> Specifically the undeveloped part of the brain, is believed to be the part that evaluates risk. Meaning that 16 year olds are less likely to account accurately for the consequences of their behavior.
Again, you seem to be assuming that when the brain STOPS developing, it does so because it has achieved perfection. It is pretty easy to support the view that adults are far TOO risk-averse, too unwilling to let teens take chances that would benefit them. To claim adults account "accurately" is going a bridge too far. Adults account for risk "differently" and do so in a way that other adults are likely to agree with, but that doesn't make it more "accurate".
I think experience pretty much explains it. A 16-year-old hasn't learned yet to judge when its safe to turn left across the highway - is the truck too close? is it going too fast?
Witness ANYBODY learning a new computer game. We all have to play a while to learn the controls on that star fighter.
Teenagers are just newbies to life. Nothing to do with neurology.
Again, you seem to be assuming that when the brain STOPS developing, it does so because it has achieved perfection. It is pretty easy to support the view that adults are far TOO risk-averse, too unwilling to let teens take chances that would benefit them. To claim adults account "accurately" is going a bridge too far. Adults account for risk "differently" and do so in a way that other adults are likely to agree with, but that doesn't make it more "accurate".