Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Are "teens" born or made? An interesting twist.

thesocietypages.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 110 posts

Re: Are "teens" born or made? An interesting twist.

#81

Post by jimbokun »

sliverstorm wrote: post #30
hasenj wrote: post #13

It's my opinion that "adolescence" is a new social construct that is not universal and not innate. It's more likely to be a self-fulfilling prophecy more than anything else. In older times, teenagers (above say, 14) were considered men, or young adults. They would fight in armies, or even lead them. They were likely to be married and maybe even have children. For all intents and purposes, people of age 16 are not muc…

I would agree on the construct part. Once, in college as a senior, an organization I was a member of was being criticized by an administrator who said, and I quote: "You know what the problem with your org is- there's not enough adult supervision" Keep in mind I was 23, and everyone in the room was over 20.

The same was often said of Apple during the mid-90s.

I'm not sure if this person meant it in the same way, though.

Re: Are "teens" born or made? An interesting twist.

#82

Post by rthomas6 »

hasenj wrote: post #40
rthomas6 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue that the mental differences between a 28 and 40 year old are much less, however.

I think most cultures consider their elders to have much much more wisdom than regular men.

Forty years old is an elder?

Re: Are "teens" born or made? An interesting twist.

#83

Post by gallamine »

aik wrote: post #9

John Taylor Gatto talks about this particular phenomena in his book "Weapons of Mass Instruction". Just looking at the way our school systems treats teens is enough to come to a full understanding of why teens develop so slowly. Most teens have no responsibility or any need for a real worry in their lives (beyond just living up to some societal expectations). Without actually being challenged as a complete human bein…

Just about anything by Gatto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Taylor_Gatto) is worth reading. I'd recommend starting with _A Different Kind of Teacher_ (http://www.amazon.com/Different-Kind-Teacher-American-School...) or _Dumbing Us Down_ (http://www.amazon.com/Dumbing-Down-Curriculum-Compulsory-Sch...)

Re: Are "teens" born or made? An interesting twist.

#84

Post by gallamine »

skeltoac wrote: post #24

Early 20th-century child labor laws were a misguided attempt to solve an important problem (the exploitation of a specific class of workers). The evil they meant to prevent is child abuse, which is a subset of basic human rights abuse. Abuse is a violation of a right. What rights do children have that adults lack? What rights do we lose when we reach the age of majority? That's a hard way to look at this problem from…

I've never thought of it that - and I've done a lot of thinking about education. Thank you!

Perhaps another valuable question would be what trait of children allow their exploitation in times past? Naivety? Lack of physical power? Was our opposition to child labor the demanding physical requirements, or the sacrifice of schooling?

Re: Are "teens" born or made? An interesting twist.

#85

Post by scott_s »

hasenj wrote: post #76
scott_s wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For all intents and purposes, people of age 16 are not much different from other adults except in that they don't have much experience in life. This is demonstrably not true, and even says so in the article. The brains of a teenager are different than that of an adult. The question the article is asking is not "Are they differen?" because we know they are. The question the article is asking is "Is this difference cau…

> This is demonstrably not true, and even says so in the article. The brains of a teenager are different than that of an adult. This is bad logic. It's not much different from saying "men and women are demonstrably different, therefore women should not have equal rights". Of course they are different. 16 year olds are not the same as 40 year olds. It doesn't follow that 16 year olds are children who are just being re…

The claim (P) was that "For all intents and purposes, people of age 16 are not much different from other adults except in that they don't have much experience in life," with the implication that (Q) "therefore they should be treated the same." If P, then Q. I'm saying P is not true. I did not say that !P is enough to say !Q.

While I personally have concluded !Q, there is more to it than what I have brought up - but that was not my purpose in the post. I wanted to point out a false statement because it was being used to conclude something.

Re: Are "teens" born or made? An interesting twist.

#86

Post by ahoyhere »

Andrew_Quentin wrote: post #70
patio11 wrote: post #7

One wonders about the wisdom of treating any interaction with an adult as being tantamount to asking for sexual exploitation while simultaneously dumping kids in a youth culture which says that sex is the best thing that everyone except them is having. I had a very fortunate upbringing in a lot of ways, but I think I talked to maybe three adults who were not parents, teachers, or family in an eight year period. That…

That is your experience. Hardly the problem we all have. Do you not have uncles, did they not come for dinner, what of aunties, and did you never go to your friends house where you would meet their parents, etc. I do not think anyone isolates kids or teenagers. I think, instead, the media attempts to portray such a picture so as to sell more papers. Regarding your latter comment, in a world where you do not mix even…

It is unnatural that kids are segregated by age into "peer groups" - in school and outside school (like at lessons). What's evolutionarily normal is to have children who are surrounded by, and interact mostly, with adults, in a group where many of the people are your family. The adults bring you up to their level. The kids keep you at your current (their) level.

No wonder kids today are more and more emotionally & intellectually stunted. None of them are "the dumbest guy in the room" - because they interact almost exclusively with other kids their exact same age.

30 kids and 1 teacher… the 1 teacher is not enough of an influence to make the kids feel ashamed of being so immature.

I, for one, have thought it was clear from history that "teens" are made. I grew up with lots of responsibility and it was clear to me, even as a 10-year-old, how different that made me from the kids I went to school with. The having of the responsibility wasn't what made me different, but it obviously made me think and behave differently too.

IMO the only reason that upper middle class kids today -- who are the ones always studied -- don't develop the part of the brain that connects cause & effect, & prevents risk-taking, is because they are never allowed to have enough power to fuck up.

How can you learn that stupidity leads to crisis if you're never allowed to make your own decisions?

The brain is plastic, it changes based on what you learn. A child kept away from speech until he's 4 years old will be unable to learn to speak normally. A teenager kept away from responsibility & work of value will grow up to be...

But the "scientists" who do these studies make pronouncements about their studies, but they never say "Sheltered white upper-class kids with two parents have the following traits..." they say "Kids have the following traits..."

Re: Are "teens" born or made? An interesting twist.

#87

Post by hasenj »

scott_s wrote: post #85
hasenj wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is demonstrably not true, and even says so in the article. The brains of a teenager are different than that of an adult. This is bad logic. It's not much different from saying "men and women are demonstrably different, therefore women should not have equal rights". Of course they are different. 16 year olds are not the same as 40 year olds. It doesn't follow that 16 year olds are children who are just being re…

The claim (P) was that "For all intents and purposes, people of age 16 are not much different from other adults except in that they don't have much experience in life," with the implication that (Q) "therefore they should be treated the same." If P, then Q. I'm saying P is not true. I did not say that !P is enough to say !Q. While I personally have concluded !Q, there is more to it than what I have brought up - but t…

"For all intents and purposes" sort of already implies something along the lines of "ignoring the obvious differences, etc" in the same way that 30 year olds and 50 year olds are both adults despite the age difference.

Re: Are "teens" born or made? An interesting twist.

#88

Post by ahoyhere »

ardit33 wrote: post #27
hasenj wrote: post #13

It's my opinion that "adolescence" is a new social construct that is not universal and not innate. It's more likely to be a self-fulfilling prophecy more than anything else. In older times, teenagers (above say, 14) were considered men, or young adults. They would fight in armies, or even lead them. They were likely to be married and maybe even have children. For all intents and purposes, people of age 16 are not muc…

"For all intents and purposes, people of age 16 are not much different from other adults except in that they don't have much experience in life." I totally disagree on this. There are remarkable physical differences between a 16 yo, and a 28yo. Your mental capabilities are different, your hormonal level is completely different etc. Yes, there are cultures or where teens are forced to act as adults to function in soci…

ardit33, there is NO PROOF whatsoever that these cognitive differences are a result of age and not experience. The brain is plastic; it's shaped directly by experiences.

If you never speak to a child from birth to 4 years old, it will be unable to learn to speak. That part of the brain will simply have not developed. There's no reason to believe that this is not true of all the other skills you mention.

If you had started doing that "supervisory" role 3 years earlier, you would have been great at it by 16. Similarly, most people start doing that sort of thing at 22, so at 22 they are where you were at 16, meaning they were 6 years behind.

Re: Are "teens" born or made? An interesting twist.

#89

Post by rthomas6 »

electromagnetic wrote: post #34
rthomas6 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue that the mental differences between a 28 and 40 year old are much less, however.

I'd ask you to cite your reasoning. The average age of first child in western societies is almost hitting the 30 year old mark, so I'd argue that (in western societies at least) there is a dramatic mental difference between those in their mid 20's over those in their mid-thirties.

Maybe I don't have enough perspective. I'm only 23, and maybe I will think that I'm dramatically different when I'm 40. Right now, it just doesn't seem like it. Then again, most teenagers think the same way about being 23 (me included).

Re: Are "teens" born or made? An interesting twist.

#90

Post by gyardley »

rthomas6 wrote: post #89
electromagnetic wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd ask you to cite your reasoning. The average age of first child in western societies is almost hitting the 30 year old mark, so I'd argue that (in western societies at least) there is a dramatic mental difference between those in their mid 20's over those in their mid-thirties.

Maybe I don't have enough perspective. I'm only 23, and maybe I will think that I'm dramatically different when I'm 40. Right now, it just doesn't seem like it. Then again, most teenagers think the same way about being 23 (me included).

Heh - I'm dramatically different from the 23-year-old me and I'm only 34.

(And thank god, because the 23-year-old me was both insufferably stupid and didn't know it.)

(Now at least I know it.)

Post reply on HN