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

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/03/07/adolescent-brains-cause-or-consequence-2/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+SociologicalImagesSeeingIsBelieving+%28Sociological+Images%3A+Seeing+Is+Believing%29

by ChuckMcM • 15 years ago

99 104 15 years ago

thesocietypages.org

SoftwareMaven• 15 years ago

I was surprised when I learned that adolescence was first described in the early 20th century. That was around the same time children stopped regularly working with their parents in the family business/farm. As a society, parents have abdicated the "final transision" to adulthood to the school systems, but that isn't working, so kids have no clear path to "adulthood" and, instead, wander aimlessly.

Personally, I think (and have read others who agree, sorry, no references available) that the fairly ubiquitous "coming of age" ceremony is very important. My oldest is 17 and we will be doing something this summer with my father (backpacking or the like) to celebrate his manhood. And, yes, we will even have a formal ceremony.

I'm always looking for good reading on this subject (truly guiding your kids to adulthood), so if you have any good pointers, send them on!

Florin_Andrei• 15 years ago

To me, it seems pretty obvious that all the adolescent tribulations are a cry for independence. The individual feels they're already at the point where they can take off on their own, but everything else around them beats them back down.

asolove• 15 years ago

Remember that this feeling is not necessarily correct. Starting at 13 everyone feels they can be independent and take care of things better than everyone else, and (at least at 13) they are wrong. They are really asking to be challenged or given responsibility, and they probably will fail or need a lot of help.

But without the experience of that first failure, and overcoming it with the guidance and support of people around them, these teenagers continue to demand their independence and fail to find any proof of their own self-worth long into their twenties and middle age...

forkandwait3• 15 years ago

At the risk of being pretentious, I would say that what we all yearn for is (Heidegger's idea and vocabulary): "spatio-temporal ecstasis" -- the feeling that our self is expanding into the world, quickly and far. I get it when I learn more math -- I can feel my power or whatever it is expand into world. Teens in a good environment get it when they do their homework -- they know they are expanding and they feel it. All teens get it when they discover and become proficient at adult fun like fighting, working (at least some get this ;)), sex, driving fast, and becoming a mother. And when we crank down on this flowering of a person, they get upset. As they should (I love a pissed off teenager, myself, as long as they are smart too ...)

I don't think it's independence, it's this Nietszchean sort of power. (Remember, Nietszche knew that the discipline of the self christian ascetic was as much a will-to-power as the rape and pillage of Attilla or a successful HS football player...)

mml2• 15 years ago

Epstein published the horribly named "teen 2.0" if youre interested in his brand of thinking on the matter

teyc5• 15 years ago

Formal education is probably the culprit here. It segments young adults into age groups, and then limits the entire days interaction to the same lot of children.

You can't define people simply by what year they are born in. Some family environments provide children with an outlet where they end up with a very mature outlook, others don't.

The problem with this stratification is that it soon becomes the "norm" for children. My kids would say, for example, he wouldn't talk to some other kids because they are in another grade or in another class. It is a totally artificial barrier.

In days past, you'd have a grandfather or grandmother around. Kids would hang around their uncles and cousins workshops. There no distinct border. Children can see how they are expected to transition from one role to another.

Fast forward to the present day, the "teen" is now effectively a market segment, and it has become "weird" or uncomfortable to deal with kids who are too young for them or adults who are uncool for them. The narrative behind TV shows and books only serve to reinforce this.

As parents, we have a duty to help our children recognize these artificial barriers and help them overcome these perception.

wisty• 15 years ago

I'd blame homework, not education in general. Kids have gone to school since Shakespeare's time. But they went home and either helped their dad on the farm, helped their mum do the housework, got a part time job, or read books and hunted crawdads.

Now, many people would consider it abuse, forcing a child of 14 to help out at work. Especially if they were only paid a nominal fee. They should be doing their homework, getting one-up on their peers. Unless they are from a family that doesn't value education, and then they should be learning to cope with a job market that won't value them.

yters4• 15 years ago

I blame child labor laws. Since children below a certain age are unemployable adults lock them away in school where they can't cause trouble and learn to do what they're told.

giardini3• 15 years ago

SoftwareMaven says:

"I'm always looking for good reading on this subject (truly guiding your kids to adulthood), so if you have any good pointers, send them on!"

Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare.

Jach• 15 years ago

While not something to read, I always thought the bullet ant way ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WQ6rFKhyn0 ) was a nice way to go about it.

mmavnn2• 15 years ago

Had a random moment and posted my pointers as a reply to the wrong parent ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2300374 ).

To reiterate I found both "Manhood" and "Raising Boys" by Steve Biddulph ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Biddulph ) and "Healing the Masculine Soul" (Dalby, http://www.amazon.com/Healing-Masculine-Soul-Restoration-Man... ) helpful, although be warned that the last book is explicitly Christian in viewpoint.

forkandwait3• 15 years ago

The whole too-many-laws spin is sort of weird (I thought Ayn Rand, too much gumment, blah, blah, blah), but the invention of adolescence is pretty interesting.

Culturally, I think the ages that are marked hardest are 13 (Bar Mitzvah's and the like) and about 21. There is sort of intermediate transition time, when (basically) you can have children but you are still a junior member of our society.

I have tutored a fair number of teens, and my trick is to treat them like adults who are still practicing (and thus need some supervision). I am straight up about it too.

I think a lot of public school is geared toward getting working class people ready to be treated like children all their lives at the factory/ restaurant/ wherever. But usually the system wears them down, and they are docile alcoholics or tv addicts, afraid of their bosses and schoolteachers, with really low self esteem by the time they are 20 or so. So kids rebel or "have fun" (sex, drugs, rock and roll) while they can -- who wouldn't?

I went to a private school myself, where we were all getting ready to have self-driven, challlenging, interesting lives, and except for those of us with seriously screwed up family life (yes, I blame them ...), everybody had really good relationships with teachers and parents. It made total sense to us to study and learn to interact with older people. Who wouldn't?

gohat• 15 years ago

I took a sociology class (briefly!) and one of the things that left a tremendous impression on me was how in some cultures, sexuality is completely different. That sexual drives are perhaps not universal, and that they can be very largely shaped by your culture.

If so, then something like adolescence could likely also be susceptible to such an effect.

mhb• 15 years ago

A PhD who doesn't know that "data" is plural?

D_Alex2• 15 years ago

"Data is accepted as a singular mass noun in everyday educated usage" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data, references given.

patio114• 15 years ago

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 sort of warps one's perceptions on things.

kenjackson6• 15 years ago

One wonders about the wisdom of treating any interaction with an adult as being tantamount to asking for sexual exploitation... but I think I talked to maybe three adults who were not parents, teachers, or family in an eight year period.

Did your family subscribe to any specific religion or something that would lead to this behavior? I just had never heard of something like this. Although I guess if the age span is 0-8 there's really not that many adults to interact with who aren't family or teachers. It's not like you're going to work or having lunch dates. And it's not like some random 32 year old is going to come over to just hang out. But still, it seems odd to even think that either you were being specifically shielded or you thought you were.

At age 8, or even 10, I never though, "I wish I could talk to more adults". If anything, I probably would've like to talk to fewer adults. :-)

patio114• 15 years ago

We were a middle-class(-ish) Catholic family in the suburbs. I think alienation from the larger community is not that abnormal of an experience these days.

For example, if you read books or watch TV from the fifties, you might have a twelve year old boy with a friendship with a man in the neighborhood, perhaps in the context of sharing their common interest in carpentry or fence-painting, and doing totally innocuous things like having iced tea together during summer. Are you of the impression that remains normal behavior today?

I would be scared out of my wits if a neighborhood kid took a shine on me and started coming over to my house to say hello. That's one worried phone call from mom away from my life being ruined.

ajju5• 15 years ago

I think I talked to maybe three adults who were not parents, teachers, or family in an eight year period.

Don't mean to pry, so feel free to ignore this, but how do you reckon not talking to more than 3 adults over a 8 year period is fortunate? I am genuinely interested, not being facetious.

patio114• 15 years ago

I seem to be causing a lot of parsing errors this week: despite being extremely satisfied with my upbringing, I think the fact that I talked to only 3 adults in 8 years is a symptom of a problematic mindset which has negative effects in our society. Hermetically sealing off teenagers in a child's world, where they perpetually lack responsibility for anything or authority to do anything, is borked.

Andrew_Quentin• 15 years ago

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 with the seventh graders or the fifth graders if you are in the sixth grade, it would be quite strange indeed if you were "hanging out" with a 40 year old, or 30 year old, in "friendship" basis both for the youngster and for the adult. Moreover, I do not think it ever was seen as "normal" not because of any implications but because there would be little in common not least because a teenager thinks and is preoccupied by entirely different things from an adult.

ajju5• 15 years ago

Here's some more anecdotal evidence from my personal experience that "hanging out with a 30 year old" in sixth grade is not always bad, and shouldn't always be considered strange.

I grew up in a small middle class neighborhood in a small town and was fortunate in that my dad went to one of the best engineering schools in the country. From ages 6 to 14, two of his friends taught me more about business and science than any kid can hope for, and I had a ball learning it.

The first was a small town shopkeeper who was our neighbor. Initially, I would go to his shop with my dad every Sunday and hang around and explore it for hours while they chatted. He would teach me bits and pieces about business more through example than words: treating customers and employees right, pricing products right, managing people etc. Eventually, I'd often go to his shop alone and hang out and sometimes he'd let me man the cash register for an hour or two. It was a huge responsibility and one that I was proud of. Many people today would consider a 8-14 year old going to a shop and hanging out with a 30 something shopkeeper alone weird, but I only benefited from this relationship. Obviously this was someone my parents knew and trusted, but I can't help but think these few years shaped my desires to be an entrepreneur and helped me along the way.

The second person was a guy who had a job building/fixing machinery at gas refineries who my dad went to school with. He was divorced early and never remarried, a recluse who liked to study and talk about physics and chemistry. He was also eccentric and (what I recognized later as) a consummate geek: generally shy but never shy about tearing apart bad/flawed arguments anyone made. He was also unfailingly fair about accepting defeat in arguments when he was wrong. In our small town, judging from the outside, I'd say most people would have called him a weirdo and they probably did. My parents trusted him though and I regularly hung out with him, often alone. He had a huge role to play in my interest in science and (what I hope is) my ability to never be shy about making my case, but to treat opponents fairly. Fun aside: this gentleman retired at 55 from his job with significant savings and went BACK to school for a Ph.D. in math, because he loves to learn.

NB: I do not have kids yet, and it is possible that some biological or cultural switch that goes on when I have children will change my perspective on this making me more protective. I hope it doesn't make me wary of all adults though.

ahoyhere4• 15 years ago

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..."

protomyth• 15 years ago

My Dad dragged me along when visiting his friends (still does) when I was 10 and older (maybe 9). I was expected to behave, but I he kinda made sure I would be part of the conversation. I'm 40 now, and it was good training. It still scares me to get in front of a crowd, but that early interaction lets me do it and feel ok with small groups. I also don't freak when strangers come up to me and tell me their life story.

mml2• 15 years ago

I heard a longish npr interview with mr. Epstein, and found his theories to be so startlingly simple and obvious, so in line with all my experiences, that I was utterly confounded as to how nobody had mentioned it before.

Most compelling were his discussions about the -numerous- societies around the world who don't even have a word for "teen". That, and his observations regarding how young adults are segregated from society and are basically barred from work (excepting the most menial and unfulfilling), completely changed my conception of then entire issue.

If I could be bothered to read a book about parenting, it would be his.

kenjackson6• 15 years ago

societies around the world who don't even have a word for "teen".

But isn't that just a matter of how they count? Admittedly it would be nicer if we said, tenie one, tenie two, tenie three, tenie four, etc... But he's saying that this is the crux of the problem?

nolanw• 15 years ago

The article points out that the societies have no word for "adolescent". The parent was using a synonymous term, not one involving counting.

hasenj11• 15 years ago

> numerous societies around the world who don't even have a word for "teen"

Arabic doesn't have a word for teens (not even a loan word), but they have a word for adolescence.

This may be a bit embarrassing, but I only recently understood the real meaning of "teenager". I used to think it's just an arbitrary word that has the same meaning as "youth".

aik• 15 years ago

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 being (rather than just mentally in some small part of your brain), why would the brain need to develop?

I believe the most detrimental part is the fact that teens themselves often don't see themselves as "complete", "grown up", or as adults. This leads them to see and treat everything through a particular lens that they can excuse any behavior on. If from the start they were convinced they were adults (were complete and grown up), I believe they would take much more responsibility earlier on for their actions. I know I would've.

gallamine2• 15 years ago

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...)

D_Alex2• 15 years ago

Maybe the whole concept of "teens" became necessary when the society changed from agricultural to technological - there is just so much more to learn before you can be a "proper" adult... you could be a productive member of 1800's society without knowing how to read, write or do maths.

And the trend (more and more learning needed) will probably continue, judging from the stuff my teen kids are doing in their last 2 years of high school - things that I came across in my honours year of engineering (e.g. electronic data acquisition) are now taught in year 12. Wow.

hasenj11• 15 years ago

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 much different from other adults except in that they don't have much experience in life. The only reason they "rebel" is that society still treats them like children. Imagine a 30 year old man being treated as a little hopeless child by his parents; of course he will show signs of resentment. It's not because he's "crazy", it's the natural response.

Perhaps the reason is partly due to school. If you're in school (below university/college level) you're a child "by definition" so to speak (from the society's point of view).

If I was in charge, I would design the school system so that elementary and secondary school end by the age 14 and then when you're 15 you'd be already in college.

ardit33• 15 years ago

"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 society, but that doesn't make them they have the same capabilities as of an adult, be either physical, or emotional/mental.

And, traditionally armies are staffed with 17-20 yo. Do you know why? Because they make better cannon fodder, and more likely to obey orders, take higher risks, which are correlated with the high testosterone levels that teens do have.

(BTW, I am 30, and when I was 16 I was basically acting as supervisor of a team of 12 workers when my family was building the house due to my father having heart problems. Yes, I was good with money, I could negotiate some, tell people what to do to a certain point, but I lacked emotional intelligence, tact, or general maturity to handle more finer problems).

nostrademons• 15 years ago

There are pretty remarkable physical differences between a 28yo and a 40yo, yet the legal and cultural differences between those ages are quite a bit less than between 16 and 28.

electromagnetic3• 15 years ago

> (BTW, I am 30, and when I was 16 I was basically acting as supervisor of a team of 12 workers when my family was building the house due to my father having heart problems. Yes, I was good with money, I could negotiate some, tell people what to do to a certain point, but I lacked emotional intelligence, tact, or general maturity to handle more finer problems).

So basically you're saying you was more adept at 16 with dealing with other people, responsibility and money than the vast majority of college grads are in their mid-late 20's. So I'm failing to see your point.

Because of an education you wouldn't have otherwise received you were capable of doing tasks considered vastly beyond your age's observed responsibility level, seemingly even by yourself.

hasenj11• 15 years ago

> Yes, there are cultures or where teens are forced to act as adults to function in society, but that doesn't make them they have the same capabilities as of an adult

"Forced"? This is circular logic.

What makes you think they are forced? It seems every one here agrees that teenager want to be treated like adults.

The only reason to think they were forced is if you think they are still children at age 16. You provided yourself as your own counter example, so clearly at 16 you weren't a child.

> but I lacked emotional intelligence, tact, or general maturity to handle more finer problems

This is exactly what I mean by experience. Emotional intelligence and tact (as you put it) doesn't come suddenly when you're 22; it comes with experience. You could very easily be 30 and still lack these things. I would go further and say you are more likely to lack them if your parents keep treating you like a child and prevent you from doing adult stuff and experiencing the world outside of their "protection".

ahoyhere4• 15 years ago

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.

scott_s3• 15 years ago

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 caused by culture or biology?"

Gormo• 15 years ago

But in a way, the article is begging the question by presuming that the categories are objectively meaningful. What's a 'teenager' and what's an 'adult'?

If our brains are continuously changing throughout our lives, you'll see differences on either side of any arbitrary cutoff point.

hasenj11• 15 years ago

> 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 rebellious and should be shunned down.

sliverstorm• 15 years ago

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.

jimbokun2• 15 years ago

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.

giardini3• 15 years ago

I must agree about adolescence.

Consider the story of Romeo and Juliet. At an age where he has not yet grown a beard, Romeo has killed (at least) two men. He secretly marries his true love (and the Church blesses the marriage).

Imagine, if you can, the reaction of parents, churches and schools today to such behavior.

notahacker3• 15 years ago

I'd see Romeo and Juliet as the quintessential adolescents - it's a tale of whirlwind romance, gang violence and complete absence of self control on the part of the key protagonists.

Isolated from the context of 16th century Verona and stripped of Shakespeare's poetic flair, the plot could easily be taken from a modern slushy teen drama.

brazzy• 15 years ago

There's another way to look at it (and I have to admit I read this somewhere and don't know the original well enough to judge whether it contradicts this notion): Romeo is actually much (on the order of 10 years) older than mid-teen Juliet.

And nobody considers that a scandal, compared to them acting against their families' wishes.

josephcooney• 15 years ago

Re: fighting in armies - absolutely true, hence the word infantry, but not necessarily a good thing (and I know you didn't say it was).

hasenj11• 15 years ago

Replace "fighting in armies" with "working in the fields".

yters4• 15 years ago

I'd get rid of school. Teach kids writing, arithmetic and show them the internet. What do they need from teachers?

I'd be hard pressed to name ONE class that was worth my time to attend.

apl• 15 years ago

99% of all kids would simply crash and burn.

hasenj11• 15 years ago

OK, some people say they didn't learn much from college classes, and therefore university was worthless (or wasn't worth the money). I disagree. University puts you in an environment that encourages learning and inquisition. You could argue that you learned alot more from wikipedia than classes, but if it weren't for university, would you even bother reading wikipedia?

Detrus2• 15 years ago

So, did they do brain-scans of "teens" and "adults" in societies where the distinction doesn't exist? Seems like the critical piece missing from the argument.

It's also possible that there was a smaller difference in the brain a few hundred years ago from factors like food availability. The current over-abundance of food is changing the the timing of puberty for example.

pbhjpbhj• 15 years ago

>The current over-abundance of food is changing the the timing of puberty for example.

Is it food availability, do you have a citation - I hypothesised that this was due to the wash of oestrogen-like chemicals and hormone disruptors in domestic use in the more developed nations.

Edit: an example citation - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthcomment/geoffrey-lean/...; other articles note the increase in the use of soya in countless processed foods and the high levels of oestrogenic chemicals it has.

Detrus2• 15 years ago

http://www.cfah.org/hbns/archives/viewSupportDoc.cfm?support...

http://edrv.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/24/5/668

Could be chemicals, could be nutrition or genetics, doesn't look like they pinned it down. But in the context of this discussion, culture shouldn't be the only culprit.

DanielBMarkham• 15 years ago

I find the thrust of this article fascinating -- it makes sense intuitively.

But the following quote clearly sounded over the top: Teens are subject to, Epstein explains, “…more than 10 times as many restrictions as are mainstream adults, twice as many restrictions as active-duty U.S. Marines, and even twice as many restrictions as incarcerated felons.”

I'd sure like to see some proof of that. Surely teens get a raw deal, but to that extent? It set off my "critical thinking" alarm.

amalcon• 15 years ago

I'd be interested to know how to even count "how many" restrictions one is subject to.

notahacker3• 15 years ago

My alarm was set off by the graph purporting to show laws specifically targeting teens. There's no attempt to put that in the context either of growth in legislation in general, laws targeting adults that ceased to apply to [some] teens. Nor is there any discussion of whether teens would feel "restricted" or see their cognitive development impaired by laws preventing them from being sent down a coal mine 12 hours a day by their parents.

skeltoac• 15 years ago

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 a society that purports to grant additional rights (or to lift prohibitions) as a person ages.

Many of us on HN understand that non-academic labor is the best way to gain experiences that we find indispensable in the pursuit of happiness. Withholding opportunities from minors is an even greater abuse than the working conditions that prompted the prohibition of child labor and compulsory schooling.

gallamine2• 15 years ago

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?

notahacker3• 15 years ago

The article is disappointingly short of empirical findings (and there are interesting empirical claims that others have made about changes in the onset of puberty over the last century etc.)

Ultimately I find the suggestion that lack of discussion of adolescence in other societies is an indicator of their adolescents' brain development being different absurd in the absence of any supporting evidence actually related to the brain. I doubt many pre-industrial societies have a word for "feminism", yet would be amazed if someone were to advance the argument that a female perspective on the world only became significant and distinct enough to warrant discussion in the early 1900s - even more so if they were to use it to buttress an argument on female cognitive development.

Consider the alternate hypothesis: little attempt is made to describe and analyse adolescence in non-Western societies because: (i)those cultures are much less inclined to offer teens freedom of choice and expression (ii) those cultures have little interest in understanding the psychological development of teens. Juvenile crime is not a distinct phenomenon if juveniles are subject to (and deterred by) the same draconian sanctions as adults. Teenage resistance to education is not an issue if teenagers are expected to work to eat. Teenage sexuality is not an issue if society treats sex simply a means to procreation and allows the genders to mingle only in the interests of arranging parentally sanctioned heterosexual marriage.

Even if these differences do have a noticeable effect on brain chemistry, I'll happily accept the angst of my teenage years as the price of living in a post-industrial society.

simonsquiff• 15 years ago

I submitted an article yesterday about how it's peers that influence children not parents, and there was a very relevant quote:

"Developed societies have a special age group for people who are no longer children but are not yet adults, and this group becomes a source of social change. In societies that have only two age groups, children and adults, a culture can go along virtually unchanged for generation after generation, but as soon as there's a special age group for teenagers, things start to happen. The teenagers look for ways of demonstrating their fealty to their own age group ways of showing that they're different from adults. They use weird forms of adornment that adults find unacceptable, and they invent new words or use old words in new ways. If people didn't keep graduating out of the teenage group and taking their vocabulary with them, eventually they would create a whole new language and the adults wouldn't be able to understand them. Which, of course, is just what they're after!"

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2298961

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

Related Stories