The Obedient Wives Club

[AlphaToOmega]

AlphaToOmega, I'm well aware that people aren't suggesting that 40 year old and 17 year old sexual relations be the norm, but when we are talking about moral statements, we are talking about norms. I simply state that I find such practices sick. That is my moral norm. I don't need to state that there maybe exceptions to the case. There are always exceptions to the case, but fortunately for me I don't need to live my life qualifying everything I say to everyone I speak with. That explicit qualification of my position is unnecessary, as I have already established that I am a fully functioning, rational agent and therefor I can make judgments on a case by case basis, when it is appropriate. To make sense of what I'm saying, you simply have to take another moral norm as an example: "It is wrong to kill." Most of us accept this moral norm. And we accept it without having to bring up all the situations in which it might not hold every time we assert it. It is not a requirement of moral conversation to discuss each and every case of application that is possible for a moral rule. Speaking of being 17, I actually used to do this when I was 17. Whenever I was in a moral discussion with someone and a norm was brought up, I would immediately go on a tirade about all the possible exceptions to that rule. At the time I thought I was being very smart and seeing sides of the argument that no one else could see. Now I realize, I as just being annoying. Everyone already understood that there were exceptions, but as it would be an impossible task to write down every possible exception to a rule, no one bothered and just played the stuff by ear, as the situation dictated, allowing the explicitly stated norms to guide their reasoning. (It is worth noting that I was such an annoying 17 year old precisely because I was precocious and my level of academic learning was not on the same level as my life experiences. I was smart, but lacked any kind of practical understanding. I was not the equal of a fully intelligent and rational adult. And indeed, I still hold that no 17 year old is. Certainly, there are 17 year olds who are smarter and wiser than relatively unintelligent and foolish adults, but I fail to see the value in comparing a 17 year old to an idiot and saying, "See, what a smart 17 year old....by comparison." I know any number of dogs that are more intelligent than some small or mentally challenged children, but that hardly makes me feel like I need to point that fact out if someone tells me that humans are more intelligent than dogs. Once again, it is an example of discussing exceptions that aren't so much relevant as annoying.)

 

You need to be more clear.

You say that exceptions are implicit in adult conversations then claim there are no 17year old's with intelligence of an adult or life experience.

The two are mutually exclusive positions.

You cannot have had enough experience to claim that there are none so it is anecdotal evidence you are working with yet you discount others who say they have met some, which is anecdotal of the positive, all the while claiming that you appreciate there are exceptions but make no room for any on this issue.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[DeGaul]

AlphaToOmega, I cannot dismiss a request for greater clarity: In discussing moral norms, I claim that exceptions are implicit. I did not claim that exceptions are implicit in all human conversation, and I am not claiming that an exception is implicit when I say that no 17 year old is a match in wisdom and intelligence with a fully rational and intelligent adult. The "adult" I am using in my example is a perfect case example. Of course, I can acknowledge that many adults fall short of my perfect case adult and so could be dumber or less wise than a 17 year old, but by definition I wouldn't call such adults really adults. They would be "developmentally disabled", by my own definition. Certainly, by my own definition, I would accept that that implies that my own set of "adults" is going to be a much smaller set than the generally accepted set of "adults". I make the strong claim about adults and 17 year olds by limiting the values I allow into my sets. (I'm drifting off into mathematics land here, but this is how I think, so I don't ask to be excused.)

 

Certainly, my [set of 17 year olds] is easy enough to define simply by age, and all the values of that set will be any value of a variable that fits the rule "Is 17 years of age".

 

My [set of (perfect case) adults], however, is formed by a significantly more complicated set of rules----one of which is the rule "Is wiser and more intelligent than a 17 year old".

 

If I could assign an arbitrary scale to the properties of "wise" and "intelligent", part of the method by which the [set of (perfect case) adults] would be created would depend on the members of that set always falling higher on the scales of "wisdom" and "intelligence" than any member of the [set of 17 year olds]. Thus, by my own rules, if a value of a variable comes along that does not fall higher on the scale of wisdom and intelligence than a 17 year old, that variable cannot be placed in the [set of (perfect case) adults]. To know what to do with that variable, it would be necessary to then develop a new set, perhaps the [set of human beings older than 17], and then develop a series of rules by which it is made explicit that the [set of human beings older than 17] and the [set of (perfect case) adults] are not in any sense equivalent, although it would seem definite that the [set of perfect case adults] would most certainly be a sub-set of the [set of human beings older than 17]. In addition to the [set of (perfect case) adults] as a sub-set of the [set of human beings older than 17], there would be other sub-sets, such as the [set of developmentally disabled adults], for which definitions could be teased out.

 

I will be the first to admit that, if I come across as overly rigid in my definitions, it is because I am dominated in my mind by the language of mathematics, and I feel little love for the ambiguity of the written and spoken word. Precision is what I crave, even if only for its own sake, as I'm sure no one here will feel any practical connection to the precise ways in which I define things.

[AlphaToOmega]

If I could assign an arbitrary scale to the properties of "wise" and "intelligent", part of the method by which the [set of (perfect case) adults] would be created would depend on the members of that set always falling higher on the scales of "wisdom" and "intelligence" than any member of the [set of 17 year olds].

 

Here is the problem with that approach. You have predetermined the result.

Even if I could introduce to you a 17year old person who is smarter, wiser than any person in the world, you could not consider them an adult.

Instead, you would be demoted to being a substandard adult and they merely a 17 year old.

 

If you want to test something you need to do it blind.

Make a test where you have no idea who is adult, who is not and decide upon the result from there.

Otherwise you are allowing your own bias and prejudice to dictate the result.

That would not be mathematical reasoning. You are constantly redefining to ensure that no 17 year old ever passes the grade even to the point of absurdity.

 

Substitute female/black/disabled/gay/lesbian into the same process and you see instantly the problem with this approach.

 

If you want to see the world for what it is then do so by eliminating your biases and not by defining your world by them, which is what you are doing.

[DeGaul]

AlphaToOmega, the method you are describing is not the method of a formal system. I am talking about formal systems. Formal systems depend on axioms in order to predetermine results. Formal systems are not experimental science. I know very well that I have "stacked the deck", as it were. But, I'm fine with that. I suppose that I might reconsider if you could find me a 17 year old who is wiser and more intelligent than anyone else in the world, but that is such an outlandish example as to be irrelevant to my considerations. (Not to mention that it would likely involve a rather complicated comparison of what you and I both mean by wisdom and intelligence, and no doubt you would accuse me of bias in that I'm sure that I would tend to hold it as axiomatic that 17 year olds do not have wisdom because my own definition of wisdom is tied to life experience and at the end of the day I believe a 17 year old cannot sufficiently process life experience with their under-developed neurology to turn experience into wisdom.)

 

I choose to live my life by formalizing axioms for myself which are (admittedly) based upon my own experience. (Formal systems do, I admit, make contact with experience at some point, and are then open to discussions of experimentation, but as I mentioned above, my own reading of experimental research has shown that 17 year olds are still primarily physiologically dominated by the emotional centers of their brain and do not even have a fully developed frontal lobe. As such, they are physically incapable of transforming experience into wisdom and so I am not simply ignoring experimental research----rather, I would presume you are rejecting the truth of such research in neurology.) I don't feel a need to qualify my axioms, especially those that I have defined in such a way as to be foundational. When creating formal systems, we start with a certain number of assumptions and then derive the rest of the system from those assumptions. My definition of what makes an adult is foundational. I derive my other statements from this foundation.

 

The mistake you are making is believing that there is a "way the world is" apart from individual's biases. I can't possibly get into all the work that has been done in analytic philosophy to express how there is no "view from nowhere" (i.e. a way the world is outside of any particular perspective), but let it be sufficient to say that it is a problem that has been well discussed and debated. That you do not share what is axiomatic with me does not imply that I should abandon my own formal system in preference to yours.

[AlphaToOmega]

You seem to have a part understanding of mathematics.

Its a language based on logic.

You created a definition which is mathematically consistent but makes no sense.

The best way I can describe that to you is that you understand the words and write the words down but they don't make a sentence.

 

But, regardless we'll move forward.

If you're mathematically inclined then you understand normal distribution.

That being the case how can you dismiss the fact that it will give results for small percentages of 17 year olds being way above the normal curve of adults let alone the lower end of adult scale?

 

Why are you specifically "stacking the deck" based on results from normalised studies while dismissing the fact that they are normalised studies?

 

That is completely illogical and inconsistent to being objective..

 

If what you are presenting is "your" subjective opinion that's fine and dandy but don't try to pass it off as factually based as it simply is not the case.

Studies show that on average the development of the brain is less than a full adult at any particular point.

That's it.

It's based on a sample and that means right away that it falls into the scope of statistical variation.

Claiming zero probability is not mathematically sound.

 

And that is my main issue. You are claiming to use mathematics to justify your position when the maths clearly contradicts your position.

[Galien]

Galien, I have to admit, you have motivated me to perhaps clarify a few things: Let me start by saying, I am not heartless, despite what you may feel. I have a rather large heart when it comes to the people who are close to me, my family and friends. What I am is unwilling to be dishonest about anything. When I say that I don't care how you raise your children, for example, it is not because I am expressing some sort of heartlessness or hatefulness toward you, it is because I genuinely don't spend any of my energy thinking about how I would raise your children.

 

What I am trying to combat in the way that I live my life is the pervasive tendency in our culture to cling to the idea that we must love, accept, and concern ourselves with everyone. I do not love everyone. I feel very little, if anything, for most other human beings. And what I truly believe is that if everyone would just be honest about it, very few individuals actually love or concern themselves with everyone. What would it mean to say that you love everyone? That kind of a statement is nonsense. To someone who tells me "I love everyone.", my only response is, "No, you do not." People in our society have turned the word "love" into a lip service, a sort of superstition, which we use to try and cover over the fact that for the most part, we as human beings often disagree with one another and, on a day-to-day basis, hardly concern ourselves with each other at all.

 

I would like to trade the false sense of security that comes from the "universal love" doctrine for the reality of a world in which differences are clear. Let each person love who they love and hate who they hate. Let each person be free and open about his or her judgments and let each individual stand firm in his or her convictions. Only once we can practice that kind of universal honesty can we actually get a clear picture of where everyone stands and how to move forward from there.

 

The hippies got it dead wrong, "All you need is love." is utter bullshit. "All you need is honesty." would have been the kind of rallying cry that might have made a great generation.

 

Okay, for starters you won't find too many more pure idealists about than myself. I became a christian as a gifted child in a chaotic environment and cleaved onto jesus like a barnacle on the bottom of a boat. In my world of choas, violence and self interest the directive to love others as oneself and everyone is your neighbour was a shining light of a brililant way to live in a dark and uncertain world. So it became part of my personality. Sadly for me I spent too much time concentrating on the amazing jesus and pretty well no time concentrating on the idiots he was surrounded by and their possible motives and agendas. Never really occurred to me that acting like jesus leads to an inevitable end, and always a disappointing one.

 

What that has meant for me is that I have spent my whole life valuing everyone around me as an equal or better, but constantly being fucked over and not being able to understand why people did not value me the way I valued them. Over time that had its inevitable consequences. I always thought it was my fault, that I wasn't worth it in some way, and I just didn't get why I loved them in a way they didn't love me. Of course that whole thing in a christian environment kept me locked inside guilt, anxiety and depression for decades. Six years ago when I was sacrificed on the altar of societal norms, and harrassed by christians even after they knew I was suicidal, something inside me finally broke. Four years of intensive therapy later to help me understand how the average person operates (opposite to me) and I am still barely able to get my head around it at all. I learnt that my motives must always be honest, that I must always tell the truth and always love everyone. Great in theory but in this world it can only ever lead to complete neurosis.

 

These days I am learning to deal with my obsession with loving everyone and always telling the truth, but it isn't easy. I am 50, and it isnt easy to change the patterns of a lifetime.

 

De Gaul, you don't know what goes on inside other people, you only know what goes on inside you. You don't understand all the experiences that bring people to the place they are now. Not everyone fits a theory from a textbook. Some people do love everyone, because that is who they believe they should be, and often they are filled with the desire to make the world better for everyone and make sure no one misses out. Of course we cannot facilitiate that, but it doesn't stop some of us from wanting to.

 

One of the things that makes me the most angry is when people attribute agendas and motives to me which I do not have. I am sorry if I appear hostile at times, it just triggers my fury at the way I have been treated. You want to know what my motives are, ask me, don't assume you know what goes on inside me. You don't.

[Margee]

This goes along with the thread and some of the discussions........................The 'Obedient Wifes' would do themselves a favor to read this.............

 

 

I Own Myself

I am Me and I own myself. Nobody else does. In all the world, there is no one else exactly like me. Nobody has to be like me. Everything that comes out of me is authentically mine, because I alone chose it ....... I own everything about me: My body, my feelings, my mouth, my voice, all my actions, whether they be to others or myself. I own my opinions, beliefs, fantasies, my dreams, my hopes, my fears.

 

I own my triumphs and successes, all my failures, pain and mistakes. Because I own all of me, I can become intimately acquainted with me. By so doing, I can love me and be friendly with all my parts. I know there are aspects about myself that puzzle me, and other aspects that I do not know...... but as long as I am friendly and loving to myself, I can courageously and hopefully look for solutions to the puzzles and ways to find out more about me.

 

However I look and sound, whatever I say and do, and whatever I think and feel at a given moment in time is authentically me. If later some parts of how I looked, sounded, thought, and felt turn out to be unfitting, I can discard that which is unfitting, keep the rest, and invent something new for that which I discarded. I can see, hear, feel, think, say, and do. I have the tools to survive, to be close to others, to be productive, and to make sense and order out of the world of people and things outside of me. I own me, and therefore, I can engineer me. I am me and I like it..

[Galien]

Good stuff Margee

[Guest ThereIsNoGod]

Ok, when I read of "The Obedient Wives Club", it reads as though obedient wives are better than not so obedient wives.....like they are proud of their obedience and they're advertising it.

 

Should ANYONE be dependent on someone else when they don't have to be? In my experiences, it's not as though women, by offering their obedience and dependancy to some man, are utterly playing into the man's hands. Not all men want to have to direct and look after a woman.

 

If it is all a matter of intelligence, the smarter person should direct the less smart, then from what I've heard, Muslims organise society so that women will always be of inferior knowledge to the men, by not allowing them to have the same schooling as men. I think, as some people see it, when a wife is allowed to make a decision in a marriage, it's like letting a student teach the teacher or something like that....for some people it's like "Men are smarter, it's a fact". Frankly, even wives who have had no schooling when compared to their husbands, can still have superior common sense and also a greater moral sense.

 

Sigh....are you only as worthy as what knowledge you have in your head? Not for your ability to make use of what you have?

[Vigile]

Moral sensibility is the same way. When it comes to moral conversations, we don't prove....we persuade.

 

You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. By pointing out the many flaws in the line in your moral sand, you are failing to persuade, yet claiming the philosophical high ground here. I just can't be that rigid and I don't want to live in a world where people force rigid demands on others.

[Noumena]

This goes along with the thread and some of the discussions........................The 'Obedient Wifes' would do themselves a favor to read this.............

 

 

I Own Myself

I am Me and I own myself. Nobody else does. In all the world, there is no one else exactly like me. Nobody has to be like me. Everything that comes out of me is authentically mine, because I alone chose it ....... I own everything about me: My body, my feelings, my mouth, my voice, all my actions, whether they be to others or myself. I own my opinions, beliefs, fantasies, my dreams, my hopes, my fears.

 

I own my triumphs and successes, all my failures, pain and mistakes. Because I own all of me, I can become intimately acquainted with me. By so doing, I can love me and be friendly with all my parts. I know there are aspects about myself that puzzle me, and other aspects that I do not know...... but as long as I am friendly and loving to myself, I can courageously and hopefully look for solutions to the puzzles and ways to find out more about me.

 

However I look and sound, whatever I say and do, and whatever I think and feel at a given moment in time is authentically me. If later some parts of how I looked, sounded, thought, and felt turn out to be unfitting, I can discard that which is unfitting, keep the rest, and invent something new for that which I discarded. I can see, hear, feel, think, say, and do. I have the tools to survive, to be close to others, to be productive, and to make sense and order out of the world of people and things outside of me. I own me, and therefore, I can engineer me. I am me and I like it..

 

I like that, Margee.

[DeGaul]

You seem to have a part understanding of mathematics.

Its a language based on logic.

 

No, it is not a language based on logic. You cannot derive mathematics from logic. Mathematics is a related but independent study. (Reference the problem with Frege's work, the work of Russell, and the work of Kurt Godel.)

 

You created a definition which is mathematically consistent but makes no sense.

The best way I can describe that to you is that you understand the words and write the words down but they don't make a sentence.

 

As a matter of fact, what I wrote does make sense. And, as you say, it is consistent as well.

 

But, regardless we'll move forward.

If you're mathematically inclined then you understand normal distribution.

That being the case how can you dismiss the fact that it will give results for small percentages of 17 year olds being way above the normal curve of adults let alone the lower end of adult scale?

 

You are ignoring my consistent use of the conjunction "and" when referring to intelligence and wisdom in a 17 year old. It is not a question of distribution. It is a physiological fact that, at 17, the human brain's frontal lobe is not as developed as it will be at the age of 25 (baring any physical damage or genetic malfunction). A 17 year old physically cannot process experience in the same way that a 25 year old can. Leaving off the comparison of people to each other, just take one individual as an example. Let's say we have an unusually intelligent 17 year old. When that 17 year old is 25, he or she will be significantly more wise and will more effectively use his or her intellect because the frontal lobe will have more or less finished developing the neural pathways that allow it to process experience without relying so heavily on the emotional centers in the limbic region of the brain. Short of being a mutant, a 17 year old cannot defy the natural processes of brain growth in the human species and so cannot compare in wisdom and intelligence with a healthy adult.

 

Why are you specifically "stacking the deck" based on results from normalised studies while dismissing the fact that they are normalised studies?

 

That is completely illogical and inconsistent to being objective..

 

Once again, I am not just talking about statistical norms here but established biological processes of growth, unless you are trying to suggest that I should be holding out for the possibility of sudden brain mutation in some unique 17 year old.

 

If what you are presenting is "your" subjective opinion that's fine and dandy but don't try to pass it off as factually based as it simply is not the case.

 

I have presented facts, and I have presented my opinion along with them. That's all.

 

Claiming zero probability is not mathematically sound.

 

There is zero probability that I will sprout wings and fly around the room. Hmmmm....seems pretty sound to me.

 

And that is my main issue. You are claiming to use mathematics to justify your position when the maths clearly contradicts your position.

 

 

I claimed to think mathematically, and then I gave an example of how I structure my opinions along formal lines. That is a commentary on how I think, not a commentary on mathematics or a claim that the field of mathematics somehow supports my assertions. The maths neither support nor contradict my position. The foundations of what I'm asserting are not mathematical, I just enjoy putting my own thoughts in a formalized form. The foundation of my claim is what I've stated above, the observational fact that at 17 the human frontal lobe is underdeveloped. And as I'm interested in examples of healthy individuals, I don't bother with the fact that some adults are not as intelligent and wise as a 17 year old because they have suffered some developmental damage or other.

 

 

[DeGaul]

Galien, I would ask you then to appreciate that I do not judge the world from inside a text book. It seems that the generally feeling you direct at me is this idea that I'm this arrogant, stuffy academic who has no real life experiences to speak of. That isn't the case at all. I've never worked as an academic. I do have advanced degrees, but in my everyday life experience, I have lived a life somewhat less glamorous or easy that my degrees may suggest. For many years I worked in the prison system, and now I spend my time working as an electrical worker.

 

I am a person of strong opinions and strong convictions, but I assure you they are my own opinions and convictions. I'm not aping what I've read, I've experienced a great deal and have thought carefully about the things I say. Perhaps Vigile is correct in classifying me as "rigid". I would be willing to accept that label, and I understand very well that people find rigidity threatening. (Especially people who are recovering from Christianity, which is so often associated with rigidness.)

 

But, rigid is what I like: disciplined, precise, crisp, simple, safe. Those are all concepts I value a great deal. You may not like that. You may find the thought of a person like me distasteful, or if not me, then at least I imagine you would think that the life I lead would not be one you would want to lead. That's fine. As I said, universal love is not something I'm moved by, and I certainly don't expect it to be directed at me. I don't need the love of everyone, but the people who I care dearly about.

 

So, I guess what I am saying is that you shouldn't expect me to mellow out over time. I'm not a mellow person, but at the same time, you should know that if I say something you disagree with, I'm not concerned with changing your mind about it. You don't have to feel threatened by me, or fear that I'm going to try and push my views on you. I won't. I'll express what I think, but I won't try to force anyone to agree with me.

[Galien]

Galien, I would ask you then to appreciate that I do not judge the world from inside a text book. It seems that the generally feeling you direct at me is this idea that I'm this arrogant, stuffy academic who has no real life experiences to speak of. That isn't the case at all. I've never worked as an academic. I do have advanced degrees, but in my everyday life experience, I have lived a life somewhat less glamorous or easy that my degrees may suggest. For many years I worked in the prison system, and now I spend my time working as an electrical worker.

 

I am a person of strong opinions and strong convictions, but I assure you they are my own opinions and convictions. I'm not aping what I've read, I've experienced a great deal and have thought carefully about the things I say. Perhaps Vigile is correct in classifying me as "rigid". I would be willing to accept that label, and I understand very well that people find rigidity threatening. (Especially people who are recovering from Christianity, which is so often associated with rigidness.)

 

But, rigid is what I like: disciplined, precise, crisp, simple, safe. Those are all concepts I value a great deal. You may not like that. You may find the thought of a person like me distasteful, or if not me, then at least I imagine you would think that the life I lead would not be one you would want to lead. That's fine. As I said, universal love is not something I'm moved by, and I certainly don't expect it to be directed at me. I don't need the love of everyone, but the people who I care dearly about.

 

So, I guess what I am saying is that you shouldn't expect me to mellow out over time. I'm not a mellow person, but at the same time, you should know that if I say something you disagree with, I'm not concerned with changing your mind about it. You don't have to feel threatened by me, or fear that I'm going to try and push my views on you. I won't. I'll express what I think, but I won't try to force anyone to agree with me.

 

You probably have a choleric temperament. The problem with rigid people is that they are often harsh and punitive and definately not a person I would like to find in a jury of my peers. Life isn't crisp or precise or simple or safe, yet rigid people try to apply those things to ALL circumstances. I don't understand why the rigid rules are more important than the circumstances or the backstory, or in fact the people themselves.

[LivingLife]

One of the obvious norms we see in these arguments is the "fact" of age disparity between females and males when it comes to pairing up. The male is usually older.

 

It is my opinion that women mature faster than men both physically and mentally and hence the natural age gaps. When I look at my kids, my son who is 3 years older than my daughter, only now at 22 is my son starting to get common sense and direction in his life whereas my daughter is and was pretty determined where she wanted to be/go at age 15. When my son was 15, he was more into playing PC games than studying etc.

 

When looking at sexuality, boys are frigging horny and I can only relate from my own experience. As teens they masturbate more than girls (I think) b/c we produce so much semen. Maybe the ladies can share more in this regard at that age.

 

I dated a hot woman when I was 22 and she was 3.5 years older. The sex was brilliant for both of us but looking back, the relationship was going nowhere as marriage and settling down was not on my radar back then.

 

B/c of the disparity of maturing, could it not simply these norms have somehow become accepted norms? With early sexual maturity, the inevitable young pregnancies, the lifespans we as a species had say in the 1900's was a lot shorter than it is today with modern medicine, and the extended family model where generations lived together even under one roof, led to the natural survival where grandparents were there to kick start the young parents off wrt experience and care?

 

All scientific data suggests that teens are more fertile and only modern society where we actually move away from the nest coupled with religious norms has taken the age of pairing up to a more mature age. This age, coupled with education and careers has folk marrying in their mid to late 20's and trends show that this goes even to the early 30's.

 

I married at 27 and my wife is 3 years younger. My 1st child came when I was 30. I still however had many sexual relations with other women prior to meeting my wife whereas for her I was her first.

 

The other factor is that women tend to outlive their spouses.

[Vigile]

I don't understand why the rigid rules are more important than the circumstances or the backstory, or in fact the people themselves.

 

Fonzi says, Exactamundo!

[Noumena]

Isn't my husband impressive!?! I love you, DeGaul.

[Noumena]

[Margee]

[Galien]

 

 

Vomit.

[AlphaToOmega]

You seem to have a part understanding of mathematics.

Its a language based on logic.

 

No, it is not a language based on logic. You cannot derive mathematics from logic. Mathematics is a related but independent study. (Reference the problem with Frege's work, the work of Russell, and the work of Kurt Godel.)

 

I said its a language based on logic.

You mention Godel, oddly at the age of 18 he had mastered University level mathematics. How is this possible?

If you did a controlled study on 1000 random 18year olds you would find that none have the ability to do that. thus it must be impossible.

It would then be a fact according to you that no 18 year old can understand University level mathematics.

Why?

Its because he fits in the extreme end of the distribution curve. Some will never understand mathematics to the level he did when he was 17 for example.

 

We can reference as many other sources as you like since they do not agree.

I'm in the camp that believes its a mathematical language based on logic.

 

You created a definition which is mathematically consistent but makes no sense.

The best way I can describe that to you is that you understand the words and write the words down but they don't make a sentence.

 

As a matter of fact' date=' what I wrote does make sense. And, as you say, it is consistent as well.

[/quote']

 

The deskjet printer jumped over the lazy desk.

 

Makes no sense but it is consistent.

Replace deskjet with Norwegian, printer with man, desk with log and suddenly it makes sense and is consistent.

Your statements did not make sense because you predetermined the result.

While its consistent and there is certainly nothing stopping you from doing so, using it as a proof that there are no 17year olds with intelligence and wisdom of an adult does not make sense.

You have arbitrarily declared that they can't be. end of story.

Then you get a study that uses random sampling but ignore the implications that come with random sampling and present it as fact when it clearly shows its a randomised study not an exhaustive one.

 

 

But' date=' regardless we'll move forward.

If you're mathematically inclined then you understand normal distribution.

That being the case how can you dismiss the fact that it will give results for small percentages of 17 year olds being way above the normal curve of adults let alone the lower end of adult scale?[/quote']

 

You are ignoring my consistent use of the conjunction "and" when referring to intelligence and wisdom in a 17 year old. It is not a question of distribution. It is a physiological fact that, at 17, the human brain's frontal lobe is not as developed as it will be at the age of 25 (baring any physical damage or genetic malfunction). A 17 year old physically cannot process experience in the same way that a 25 year old can. Leaving off the comparison of people to each other, just take one individual as an example. Let's say we have an unusually intelligent 17 year old. When that 17 year old is 25, he or she will be significantly more wise and will more effectively use his or her intellect because the frontal lobe will have more or less finished developing the neural pathways that allow it to process experience without relying so heavily on the emotional centers in the limbic region of the brain. Short of being a mutant, a 17 year old cannot defy the natural processes of brain growth in the human species and so cannot compare in wisdom and intelligence with a healthy adult.

 

Then I guess since we are all still developing and making new pathways till the day we die no one should be considered an adult till they are dead.

 

I'm also not ignoring your use of "and".

You seem to be ignorant of the fact that any study on the human brain will be a randomised study.

That means the study is implicitly going to follow a normalised distribution curve.

Ignoring that obvious fact is a common mistake people do when interpreting scientific studies.

You are doing the same thing, ignoring that the results will follow a distribution curve when interpreted correctly.

[AlphaToOmega]

Why are you specifically "stacking the deck" based on results from normalised studies while dismissing the fact that they are normalised studies?

 

That is completely illogical and inconsistent to being objective..

 

Once again' date=' I am not just talking about statistical norms here but established biological processes of growth, unless you are trying to suggest that I should be holding out for the possibility of sudden brain mutation in some unique 17 year old.

[/quote']

 

Here again, you fail to understand that the study is a statistical study. It is not an exhaustive study. If it was then every single 17 year old on the planet that has ever existed would have been part of it.

Clearly that is impossible.

Thus, its a randomised sampled study. The instant you do any randomised sample you introduce a statistical curve.

One implies the other.

If you fail consider the curve then you are not interpreting the results correctly.

Your facts here as a result show nothing to support your case that there are no 17 year olds that have a fully developed frontal lobe.

 

If what you are presenting is "your" subjective opinion that's fine and dandy but don't try to pass it off as factually based as it simply is not the case.

 

I have presented facts' date=' and I have presented my opinion along with them. That's all.

[/quote']

 

But you haven't as I have repeatedly tried to explain to you.

 

 

 

Claiming zero probability is not mathematically sound.

 

There is zero probability that I will sprout wings and fly around the room. Hmmmm....seems pretty sound to me.

 

You either mock or don't understand the argument.

I'll assume you're mocking' date=' which I find pretty strange as I expected you to argue logic but whatever.

 

I'll explain it to others reading here so they can see why you are quite simply wrong.

http://www.gifted.uc...nceInterval.htm

 

Here is an online calculator that will calculate the sample size required to achieve any particular confidence level and confidence interval.

Most researchers go for 95% confidence level.

http://www.gifted.uc...ecalculator.htm

 

Putting in figures for a confidence level of 95% and a confidence interval of 2.5% yeilds a sample size to be 1537.

That's how many 17year olds would need to have been studied to be able to claim 95% confidence in your study with 2.5% variation.

Now basically says that 1 in 20, 17 year olds may not fit this criterion.

But 5% error is pretty high and certainly nowhere near DeGaul's claim that the facts show that no 17 year olds have fully developed brains.

So lets go for a more accurate figure, say 1%

Plug in 99% as the confidence level and 0.5% as the confidence interval.

You need a sample size of: 66,549

So the researchers would need to look at the MRI's of over 66 thousand, 17 year olds just to be able to claim 1% error.

1% however is just 1 in 100 17year olds.

That's the top percentile of any group. IOW, they have an error greater than the top percentile which is where one would expect to find such 17 year olds.

 

How many 17 year olds have these studies sampled is the next big question.

Well, there are a number of studies going around, some have a sample size of 12 subjects. That's right, 12.

Others have 176 brains studies but in age groups between 7 and 87 years old.

Errors so high there is no way any credible scientist would make the claim that there are no 17year olds with fully developed brains.

 

I think I've shown more than enough that mathematically there are no studies that can claim that there are no 17 year olds with fully developed brains.

Just diminishing probabilities. Sample sizes in the 10's will have errors about 1 in 3. IOW, one in three 17 year olds could have fully developed brains.

Note that doesn't mean that 1 in 3 do. Just that we cannot make a claim any better than the 1 in 3 because the maths says we'd be wrong.

 

DeGaul, if you have a link to a peer reviewed paper that has such a claim then please provide a link to it.

If not then consider your facts debunked. Its nothing more than your opinion and not fact.

 

 

I claimed to think mathematically' date=' and then I gave an example of how I structure my opinions along formal lines. That is a commentary on [b']how[/b] I think, not a commentary on mathematics or a claim that the field of mathematics somehow supports my assertions. The maths neither support nor contradict my position. The foundations of what I'm asserting are not mathematical, I just enjoy putting my own thoughts in a formalized form. The foundation of my claim is what I've stated above, the observational fact that at 17 the human frontal lobe is underdeveloped. And as I'm interested in examples of healthy individuals, I don't bother with the fact that some adults are not as intelligent and wise as a 17 year old because they have suffered some developmental damage or other.

 

 

The maths most certainly refute the claim of the supposed fact there are no 17 year olds with fully developed brains.

There are no facts that support this claim. There is however clear evidence that says you cannot make this claim and have it be considered valid mathematically.

 

Feel free to state it as an opinion but a fact it is not.

 

This is what my objection was. Not to your opinion but to you owning your own facts.

[Ro-bear]

Alpha, have you read the whole thread? DeGaul finds the beauty of youth repulsive, thinks 17 year olds aren't worth listening to, and thinks the human species should voluntarily stop reproducing and accept extinction. Just so you know.

[AlphaToOmega]

Alpha, have you read the whole thread? DeGaul finds the beauty of youth repulsive, thinks 17 year olds aren't worth listening to, and thinks the human species should voluntarily stop reproducing and accept extinction. Just so you know.

 

 

I did. He's entitled to his opinion. Its when he started claiming his own facts that I took issue.

[Ro-bear]

He's entitled to his opinion.

 

Of course. We all are. But I find that awareness of the opinions of others often saves me a lot of time.