Young People + Not-Fully-Formed-Brain = Recklessness!

Y’know how your auto insurance cost a lot more before you were 25 (even if your parents paid it at the time)?

And how you can’t rent a car until you’re 25?

Well, this is because folks under that age have way more car crashes than afterwards.

Teenagers are four times as likely as older
drivers to be involved in a crash and three times as likely to die in
one, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

This likely has a biological basis–in the brain.

Contrary to the initial expectations of some (obviously clueless) NIH researchers, brain development does not peak by age 18.

"We’d thought the highest levels of physical and brain maturity were
reached by age 18, maybe earlier — so this threw us," said Jay Giedd,
a pediatric psychiatrist leading the study, which released its first
results in April. That makes adolescence "a dangerous time, when it
should be the best."

I don’t know what kind of pediatric psychiatry idealization-of-youth rhetoric this guy has been smoking, but he’s clearly out of touch.

People as far back as Aristotle (and before!) have pointed out that young people are reckless and like to have fun, and that’s a dangerous combination.

In any event, Dr. Giedd has to be given credit for being willing to recognize what their new neurological data showed them: A part of the brain that inhibits risk-taking behavior ain’t fully formed until age 25; hence, your auto insurance rates don’t got down until that age and you don’t get to rent a car until that age.

In a related study, young people of different ages were asked to play a simulated driving video game in which the goal was to get through a particular course as quickly as possible while not hitting anything. They also brought friends to the event and were tested both with and without their friends present.

The study showed that, with the presence of youthful companions, the young people were more responsible as they had others’ lives riding (virtually) of what they did as drivers, and so they took more precautions, right?

Ha!

Of course not! They were worse drivers with friends present.

An interesting aspect of all this is the gap between the onset of puberty and the maturing of the brain’s risk-inhibiting functions:

Temple’s Steinberg said the NIH/UCLA research supports his theory that
teen recklessness is partly the result of a critical gap in time —
starting with the thrill-seeking that comes in puberty and ending when
the brain learns to temper such behavior. Since children today reach
puberty earlier than previously, about age 13, and the brain’s
reasoning center doesn’t reach maturity until the mid-twenties,
Steinberg said, "This period of recklessness has never been as long as
it is now."

GET THE STORY.

 

A Not-So-Wild-Man Of Borneo?

A reader writes:

I got your email address from your website, jimmyakin.org. I
started listening to the Catholic Answers Life by downloading files
from the show archive recently (sorry, this may have nothing to do with
your website) . As a Catholic, I m very keen to learn more about the
faith. 

Since I m in Malaysia (State of Sabah, North Borneo),
Ah! Apa kabar? Saya bisa bicara bahasa Melayu–sedikit-sedikit saja–though I’m guessing you may be Chinese (in which case, Ni hao!).

I would like
to know if it is possible for me to ask questions through the internet.

Sure! You’re welcome to ask them here, though I can’t promise to answer them all. For additional help, I’d recommend going to the Catholic web boards at forums.catholic.com and forums.catholic-convert.com and (if you prefer bahasa Indonesia) ekaristi.org.
By the way, if you’re going to reply this email, I would like to
ask you just one question which is always on my mind. The question is
‘Why does God allow division among Christians (Catholic, Protestant,
Orthodox, etc.), or did He?’ Could you suggest any books/references on
this? (sorry, that’s more than 1 question)

I’m not sure that I can recommend any books on why God allows people to have disagreements in the Christian community, but I hope that the following thoughts may be helpful:

  1. The problem has been with us since the first century. Jesus prayed that his disciples would be one (John 17), knowing that divisions would arise among them. If you read 1 Corinthians, especially chapters 1-3, it’s very clear that there were divisions in the early Christian community, and St. Paul writes against these divisions.
  2. Since the existence of divisions in the Christian community is evil, this makes the existence of such divisions a part of the overall "problem of evil" (i.e., why God allows evil in general).
  3. We do not have a complete answer to why God allows evil, but since he always has adequate reasons for what he does, we can reason that there must be an adequate reason for God to allow this.
  4. Knowing that, we can speculate about what the reson or reasons he allows evil are.
  5. One of the most popular suggestions for why he allows evil in order to allow a certain kind of free will to exist in this life, the kind of free will whereby he allows people to make a free choice for good or evil. Letting them do this means letting them sometimes choose evil, which means allowing the existence of evil.
  6. While it is not certain that this is the reason God allows evil, it does fit with the facts that in this life people do sometimes choose evil and God does allow it.
  7. It also fits with the fact that the divisions in the Christian community have arisen because different people (the founders of different sects, in particular) have exercised their free will in such a way that they have left the unity of the Catholic Church and founded their own communities.

Hope this helps, and hope you’ll visit and participate in the blog regularly!

January 19, 2004 Show

LISTEN TO THE SHOW.

DOWNLOAD THE SHOW.

HIGHLIGHTS:

  • At the conclusion of an exorcism, is the
    expulsion of the demon apparent?  Are there exorcists present in every diocese?
  • Did Bishop Raymond Burke recently assert that all pro-abortion politicians should refrain of Communion?  Why single out abortion as a Communion disqualification?
  • Countering the Protestant notion of salvation by "faith
    alone."
  • Where in scripture would one find the distinction between mortal and venial sins?
  • Can one prove the truth of transubstantiation over consubstantiation?
  • Can priests in the Society of St. Pius X validly celebrate the sacrament of penance?  How about those in the Charismatic Episcopal Church?
  • How many precepts of the Church are there?  Can they change?
    Who determines them?
  • Is confession required before Communion if one misses Mass?  What are valid reasons for missing Mass?
  • Must there be "full" knowledge or consent for a sin to be
    mortal? What if an individual knows that an act constitutes grave matter in the eyes of the Church yet chooses to ignore that fact?
  • What Christian sects are custodians of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre?  Would the marriage of a Catholic in a Greek Orthodox church be valid?
  • What is the minimum age for an extraordinary minister of Holy
    Communion?
  • Is Catholic Family News a trustworthy publication?
  • What are the "Lost Gospels"?
  • To which scripture passages do proponents of the Rapture appeal? How should those same passages be properly interpreted?

 

Chupacabras! Don't Mess With Texas!

Suppose you’re a Texan.

(Natural modesty prevents you from bragging about this too much, a’corse.)

Now suppose that there’s a chupacabra eating your mulberries and killing your chickens, or suppose it’s eating your pears and trying to hide under your house.

What do you do?

SHOOT IT, OF COURSE!

(The thing is destroying livestock and might be rabid, for all you know.)

Well, that’s what two Texas ranchers may have done last year, one in July, in Elmendorf, Texas, and one in Pollok, which is right near my family ranch in Deep East Texas. (NOTE: Pollok is just to the left of Lufkin.)

HERE’S A STORY ABOUT THE FIRST RANCHER.

HERE’S A STORY ABOUT THE SECOND. (WARNING: More graphic images in this article.)

When you get a look at the Elmendorf creature, it’s clearly the same as the other creature. They look canine, but not like any usual kind of canine. Here’s a photo:

The thing in some ways looks kind of like a kangaroo (but isn’t). It’s ears are also long enough that some thought it was a calf when they saw them silhouetted in the dark. The things have next to no fur, BIG HONKING TEETH (not so visible in this photo), and aren’t like coyotes or regular dogs.

Perhaps these critters are the basis of the chupacabra legends. . . . (Or perhaps not.)

Chupacabras! Don’t Mess With Texas!

Suppose you’re a Texan.

(Natural modesty prevents you from bragging about this too much, a’corse.)

Now suppose that there’s a chupacabra eating your mulberries and killing your chickens, or suppose it’s eating your pears and trying to hide under your house.

What do you do?

SHOOT IT, OF COURSE!

(The thing is destroying livestock and might be rabid, for all you know.)

Well, that’s what two Texas ranchers may have done last year, one in July, in Elmendorf, Texas, and one in Pollok, which is right near my family ranch in Deep East Texas. (NOTE: Pollok is just to the left of Lufkin.)

Chupapollokmap

HERE’S A STORY ABOUT THE FIRST RANCHER.

HERE’S A STORY ABOUT THE SECOND. (WARNING: More graphic images in this article.)

When you get a look at the Elmendorf creature, it’s clearly the same as the other creature. They look canine, but not like any usual kind of canine. Here’s a photo:

Chupatexas704

The thing in some ways looks kind of like a kangaroo (but isn’t). It’s ears are also long enough that some thought it was a calf when they saw them silhouetted in the dark. The things have next to no fur, BIG HONKING TEETH (not so visible in this photo), and aren’t like coyotes or regular dogs.

Perhaps these critters are the basis of the chupacabra legends. . . . (Or perhaps not.)

Attending Weddings

A reader writes:

Suppose that I have a very very close relative who is baptized in a mainstream protestant denomination, and who is living with his Catholic girlfriend.  This relative and his girlfriend get engaged to be married and live together right up through the wedding.  I try to charitably convince them that this behavior is sinful and harmful to them. May/should I attend the wedding under the following circumstances:

Before we get to the situations, let me say that the question of whether to attend any marriage is a question of prudence. You are never under a legal obligation to go (unless you are one of the parties getting married or have agreed to officiate at the wedding in some capacity required by canon law). As a result, I prefer not to give advice on whether you should attend. That’s a question of prudence, though in general it is prudent to attend the weddings of close relatives unless there is a reason not to do so (distance to travel, the marriage will be presumed invalid, etc.). So lemme answer in terms of whether I see a problem with you attending.

That said, on to the circumstances:

(1) The couple finds a priest who will marry them in a Catholic church. 

No problem (the marriage is presumed valid).

(2) They get married in the groom’s protestant church, but with a Catholic dispensation.

No problem (the marriage is presumed valid).

(3) They can’t find a Catholic priest to marry them or give them a dispensation, so they get married in a protestant church without obtaining a dispensation.

Problem (the marriage is invalid).

(4) They can’t find a priest to marry them, so the bride renounces her Catholicism and they get married in a protestant church.

Problem (the marriage is presumed valid, but the Catholic party has just committed a horrible sin against the faith for the sake of the marriage).

Finally, (5) suppose they see the light and stop living together, but they get married outside the Catholic church without a dispensation.

Problem (the marriage is invalid).

I can’t recommend that you attend a marriage that is known to be or presumed to be invalid. This covers situations (3) and (5).

Situation (4) is a special case. While the marriage will be presumed valid if the Catholic party has defected from the Church by a formal act, she has done something else that creates a problem: She has objectively and very gravely sinned against against the Catholic faith by defecting from the Church. Further, her doing this is directly linked to the marriage itself: This is the occasion that has caused her to defect.

For the sake of witnessing to the truth of the faith, I could not attend a wedding where one of the parties has just done this. The marriage may be presumed to be valid (assuming nothing else is known to block its validity), but I cannot by my attendance and thus my public witness endorse the overall complex of actions, which includes her defection from the Church for the sake of the marriage.

(Note: I put this in a different category than the sexual sin being committed before the marriage because that sin was not engaged in for the sake of the marriage but for its own sake, and a valid marriage will result in the behavior no longer being sinful. Defecting from the faith under these circumstances is for the sake of the marriage and will not stop being sinful after the marriage.)

Can You Read This?

Voynich

If you can, you’re set to solve a fascinating historical mystery, which some have termed "the Holy Grail of cryptology"!

The mystery is known as the Voynich Manuscript.

It was revealed by the Russian-American bookdealer Wilfrid Voynich in 1912 and currently resides in a library at Yale University.

It appears to be 500 years old and is written in a form of writing (presumed to be a code) that nobody can read.

Many pages of the Voynich manuscript appear to involve botany, like this one:

Voynich2

Others have illustrations dealing with astronomy, anatomy, and some passages appear to offer recipes.

The text appears to be about 35,000 words long, make up of an alphabet of 20-30 characters (plus a few dozen irregular characters occurring only once or twice apiece).

Textual analysis reveals pattern regularities that suggest it’s in a real language.

Some people think it’s a hoax.

If you crack it, be sure and give me credit in your Author’s Introduction for having put you on to it.

LEARN MORE, SEEKER OF MYSTERY!