5 ms·
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 a
by hasenj 16y 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 16y 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 16y agoThere 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.
- rthomas6 16y agoI would argue that the mental differences between a 28 and 40 year old are much less, however.
- electromagnetic 16y agoI'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.
- rthomas6 16y agoMaybe 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).
- gyardley 16y agoHeh - 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.)
- nebaneba 16y agoRemind me to ask you what you think 11 years later. At least we know there's a nonzero probability that your perceived insufferable stupidity is monotonically decreasing. :-)
- scott_s 16y agoFor 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 16y agoBut 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.
- hasenj 16y 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.
- scott_s 16y agoThe 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.
- hasenj 16y ago"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.
- sliverstorm 16y agoI 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.
- jimbokun 16y agoThe same was often said of Apple during the mid-90s. I'm not sure if this person meant it in the same way, though.
- giardini 16y agoI 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.
- notahacker 16y agoI'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.
- hasenj 16y agoBut it does serve as a sort of evidence that 16th century society didn't view teenagers the same way modern society views them.
- brazzy 16y agoThere'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 16y agoRe: fighting in armies - absolutely true, hence the word infantry, but not necessarily a good thing (and I know you didn't say it was).
- hasenj 16y agoReplace "fighting in armies" with "working in the fields".
- yters 16y agoI'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.
- hasenj 16y agoOK, 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?
- yters 16y agoI can guarantee you that for the vast majority of my classes it would have been better if I'd gone off and studied on my own, which I do. I also hardly ever learn anything from my classmates, except one or two friends.
- apl 16y ago99% of all kids would simply crash and burn.
- yters 16y agoToday's children, yes. Which is why we need to get started ASAP. I fear for the future of civilization...