Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday August 28 2017, @01:14PM   Printer-friendly
from the Hold-My-Beer dept.

Why DO teens do THAT? Raging hormones? Prefrontal cortex fully developed? Thrill Seeking? New research from The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania has released a report explaining Why Teens Take Risks: It's Not a Deficit in Brain Development:

The authors propose an alternative model that emphasizes the role that risk taking and the experience gained by it play in adolescent development. This model explains much of the apparent increase in risk taking by adolescents as "an adaptive need to gain the experience required to assume adult roles and behaviors." That experience eventually changes the way people think about risk, making it more "gist-like" or thematic and making them more risk averse.

"Recent meta-analyses suggest that the way individuals think about risks and rewards changes as they mature, and current accounts of brain development must take these newer ideas into account to explain adolescent risk taking," said co-author Valerie Reyna, Ph.D., director of the Human Neuroscience Institute at Cornell University.

Romer[1] added, "The reason teens are doing all of this exploring and novelty seeking is to build experience so that they can do a better job in making the difficult and risky decisions in later life – decisions like 'Should I take this job?' or 'Should I marry this person?' There's no doubt that this period of development is a challenge for parents, but that's doesn't mean that the adolescent brain is somehow deficient or lacking in control."

[1] Daniel Romer, Ph.D

Daniel Romer, Valerie F. Reyna, Theodore D. Satterthwaite. Beyond stereotypes of adolescent risk taking: Placing the adolescent brain in developmental context. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 2017; 27: 19 DOI: 10.1016/j.dcn.2017.07.007 (Javascript required).

Alternate Link: Science.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by pvanhoof on Monday August 28 2017, @06:01PM (14 children)

    by pvanhoof (4638) on Monday August 28 2017, @06:01PM (#560362) Homepage

    That's because 10% of the (stronger) men would get 90% of the woman? Leaving the other 90% of the men without sex? I read somewhere that female monkeys cheat on the alpha male quite often. This way allowing for more gene diversity.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday August 28 2017, @06:50PM

    by Immerman (3985) on Monday August 28 2017, @06:50PM (#560403)

    Is it really cheating if there's no expectation of fidelity in the first place?

    Along those lines though, among primates testicle size correlates extremely well with female monogamy. By which scale humans fall roughly midway between Gorillas, where the females will only mate with their troop leader, and Chimpanzees, where pretty much anything goes. So we're likely biologically inclined for women to have definite favorites, but be far from exclusive.

  • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday August 28 2017, @07:16PM (12 children)

    by Grishnakh (2831) on Monday August 28 2017, @07:16PM (#560417)

    The 10/90 thing makes no sense at all. It assumes that 1) 90% of women will hold out for the top 10% of men (in whatever metric that women rank men: looks, personality, money, etc.), 2) those 90% of women would be OK with sharing a man with 9 other women, and 2) that these 10% of men have the time to entertain 9 women each, and the inclination to spend their time doing so.

    The fundamental reality that contradicts all this, more than anything else, is that time is a limited resource. If I had 9 women wanting to move in with me, there's no way I could keep them all satisfied in bed. No man could. 2 is probably my limit, maybe 3 if they have lower libidos. (And that's just the physical part; trying to have a close emotional relationship with someone is a big time-eater too.) And even if I could have a bunch of women, if I had a couple of really hot ones (who weren't crazy...), why would I want to waste my time with a bunch of others that aren't so hot? I have other things to do with my time than simply sleep with and talk to women you know.

    No, in the non-monogamous future, we'll just see more casual sex, more short-term relationships, fewer people staying in relationships that aren't working out or aren't making them happy, but also people not expecting as much from relationships because they can have multiple relationships at once (like 2 or 3... not 9! And it's not just men who would have multiple partners remember, another thing naysayers always seem to assume), so we could very well have fewer "single" people overall, but more people in lower-commitment relationships than what we have now.

    • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday August 28 2017, @07:46PM (10 children)

      by Immerman (3985) on Monday August 28 2017, @07:46PM (#560446)

      Another possibility is larger, more flexible family groups. Not completely at odds with lower commitments, etc. But with a half-dozen or dozen people in a polygamous marriage you have a lot more room for a variety of romantic pairings (since we do seem inclined to have at least medium-term favorites) within the larger framework of a family committed to mutual well-being.

      Of course there's a lot more complications introduced by polygamy, but it's probably closer to what our "natural" state would be - primate troops tend to be relatively small and close-knit, though individuals and small groups will occasionally depart to try to find a troop they'll be happier in.

      • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday August 28 2017, @08:10PM (9 children)

        by Grishnakh (2831) on Monday August 28 2017, @08:10PM (#560461)

        Another possibility is larger, more flexible family groups.

        Absolutely. And that's a key word here: flexible. That's the problem with today's marriage; it's inflexible. When things go south, it's hard to get out without severe repercussions, even today where divorce isn't *that* hard to obtain from the courts.

        But with a half-dozen or dozen people in a polygamous marriage

        Quibble here: the current term is "polyamorous". "Polygamy" connotes paternalistic groupings with one dude and a bunch of women subservient to him, usually in the Mormon religion. People who promote "a variety of romantic pairings" (which means not only do women frequently have multiple partners, but there might be some homo- or bisexuality in there too) don't want to be at all associated with Mormon-style polygamy or anything sexist like that.

        Of course there's a lot more complications introduced by polygamy, but it's probably closer to what our "natural" state would be

        The complications can't be worse than the mess we have now with divorces, spousal support, child support, custody arrangements, etc. The lawyers are making a killing on the whole thing.

        And honestly, considering how many marriages seem to fall apart because of "cheating", if we remove the entire expectation of monogamy, it seems to me that groupings would be more stable.

        • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday August 28 2017, @08:29PM (8 children)

          by Immerman (3985) on Monday August 28 2017, @08:29PM (#560477)

          po·lyg·a·my
          noun
                  1. the practice or custom of having more than one wife or husband at the same time.

          I've often heard the term used for both male an female "harem" arrangements, as well as more gender-balanced ones. My understanding is that poly amorous is used to denote a a less committed relationship

          • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday August 28 2017, @09:26PM (7 children)

            by Grishnakh (2831) on Monday August 28 2017, @09:26PM (#560518)

            No, sorry, your dictionary is wrong on this one. Technically, it's correct from an etymological point-of-view ("polygyny" is one-man-many-women, "polyandry" is one-women-many-men, "polygamy" is gender-neutral), however in actual usage it just doesn't work that way: when almost anyone hears the term "polygamy", what they really think you're talking about is polygyny (and it's kinda hard to hear the difference between "polgyny" and "polygamy" anyway). Moreover, ask 100 people on the street what "polygamy" is, and then ask them what "polygyny" is: they'll say the first is one-man-multiple-women, and for the second they'll say "huh?".

            So if you talk to people in the actual polyamory community, who actually practice it, they do not like the polygamy term at all for this reason, and "polyamory" is a large umbrella term that says nothing about the commitment level of the relationship, and just means non-monogamous relationships basically.

            Wiktionary defines polyamory as "Any of various practices involving romantic or sexual relationships with multiple partners with the knowledge and consent of all involved."
            And it has, for definition #5 under "polygamy", "Commonly used specifically for polygyny, the marriage of a man to more than one wife, or the practice of having several wives, at the same time. "

            • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday August 29 2017, @12:13AM (6 children)

              by Immerman (3985) on Tuesday August 29 2017, @12:13AM (#560607)

              I'll note that definitions 1 through 4 on Wiktionary make no mention of gender bias, through granted 3 and 4 are scientific rather than social definitions. But considering that Wikipedia mentions that out of 1045 societies noted to practice polygamy in the 1998 Ethnographic Atlas, only 4 practice polyandry, I suppose it is a reasonable assumption.

              However, I still say polyamory is *not* a substitute term, as it does not imply the same level of commitment. Perhaps it's currently the best available though.

              • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday August 29 2017, @03:10AM (5 children)

                by Grishnakh (2831) on Tuesday August 29 2017, @03:10AM (#560647)

                How does it not imply the same level of commitment? Because the term doesn't specify marriage (the "gam" part of polygamy)? How would that help? It's illegal in all places where polyamory is practiced to legally marry more than one person, so the whole thing is moot. It's kinda hard to have a 6-person marriage for example if the state won't recognize it. Go talk to some actual polyamorists and ask them about your assumption of it not having the same level of commitment and I think you'll hear an earful. Try reddit's /r/polyamory for starters.

                • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday August 29 2017, @03:18PM (4 children)

                  by Immerman (3985) on Tuesday August 29 2017, @03:18PM (#560842)

                  Exactly - because of the -gam. And what the state respects is irrelevant except when dealing with the state - marriage at its core is a pledge of long-term commitment between the people involved, everything else is politics.

                  That's not to say that polyamorous relationships can't have the same level of commitment, but that commitment isn't implied by the term. There's plenty of people in casual polyamorous relationships as well, and the term applies to them with equal validity.

                  And while there are plenty of people who might describe themselves as in casual monogamous relationships, they are misusing that term - again because of the -gam.

                  • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday August 29 2017, @04:10PM (3 children)

                    by Grishnakh (2831) on Tuesday August 29 2017, @04:10PM (#560876)

                    Now you're being pedantic, and quite wrong.

                    The -gam is only useful for understanding the etymology of that word. But it does not define it. This is English: the definition of a word is defined solely by its popular usage, not its etymology. If everyone in America tomorrow decided that "monogamous" means having multiple casual sex partners, and used the word that way consistently, then that's exactly what it would mean, despite the obvious etymology which indicates exactly the opposite. If everyone in America tomorrow decided that a "square" was a geometric figure with 5 vertices (what we now call a pentagon), then that's what a square would be.

                    I've noticed that techies seem to have a real problem with this concept. This isn't French, where words are defined by some committee of academic elitists. English doesn't work that way. If people describe themselves as being in casual monogamous relationships, and other people understand the meaning of that and accept that definition, then that's the correct definition.

                    • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday August 29 2017, @05:02PM (2 children)

                      by Immerman (3985) on Tuesday August 29 2017, @05:02PM (#560930)

                      You are not completely incorrect - though the fact of the matter is that you'll never get such a decision overnight and so it's pretty much always a long slow decline while a growing body of people abuse a term to the confusion of all, while others push back in the name of consistency and sanity - especially when a word actually contains its literal definition within its component parts.

                      Has little to do with my main point in that post though - that polyamorous is categorically *not* a term that implies any level of commitment.

                      • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:41PM (1 child)

                        by Grishnakh (2831) on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:41PM (#561054)

                        though the fact of the matter is that you'll never get such a decision overnight and so it's pretty much always a long slow decline

                        Well yes, of course. It takes a while for the meaning of a word to shift. But look at the word "gay"; 60+ years ago it just meant "happy", and now it means something totally different.

                        especially when a word actually contains its literal definition within its component parts.

                        How about the word "decimate"? The literal meaning of that word is to reduce by 1/10 (to eliminate one-tenth of it). Now it means to totally destroy something, in English. But the word is Latin in origin and had a very specific meaning in Roman times.

                        that polyamorous is categorically *not* a term that implies any level of commitment.

                        That I agree with totally. As it is used today, even by (and especially by) people in that lifestyle, it's a big umbrella term that includes all sorts of non-monogamous relations of varying levels of commitment. It's not meant to be specific at all. But my point from before was that the "polygamy" term is really quite shunned by polyamorists, and they'll even be offended if you call them polygamists, because of the religious and patriarchal connotations (from definition 5 discussed before). The word's origin isn't important, it's the word's current popular definition/usage and associations.

                        • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday August 30 2017, @03:17AM

                          by Immerman (3985) on Wednesday August 30 2017, @03:17AM (#561282)

                          Yep, good solid words are lost to new meanings all the time - that's no reason not to fight if the mood takes you ;-)

                          As for decimate - interestingly it specifically referred to killing 1 in 10 in a group as a punishment to the whole group - a practice which would tend to quickly decimate (modern definition) either the population or their will to continue on their course. Perhaps the definition hasn't actually changed as much as it first appears...

    • (Score: 2) by TheRaven on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:55AM

      by TheRaven (270) on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:55AM (#560715) Journal

      The 10/90 thing makes no sense at all. It assumes that 1) 90% of women will hold out for the top 10% of men (in whatever metric that women rank men: looks, personality, money, etc.), 2) those 90% of women would be OK with sharing a man with 9 other women, and 2) that these 10% of men have the time to entertain 9 women each, and the inclination to spend their time doing so.

      No, he's assuming that women only have sex with men for material gain. In other words, he's advertising to the world that he's really crap in bed.

      --
      sudo mod me up