Talk:Brain matures at 25 myth

Peer reviewed paper shows there is some credibility to parts of the original claim. This page should be amended to be more scientific. Right now it reads as opinionated.

The reality is parts of the brain do reach maturity in the mid 20s.

Recommend deleting or significantly altering.

Study from 2021 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8439426/

> The review of neuroanatomic and neurophysiologic studies across methods and approaches indicates considerable convergence of findings with respect to brain maturation during childhood, adolescence and early adulthood. The overwhelming weight of the evidence supports the early postmortem studies indicating that the main index of maturation, which is myelination, is not complete until sometime in the beginning of the third decade of life (probably at around age 20–22). Other maturational processes, such as the increase and subsequent elimination (“pruning”) in cell number and connectivity and increased neuronal density, as well as establishing white matter integrity with increased energy efficiency as reflected in reduced tissue diffusivity and cerebral blood flow, likewise are incomplete until the late teens and early twenties.

Further research Brainstewdgeek (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Best recommendation is to change the title to Pre Frontal Cortex maturation myth, or something to reflect the accuracy of the statement.

The "the brain matures at 25" is too generic and it has been shown that parts of the brain do reach maturation in your mid 20s. Brainstewdgeek (talk) 14:05, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

The "myth" the article is discussing is the oversimplification of the actual science (e.g, the source you linked) that has leaked into popular culture. I would suggest that a partial rewrite would focus on the sociological impacts of this misunderstanding of the science on this - that there is a substantial gulf between the scientific data and how it has been generally interpreted.

Just an aside, but this myth is not benign. I typically see it in discussions around drug and alcohol use/misuse. The implication in this context is that turning 25 is a 'green light' to daily use ("You're 25, drink and smoke as much as you want, your brain is developed now"). This is why I reinserted a section discussing cannabis, because this is both relevant to how the myth has impacted public discourse and is potentially quite dangerous. We should consider what a general reader takes away from a Wikipedia article after they have finished reading it. Including discussion of this aspect of the myth is, in my opinion, an aspect of safeguarding.

I'm generally a "corrects spelling, punctuation, and grammar mistakes" type of editor, so I don't feel qualified to improve the article substantially. But I will absolutely defend the principle of its existence. Dickinson's Sacha Sauda (talk) 06:38, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

agreed! Thanks for the input! Brainstewdgeek (talk) 03:47, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Your suggestion is to basically defang the article and make it toothless. Nowhere in the article does it deny that the brain matures into your twenties, the disagreement is that anything special occurs around 25 for it to be established medical fact. It matures throughout one's lifetime and there's never been any conclusive study that's shown that the prefrontal cortex reaches an apex of maturity in the mid-twenties and even neuroscientists who have helped purport the claim have had to walk it back. Your link asserts the claim that it matures around 20-22 without any actual data to back it up. Meanwhile there are plenty of studies that show how well the brain functions in its teens to twenties, including a major one last year which concluded that its "adolescence" epoch ended at age 32.

The article surely needs work, but this is not grounds to scrap the entire thing. There's plenty of justification for its existence, there's more work to do on the article to polish it and make it a sturdier read.

"In the neurodevelopmental literature, a given neural measurement is typically interpreted as mature when it matches (to a sufficient degree) an “adult” reference. [...] However, structural development continues to progress for a surprisingly long time. One especially large study showed that for several brain regions, structural growth curves had not plateaued even by the age of 30, the oldest age in their sample (Tamnes et al., 2010; see Figure 1B). [...] Other work focused on structural brain measures through adulthood show progressive volumetric changes from ages 15–90 that never “level off” and instead changed constantly throughout the adult phase of life (Walhovd et al., 2005). [...] it is unclear whether there is even a steady set-point at all."

"Dosenbach et al., 2010 used data-driven classification algorithms to compute an estimated “brain age” of individual subjects 7 to 30 years of age based on widespread intrinsic connectivity patterns within and between brain networks [...] However, these data also illustrate the challenges of applying general patterns of neurodevelopment from group-based to individual inference, as there is substantial variance in brain network connectivity that is unrelated to age. For example, some 8-year-old brains exhibited a greater “maturation index” than some 25 year old brains."'

https://www.cell.com/neuron/fulltext/S0896-6273(16)30809-1?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0896627316308091%3Fshowall%3Dtrue

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12647875/

"[W]e identified four major topological turning points across the lifespan – around nine, 32, 66, and 83 years old."

“The second lifespan epoch, ages nine to 32, indicates that the trajectory of topological development remains consistent across this period. While adolescence begins with puberty, the end of adolescence is less clear, with older definitions ending before 20 and more recent definitions extending into the mid-20s. The transition to adulthood is influenced by cultural, historical, and social factors, making it context-dependent rather than a purely biological shift. Our findings suggest that in Western countries (i.e., the United Kingdom and United States of America), adolescent topological development extends to around 32 years old, before brain networks begin a new trajectory of topological development.”'

'

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11343525/

"Seventy healthy adult men aged 19 to 76 years underwent magnetic resonance imaging. Coronal images focused on the frontal and temporal lobes were acquired using pulse sequences that maximized gray vs white matter contrast. The volumes of total frontal and temporal lobes as well as the gray and white matter subcomponents were evaluated. Results: Age-related linear loss in gray matter volume in both frontal (r = -0.62, P<.001) and temporal (r = -0.48, P<.001) lobes was confirmed. However, the quadratic function best represented the relationship between age and white matter volume in the frontal (P<.001) and temporal (P<.001) lobes. Secondary analyses indicated that white matter volume increased until age 44 years for the frontal lobes and age 47 years for the temporal lobes and then declined. Conclusions: The changes in white matter suggest that the adult brain is in a constant state of change roughly defined as periods of maturation continuing into the fifth decade of life followed by degeneration. Pathological states that interfere with such maturational processes could result in neurodevelopmental arrests in adulthood."

It's not merely a "controversy". It's a medical myth. Even Laurence Steinberg has said as such. You can dismiss it as a Slate article but it's one of the leading figures in the field's own words.

https://slate.com/technology/2022/11/brain-development-25-year-old-mature-myth.html

I then asked whether he had insights about where the figure 25 came from, and he said roughly the same thing as Cohen: There’s consensus among neuroscientists that brain development continues into the 20s, but there’s far from any consensus about any specific age that defines the boundary between adolescence and adulthood. “I honestly don’t know why people picked 25,” he said. “It’s a nice-sounding number? It’s divisible by five? Schwarbage (talk) 23:40, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

My "link" is a primary source from NCBI, a source I was taught to use when getting my degree in bioinformatics. The author of the paper also cited other studies. And yes, parts of your brain do mature over time throughout your life. I don't think any part of my statements disagree with that.

I also agree that the brain magically becomes mature one day 25 isn't true, but that's not what people genuinely mean when they quote that myth.

The _original_ spirit of this discussion was about when adulthood starts. That has been found to be cultural in some cases (study: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6551607/) and it extends beyond just the science a bit, but still has its basis in science

Here is an example from 2013.

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24173194

I'm old enough to remember these discussions, they were common.

The idea was that 21/18 (previously 16, etc) was too young for some activities and that much of the brain wasn't developed.

_There is truth to that_ (see source originally shared). There's also a lot of misinformation - you discussed weed, and it is relevant! And part of the discussion!

You are specifically homing in on the patronizing portion people use to diminish others as well as bad policy, but there is also a good sociological reason for this "25 is adulthood" discussion.

Like Dr. Steinberg says - who doesn't deny that brain maturity does continue into your twenties and reaffirms that - 25 is a good sounding number.

It's certainly more accurate than saying 18 year olds are adult.

It's dependant on the individual, sure.

Dismissing the "myth" outright when the spirit is clear (people do "mature" significantly from in their early to mid twenties) is accurate. Brainstewdgeek (talk) 03:42, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

2 things to quickly clarify:

• I agree people misquote the factoid, a lot.
• It is important to note that turning 25 doesn't also mean you're suddenly an "adult" and that your "brain is mature" - but most of your brain maturation DOES continue into your early 20s for most adults as studies have shown, and that's why legal adulthood was under consideration.

A better approach might be to fold this into another article, as suggested, or actually make it about brain maturation and adulthood and include a section on the misquote. Brainstewdgeek (talk) 03:55, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

also, I conflated two comments, I'm sorry. Brainstewdgeek (talk) 04:13, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

NCBI has articles with false or incorrect information that it merely asserts without any evidence and that article you linked is a prime example along with "Maturation of the Adolescent brain". That borders on appeal to authority. It's great you learned this when getting your degree. It's false though. It's misinformation and plenty of college textbooks contain old outdated material that hadn't or hasn't been corrected yet.

"The idea was that 21/18 (previously 16, etc) was too young for some activities and that much of the brain wasn't developed."

These ideas are weak, mostly unsupported by evidence and are a huge part of the 25 urban legend. They all fall under a similar canon and serve the same purpose. A huge part of the myth in its coverage is the fact that it's not true that these regions are "immature" before the age of 25 (or 32). It's pure advocacy disguised as "science".

For one, there's a significant lack of actual strong evidence for casual behavior being linked to this slow maturation of the prefrontal cortex.

https://www.tsmolen.eu/publikacje/files/Fryt_et_al._2017.pdf

One study concluded only a whopping 7% of individuals sampled (out of 1522) displayed this imbalance. It has no place being a model for "normative development".

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10964-021-01433-z

Furthermore, "prefrontal cortex myth" isn't nearly as identifiable as "25 year old brain myth". When most people hear about this, this is the first thing they think of. When sites talk about it, that is the framing they use because this expectation of the 25th birthday is inherently tied to it. There are other variations, but that is by far the most common and thus should remain the title of this article. Yes, brains do mature throughout the twenties, but it's absolutely disingenuous to suggest that brains before 25 are "immature" in their form or that 18 year olds aren't adults. It flies in the face of reality. And maturation continues long after, and a lot of this maturation isn't significant enough to disqualify one's adulthood status (an absolutely absurd notion). Schwarbage (talk) 08:08, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't know how to respond to this. People, myself included, have provided conflicting resources.

Your responses have been to share tangentially related studies that don't really address the problem, call any conflicting evidence misinformation, and then call other claims "absurd", etc.

For instance, the article published in springer just discusses that developmentally, kids don't necessarily risk take with deliquent behavior. Yes, risk taking and impulse control may not be structural or related to adolescents alone. But that's not the only thing related to maturation. There are other studies showing that kids are more impulsive but couldn't find structural evidence as of yet (and concluded things like experience are important - which would make age important https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3445337/)

I already shared this study about cultural differences:

> Psychosocial maturity evinced a significant age pattern in all countries except Jordan and Kenya (see Table 5). Notably, there was far more diversity in patterns of psychosocial maturity than in patterns of cognitive capacity (see Figure 3). Significant linear age patterns for psychosocial maturity were found in China, Cyprus, India, Italy, the Philippines, Sweden, and Thailand. The US evinced a curvilinear age pattern, increasing throughout the teen years before leveling-off in the 20s. Lastly, Colombia followed a cubic pattern where psychosocial maturity improved until the mid-20s, after which it declined.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6551607/

And in the original paper I shared they _do_ cite their sources

> The neuroimaging procedure performed in the PNC allowed separation of volume from gray matter density. Examining multi-modal parameters of volume and density, we found that while gray matter volume declines from childhood to adolescence, as documented in earlier studies, gray matter density increases during that developmental period (Gennatas et al., 2017). Again, this process does not show a break at age 18 and rather culminates after age 20 (see Figure 7). Similar findings were observed when multimodal neuroanatomic parameters were applied to the PNC and a replication sample, the Pediatric Imaging, Neurocognition, and Genetics (PING) study (Jernigan et al., 2016). In both samples, multimodal age-related differences were documented from childhood into the early twenties without an apparent “elbow” at age 18 or 19 (Truelove-Hill et al., 2020).

Risk taking behaviors are increased in adolescents, and adolescence extends into your 20s

> Adolescence is defined as the period between childhood and adulthood when individuals retreat from parents, increase peer relationships, and move toward independent, goal-directed living. In the United States, this period is synonymous with the teen years, but definitions of adolescence vary depending on whether one explicitly associates it with sexual maturation (puberty) or whether one focuses instead on the nature of behavioral and social accomplishments during this time (Arnett, 2007; Burnett & Blakemore, 2009). In Western cultures, it has been suggested that adolescence extends well into the mid-20s due to children’s long-lasting dependence on their parents for economic support (Crockett, Brown, Shen, & Russell, 2007).

> Despite differing perspectives regarding the “when” of adolescence, this period has garnered recent from developmental psychologists, public health experts, and neuroscientists because the teen years are associated with a rise in risk-taking behaviors, some of which have quantifiable negative consequences. For instance, adolescence is the time when teens initiate sexual activity, often unprotected (Centers for Disease Control, 2011). Health risks associated with unplanned pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases are worrying (Hamilton, Martin, & Ventura, 2010). Adolescence is associated with initial experimentation with substances of abuse, including alcohol and recreational drugs (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2012). Early onset alcohol use is associated with an increased risk of later alcohol dependence (Grant & Dawson, 1997) as well as with other forms of externalizing behavior (Iacono, Malone, & McGue, 2003). Moreover, many teens and young adults report engaging in unsafe behavior while intoxicated, including riding in the car with an intoxicated driver or driving while drunk (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2012). According to vital statistics data collected between 1999 and 2006, deaths among teenagers account for less than 1% of total mortality in the United States. However, unlike adults, fatalities among teenagers tend to be predominantly associated with preventable events, chiefly motor vehicle accidents (48% of total deaths in this age range), suicides (11%), or homicides (13%; Minino, 2010).

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4076820/

You also state this:

> When most people hear about this, this is the first thing they think of.

That is a sensational claim, especially given that people in these comments are disagreeing for the same reason I am.

And I appealed to authority because you outright dismissed my source, despite its validity. Brainstewdgeek (talk) 09:00, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

also, 7% is a lot. Deliquent behaviors aren't exactly common. Brainstewdgeek (talk) 09:03, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

And to be clear, again, I do think there is a huge misunderstanding of the science here.

But the discussion should be centered around adulthood. The most interesting thing about this wiki is that it doesn't really refute the original claim.

Also, it's fascinating that we used the same source to back up points (I mentioned in another comment that some of the sources back up.

Maybe the main change should be the brain is *fully developed* at 25 myth.

Because it very much reads from all the literature that this is an ongoing discussion.

People seem to converge regularly in these papers that some sort of maturation in western countries happens in your mid twenties, but no direct link has been found, which is something I truly did not know until reading into it deeper. Brainstewdgeek (talk) 09:30, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

"The most interesting thing about this wiki is that it doesn't really refute the original claim."

The claims are:

1. The brain matures at 25 years of age

This is obviously not true because the brain is shown to mature/change past it the age of 25.

2. The brain is immature before 25 years of age

There is no evidence to suggest this is the case and "still maturing" does not mean "immature" or "non-adult". Schwarbage (talk) 09:50, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

The point of many of these papers is that there is evidence of "non-adult" and that there is an active on going discussion in neuroscience and psychology about it.

These are researchers, not journalists, and they are stating their cases based on evidence they have and drawing conclusions from them.

Also, you use a lot of adjectives and descriptors for the people you talk with and the dissenting opinions ie this informortion is "exaggerated" or "intellectually lazy" or that I'm being "deceitful" or that the paper needs "fangs"

It's hard to gauge if you're acting in good faith.

I think I've made my case: "matures" is a far to generic and contentious way of framing the discussion. I think talking about the validity of Jay Geidd's work is at the core of this, and should be the name / focus but saying the brain matures at 25 was clearly never meant to be literal, just a new point around the discussion of adulthood. Brainstewdgeek (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

"The point of many of these papers is that there is evidence of "non-adult" and that there is an active on going discussion in neuroscience and psychology about it."

Again, I'm going to re-iterate two things.

1. Still developing/maturing does not equal non-adult.

2. There is more evidence to suggest actual functioning is adult-like than "non-adult" at these ages.

And yes, it was intellectually lazy. See point 1 and look at it closely, possibly several times.

"It's hard to gauge if you're acting in good faith."

You have never acknowledged any of the other sources that been posted. You just assert it "doesn't refute the myth" while conveniently ignoring all of the ways the citations have in fact, done that. I have never once denied continuing brain devrlopment. Meanwhile I have gone out of my way to look through and acknowledge counter ones and point out the flaws inherent with them. Just because they're officially published papers does not mean they are without flaw or are fully accurate. It is not dishonest to notice that a lot of these jump to policy conclusions prematutely and that they selectively leave out or mislead about data regarding the prefrontal cortex/brain maturity. Dual systems model is not widely accepted like you seem to believe it is. Schwarbage (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

_I_ don't have an opinion on it other than objectively other people seem to disagree. To quote Steinberg:

> There’s consensus among neuroscientists that brain development continues into the 20s, but there’s far from any consensus about any specific age that defines the boundary between adolescence and adulthood. “I honestly don’t know why people picked 25,” he said. “It’s a nice-sounding number? It’s divisible by five?

The point is there isn't consensus on if it's true or false

It could be a myth. You might be right! But conflicting evidence shows its more complicated.

If this was a snopes article, since it reads like one, the results would be "mixed".

This is Wikipedia, where the tone should be mostly neutral and factual. Not have "fangs".

Thanks. Brainstewdgeek (talk) 01:33, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

"I don't know how to respond to this. People, myself included, have provided conflicting resources."

Most of them have been pretty unclear with actual evidence supporting the claims they assert. Maturation of the Adolescent Brain and The Adolescent Brain are some of the most commonly cited ones and one of them mentions the 25 number yet never has an actual source that shows the data to prove this claim.

But lets look at what you've posted.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8439426/ - This 2021 article. It's not really an actual study, it takes more the form of a review paper and correctly identifies that white matter increases into the twenties, but increases have been recorded into the thirties and forties as well.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms5932

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04554-y

It selectively points out that 22 year olds are "immature/more at risk" because they still have have white matter increases while choosing to ignore the fact that these increases occur for decades afterwards. Furthermore, the article jumps to the conclusion that this information should have implications for legal policy. It's a massive stretch and makes it come off more like a policy pamphlet than anything else.

"Risk taking behaviors are increased in adolescents"

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8328301/ - This is vastly exaggerated.

"and adolescence extends to your 20s" - According to a minority of people who want to inform public policy and Jeffrey Arnett.

"> Psychosocial maturity evinced a significant age pattern in all countries except Jordan and Kenya (see Table 5). Notably, there was far more diversity in patterns of psychosocial maturity than in patterns of cognitive capacity (see Figure 3). Significant linear age patterns for psychosocial maturity were found in China, Cyprus, India, Italy, the Philippines, Sweden, and Thailand. The US evinced a curvilinear age pattern, increasing throughout the teen years before leveling-off in the 20s. Lastly, Colombia followed a cubic pattern where psychosocial maturity improved until the mid-20s, after which it declined."

This is a self-report survey and isn't really a good way of measuring actual development.

"However, unlike adults, fatalities among teenagers tend to be predominantly associated with preventable events, chiefly motor vehicle accidents (48% of total deaths in this age range), suicides (11%), or homicides"

This is the silliest thing you could point out. Of course teenagers leading causes of death are suicides and motor accidents. Teenagers have a low mortality rate from disease.

You are arguing this article is dangerous for the public zeitgeist while posting the work of people who are selectively using information to shape the public zeitgeist. Don't you see the irony here? Schwarbage (talk) 09:45, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

No, I'm posting claims by researchers. Brainstewdgeek (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

> This page reads like something a teen might have written. It's now also been linked on Reddit:

https://old.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/1t1ii2v/til_that_the_human_brain_matures_at_25_is_a_myth/ .

Lots of conflicting information in that thread. Feels as if there might be a concerted effort to discredit the theory (or 'myth') for whatever reason. Not to mention that the page is barely 2 months old.

Mr. Gerbz (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I only ever see the study get brought up when people decide to use poor scientific literacy to attack women. ~2026-26520-91 (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Maybe we could retitle the article to Brain matures at 25 controversy to avoid the polarizing term "myth". I approved this article at AfC so I feel some responsibility toward it, but it isn't my discipline and I don't feel fully able to evaluate all the conflicting sources. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:28, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I think calling it 'controversy' might have the opposite effect and cause it to be misunderstood even more.

In my opinion, we should either:

-Rename this article to, or delete it and create a new article called—something akin to—'(Human) Brain Maturity' (if 'Human' is added, without the parentheses), and fully rewrite it, with a specific section for this subject, mentioning both sides of the argument.

or

-Delete this page, and merge it with / make a subsection about it in Timeline of human brain development (again, of course, in a neutral manner)

Please note, like you said: "but it isn't my discipline and I don't feel fully able to evaluate all the conflicting sources"; the same goes for me.

Mr. Gerbz (talk) 11:14, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

No. The topic is of enough notoriety and with enough outside sources for it to exist as an article. Schwarbage (talk) 12:55, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

It's not its existence that's in question, but its direction.

Mr. Gerbz (talk) 13:33, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

You did call for it to be deleted twice and essentially merged/neutered. The article can always change but running away from the myth framing waters it down. Schwarbage (talk) 13:36, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

"You did call for it to be deleted twice"

Did I really?

Did you consider the possibility that I simply suggested to—essentially—move it, not completely erase it, as an alternative to renaming and rewriting it, if it were to take less time and effort?

Mr. Gerbz (talk) 15:07, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, I forgot I can't reply to all comments, but the other person who attempted to adamently defend it with sources inadvertently defended the opposition. They're sources also show mid twenties. The spirit of the claim isn't that your brain stops maturing at 25 exactly, no one of sound mind believes that (that is an opinion, for sure). Just that there's enough evidence to suggest that if you're in your early twenties, it's likely your brain is still maturing in many aspects, and there's overwhelming evidence (the quotes in their sources say as much)

The controversy should be centered explicitly around using that to patronize people. This is hard, because there's a lot of subjectivity happening in the comments (from myself, included). Brainstewdgeek (talk) 03:18, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

To rephrase this comment a bit, the reason people started saying "your brain matures at 25" was just a readjustment of when adulthood starts.

The point isn't that 25 is some magical number, it's that the current ages of adulthood (in some places, as young as 16) aren't sufficient since your brain DOES mature well into its 20s

See this article as an example:

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24173194

This wiki should be de-fanged in my opinion because it ultimately hurts the real discussion.

It should probably be converted or folded into a page on adulthood and the ages with a section dedicated to this _misquote_ not myth. Brainstewdgeek (talk) 04:21, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

That article contains absolutely zero scientific pedigree or evidence for any of its ideas or suggestions and to top it all off it uses the 1980s level "raging teen hormones" narrative to explain away "youth behavior". It is worthless to "the real discussion". Schwarbage (talk) 08:25, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

As already mentioned in my comment the article was shared as an example of the many articles that aim to change adulthood definitions, which is why people are talking about 25.

It's scientific content wasn't relevant to the discussion, but what it was discussing (when does adulthood start is)

I'm giving you the respect of reading what you write. Please provide the same. Brainstewdgeek (talk) 09:08, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

It did not inadvertently defend "the opposition". This is deceitful. It's technically true the brain is maturing but this does NOT have any proven casual link with behavior and "still maturing" (which the brain does until the end of life) does not mean "immature". That's a deliberately underhanded way of framing the conversation around the brain and it's intellectually lazy. Schwarbage (talk) 08:12, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with this change. The real myth is the pre frontal cortex discussion. I think labeling it as a controversy is more accurate Brainstewdgeek (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Please, there's been a concerted effort for years to uphold this as scientific 'canon' when there's plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Even if you think it's something a "teen might have written", you're merely attacking someone's age rather than the contents itself. Is it somewhat thin in its current state? Yes. The article is 2 months old, but this is a fairly recent debacle and this is worth an article of its own. Schwarbage (talk) 23:42, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

"Even if you think it's something a "teen might have written", you're merely attacking someone's age rather than the contents itself."

What I meant was that it doesn't read as something written by a professional, but by someone biased.

Furthermore, Schwarbage, your activity log is... Let's call it suspect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3AContributions%2FSchwarbage

I'm not the only one to have noticed:

(Redacted)

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not accusing you; for all I know, you might be a pediatrician. Nonetheless, without more context, it doesn't paint a pretty picture.

Mr. Gerbz (talk) 10:47, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not Schwarbage and I can't claim to know his motives, but that's an incredibly serious accusation to make against someone and not one that should be made lightly. It does not follow that someone who has an interest in how adulthood is defined biologically, legally, and sociologically is therefore likely to have a sexual interest in children. A cluster of edits on, say, the Tobacco 21 article hardly registers as 'seedy' to me. Dickinson's Sacha Sauda (talk) 11:18, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Which is why I specifically said "Don't misunderstand me, I'm not accusing you; for all I know, you might be a pediatrician."

Mr. Gerbz (talk) 11:33, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Bringing up their edit history in this manner is clearly insinuation. I cannot think of a good faith reason to bring it up. In any case, it shifts the discussion in a bad direction. Once you start speculating about editors instead of sources, the actual content gets ignored. Dickinson's Sacha Sauda (talk) 11:39, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

"Bringing up their edit history in this manner is clearly insinuation."

No, it isn't. Which is why I linked that Reddit comment, to show that I'm not the only one who thinks it needed to be pointed out. Not because I agree with its last sentence.

"I cannot think of a good faith reason to bring it up."

Providing more context, showing that he wrote the article from a potentially biased point of view.

Mr. Gerbz (talk) 11:51, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

That Reddit comment is exactly the kind of thing that should not be imported into a Wikipedia discussion. Saying someone "might be a pedophile" based on the Wikipedia topics they edit is massively over the line and irresponsible. Bringing it into the discussion (even cautiously) introduces that toxicity.

And importantly, it's not necessary to resolve the content dispute. You don't need to know anything about an editor's character to evaluate sources, claims, ans wording. Wikipedia is designed so that content stands or falls on sources, not on who wrote it. Dickinson's Sacha Sauda (talk) 12:01, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

"You don't need to know anything about an editor's character to evaluate sources, claims, ans wording."

I disagree. Most people coming across this (or any) article don't have the expertise / knowledge to evaluate sources, claims, and wording sufficiently.

If, for example, a Trump or a Putin and their cronies wrote the article about themselves, would you trust it blindly? Would you have the time, knowledge, and expertise to evaluate every single source? Would you completely ignore their history?

Mr. Gerbz (talk) 12:11, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

This is pretty disingenous when there are rules on what sources you're allowed to use on Wikipedia. If you're going to bother having a say on a Wikipedia article's existence, you might as well evaluate the actual contents of it, otherwise you're being nothing more than a pedestrian. Schwarbage (talk) 13:03, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

How many new articles are made each day? Do you think it might be possible that a couple of articles and / or sources might slip through? Or do you assume every single article / source is instantly reviewed by an expert in the relevant field?

How many Wikipedia visitors do you think are aware of those rules? Or the rating system? What happens if an anti-vax person comes across an article—that's still being worked on—that accidentally confirms her biases?

What about AI, do you know of any major one that isn't trained on Wikipedia? What if it comes across an accidentally-biased, not yet finished article?

And really, calling someone a pedestrian? Very classy.

Please keep it polite.

Mr. Gerbz (talk) 13:25, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Do you really think this is comparable to an anti-vaccination article? It's not fringe.

Again, this is an article on a known myth. Somewhat recent that it's gained myth status, but it absolutely exists. It's not out of nowhere. There are multiple sources and even neuroscientists talking about it. Schwarbage (talk) 13:34, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

"Do you really think this is comparable to an anti-vaccination article?"

You don't really think that was the point, right?

"but it absolutely exists. It's not out of nowhere. There are multiple sources and even neuroscientists talking about it."

"I can actually fly, trust me, I'm not just saying so. There are at least three multiple sources that say humans can fly. Even some pilots talk about human flight."

Mr. Gerbz (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

comparing it to human flight tells me you don't take this seriously. This is something that has actually been observed in reality to be false and fallacious. Just because it's a somewhat more recent development doesn't invalidate it.

https://www.sciencefocus.com/comment/brain-myth-25-development

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/impulsive-teen-brain-not-based-science-180967027/

https://theconversation.com/no-your-brain-doesnt-suddenly-fully-develop-at-25-heres-what-the-neuroscience-actually-shows-271826

https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/critical-thinking-student-contributors/25-really-magic-number Schwarbage (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

"comparing it to human flight tells me you don't take this seriously."

Once again trying to devolve this into an argument tells me you don't take this seriously.

Did you not consider that human flight could be referring to flying in aircraft too?

That you think you understand what the experts were talking about because you recognized some words, but then took them out of context and coming to the wrong conclusion, was exactly one of the points I was trying to make.

Which says enough about this article's integrity.

Mr. Gerbz (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

"Once again trying to devolve this into an argument tells me you don't take this seriously."

You have been combative from the very beginning and have insinuated I was a pedophile before I even communicated with you. Don't even pretend like you have been in good faith at any point of this "discussion", Mr. Gerber.

"Did you not consider that human flight could be referring to flying in aircraft too?"

What kind of point would it be to bring this up when it's been proven for more than a century that human flight in an aircraft is possible and is something that is now an everyday occurrence? You're so disingenuous. This is what we call plausible deniability. You worded it as "I can actually fly, trust me". The implication here is human flight without the use of an aircraft and then you tied in pilots talking about human flight to try and make a point about this article making a vague/loose connection when there's plenty of data and outside sources to circulate that it is a myth.

You could have not done a worse job at the point you were trying to make.

"Which says enough about this article's integrity."

Again ignoring the contents of the actual article/sources to go on your illogical rant. Schwarbage (talk) 00:18, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia specifically isn't designed to be evaluated by trusting or distrusting individual editors. The point of how it works isn't that editors are always personally neutral on a topic, but that content must be judged through verifiable sources and editorial consensus. Not through assumptions about who wrote it.

If an article is written by some stooge working from a government office in Saint Petersburg, then the safeguard still isn't "investigate the editor's character". Once discussion shifts to "can we trust this person?", then it becomes impossible to improve the article and we quickly move into the realm of anarchy. Because there's no stable, universal standard for judging intent. More specifically, we enter into the realm of - well, the kind of potentially defamatory speculation right here on this talk page. Dickinson's Sacha Sauda (talk) 13:32, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

What you're describing is how Wikipedia should work in an ideal scenario.

When an as-of-yet unfinished page like this is shared on the front page of Reddit, do you think every single visitor is aware of Wikipedia's inner workings, and is able—not to mention having the time, expertise, and being in the mood—to determine the trustworthiness of the article?

Assuming thousands of people have seen this article, would you disagree with the assumption that statistically speaking, at the least a couple dozen of people are now convinced this is a myth? (whether it is a myth or isn't, isn't the point)

Point being, especially in the early stages of an article, before enough people that are capable of sufficient reviewing and editing have encountered it and spent the time on it, especially when it's been shared on social media, anything that could have an effect on its direction should be taken into account. That includes the writer's background and / or biases, though importantly: up to a point, of course. But publicly available info shouldn't be controversial.

Not doing so (further) opens the way for psyops and other nasties to influence (for example) the zeitgeist. And no, that's meant as a general example, I am not accusing this page of being part of a psyop.

Mr. Gerbz (talk) 14:42, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay? You can insinuate whatever you want about me. You're pretty clearly doing that. It doesn't mean it's accurate. I edit and research stuff like that because I find those subjects to be important and it's worth correcting the mistakes on those pages. My motives are merely to make them more factually accurate. A lot of them contained things that were poorly cited, were merely asserted, or were flat out wrong.

All I've done here is work to create a page about this particular scientific misconception, which it is, and it's been used as a blunt instrument in the court of law to reduce other people's legal rights. My only 'bias' is wanting there to be awareness of this myth, and there are plenty of sources a knowledging that this is indeed a myth. It's no different from the 10 percent of the brain article or any other articles focusing on a misconception. Schwarbage (talk) 12:46, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Once again: Don't misunderstand me, I'm not accusing you; for all I know, you might be a pediatrician.

I literally spelled it out, so please stop with the assumptions about what I supposedly am insinuating.

"I edit and research stuff like that because I find those subjects to be important and it's worth correcting the mistakes on those pages. My motives are merely to make them more factually accurate. A lot of them contained things that were poorly cited, were merely asserted, or were flat out wrong."

This is literally all you needed to say.

"My only 'bias' is wanting there to be awareness of this myth, and there are plenty of sources a knowledging that this is indeed a myth."

And how many sources that say the opposite? That right there is the problem, only using sources that confirm / reinforce your bias.

Mr. Gerbz (talk) 13:09, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Sounded like a cover to me.

"And how many sources that say the opposite? That right there is the problem, only using sources that confirm / reinforce your bias."

Not many that have actual data. I linked some sources that say the opposite in the lead to the article to show that it is found in the literature, but it generally just asserts itself without actual evidence. Schwarbage (talk) 13:27, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Suggesting another editor is a paedophile because they edit articles related to children and teenagers is completely inappropriate. Please read WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS. Adding a disclaimer doesn't make it better. No one ever needs to justify their interest in any topic area to you or anyone else. By this reasoning, we shouldn't have articles about a huge number of topics (children, crime, extremist ideologies, etc) because editing them is suspicious behaviour. Please do not do that again. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 23:34, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Misinterpreting something and then accusing a person of calling someone a paedophile even after it has been literally spelled out and explained, is also completely inappropriate. Practice what you preach.

Mr. Gerbz (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Plausible deniability. You are extremely bad faith and have weaponized cheap shot after cheap shot. No one misinterpreted anything, they called it out for what it is and you're trying to walk it back. Schwarbage (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Brainstewdgeek for all his faults at least hasn't insinuated anything about my character or has engaged in anything like you have. You have gone out of way to suggest that I may be a pedophile, then walked it back as soon as you were rightfully called out on it. You have also given very bad faith arguments like about human flight and then walked that one back too. Schwarbage (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2026 (UTC)