Naked Science Forum

On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: cflsyndrome on 24/04/2008 01:45:58

Title: The Child For Life Syndrome
Post by: cflsyndrome on 24/04/2008 01:45:58

I wrote an essay giving a theory regarding the physical maturity of people, and how it is being affected by something in the environment.  It's the same essay on both websites.

http://childfls.com

http://childforlife.com

Thanks.

Title: The Child For Life Syndrome
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/04/2008 20:05:31

I wonder if you might care to expand on that idea here in this forum, rather than just postig a couple of links. Perhaps a summary of the idea or even just the opening paragraph.
People like me get suspicious that you might just be trying to bolster your credibility with Google.

Title: The Child For Life Syndrome
Post by: cflsyndrome on 25/04/2008 00:04:34

Here is a paragraph from somewhere in the middle, on actors and whether or not they qualify as alpha males from a physical maturity standpoint.


"There are 26 actors in the celebrity comparison who were born after 1974, and were also at least 25 years old in their most recent video evidence, and not one can even remotely be considered an alpha male. Expand the search beyond the celebrity comparison, include every actor born after 1974 who played even a bit role in any movie or TV show, and it’s still unlikely that you’ll find even a single alpha male. The actors from the celebrity comparison born post-1974 closest to being alpha males are Colin Farrell, Brandon Routh, Heath Ledger, Josh Hartnett and Johnny Knoxville, and only one of these five even qualifies as a man. Contrast this with the group of actors from the celebrity comparison who were born in 1974 or earlier. Alpha males are everywhere - Mel Gibson, Christopher Reeve, Tom Sizemore, Matthew McConaughey, Ben Affleck, etc. Look outside the celebrity comparison at the actors who didn’t have well know video evidence from before they were 30 and find a lot more alphas. Russell Crowe, Gene Hackman, Denzel Washington, Harrison Ford, Samuel L Jackson, to name just a few. It’s also interesting to note that the greatest examples of an alpha male were all born before 1965. Matthew McConaughey, born in 1969, and Ben Affleck, born in 1972, do qualify as alpha males, but next to men like Russell Crowe and Harrison Ford they don’t match up."

Title: The Child For Life Syndrome
Post by: cflsyndrome on 29/04/2008 00:12:49

At first glance relying on a celebrity comparison to prove the existence of a phenomenon as important and as serious as this might seem like an odd and maybe even superficial choice. But after looking at the situation a little longer it should be clear that, short of lab work, what other choice is there? Celebrities are the only people known to a large percentage of the population, or more accurately put they’re the only people known to more than a miniscule percentage of the population, so if the case is going to be made to a wide spread audience that the syndrome has dramatically affected people in a clearly visible way, centering the argument around celebrities is the only option. Using non-famous people, the people that I know personally, as examples might be helpful in a supporting role, but they of course couldn’t really prove the syndrome to those who have never seen them. Fascinating results from the lab would obviously be nice, but strange as it might seem, hard scientific data supporting the existence of the syndrome might actually be less convincing than the celebrity comparison to most people. If you couldn’t see the syndrome for yourself you might just think that the scientific data was flawed. And conversely, if you could see the syndrome for yourself it wouldn’t matter if all the scientific data in the world claimed the syndrome didn’t exist. You would know with complete certainty that the scientists had just missed something.

Title: The Child For Life Syndrome
Post by: cflsyndrome on 01/05/2008 00:34:45

Here's a study which certainly seems to corroborate what I've found.  It shows that testosterone levels in males are significantly down.

http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/newscience/reproduction/2006/2006-1210travisonetal.html

Lower testosterone levels in males while they are still physically developing would cause the male to end up physically immature.

Or maybe the lower testosterone levels in males isn't causing the child for life syndrome, but something else is causing both problems.  Maybe the lower testosterone levels are just a symptom of the greater problem.