The Child For Life Syndrome

[cflsyndrome]

Orchestrated, trend, same exact thing. More wordplay.

 

You've made all those agruments before, and I've shown you many times clearly and plainly why your explaination for the phenomenon is not possible.

 

Look elsewhere for the answer. Endocrine disruptors, hormones in the meat and dairy, astromonical levels of radio wave activity in the environment, etc.

 

Did you click the link that I gave? You can't possibly think that testosterone levels are down in males because of Hollywood trends too, can you?

 

I also can't believe that you can't see the problem in people you know in real life. I haven't seen these so called alpha males that you know personally, but I have a feeling I wouldn't qualify them as alpha males. I have a feeling if you put them next to Russell Crowe at the same age, they wouldn't look like much. Remember, this is not about the size of the body. I know some big guys too. An alpha male has extremely masculine facial features, a deep and masculine voice, etc. A lot of boys in highschool are 6'2" and weigh 230lb, but they clearly don't look like men. The body stops developing earlier than the face does.

 

But there are exceptions to the rule that can be found once in a blue moon. I don't know any of them, but I have seen them occasionally. Many pro athletes are classic exceptions. But 20 years ago almost everyone grew into full adulthood. Now, it's very rare.

[iNow]

I find myself wondering why you have started this thread. Were you looking for constructive criticism, or did you just hope to find people who would agree with you?

I suppose we now have our answer to your question. I'd have lost patience after the second post, and I give you credit for continuing as long as you did.

[cflsyndrome]

It's funny that you can disagree with me, but I can't disagree with you.

 

I'm offering YOU constructive criticism! You offered up a theory to explain a phenomenon that can't possibly be true for many different reasons, and I'm trying to help YOU by explaining the flaws in your logic. It's okay to disagree with a theory, just don't think that no one can disagree with your disagreement. Don't think that a person doesn't have a right to defend their theory - especially when they are clearly right.

 

It's interesting that you ignore the study which shows that testosterone levels are significantly down in males. This study supports what I've found perfectly. Lower testosterone levels during development would absolutely create males less physically mature - less alpha. And if something can have that drastic an affect on testosterone levels, there could easily be something affecting the development of females as well, as they clearly are affected too.

 

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

 

It's also funny how hugely you overestimate the importance placed on looks in the music industry. It's a gross oversimplification to say that ALL musicians, even rock musicians and rappers, are given contracts because of the way they look. Maybe that is the case for pop musicians, like Brittney Spears and Jessica Simpson, but it certainly isn't the case for most of the other genres. Do you really think that the guys from Nirvana were given a record deal because of the way they looked? They were given a deal because they were talented. It's the same for most of the rock musicians famous today. Just look around at the faces of the kids in these bands - a lot of them aren't even good looking. Have you ever heard of a musician named Seal? Do you think he was given a record deal because of the way he looks?

 

Come on. Even the drummers exhibit the problem. Do you really think that every member of every rock band has to be extremely physically immature for them to be given a record deal? And if there is even one member physically mature they'll be rejected, no matter how talented the band is? Ridiculous.

[Sayonara]

It's funny that you can disagree with me, but I can't disagree with you.

Who?

 

I'm offering YOU constructive criticism! You offered up a theory to explain a phenomenon that can't possibly be true for many different reasons, and I'm trying to help YOU by explaining the flaws in your logic. It's okay to disagree with a theory, just don't think that no one can disagree with your disagreement.

I am not sure what you are talking about here. We have both discussed each other's ideas and I don't see anyone being told they are not "allowed" to disagree with anything.

 

Don't think that a person doesn't have a right to defend their theory - especially when they are clearly right.

You can "defend" what you like, as long as it makes sense. Although for future reference there is such a thing as an indefensible argument.

 

It is a mistake to assume that you are "clearly right", especially when your hypothesis has been completely undermined by a parallel hypothesis which your method can't distinguish observationally. You cannot be scientifically correct through fiat.

 

It's interesting that you ignore the study which shows that testosterone levels are significantly down in males.

I'm not "ignoring" it as such - I already said I think there is some evidence for decreased physical maturity in the population (this study is not direct evidence, but intuitively we would agree it could easily contribute in some way).

But the study is not relevant to my arguments, which pertain to the declarations you made in this thread requiring celebrities to be representative of the general population.

 

I am not required to discuss any given study simply because you mentioned it.

 

This study supports what I've found perfectly. Lower testosterone levels during development would absolutely create males less physically mature - less alpha. And if something can have that drastic an affect on testosterone levels, there could easily be something affecting the development of females as well, as they clearly are affected too.

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

It doesn't support what you are saying so much as provide one of many possible explanations (although no root explanation is given in the study, so really it doesn't tell us anything new). What you have is still correlation, and not causation.

 

It's also funny how hugely you overestimate the importance placed on looks in the music industry.

Actually I don't. Firstly I have mainly been talking about actors, because it's a simpler conversation. Secondly I am not so naive as to believe that labels back artists on the basis of a single quality.

 

It's a gross oversimplification to say that ALL musicians, even rock musicians and rappers, are given contracts because of the way they look.

That would indeed be a gross oversimplification, if anyone had ever said it. You need to stop putting words in other people's mouths.

 

Maybe that is the case for pop musicians, like Brittney Spears and Jessica Simpson, but it certainly isn't the case for most of the other genres. Do you really think that the guys from Nirvana were given a record deal because of the way they looked? They were given a deal because they were talented.

I could not agree more, although I disagree with your use of the word "most" (not because I think that "most" does not apply, but because I don't believe you have surveyed enough artists to be able to use the word with statistical confidence).

 

It's the same for most of the rock musicians famous today. Just look around at the faces of the kids in these bands - a lot of them aren't even good looking.

Nobody ever said they were supposed to be good looking. You are being obtuse. People are currently marketed into roles; if you already epitomise "rocker" you are more likely to be worth investing in in that capacity. What constitutes the "rocker" role is subject to society's whim, not biological responses to chemical agents.

 

Have you ever heard of a musician named Seal? Do you think he was given a record deal because of the way he looks?

Yes, I have heard of Seal. Are YOU aware that he got that deal on the back of one song, after 11 years of being crap? He didn't even get nominated for a Grammy until three years later, after releasing his second album, which was far removed from the material which got him a record deal in the first place.

 

Are YOU aware that despite being scarred by lupus, some people actually consider him to be very handsome? You may personally find that unlikely, because - shock horror - it's subjective. The guy is married to a supermodel, ffs.

 

Don't try to evidence by example - it's not even one up from anecdote. If you can't resist though, you might want to pick an artist whose own label hasn't turned down his albums for not being commercially viable.

 

Come on. Even the drummers exhibit the problem. Do you really think that every member of every rock band has to be extremely physically immature for them to be given a record deal? And if there is even one member physically mature they'll be rejected, no matter how talented the band is? Ridiculous.

I call strawman; that is not what I am arguing. I am arguing that there is supply and demand in the entertainment market, which comes from social expectations and fashions and which is provided for by the way in which labels and studios invest their resources. Yes, bands get rejected. No, they do not get rejected on the basis of one of them being "too mature".

 

You are right to call that idea "ridiculous" (although I am sure you wouldn't if it supported your position), but it is not my claim, so don't attempt to undermine my arguments by associating them with it.

 

I suppose we now have our answer to your question. I'd have lost patience after the second post, and I give you credit for continuing as long as you did.

I am thinking I will not put the effort in for much longer. I was hoping for a breakthrough in understanding about three posts ago, but the fact that intellectually dishonest tactics have arisen before specified disagreement is not exactly a good sign.

[cflsyndrome]

Sayonara:

 

Your theory that the physical immaturity existing in famous young people is the result of an entertainment wide trend to appeal to young people is heart felt. It was a good effort (well, an effort anyway), but it's a theory that doesn't hold up under any sort of scrutiny. If YOU even took some time to really examine the numbers, do the math, examine the percentage of famous young people who display this immaturity, analyse whether such a percentage could, or would, be achieved by this supposed trend of entertainment big shots choosing immature people in order to make money, you'd see that the numbers don't even come close to working. Let's just say that your supposed trend did exist (of which I'm not even convinced, for many different reasons), it could only have 10% or maybe 20% of the effect needed to explain the whole problem.

 

I find myself wondering why you have started this thread. Were you looking for constructive criticism, or did you just hope to find people who would agree with you? If it is the latter then I am done here.

 

You don't remember saying this?

 

Your "answers" to my comments are hilarious. You show me one thing, then claim something else latter on. You say you don't hugely overestimate the importance placed on looks in the music industry, but you at the same time claim that the problem in the music industry can be blamed on music producers signing immature artists to contacts because of the way they look in order to appeal to a young market. You said "The characteristics you are investigating clearly have a cause, and I suspect that the cause is due to selective processes in the way that they have been made into celebrities, rather than something acting on the biology of the population."

 

You say "I am not sure what you are talking about here. We have both discussed each other's ideas and I don't see anyone being told they are not "allowed" to disagree with anything.", but earlier you said "I find myself wondering why you have started this thread. Were you looking for constructive criticism, or did you just hope to find people who would agree with you?"

 

Etc, etc, etc. I could go on like this.

 

Yes, I have heard of Seal. Are YOU aware that he got that deal on the back of one song, after 11 years of being crap? He didn't even get nominated for a Grammy until three years later, after releasing his second album, which was far removed from the material which got him a record deal in the first place.

 

Are YOU aware that despite being scarred by lupus, some people actually consider him to be very handsome? You may personally find that unlikely, because - shock horror - it's subjective. The guy is married to a supermodel, ffs.

 

Don't try to evidence by example - it's not even one up from anecdote. If you can't resist though, you might want to pick an artist whose own label hasn't turned down his albums for not being commercially viable.

 

 

This entire thing was just nonsense. Evidence by examples? What a joke. If you give me a theory, one of the best ways for me to refute that theory is by giving you examples which show that the theory isn't true. Let me give you an example: you say that no one can make it to the NBA unless they are at least 7 feet tall. So I give you examples of people in the NBA who are under 7 feet tall to show you that your position isn't accurate. And let's say for a second that you admit that not all musicians are given contracts because of the way they look, but continue to insist that most are. Giving you key examples might get you to reevaluate who you do think was selected for their looks and who wasn't, and getting you to think about the subject in this way might force you to realize that in most genres the number of musicians signed to contacts because of the way they look has to be at most relatively small.

 

As for Seal being crap for 11 years and some people finding him good looking, you just waste my time by making me respond. Here was the point: Seal is an artist who is aesthetically a train wreck, yet he became famous in the music industry despite this. Who cares if he stuggled to get to where he is, pretty boys struggle too sometimes to get to the top. Who cares if some girls find him good looking? He obviously has huge scars on his face. This sort of nitpicky stuff just makes it seem like you didn't understand the point that was made.

 

 

I am thinking I will not put the effort in for much longer. I was hoping for a breakthrough in understanding about three posts ago, but the fact that intellectually dishonest tactics have arisen before specified disagreement is not exactly a good sign.

 

What effort? You've put in zero effort. It takes effort to really analyse a situation. It doesn't take effort to throw out some ridiculous theory that can't possibly explain the bulk of the problem, and then defend this theory diligently.

 

By the way, don't feel the need to let me or anyone else know when you're going to stop putting in the "effort". Put it in or don't - we don't need notice of what you're going to do.

 

 

It is a mistake to assume that you are "clearly right", especially when your hypothesis has been completely undermined by a parallel hypothesis which your method can't distinguish observationally. You cannot be scientifically correct through fiat.

 

 

This was dopey. Proving that this situation exists isn't like proving that 2 + 2 = 4. You have to use your head, you have to analyse all of the information out there and then use logic and reason to come to a conclusion. Maybe your "parallel hypothesis" can't be disproven in the way that 2 + 2 = 5 can be disproven, but it also cannot stand up to an even cursory analysis by anyone using common sense and reason.

[Sayonara]

And... you're done.

 

Thread is under review.