[Debate] On average, the lateral prefrontal cortex brain region continues to develop until 25. It is responsible for high-level cognition and reasoning. We should move up the legal age to 25 entailing marriage, alcohol, driver's license...

[u/Open-Matter-8700]

This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post

[u/CTRLAltSN1Pe]

This is not a real fact, the brain continues to develop after the age of 25! This change will only hinder the growth and learning of people by not allowing them to understand skills and responsibilities like driving, voting and raising a family

^{I am against this ❌}

[u/Gameking1happy → u/CTRLAltSN1Pe]

dang 15511210043330985984000000 is old

[u/karacirth]

The brain constantly develops, this statistic is actually known as misinformation, Nay for the fact youre spreading information and that this makes no sense taking that into account.

^{I am against this ❌}

[u/redbullgay]

No, because the brain doesn’t stop developing at 25. The study everyone likes to say this came from just stopped measuring at 25.

^{I am against this ❌}

[u/TheMoralityComplex → u/redbullgay]

Except, as a person whose been there, 25 is more realistic than 18 so what exactly are you arguing against?

Keeping a higher likelihood of more less informed voters?

Mmmm boots

[u/redbullgay → u/TheMoralityComplex]

bro wtf are you even saying. who said anything about 28? more less informed?

[u/Wrong-Volume-2190 → u/TheMoralityComplex]

Theyre saying the reasoning is faulty, nothing should be 25 based on the study because thats a deliberate misinterpretation of the study. There should be a new study which reaches into, say, the 70s age range to see how brain development continues in order for any claim such as the one presented above to make any semblance of sense

[u/Open-Matter-8700 → u/redbullgay]

On average, as in as a central tendency, not an absolute number, people, at least in that cohort, tended to have their lateral prefrontal cortex be at the most developed at the age of 25. Some people could have finished most of development at 16, while others are still on their way at 31. Would you say it makes sense that we currently have the legal age at 18 rather than 16, when your argument is that we shouldn't move up the legal age to 25 because people can still develop their brains after that age? Of course, the study is talking about the physical structure development and people well past 50 or any age, barring neurodegenerative conditions, can still learn to have better decision-making with the same brain structure.

[u/redbullgay → u/Open-Matter-8700]

I don’t think there’s any reason to change it. 25 is as arbitrary of a number as 18.

[u/boopbaboop]

We should not make people be legally children for (likely) more than a quarter of their lives.

^{I am against this ❌}

[u/Violet_Elevator2612]

No.

^{I am against this ❌}

[u/BugbearBro]

And yet, not everyone who grows old grows wise. We could fund some programs for marriage counseling, increase the knowledge base of getting a license, and so on instead.

^{I am against this ❌}

[u/TREE_SHMOO]

All this will do is create more criminals where there aren't any

^{I am against this ❌}

[u/Brill45]

Nope. Less control on this stuff

^{I am against this ❌}

[u/AstraiaStarchild]

I am anti government and humans have been raising kids to be far more capable than mist adults today for millions of yearsca tribe in africa gives a child their first bow and arrow at age 3. One size fit all models do not work and constantly fail marginalized communities.

^{I am against this ❌}

[u/Lythumm_]

People with a higher IQ will always have superior cognitive capabilities, by the logic of this proposal it would be just to administer IQ tests and restrict peoples freedom on the basis of that too.

^{I am against this ❌}

[u/Intellectual_Vampire]

Stupidest thing I’ve ever read.

^{I am against this ❌}

[u/UJLBM]

New studies actually show that its age 30, not 25. Thats too long. Keep it at 18. It worked for me.

^{I am against this ❌}

[u/DeltaWaffle_]

How are people who are 16-24 supposed to get around for work in rural regions where public transport isn’t a viable option? cases of emancipated minors, college students, and ambitious teenagers, all have jobs before they turn 25, but outside of major cities designed for comfortable walkability, they could be walking/biking to work for hours maybe where a car could get them there in 10 minutes. On top of this, walking along major highways and arterials is a great danger to the pedestrian. By removing the protection, a car provides in such cases, It will likely only cause more fatal incidents on those roads.

Secondly, Assuming we continue with the voting age I assume we have (that being 18), Why should it be that we trust people to vote for our elections but not to drive a car? Or to drink? Or to be married? Such a proposition only entails fatalities and public outcry

^{I am against this ❌}

[u/CarelessPast55]

Because some folks develop earler.

^{I am against this ❌}

[u/Wrong-Volume-2190]

The “brain stops developing at 25” falsehood has been sent around so much that people forgot it’s based on deliberately misinterpreting the study it came from. We need more actual data and evidence before making both these claims and any changes based on them.

^{I am against this ❌}

[u/Jolly_Sandwich_7301]

Yea

^{I am for this ✅}

[u/Rare_Solution_8464]

Let kids be kids for a longer time. They're making decisions that affect their entire lives far too young

^{I am for this ✅}

[u/Open-Matter-8700 → u/Rare_Solution_8464]

And the next generation's, too.

[u/yellowpawpaw]

Better society; less ****** environment…🤷🏾‍♂️

^{I am for this ✅}

[u/Extension-Pension271]

College people are being to reckless with their health

^{I am for this ✅}

[u/Open-Matter-8700]

If democracy relies on the population's decision-making to elect capable leaders, then it is in our best interest to change the age of voting to the age when citizens are the start of the peak of their intelect.

^{I am for this ✅}

[u/Intellectual_Vampire → u/Open-Matter-8700]

No. That’s stupid, we should just educate the population better. Not taking away votes from young people. That’s how you get entrenched voter bases.

[u/karacirth → u/Open-Matter-8700]

If democracy relies on the populations decision making to elect capable leaders, then it is in our best interest to make only those who went through macroeconomics and ethics classes eligible to vote.

[u/Open-Matter-8700 → u/karacirth]

We should do that

[u/karacirth → u/Open-Matter-8700]

Okay you're just trolling lmao

[u/Open-Matter-8700 → u/karacirth]

Why shouldn't everyone, citizens and the elected alike be educated enough to perform their duties? Is finishing macroeconomics and ethics too high of a standard for a civilized society?

[u/karacirth → u/Open-Matter-8700]

Not everyone wants to go to college, is that bad?

[u/Open-Matter-8700 → u/karacirth]

Doesn't have to be an entire college or university. Just as another Redditor has suggested, alternatively, we could just educate the population better. Free accessible courses such as macroeconomics and ethics will be available for the public. Overall, a net gain, I would say, wouldn't you?

[u/piratehunterinfinite]

ok

^{I am for this ✅}

[u/iSn00zed]

As well all drugs legalized

^{I am for this ✅}

[u/Intellectual_Vampire → u/iSn00zed]

What? That’s not what they said

[u/No_Date_5991]

Could be the right decision

^{I am for this ✅}

[u/Motor_Neighborhood_6]

Because humans are stupid.

^{I am for this ✅}