Hate to break this to you, but I'm one of the people who believes that the uneducated masses should not have this much voting power, and that I don't think that I should be one of the people with the vote either. You see, the vote should belong only to the people that have the time and rational capacity to devote to massive in-depth study of politics, economics, law, and society. Most people who are either full time students or are working at least one full time job simply don't have time for that, becaus
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't think? (Score:2)
His reasoning is pretty flawed: ..."
"..."Sixteen-year-olds are just as good at logical reasoning as older people are," he tells the Times) But he also believes judges should consider the lack of emotional control when sentencing defendants
You don't think that lack of emotional control *might* lead younger voters to be more easily manipulated with emotional appeals to vague concepts of what's "right"* and "fair"* and "just"* in precisely the same way that militaries around the world have appealed to the youn
Not just crime (Score:4, Interesting)
Everything in the world does not piss me off. How weird is that?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm tired of being being unimportant again and fighting the same battles I was fighting 30 years ago. This is not the life I ordered; of course I'm a grumpy old man.
The question of course, is if you would be grumpy even with things working your way.
I describe it as the capacity of middle aged and up males to become incredibly angry at really small things. Some women as well, but most do not fall into that trap.
Re: (Score:2)
You are overpaid.
Earned every cent of it.
Yep that's all we need (Score:2)
More voters that are easily swayed by emotion and not logic.
'Adults'; voting age (Score:2)
16? (Score:2)
>"psychologist at Temple Universitywho wants the voting age lowered to 16."
Insane. I propose we raise the age of adulthood to 20 and shouldn't try to have second-class citizens from 18-20 who can't drink, can't buy a handgun, can't serve as an elected official, etc. 20 for everything, by then they should be pretty well baked and have hopefully been on their own a bit, and perhaps even paid some significant taxes. That way "teens" are teens and we have consistency and logic in the age of being an "adu
Beta on your future brain (Score:2)
I lived with the adolescent brain until I was 21, then spent 15 years trying to numb it with liquor and drugs, and the flesh machine. At that point I was officially "old" and my brain had the one-way ticket to senility-ville. Now my memory is shot, my neurons are calcified, my attitudes are stuck and my memory is gone. I'm so fricking addled and incompetent I'm not even fit for senior management. The only thing I could possibly do is get into politics.
The sad part is, it'll to
Whatever! (Score:2)
See here [google.com]. Also, I have no brain so whatever. ;)
Life experience insufficient. (Score:2)
By their logic there's many adults who shouldn't be voting either.
Most 16 year old individuals will do whatever the popular media tells them to or vote for whoever the 'cool kids' in school vote for. It's not so much about cognitive development and more about independent identity vs. Sustainable reward / risk equations relating to sustainability. Of which 16 year olds and many adults have no practical experience to make choices that not only affect themselves but millions of people around them.
tl;dr:
Promise
"Adulting" (Score:2)
If we are to factor this into judicial decisions.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Your honor, I plead not guilty by reason (Score:5, Insightful)
The justification for leniency makes no sense to me. If a criminal is driven by impulse and lack of emotional control, shouldn't he (and it is usually a "he") get a longer sentence, since he is a greater danger to other people?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
For a short time, yes. After that, no.
Adding child court concepts to adult court doesn't make sense, but punishing people for known, temporary deficiencies is not a step forward.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The justification for leniency makes no sense to me. If a criminal is driven by impulse and lack of emotional control, shouldn't he (and it is usually a "he") get a longer sentence, since he is a greater danger to other people?
No that is not how justice work, if they are dangerous you should send them to wards not prisons. You are punished according to your criminal intent, which is bigger when not emotionally unstable.
Do you honestly think murder should carry a smaller sentence than homicides of a lower degree?
Re: (Score:2)
The justification for leniency makes no sense to me. If a criminal is driven by impulse and lack of emotional control, shouldn't he (and it is usually a "he") get a longer sentence, since he is a greater danger to other people?
It depends on what length of sentence we are talking about. If a person is going to grow up and no longer have impulse control issues then then you don't need to give them a longer sentence just a long enough sentence to have them age out of that behavior if that's possible.
Re: Your honor, I plead not guilty by reason (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You are not fully developed until around 25 or later.
Dunno about that. I've seem some pretty, ah, developed, 19 year olds....
Re: Your honor, I plead not guilty by reason (Score:4, Funny)
You can fake tits, but not brains.
Re: (Score:2)
Brains don't start to sag when you get older.
Re: (Score:2)
Go to Texas where "your honor, I plead not punishable for manslaughter on account of I've got a rich daddy" not only flies, but can be cited as case law.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1. Agricultural products
2. Aircraft
3. Semiconductor devices
And leaving the last three in the dust...
4. Our bullshit
Re: (Score:2)
who are impulsive about policing other people's thoughts and don't like it when others don't share their opinions,
Feminists? First thing that crossed my mind was fundie Xtians.
Re: (Score:2)
Most people don't vote, anyway.
How about we work on that problem and forget about adding more non-voters to the pool?
Re: (Score:2)
It probably depends on the country you're in. Some will actually not simply apply an arbitrary age to decide whether someone is to be considered mature but will instead hire a shrink to test whether the culprit was actually mature enough to understand what he's doing.
Re: (Score:2)
That age hits everyone differently. I know 60 year olds who still haven't grown up as much as some 14 year olds I knew back in the day.
Re: (Score:2)
60 Y.O. kid here. I'm still waiting for adulthood.
You can only be young once.
You can be immature forever.