No. The quote from science daily says what the paper says. It talks about brain maturity, I.e., the point at which the prefrontal cortex is fully developed. The paper does not talk about mature cognition or behavior. Science journalism can make the material more accessible, but at the expense of detail that may be needed to fully understand the study.doubtingthomas wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 12:51 amI understand, but why would one of the authors of the 2018 paper tell sciencedaily, "In other words, the brain become "mature" too soon"? Was Tyborowska playing word games? https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 094830.htmRes Ipsa wrote: ↑Mon May 02, 2022 7:43 pmSuppose the average completion of the brain maturation process is complete, on average, at age 22 as opposed to age 25, but because of reduced period of time for brain maturity takes place, the average individual exhibits the "maturity" of an 18 year old in terms of risk taking, decision making, etc. Yes, the process happened faster, but would it be accurate to say that, in behavioral terms, people who live in poor neighborhoods "mature" faster? Hell no.
You said, "Based on what we know, brain development is extremely complicated." It is sometimes better for the average joe to read newspapers like sciencedaily.
Well, glad we finally agree on something.
It would take me many hours or days to analyze and understand a paper, I am not an expert on the brain. Can you please help me understand another paper? I do have a question about an unrelated topic, but it is in regards to the old paper that you read.
According to another paper, "it is possible that poorer social relations existed before (and were even responsible) for late sexual timing or that late sexual timing let to difficulties with finding a romantic partner or true friend later on - or that both explanations hold as a cumulative risk model would suggest (Belsky. et. al 1991)"
https://www.sesp.northwestern.edu/docs/ ... c0446c.pdf . I don't fully understand what the authors mean by "both explanations hold", the authors do reference the 31 year old paper you read. Hopefully you can help me here.
I’m sorry to destroy our happy agreement, but I wrote the opposite of what I intend to communicate regarding overlap of distributions. I should have said “after other girls”, not before. My bad.
The authors do cite the older paper, but they accurately describe it as purely theoretical. The absence of research that attempt to test the theory indicates it is still theoretical.
I feel your passion about trying to grasp scientific papers. The presume some level of expertise in the relevant field, which means they aren’t written with you and me in mind. To me, it just indicates that I shouldn’t make strong claims based on what the paper says unless I’m very confident that I understand what the authors are saying, especially the limitations section of the paper. The opportunities for me to misunderstand are too high.
In answer to your specific question, I think what the authors mean is that the study finds associations but cannot say what the causal relationship between the associated things is. Does A cause B? Does B cause A? Or do both causal directions “hold,” meaning the causal relationship runs both ways (similar to how a feedback loop works). Does that make sense?