NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=pto-20070302-000002&page=1

I read this weeks ago. I was wondering what everyone thought? Is adolescence manufactured? Should teens have more rights?

I moved out when I was 15, didn't do completely awesome, but that was due to bad choices, I am 90% sure that they weren't 'teen choices' though, just bad ones. By the time I was 17 I had it figured out pretty much.

I think a lot of it has to do with how you are raised. I think if kids are raised to be responsible you can trust them with responsibility much earlier than most people do, but then most kids aren't raised to be responsible.


EDIT: yes, I see the misspelled word, ignore please.

i guess it depends on what rights you are thinking of.

what did you have in mind?

Need for some "tough love"? ;)

i guess it depends on what rights you are thinking of.

what did you have in mind?

did you read the article?





Ironically, because minors have only limited property rights, they don't have complete control over what they have bought. Think how bizarre that is. If you, as an adult, spend money and bring home a toy, it's your toy and no one can take it away from you. But with a 14-year-old, it's not really his or her toy. Young people can't own things, can't sign contracts, and they can't do anything meaningful without parental permission—permission that can be withdrawn at any time. They can't marry, can't have sex, can't legally drink. The list goes on. They are restricted and infantilized to an extraordinary extent.

In recent surveys I've found that American teens are subjected to more than 10 times as many restrictions as mainstream adults, twice as many restrictions as active-duty U.S. Marines, and even twice as many as incarcerated felons. Psychologist Diane Dumas and I also found a correlation between infantilization and psychological dysfunction. The more young people are infantilized, the more psychopathology they show.

What's more, since 1960, restrictions on teens have been accelerating. Young people are restricted in ways no adult would be—for example, in some states they are prohibited from entering tanning salons or getting tattoos.

Of course. The problem lies in society's pandering on the nonexistent border between the teenage years and the adult years, and the discrimination of the teenager that is of no fault of their own.


Naturally, though, everyone wants to blame everything on hormones and whatnot, but its just plain bunk half the damn time anyway. Teenagers are above the child mind and this should be recognized. Anyone who makes a stupid mistake should suffer for it, but that's for another discussion.

Of course. The problem lies in society's pandering on the nonexistent border between the teenage years and the adult years, and the discrimination of the teenager that is of no fault of their own.


Naturally, though, everyone wants to blame everything on hormones and whatnot, but its just plain bunk half the damn time anyway. Teenagers are above the child mind and this should be recognized. Anyone who makes a stupid mistake should suffer for it, but that's for another discussion.

The problem tho, is that in the eyes of the law, a Teen is still under the responsibility of the parents for the majority of their Teen years. those 17 and under can't sign contracts and cannot be held to any contract they do sign. Debts that the teen cannot pay for is automatically shifted to the parents/guardians and penalties/taxes are looked upon by the parents.
Remove that restraint (or even allowing for a gradual removal) and I can see parents allowing their teenagers more freedom.

Some Teens do take those responsibilites on their own, Smunkee for example (bad choices, teen choices, you still made them and you survived them.) so it can be done.

Oh and Smunkee, it's also dependant on how the child was raised. ;)

That's an interesting thought. I would think that even though we hit puberty at about 12, we don't stop growing physically until we are 17 or 18. (For guys anyway) But as decisions go, children are inherently selfish. They have no idea of working hard now for something if they can have fun now. We, as an American society, have neglected to teach our children responsibility and the benefit of serving others versus serving ourselves. That's why we have abortions and birth control and safe sex devices. We are trying to remove the consequences of what it takes for us to have a good time.

Perhaps adolescence is extending longer because people just don't grow up. Our society allows people to be more irresponsible and selfish so that they don't plan for the future like grown-ups do, but focus on getting what they can for now like children. I think acting like a child, and being physically mature is the definition of adolescence.

The problem tho, is that in the eyes of the law, a Teen is still under the responsibility of the parents for the majority of their Teen years. those 17 and under can't sign contracts and cannot be held to any contract they do sign. Debts that the teen cannot pay for is automatically shifted to the parents/guardians and penalties/taxes are looked upon by the parents.
Remove that restraint (or even allowing for a gradual removal) and I can see parents allowing their teenagers more freedom.

Some Teens do take those responsibilites on their own, Smunkee for example (bad choices, teen choices, you still made them and you survived them.) so it can be done.

Oh and Smunkee, it's also dependant on how the child was raised. ;)

That's the problem. It's discrimination against the teenager because of something so utterly trivial. The only time one should be exempt from debt is not having a bank account that one can acquire debt in. Why shouldn't they be held responsible?

The law isn't really an excuse for it - American society just is too damn sensitive and tentative, afraid to make people actually accountable for what they've done. Instead, they shift the blame away to an irrelevant party that did nothing to make people happy. Stupid...

I whole-heartedley agree. I'm 15, by the way.

That's the problem. It's discrimination against the teenager because of something so utterly trivial. The only time one should be exempt from debt is not having a bank account that one can acquire debt in. Why shouldn't they be held responsible?

The law isn't really an excuse for it - American society just is too damn sensitive and tentative, afraid to make people actually accountable for what they've done. Instead, they shift the blame away to an irrelevant party that did nothing to make people happy. Stupid...

The situation probably came about when someone's teenager signed a contract without the parents/guardians knowledge and ended up in BIG trouble (either legally or financially)

and is it just American Society? Can Teens in other countries be held liable for binding contracts they sign without their parents/guardians knowledge? Are Teens who commit crimes in other countries tried as an adult or a Juvenile?

I'd sure like to see some young offenders tried as adults...

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=pto-20070302-000002&page=1

I read this weeks ago. I was wondering what everyone thought? Is adolescence manufactured? Should teens have more rights?

I moved out when I was 15, didn't do completely awesome, but that was due to bad choices, I am 90% sure that they weren't 'teen choices' though, just bad ones. By the time I was 17 I had it figured out pretty much.

I think a lot of it has to do with how you are raised. I think if kids are raised to be responsible you can trust them with responsibility much earlier than most people do, but then most kids aren't raised to be responsible.


EDIT: yes, I see the misspelled word, ignore please.

I think you hit it right on the nose there, friend.

It has always appeared to me that the people I knew who weren't given as much freedom as I had been from my parents were more likely to rebel and show a lack of responsibility because they felt restricted and wanted to strike back and not because they were immature.

My parents, namely my father had few rules (they were also divorced). For some reason, my father never had much use for rules and when I turned 15, he explained to me that I had to carry my share of the housework and that this would make the situation like that of roommates and not 'parent and child'. Yes we still had screaming matches but he didn't treat me like a child.

And my mother? Well, thing weren't great then but she didn't have too many unreasonable rules but we often clashed over the fact that I prefer to be a bare-footed brat.

As a teen, you're in an awkward position because you've in some cases have the body of an adult, you long to make your own decisions and you feel ready yet the law treats you like you're perpetually five years old unless you murder someone, then it's all bets off.

The media has perpetuated the image of the lethargic insolent and highly irresponsible hormone-driven teen. Yes there are a few who may indeed fit in that description but most don't and the stereotype holds back the rights that could be given to teens. It creates a negative image.

That image lets people think that teens must be led around by the hand as if they are still children. Is it any wonder why some teens when suddenly tasting freedom do dangerous things? The average adult doesn't have that compulsion and most teens don't, at least those who are able to participate in society instead of being restricted.

In different Euro nations, teens do seem to have more rights.

Drinking and smoking for example, appear to be 16 in most nations, while age of consent is between 14-16. There appear to be restrictions on hard liquor, making it legal at 18 years old.

It seems to me that these nations haven't fallen apart due to more rights given to teens.

did you read the article?

of course not.

modern life is too complicated to throw a 14 or 15 year old out on the streets to fend for themselves. sure they can survive it just as you did but its not a profitable way to spend their time.

modern life requires education and training not the school of hard knocks. in the past they may have been mature enough to move into a tiny shack on the farm and start a family under the supervision of their parents and grandparents, needing no more than a basic ability to read and write. thats just not true today.

at the same time we DO place ridiculous restrictions on teens. there is no reason why an 18 year old shouldnt be able to buy and consume liquor; no reason why a 16 year old shouldnt be able to drink in the presence of his parents. no reason why they shouldnt be able to get their ears (or anything else) pierced, have sex, get contraception, drive a car, and a million other things that we seem to think are impossible for a normal teen aged ...14.. and above to decide on.

Voting is another issue.

I've heard it in different places... the line about how teens shouldn't be allowed to vote because they would be uninformed.

Yet being uninformed doesn't stop "adults" from exercising this right.

I remember as a child asking my dad to go vote in an election. He told me he didn't want to but took me to the polling station nearest us in our riding and told me I could use his ballot. I did this three times while under age. I knew who I wanted to vote for.

I wouldn't go as far as the author of the article, but I do think too many parents baby their teens far too much. The rights and responsibilities of adulthood should be taken on gradually, not suddenly thrust on you. I've always said that the idea that someone is 100% a child at 17 years, 364 days, 23 hours, 23 minutes, and 23 seconds and suddenly 100% an adult 1 second later is complete BS.

That said, the author's idea that hookups and one-night stands are a product of teens not having enough rights/responsibilities is complete bunk. People seem to have this idea that promiscuity and irresponsible sexual practices are a relatively recent thing in human history, but it is completely ridiculous.

In every mammalian species, immediately upon reaching puberty, animals function as adults, often having offspring. We call our offspring "children" well past puberty. The trend started a hundred years ago and now extends childhood well into the 20s. The age at which Americans reach adulthood is increasing—30 is the new 20—and most Americans now believe a person isn't an adult until age 26.

oh, then all the stuff i've read about adolescent chimps was fiction?

also, i'd like to point out that the ancient athenians were even worse - men didn't get to marry until they were in their early 30s.

The only rule that minors are facing that I actually think isn't half bad is the one about cellphones in the classroom.

Now before you jump all over me, let me explain. When I was in college, my professors all had signs in their rooms that mandated that cellphones be turned off because the devices were likely to disrupt the classroom.

I remember having my cellphone confiscated by my CDD (hardware class) professor. He had made it clear at the start of the semester that he hated cellphones and expected all of us to keep them off; fail that in silent mode or on vibrate. I had forgot to turn it off one day and when I left the room for a minute my phone rang and got confiscated.

I did get it back but I didn't think it was unreasonable.

I've been thinking somewhere along those lines lately. It makes sense. Why not stop with creating ADD when we can create adolescence. A lot of the conflicts that arise between "teens" and parents are probably because our bodies say we're adults and everyone else says we're not.

The only rule that minors are facing that I actually think isn't half bad is the one about cellphones in the classroom.


what about the ban of electronic devices in the car while a teen?
(I watched several news reports about teens Texting and Driving. not just talking on the phone, but actually sending text messages... how many people do THAT!) :headbang:

the one thing that alot of people do forget is that not all teens are ready for the adult world. which is why I said it's how one is raised.

sure teens can't legally 'own' property, but their parents can consider it 'the teens' and treat it as such.

the teen won't 'own the car', but the parent can pay for half of the insurance and for every aspect (short of legalities) treat it as the teen's car.

same with privacy and other rights. as the teen shows responsible capabilities with those rights, more can be slowly given. Kinda like how Smunkee 'punishes' her children when they totally misbehave (by removing privalges.)

My family curfew (which was earlier than the legal one) was slowly pushed back as I showed my parents that I was responsible for my nocturnal activities. (at one point it was actually past the legal one... but my night life usually ended at 9:00 p.m. anyways...)

The point is.. Legally, the Teen is still a minor, but that doesn't mean the parents can't treat the teen as an adult... even using the teen years to prep their child for the adult world.

Free Soviets included this quote, "In every mammalian species, immediately upon reaching puberty, animals function as adults, often having offspring. We call our offspring 'children' well past puberty." I would like to add my interpretation. When this scientific article says that animals "function as adults", it means that they can have sex, reproduce and raise their offspring. This, as we know, is true of human offspring past puberty as well. But what does it mean for a child to function as an adult. Does anyone in this forum actually believe that at the age of 10,11, 12, 13 (the ages when children complete puberty) a child or shall we say "adult" could look after themselves and make adult discions? It is scientifically proven that in a human's adolesent years, the brain is still growing. Discion making areas are not fully developed. Maybe (and I know teens have) a teen could make it on their own. 15, 17 sure why not? But is rushing this really going to make their lives better? Usually (and I'm not saying always) not. If kids think their old enough to have sex at 14,15, who knows, it might be great. But the girls will most likely wind up pregnant or tramatized. Just because a human's body is ready to be an adult doesn't mean their mind is. Oh and I'm writing this and I'm 17.

what about the ban of electronic devices in the car while a teen?
(I watched several news reports about teens Texting and Driving. not just talking on the phone, but actually sending text messages... how many people do THAT!) :headbang:

Why can't this be extended to adults? I honestly cringe when I see someone driving dangerously then notice the cellphone.

I would much prefer a general ban on it. Yes there are responsible drivers who can do both; drive and use the devices. We cannot assume that simply because of age that teens will be more likely to cause accidents while in the possession of such a device.

I consider anyone who uses a cellphone and driving to be an increased liability on the road.

We cannot assume that simply because of age that teens will be more likely to cause accidents while in the possession of such a device.

I imagine actuaries have calculated that teens using cell phones while driving are more likely to cause accidents compared to older drivers that use cell phones while driving. It seems rather intuitive, actually; higher risk of accidents in general, higher risk of accidents when using devices that increase said risk.

Why can't this be extended to adults? I honestly cringe when I see someone driving dangerously then notice the cellphone.

I would much prefer a general ban on it. Yes there are responsible drivers who can do both; drive and use the devices. We cannot assume that simply because of age that teens will be more likely to cause accidents while in the possession of such a device.

I consider anyone who uses a cellphone and driving to be an increased liability on the road.

It should be for everyone. and it's not just cell phones but laptops as well.

That's the problem. It's discrimination against the teenager because of something so utterly trivial. The only time one should be exempt from debt is not having a bank account that one can acquire debt in. Why shouldn't they be held responsible?
Here some parents lump over debts to their children. For example register their cars in their children's name and then they can ignore parking fees and traffic fines for 18 years. The children can't do anything about it until they turn 18 and by then they are already drowned in someone else's fines plus interest. Anyone who does this is unfit to be a parent but sadly it is allowed to continue.

I've heard it in different places... the line about how teens shouldn't be allowed to vote because they would be uninformed.
I think students are more informed then people of most other professions.

Do a general knowledge test of all subjects on people of all ages. I expect people over 35 to score poorly because they only remember the knowledge they actually use. Everything else that they learned in school but never got any use for was quickly forgotten.

Young people are good at using modern information technology to stay updated on whats happening. They find out about all the new stuff a lot sooner then older people.

Adults who have both a full time job and a family to take care of don't have time to read up properly on political issues. Students could find time for it if they have a reason to unless there is an exam coming up.
I wouldn't go as far as the author of the article, but I do think too many parents baby their teens far too much. The rights and responsibilities of adulthood should be taken on gradually, not suddenly thrust on you. I've always said that the idea that someone is 100% a child at 17 years, 364 days, 23 hours, 23 minutes, and 23 seconds and suddenly 100% an adult 1 second later is complete BS.
Yeah it should be gradual. That way people get to practice and make mistakes early on gradually increasing responsibilities before they are granted the rights they can really mess up.

I imagine actuaries have calculated that teens using cell phones while driving are more likely to cause accidents compared to older drivers that use cell phones while driving. It seems rather intuitive, actually; higher risk of accidents in general, higher risk of accidents when using devices that increase said risk.

Well it should be, but isn't.

It should be for everyone. and it's not just cell phones but laptops as well.

Who the hell uses a laptop...? Gah!


Anyone else notice this about the laws... the adults do something stupid and they make it illegal for younger people? Kind of like when a mother feels a chill and puts a sweater on the child (even if the child is NOT cold).

I'm turning 18 in 20 days and I can honestly say I don't want to grow up, you will have to drag me kicking and screaming to that office job where everybody calls you Neil and sleeps with your wife damn you!

plus everyone says I look older than I am...which is now a bad thing :(

Young people are good at using modern information technology to stay updated on whats happening. They find out about all the new stuff a lot sooner then older people.

Adults who have both a full time job and a family to take care of don't have time to read up properly on political issues. Students could find time for it if they have a reason to unless there is an exam coming up.

how many young people do you know? would you like prime minister Scherzinger?

I don't see why they should have any more rights.

By the time they start caring about the stuff they cannot legally do until they are 18, they can't have much longer to wait. It teaches patience. Time flies and before you know it you're dead.(obviously) :p

I wouldn't go as far as the author of the article, but I do think too many parents baby their teens far too much. The rights and responsibilities of adulthood should be taken on gradually, not suddenly thrust on you. I've always said that the idea that someone is 100% a child at 17 years, 364 days, 23 hours, 23 minutes, and 23 seconds and suddenly 100% an adult 1 second later is complete BS.
It is gradual (in the US, anyway):
At the age of 13, you can join organizations without your parents consent.
At 15, you can get a learners permit.
At 16, a license.
At 18, you can vote, smoke and join the army.
At 21, you can drink.

And how do people react to a gradual series of elevations in legal status? Why, they bitch and moan because they can do X and Y, but not Z.

Ideally a gradual increase in rights and responsibilities would occur. However, I'm not sure how that could/would be put into practice. For one thing, if competency tests are used how does one measure competency? I know that at 12 years old I could outperform many adults on general academic skills tests, and my IQ is/was hardly at genius level. At what age or mental development stage do different rights/responsibilities kick in? In Japan a 13 year-old can fuck an adult, possibly resulting in offsping or stds, but can't vote. In the US an 18 year-old can join the military and die in action but can't drink an achoholic beverage.

I'm not sure what should be done. :(

I wouldn't go as far as the author of the article, but I do think too many parents baby their teens far too much. The rights and responsibilities of adulthood should be taken on gradually, not suddenly thrust on you. I've always said that the idea that someone is 100% a child at 17 years, 364 days, 23 hours, 23 minutes, and 23 seconds and suddenly 100% an adult 1 second later is complete BS.

I agree with the most of this paragraph, but the last sentence is flawed. The law is a blunt instrument, not a surgeon-wielded scalpel. When age is a determining factor with regard to law, there's no way around whatever limit is arrived at to set for what's legal and what's not. And a limit must be set because law enforcement is as blunt as the law itself. Asking a policeman to determine which underage person has his shit together and which doesn't is a losing proposition, and devising a licensure procedure for the many number of things a young person might be able to do, but not yet old enough to do according to law would be time intensive and very expensive.

In answer to the OP, I think it depends. I think modern adolecence is manufactured, but I think that adolecence itself is not. A teen's body may have fully developed, but their brain is still working on it. Everything I studied in teacher ed stated that the largest change of personality happens between ages 18 and 22. When you hit 22, you're more or less stuck with the personality you have (Baring exteme stress or trama of course). Teens seem shallow because most of the time they have started using full adult reasoning for the first time. Like begining drivers though, they have a tendancy to over use one thing and not use something else.

My own experiance has taught me this as well. When I taught junior high school, my kids would do something good and I could see the adults that they were very quickly becoming, but in the next minute they would revert to more childish behavore.

If anything, given how each individual goes though this at different rates, I would liken adolecence to training wheels. It maybe that we should start removing them earlier based upon what the individual shows, but there's a reason why you use them in the first place.

In answer to the OP, I think it depends. I think modern adolecence is manufactured, but I think that adolecence itself is not. A teen's body may have fully developed, but their brain is still working on it. Everything I studied in teacher ed stated that the largest change of personality happens between ages 18 and 22. When you hit 22, you're more or less stuck with the personality you have (Baring exteme stress or trama of course). Teens seem shallow because most of the time they have started using full adult reasoning for the first time. Like begining drivers though, they have a tendancy to over use one thing and not use something else.

My own experiance has taught me this as well. When I taught junior high school, my kids would do something good and I could see the adults that they were very quickly becoming, but in the next minute they would revert to more childish behavore.

If anything, given how each individual goes though this at different rates, I would liken adolecence to training wheels. It maybe that we should start removing them earlier based upon what the individual shows, but there's a reason why you use them in the first place.

...Though it's not quite that way for all of us. I could make very reasonable decisions at age nine. And looking back, I could make those same reasonable decisions when I was six. I remember that back when I was very young (four years old to seven years old), I often wondered why my classmates and other kids didn't think like I did. I never stopped to ask myself why they couldn't, though. I always thought that most of them were shallow and not very bright... And I was likely correct in that assumption. I don't mean to sound cold, but that's how life is.

That said, some of us develop very early and begin to use advanced reasoning before most people. This doesn't mean that the few of us who do should have more rights than those who don't... It simply means that all of us should have such rights, and it's absurd that it's not that way already.

It is gradual (in the US, anyway):
At the age of 13, you can join organizations without your parents consent.
At 15, you can get a learners permit.
At 16, a license.
At 18, you can vote, smoke and join the army.
At 21, you can drink.

And how do people react to a gradual series of elevations in legal status? Why, they bitch and moan because they can do X and Y, but not Z.

And these are the only legal rights and responsibilities of adulthood? Do you realize how many things suddenly happen when you turn 18?


I agree with the most of this paragraph, but the last sentence is flawed. The law is a blunt instrument, not a surgeon-wielded scalpel. When age is a determining factor with regard to law, there's no way around whatever limit is arrived at to set for what's legal and what's not. And a limit must be set because law enforcement is as blunt as the law itself. Asking a policeman to determine which underage person has his shit together and which doesn't is a losing proposition, and devising a licensure procedure for the many number of things a young person might be able to do, but not yet old enough to do according to law would be time intensive and very expensive.

I was really talking more about how parents look at it than the law itself. Parents can certainly allow their teens more rights and responsibility than they are required to by law.

However, even the law could (and does, to a point anyways) recognize that progression. Yes, the exact limit is fairly arbitrary, but the idea of increasing rights and responsibilities over time is there - albeit not to the extent I think it should.

That said, some of us develop very early and begin to use advanced reasoning before most people. This doesn't mean that the few of us who do should have more rights than those who don't... It simply means that all of us should have such rights, and it's absurd that it's not that way already.
Reasoning is only a part of it however. If you use Piaget's model for example, formal operations starts at around age 11. The point being, even though children around age 11 are capable of reasoning as adults, it doesn't always follow that they will do so (And even then, in formal there is a breakdown of how that develops).

Or to put it another way, a few years back I had the honor of working with the starting class of the Davidson Academy at the University of Nevada, Reno. These were children who are profoundly gifted, testing out at the 99th persentile. They were tackling university level classes at a middle school age that I, having just compleated my MS, wouldn't touch, or would have a hard time doing so. In terms of being able to reason logically, they took the cake... And they also had the same blind spots that my junior high school students and every textbook I studied said they would.

They need to do something about the 18 and 21 "instant ons."

A 10 year old should have more rights than a 2 year old, and a 16 year old should have more rights than a 10 year old.

Voting is another issue.

I've heard it in different places... the line about how teens shouldn't be allowed to vote because they would be uninformed.

Yet being uninformed doesn't stop "adults" from exercising this right.

I remember as a child asking my dad to go vote in an election. He told me he didn't want to but took me to the polling station nearest us in our riding and told me I could use his ballot. I did this three times while under age. I knew who I wanted to vote for.

What cracks me up is that the legal driving age is lower than the legal voting age.

Reasoning is only a part of it however. If you use Piaget's model for example, formal operations starts at around age 11. The point being, even though children around age 11 are capable of reasoning as adults, it doesn't always follow that they will do so (And even then, in formal there is a breakdown of how that develops).

Or to put it another way, a few years back I had the honor of working with the starting class of the Davidson Academy at the University of Nevada, Reno. These were children who are profoundly gifted, testing out at the 99th persentile. They were tackling university level classes at a middle school age that I, having just compleated my MS, wouldn't touch, or would have a hard time doing so. In terms of being able to reason logically, they took the cake... And they also had the same blind spots that my junior high school students and every textbook I studied said they would.

I never said being good at rote operations was a part of it. I was just as capable of critical thought when I was eleven years old as I am now, at nineteen.

The only difference between me and those 99th percentile kids (and I knew some of the very same "crop" in my public school) is that I didn't have parents who drilled math and logic problems into my head from the time I was three years old. And as I've noticed with these "gifted" children, every single one of them I've met has been a horse's ass, and hasn't really been intelligent in the true sense of the term. And all of them have been bullies, making fun of other kids and talking down to them because they make better grades.

I never had the problem of those little bastards doing that to me, though I got really steamed whenever they did it to anybody else. And don't even get me started with those "Gifted and Talented" classes --- I was in two of them (I was offered admission in all of my public schools, though I only accepted twice; once because the teacher wouldn't leave me alone, and the second time because my third grade class was horrible... turns out the G&T alternative was worse). And the kids in those classes, oh my goodness...

...Sorry about the rant, but this discussion has stirred my memories. And don't think for a second that you can tell me you have no idea of what I'm talking about.

Reasoning is only a part of it however. If you use Piaget's model for example, formal operations starts at around age 11. The point being, even though children around age 11 are capable of reasoning as adults, it doesn't always follow that they will do so (And even then, in formal there is a breakdown of how that develops).

Or to put it another way, a few years back I had the honor of working with the starting class of the Davidson Academy at the University of Nevada, Reno. These were children who are profoundly gifted, testing out at the 99th persentile. They were tackling university level classes at a middle school age that I, having just compleated my MS, wouldn't touch, or would have a hard time doing so. In terms of being able to reason logically, they took the cake... And they also had the same blind spots that my junior high school students and every textbook I studied said they would.

You taught at Davidson?! That's so cool. What year?

I read something similar to this in Scientific American Mind; it might have been by the same people. I agree, to a point, adolescence is mostly cultural. I'm not sure teens should have the same legal rights as adults, but I think it would be beneficial if they weren't treated so separately from them. In the article I read, the authors pointed out that adolescents who began working as apprentices or were farmhands were just as competent as adults, and I think the reason was because they were surrounded by competent people. Unfortunately, the "teenage culture" marketed by most industries is one of apathy and incompetence.

Who the hell uses a laptop...? Gah!


the same people who read while driving...

I'm 23 and my mom still tries to treat me like I'm an infant. She had a nice little freak out when I drove 45 mins on the highway with my dad when he helped me move (he was too tired to drive so I did) despite the fact that I've been driving for like 6 years.

Of course I don't live with my parents so them attempting to treat me like an infant doesn't work too well.

Has anyone read anything by Joseph Campbell? This reminds me of The Hero with a Thousand Faces a little, in that teenagers are not allowed to mature because they don't go through their rites of initiation which involves monomyths and Freudian psychology.

You taught at Davidson?! That's so cool. What year?
2004, the year it was the Davidson Summer Institute, the first year it was held. It was from that month long program that Davidson Academy was born. I informally teached as my position was as a residence assistant (Meaning I helped the kids with life in a university residence hall), but I got drafted as the tour guide, university guide, area guide, and (Since Sensei never wastes ANYTHING) after-class Japanese tutor. It ended up that most of my time was spent teaching, but that wasn't what I was paid for. ;)

I never said being good at rote operations was a part of it. I was just as capable of critical thought when I was eleven years old as I am now, at nineteen.
Not ROTE operations, FORMAL operations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_cognitive_development Formal operations usually starts off at around age 11, so, of course you can do the same ciritcal thought. The point is that even though adolecents are capable of it, they still have some large blind spots that the brain still needs to work out. Future plans for instance.

The only difference between me and those 99th percentile kids (and I knew some of the very same "crop" in my public school) is that I didn't have parents who drilled math and logic problems into my head from the time I was three years old.
Ah, no. These are the profoundly gifted, not just in school, but IQ, and a wide range of other areas. So, we're talking about young Mozarts and Einestines.

And as I've noticed with these "gifted" children, every single one of them I've met has been a horse's ass, and hasn't really been intelligent in the true sense of the term. And all of them have been bullies, making fun of other kids and talking down to them because they make better grades.
Actually these kids were more likely to be bullied than otherwise.

I never had the problem of those little bastards doing that to me, though I got really steamed whenever they did it to anybody else. And don't even get me started with those "Gifted and Talented" classes --- I was in two of them (I was offered admission in all of my public schools, though I only accepted twice; once because the teacher wouldn't leave me alone, and the second time because my third grade class was horrible... turns out the G&T alternative was worse). And the kids in those classes, oh my goodness...
G&T programs are VERY different from what Davidson is doing. Perhaps you should read up on it before ranting? http://www.davidsonacademy.unr.edu/

...Sorry about the rant, but this discussion has stirred my memories. And don't think for a second that you can tell me you have no idea of what I'm talking about.
Actually I would have to say so since it seems to be very uninformed about what I was talking about.

But, in any case, since you are 19, I would challenge you to wait about three years and come back and say just how muched you changed. You're heading into an area of extreme personal growth, if all human development theories I have read are true.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=pto-20070302-000002&page=1

I read this weeks ago. I was wondering what everyone thought? Is adolescence manufactured?

In what sense "manufactured" or "artificial?" All cultural views, like when someone is considered adult or not, are to an extent "manufactured." Strictly biologically speaking, an adult human is very well defined. Can you breed? Then you're an adult.

But we don't go by strict biology, because we have culture and society and intelligence and all these factors that influence what we define aspects of our lives as.

So I guess I would say you could say it's manufactured, but that's irrelevant. It's a little like arguments about homosexuality (or whatever) being "natural," as if whether it's "natural" versus "artificial" is some meaningful argument either for or against.

I found other points the guy made more compelling, rather than the grandiose attempt to generalize viz a viz "manufacturedness." Then again I found some statements he made, like "most Americans don't believe you're an adult til 26," to be untrue in my experience and a shaky assertion.

Should teens have more rights?

Meh. Nah. Maybe. I don't know. I don't trust teenagers, I didn't when I was a pre-adolescent, a teenager, and now at 27. I guess my view is as you progress in life, you make mistakes and learn from them. The problem is for a lot of activities, adolescence is when those mistakes are made. Imagine a whole class of people who couldn't handle their liquor, didn't know when not to drive, didn't really know how to drive and really wanted to drink and go places anyway. They'd be a menace! Such are teenagers.

while cameroi respectfully recognizes the argument that young people are gullable, we feel the signifigance of this argument largely nullified by the simple reality that ALL HUMANS of EVERY age are also gullible, and that there is no age at which anyone ever entirely ceases to be.

we cite as evidnce for this the existence of wars, and even to some degree the existence of nations, especially such nations as fail even to attempt to compensate the burden of their existence by seeing to the provision of environmentally harmonious infrastructure and the equatable distribution of access to resources.

=^^=
.../\...

Ridiculous.

There's pure empiric evidence that shows that teenage brains are not 'ready' yet. An ordinary brain scan would be enough.

Ridiculous.

There's pure empiric evidence that shows that teenage brains are not 'ready' yet. An ordinary brain scan would be enough.

we're not denying that, our whole point is that NO brain EVER is. although actually, we do sort of rather doubt that an oridinary, or any other kind of brain scan, shows anything of the sort.

unless it was that brain belonging to ab...y somebody. (yong fronkinschtine reference)

=^^=
.../\...

2004, the year it was the Davidson Summer Institute, the first year it was held. It was from that month long program that Davidson Academy was born. I informally teached as my position was as a residence assistant (Meaning I helped the kids with life in a university residence hall), but I got drafted as the tour guide, university guide, area guide, and (Since Sensei never wastes ANYTHING) after-class Japanese tutor. It ended up that most of my time was spent teaching, but that wasn't what I was paid for. ;)

My oldest was invited to visit Davidson and see if she wanted to apply last year, we decided against it for now because she and I would have to move there but hubby would not be able to come. We might look at it in the future, it's not like she is going to "out grow" it, or at least I hope she can't.....I mean from what I understand they will adjust to her. I kinda feel bad sending her anyway because her sister probably wouldn't be able to go....which isn't "fair", and I hate myself for thinking like that.

we're not denying that, our whole point is that NO brain EVER is. although actually, we do sort of rather doubt that an oridinary, or any other kind of brain scan, shows anything of the sort.

Huzzah! This sounds like another opportunity for Insufferable Neuroscience Geek to butt in!

It is absolutely true that our brains continue to change and develop throughout our lives. Damn good thing, too, because this on-going development is what allows us to learn new information!

However, it's also possible to designate some critical developmental hurdles or check points that we tend to reach at particular ages. For instance, a newborn infant has a pretty underdeveloped visual cortex (which makes sense, since a fetus in the womb isn't going to be seeing much). By about one year of age, however, a baby's vision will be pretty much "matured" to a level comparable to adult vision.

We can concretely identify when the visual cortex has developed to a given stage. We also know that if the brain has not yet reached a given stage of development, it will be unable to perform certain functions. For instance, we know that a newborn baby will simply not be able to focus on the face of its mother if she is sitting across the room. The brain can't handle this function yet.

Obviously vision is a relatively simple example when you compare it to more complex functions like higher reasoning abilities. But the same principles apply.

The prefrontal cortex is a critical brain region in humans, and it takes up about a quarter of our brain. It's mostly in charge of integration of information, and it is generally credited with "executive processes" like reasoning, planning, and problem-solving.

Research has established that the human prefrontal cortex goes through some very significant changes during adolescence, in terms of the number of neurons, the number of synapses (chemical connections to other neurons), and the projection pathways. It is completely reasonable, even likely, that these changes will also relate to behavioral and cognitive changes in the brain.

There is sound scientific reason to believe that the brains of young children and adolescents may not be capable of showing adult prefrontal cortex functions.

Should teenagers be more restricted in what they can and can't do than adults?

Yep sure they should.

There is sound scientific reason to believe that the brains of young children and adolescents may not be capable of showing adult prefrontal cortex functions.

indeed - though one might wonder about the desirability of requiring adult prefrontal cortex functions to run things, given the bang-up job they've been doing with them thus far...