The Child For Life Syndrome

[cflsyndrome]

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

[Daecon]

Okay. So what's this thread about, then?

 

You want us to critique your research or something?

[iNow]

No, he wants better google strength and more hits.

 

 

Oddly, I'm curious about what has been written and proposed, but refuse to click the link out of principle.

 

 

CFL - Could you quote a few parts, maybe ask a few questions? This is, after all, a discussion forum, not a craigslist wannabe for scienc-ey propositions.

[cflsyndrome]

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."

[Daecon]

I just want people to read the essay.

 

And do what? This is a discussion forum, after all.

[Rev Blair]

I'm not sure what you mean by "physically mature", cflsyndrome. Do you mean old, wrinkled and hairy? That'd make me physically mature (I was born in 1964) anyway.

 

The thing is that young people have access to products that keep away some of the ravages of time. They have pimple cream that works, they wear sunscreen, they very likely spend less time outside than we did as kids. They don't smoke as much either. I'll bet not one person on your list ever went swathing on a 1966 Deutz on a day so cold and windy that they were leaning into the exhaust just to keep warm, for example.

 

Your list is also not representative of the greater population. The people you are looking at are, by definition, the "beautiful people." My nieces and nephews, who are in the same age group as many on your list, are roughly as beat up as I was at their age. They work regular jobs and spend a lot of time outside either at work or in their leisure time or both. Since a lot of them spend their leisure time doing things like working on cars, farming, building things, drinking beer in a field, etc., they aren't wearing sunscreen to protect their complexions.

 

I think you're likely just getting old, cflsyndrome. I know that's why I look like I do.

[Ophiolite]

How are you defining and identifying alpha males, cflsyndrome?

[cflsyndrome]

And do what? This is a discussion forum, after all.

 

 

Uhh...and discuss the theory.

 

How are you defining and identifying alpha males, cflsyndrome?

 

By the level of physical maturity, not necessarily by the behavioral.

[Sayonara]

What is different between the current generation of 20-30 year olds and the generation of Russell Crowe, Gene Hackman, Denzel Washington, Harrison Ford, and so on, is that there are a great deal more of the former with vastly more disposable income between them.

 

Since music, film and television are ruthlessly competitive, both on the markets where they are sold/licensed, and 'behind the scenes' where the artists hang out, this makes the 20-30s an obvious primary target audience for much of mass media. It's easy to see how the artists who that primary target audience can most identify with are going to find more opportunities to perform, and be more publically visible when they do.

 

There is also the access to information argument. Children these days are being raised in households and going to schools where anything they want to learn about can be accessed without even going to another room. Transport has improved vastly and personal money can be earned earlier, meaning young people are more likely than ever before to undertake self-motivated study (languages, martial arts, amateur dramatics, etc) away from the home and school. It is not surprising that the numbers of visibly youthful stars are rising in so many areas, even when they are alarmingly precocious as individuals.

 

And as Rev Blair suggests... the younger the generation you examine, the more likely they are to use products which prolong youthful looks, and the more likely they are to have (or have had at the right time) access to products which actually make a difference.

 

As a side note I would suggest that using your own definition of such a widely known term as "alpha male" is just going to confuse people.

[iNow]

By the level of physical maturity, not necessarily by the behavioral.

 

What are your parameters on this? How have you quantized physical maturity?

[cflsyndrome]

What is different between the current generation of 20-30 year olds and the generation of Russell Crowe, Gene Hackman, Denzel Washington, Harrison Ford, and so on, is that there are a great deal more of the former with vastly more disposable income between them.

 

Since music, film and television are ruthlessly competitive, both on the markets where they are sold/licensed, and 'behind the scenes' where the artists hang out, this makes the 20-30s an obvious primary target audience for much of mass media. It's easy to see how the artists who that primary target audience can most identify with are going to find more opportunities to perform, and be more publically visible when they do.

 

There is also the access to information argument. Children these days are being raised in households and going to schools where anything they want to learn about can be accessed without even going to another room. Transport has improved vastly and personal money can be earned earlier, meaning young people are more likely than ever before to undertake self-motivated study (languages, martial arts, amateur dramatics, etc) away from the home and school. It is not surprising that the numbers of visibly youthful stars are rising in so many areas, even when they are alarmingly precocious as individuals.

 

And as Rev Blair suggests... the younger the generation you examine, the more likely they are to use products which prolong youthful looks, and the more likely they are to have (or have had at the right time) access to products which actually make a difference.

 

As a side note I would suggest that using your own definition of such a widely known term as "alpha male" is just going to confuse people.

 

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.

[Sayonara]

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.

I understand what you are observing. I am trying to provide a possible explanation, and the least you could do - since you asked for comments - is consider it.

 

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.

It's not like there are no "grown up" looking people available in the current 20-30s age range; they are just not well-represented in the environment you are looking at. That is your 'hampering' factor - market forces.

 

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.

The standard definition of alpha male comes from social biology, where it is the term used to identify the lead individual to whom all the members of a pod or pack defer.

This definition has bled into common everyday speech, where it means a male who dominates the males around him, by active or passive intimidation and reinforcements of his superiority. Simply being masculine and physically mature does not suffice (although I am sure they are commonly found to be attributes of alpha males), particularly since humans are capable of assuming the alpha role by political or subvertive means.

 

Don't think you have to defend every word you have written to the very last just because you have devoted an entire web site to it.

 

 

[merged post:]

 

Let me put it another way. From your essay:

 

The maturity difference between Mark Hamill and Elijah Wood is just as great. Mark is even less mature than Matthew (Broderick), probably the least mature male adult in the entire celebrity comparison, but Elijah is also less mature than Tobey. Mark was just barely able to play the role of a young man in “Star Wars” at 25, but he did pull it off. Elijah at 23, when he was last seen in the celebrity comparison, would be a comical Luke Skywalker. Elijah is a much better fit playing the role of a little mythical creature than he is playing the role of an adult human.

All this demonstrates is that different people have different physical and mental characteristics and different responses to their different training.

 

That's why auditions are used - to find the person most fit for the role. So if the roles are mainly being filled by the people you describe as "child for life" sufferers, this is due to the roles. And what drives role creation? The market. And that doesn't just mean the box office; it is influenced by everything from the way in which actors are contracted, to the way in which writers are hired or commissioned, to the way in which a studio and its shareholders want to present their brand.

 

I think you would benefit immensely from gaining a much broader understanding of how the major film and television studios and record labels conduct their businesses successfully.

 

 

[another merged post:]

 

I have another point to make, again based on part of your essay:

(I hope this will all help you to develop your ideas!)

 

Looking at the cast of “The O.C.” has a similar affect, as every cast member born in 1978 or after is still a child. “Battlestar Galactica” is another example of a show without any exceptions, as every cast member born after 1974 is still a child. The cast of “Lost” is a good self contained celebrity comparison. In the first two season there have been 15 leading cast members who were born from 1963-1983. The 7 born before 1973 are all adults, the 6 born after 1973 are all still children, and of the 2 born in 1973 there’s one adult and one child. Examples of TV shows that are great video evidence of the syndrome’s existence seem limitless. Examples of TV shows that refute the syndrome’s existence are impossible to find.

 

Take into consideration that the cast of these shows are chosen to fill particular roles. They are chosen by audition, from a particular set of applicants, which makes the process non-random. Consider what factors influence the choice which is made.

 

Let's take Lost as an example. The actors exemplify an idealised version of the role they are occupying.

 

It's not just that a 32-year-old happened to land the role of an early twenties post-fame heroin addict and got away with it despite being a boy-faced midget with man hands; Dominic Monaghan was chosen for that role because he physically and behaviourally can appear to be younger than he really is while having the benefit of ten years' acting experience on his character and the added bonus of being marketable thanks to his prior roles. If he looked like Terry O'Quinn he wouldn't be in the role, and if he looked like the stereotypical ideal that society expects of someone who is 32 he wouldn't be in the role.

 

In short, what I am saying is that the 'hampering' you mentioned is really a process of selection that occurs within these industries. The only motive for selection in engineering a product that has no practical application is marketability.

 

You said in your essay that Lost and BSG only contributed one cast member each to the celebrity comparison. Out of interest, how were these people chosen? Was it through some decision on your part, or a random process?

[cflsyndrome]

"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.

[Sayonara]

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'm not saying it's a conspiracy. It's just the result of social trends.

 

By what standards are you measuring this change to conclude that it is too complete or vast, or that it has come on too suddenly?

 

I also notice the problem in people that I see in real life just as frequently.

Well this presents a measuring problem, because we can't just google the age of someone we see on the street. And if we ask someone how old they are, chances are they will shave years off (unless they are trying to buy alcohol off you).

 

I for example know a 19-year-old who is, as they say, built like a brick shithouse, and who looks like he is just on the right side of 30. He is clearly bucking the trend, and you wouldn't ever say that he was representative of teenagers. So why attribute an inappropriate representative status to people who are chosen for their looks to fulfill a purpose which involves them pretending to be something that they are not?

 

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.

To demonstrate this, you will need a much more random sample. The celebrity comparison has undergone at least three levels of artificial selection already; that of the image-want which society dictates to studios, that of auditioning, and that of being picked for the comparison itself.

 

You will also need a control of some sort.

[cflsyndrome]

 

Well this presents a measuring problem, because we can't just google the age of someone we see on the street. And if we ask someone how old they are, chances are they will shave years off (unless they are trying to buy alcohol off you).

 

I for example know a 19-year-old who is, as they say, built like a brick shithouse, and who looks like he is just on the right side of 30. He is clearly bucking the trend, and you wouldn't ever say that he was representative of teenagers. So why attribute an inappropriate representative status to people who are chosen for their looks to fulfill a purpose which involves them pretending to be something that they are not?

 

.

 

 

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.

[Sayonara]

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.

That's good. 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. Where do you stand on that? Do you think it might be worth investigating?

 

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.

Heh. I wouldn't make the claim that there is homogeneity amongst celebrities, because that simply wouldn't be true. Even if the trends I described are prevalent in the entertainment industry, there will of course be plenty of examples of people and groups who are talented or self-enabling enough to be celebritised even though they are less marketable than their contemporaries. The majority market does not preclude niche markets or popular demand.

[cflsyndrome]

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.

[Rev Blair]

I was thinking about this and it seems to me that genetics and environmental factors might play a role too. Perhaps it would be worthwhile for you to look at several generations of the same families and note what changes have taken place in their environments.

 

For example, if you started with the youngest adult generation in my family, then worked back for as many generations as there were photographs for, expanding to include all of the family lines back to the late 1800's, you'd have one data-set. You could do that for a lot of people to develop several data sets.

 

I think you'd find, having looked at a lot of old photographs, that people looked older faster through the period up to about the end of WWII. There's no real magic there...life was bloody hard for a lot of people and it showed on their faces.

 

After WWII, things got easier in a lot of ways, but there were still environmental factors...everybody smoked everywhere all of the time, there was a lot of boozing, work conditions were dirty and dangerous, medical care was pretty iffy. A lot more people than will ever admit it in public drank rye whiskey in their morning coffee and experimented with a variety of drugs...illicit and prescription...that weren't very well considered. That carries on to about the 1970s.

 

In the 1980s and 90s, people began thinking about their health and workplaces went through some drastic improvements. People quit smoking in their homes and workplaces. Cars started getting cleaner. The air started getting cleaner. Drinking and drugging continued, of course, but the drugs became a little better understood and their use concentrated into a narrower spectrum of society.

 

By looking at the same families, you get at least a beginning of an understanding that some people just look younger than others and that trait can be passed down through families.

 

By following the families through environmental shifts...and that gets into economics as well as people moving from rural areas to cities and blue collar to white collar jobs etc...you'd get an idea of what factors might be affecting aging.

 

One other thing that should likely be taken into consideration is the ethnic backgrounds of the people being studied. I have kind of a vague idea that the more ethnically mixed they are, the prettier people tend to be. Given our measure of "pretty" that could well translate into youthful.

[Sayonara]

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.

I don't think any of the reasons you offer come close to falsifying the idea.

 

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?

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.

 

Not all movie and tv roles call for little kids, or those who look that way.

This is not representative of what I have been describing. I stated that the major market share aims at the 20-30s audience, and the method of representation which is currently in fashion for that audience is character exemplification for idealised roles.

 

Plus, why now all of a sudden?

Contradiction. You make the claim after this that you have "looked at this situation very closely for a long time". So is it a sudden event or a trend that has developed over time? It can't be both.

 

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.

But it is only within the last decade or so that they have commanded the lion's share of the market. Do not simply ignore this. I am talking about disposable income. People used to leave school and get a job because they had to pay into the household, and had enough left over to put fuel in their car and take Betsy-Sue to the drive-in once a month. Young people these days are (i) vastly more numerous than they were in Russell Crowe's equivalent generation, and (ii) vastly richer in terms of what they can spend on non-essential goods and services.

 

There really is no point arguing against this; it's not just some wacky opinion that is exclusive to me. It's real.

 

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?

Their motive is money. As for strange, sudden, and completeness, I don't think you have really shown that they apply.

 

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?

Most likely because these are observations which you cannot measure in a properly controlled or empirical fashion.

 

Trust me, I've looked at this situation very closely for a long time and the entertainment industry is not orchestrating this.

I don't make the claim that it is being orchestrated. It is a completely normal example of products changing to match shifts in the market. It is, if you will, the current fashion.

 

If you extended your study back even further, to cinema, television, and music from the 1940s onwards perhaps, you would see quite clearly how they have all developed and diversified greatly over time in the way that they produce and market material. That process will never cease as long as social norms are changing.

 

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.

What is the basis of this claim?

 

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.

That is all entirely possible. But you can demonstrate it only by carrying out trials to show that those agents can have the effects that you claim, then by carrying out a controlled study to show that those agents do have the opportunity to cause those effects, and then provide strong evidence that it happens.

 

You don't demonstrate it by comparing celebrities' faces then attributing the differences to some unspecified environmental factor, while ignoring variables that will influence any possible conclusion.

 

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.

People seem to accept all sorts of ideas very easily, which as you can appreciate has caused one or two problems throughout history. That is why we have developed the scientific method.

 

I appreciate your enthusiasm for the topic and the investment you have made in your research so far, but I think that you are taking a very narrow view to the detriment of the quality of your conclusions.

 

There is one thing I need to clarify with you. I do not make the claim that the trend you are describing (that of decreasing physical "maturity" in the population, I suppose) is not occurring. I think that there is at least some evidence to support that. 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.

[cflsyndrome]

"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.

[Sayonara]

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?

Perhaps I am just being dim, but I am still having trouble seeing your point. Is it your view that there are no male actors in their late 20s or 30s who you would consider to be "alpha"?

 

Most of the other points you've made have already been properly disputed, but the ones that haven't I might dispute later.

You have disputed, but you have not really adequately demonstrated any of my points to be either factually incorrect or implausible as explanations. If I may make a suggestion, there is little point disputing anything I have said until the final paragraph of my last post is considered. With hindsight I ought to have started off with that point, sorry.

 

Is any of this actually helping you? I'm trying to give you alternative views, but I acknowledge that it does read like quite a severe critique.

[cflsyndrome]

"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."

[Sayonara]

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.

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.

 

 

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.

If that's the only set of data you can use, fine, but you need to account for ALL factors which are acting on your subjects in such a way as to cause the effects you are trying to explain. Otherwise we can't look at the possible explanations and show which one has more validity.

[cflsyndrome]

 

If that's the only set of data you can use, fine, but you need to account for ALL factors which are acting on your subjects in such a way as to cause the effects you are trying to explain. Otherwise we can't look at the possible explanations and show which one has more validity.

 

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.

[Sayonara]

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.

Here is the nub of your problem, which I am going to illuminate one more time before I stop having this cyclical conversation and go and do something more interesting.

 

The apparent lack of high-profile alpha male actors is not necessarily indicative of the lack of alpha males in the same age range. I for example know a great many very alpha males (using your definition) in the 20-30 age range who could quite easily be trained as actors. And if such males exist, but are in the main not found to be actors, then we are not going to be criticised for observing that perhaps it is difficult to succeed as an actor in the current climate if one has such characteristics.

 

So it is actually likely to be indicative of trends in the way roles are cast, which does not need to be "orchestrated" in order to operate similarly and simultaneously across the board. It only "goes in the face of logic and common sense" if you completely ignore the primary goal of selling filmed material in the entertainment industry.

 

You say that your essay explains all of the issues I have raised, in which case your refutations to my points should have been accomplished with ease. Yet you have ignored many of them (for example, failing to clarify whether these observations were of a sudden event or a long term trend), and offered weak answers to others.

 

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.