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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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.

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.

All factors HAVE been accounted for. Have you read the whole essay? Believe me if you haven't, all factors involved have been thoroughly looked at. As I've said before, the idea that the physical immaturity of famous young people is somehow being orchestrated by movie and music producers just doesn't add up for a multitude of different reasons. It's a theory that only works if you don't really understand the problem, especially its size and its scope. By the way, you should take a look at this: http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/newscience/reproduction/2006/2006-1210travisonetal.html Testosterone levels are down in males. This makes perfect sense when juxtaposed next to what I've found. "This is not an explanation of the claim; it is the same claim phrased differently. The basis of the claim would be evidence that casting agents are unable to fill such roles, as opposed to those roles being filled by people due to the decisions they make on the characteristics they want to prioritise, or those roles being in a minority for the mass market." You're getting bogged down in silly wordplay. It's only too obvious that casting agents would want to fill roles clearly requiring young alpha males with young alpha males. The fact that they never do is the proof that they are unable to. No one is capable of proving that each specific role couldn't have been filled by an appropriate actor, because a more appropriate actor was not available. All the proof possible, and all the proof neccessary, is that you can't name me an actor who could've filled the role appropriately. You can't, because they don't exist. They just aren't out there. Unless of course you believe in the idea that it makes sense that every single movie and tv producer (which there are hundreds and hundreds of), even the smaller ones, have all chose immature actors for so long that no famous young alpha male actors exist for that reason. Which completely goes in the face of logic and common sense.

"What is the basis of this claim?" What do you think we're talkng about? The basis is the fact that even when there is a movie or tv role clearly best suited for a young alpha male, a role like a tough cop, or a young military leader, or Superman, they're unable to find one, because there are no famous actors which fit the desciption. "What I am trying to say is that the study of celebrities is not adequate to the task of evidencing a theory which explores that trend, because there are unrelated variables involved which lead to similar results, and you cannot eliminate their effects from your data by observation alone." Analysing the way that famous people look, and sound (I could've written a whole essay on the fact that the voices of famous young males today are clearly much higher pitched than the voices of young males 20 years ago) is pretty much all we can do, and it's certainly all I can do. Let me quote from the essay: "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."

"Since none of the actors you list there are "between the age of 20-32" I am not sure what this is supposed to demonstrate." The actors I listed are all examples of grown up actors. The point is that there is still a demand for grown up actors in hollywood. Do you honestly think that hollywood still wants alpha male actors who are in their 40s for certain roles, but never has a role best suited for an alpha male in his late 20s or early 30s? Come on, do you really think that makes sense? Most of the other points you've made have already been properly disputed, but the ones that haven't I might dispute later.

Sorry Sayonara, but the idea that what we're seeing is simply the result of people in the movie, tv, and music industries choosing to employ physically immature people doesn't hold up to close scrutiny for a number of different reasons. The problem is way too complete. There would be a lot more exceptions to the rule if your theory was true. I'm sure there is still a huge market for movies staring grown-up looking people between the age of 20 - 32. If there wasn't, how would people like Russell Crowe, Denzel Washington, Samuel L Jackson, Julia Roberts, etc, still get so much work? Not all movie and tv roles call for little kids, or those who look that way. Plus, why now all of a sudden? There have always been young people with money to spend. Young people actually used to start working a little younger so they had even more money. What made the entertainment industry higher-ups start trying to appeal to this young market in this strange way all of a sudden, and so completely? And why do I see the same exact physical problem in people randomly interviewed by news teams after a crime or an accident has taken place? Trust me, I've looked at this situation very closely for a long time and the entertainment industry is not orchestrating this. If anything, the physical problems of young people has actually made it tough on those casting for movie and tv roles requiring a physically mature young male or female. The problem is something in the environment. Hormones in the meat and dairy, endocrine disruptors in the food, water and air, 1000 times the amount of radio waves flying through the air than what was recorded even 20 years ago - take your pick. People seem to accept the idea very easily that young people are hitting puberty earlier than ever. Maybe when puberty is reached too early it's never finished. Maybe something is causing both problems.

Did you see the celebrity comparison in my essay? 300 RANDOMLY chosen celebrities. Believe me, I've covered all of my bases on that front. I've got a massive sample of celebs chosen completely randomly, and the results of the comparison are conclusive. As for whether or not celebrities are an accurate cross-section of the greater population, I've covered that topic too. Some types of celebs are, some aren't. Trust me, nobody made the band Linkin Park famous because of the way they look.

"Youthful and "non-grown up" actors dominate the market now because the market has swung towards providing that image in order to reap the profit available from the massive amounts of disposable cash in the possession of the younger generation." The problem is too complete, too vast, and covers too many areas to be a conspiracy by film makers and music producers to put out physically immature faces in order to appeal to kids. There would be a lot more exceptions to the rule if that was the case. Plus the problem has come on too suddenly, etc... I also notice the problem in people that I see in real life just as frequently. I'll read the rest of your post later. But with all of the endocrine disruptors in our water, food and air, and 1000 times more radio waves floating through the air than even 20 years ago, it shouldn't be any surprise that a health affect or two might show up.

What I'm talking about has nothing to do with marketing, and even less to do with how much money people make. This is a straight up comparison of the way people look, everyone being judged at the same age. Russell Crowe is in his 40's now, but when he did "L.A. Confidential" he was 32, the same age that Tobey Maguire is now. Julia Roberts is 40 now, but when she did "Pretty Woman" she was 22. She was in the 20-30 age group that you're talking about. And at the time she was without question a fully grown woman. Something in the environment is hampering the way that people are physically maturing. And by the way, the way that I'm using the term "alpha male" is the standard way that the term is used. An extremely physically mature, masculine male. That's the standard definition.

Uhh...and discuss the theory. By the level of physical maturity, not necessarily by the behavioral.

Click a link, don't be shy. I'm not after hits for google purposes or whatever, I just want people to read the essay. Here's a bit of the essay, on the topic of alpha male actors. "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."

I wrote an essay giving a theory regarding the physical maturity level of young people. It's the same essay on both websites: http://childfls.com http://childforlife.com