3 ms·

But that's not the point. People with brains that are still developing are perfectly capable of functioning in 'adult' society. Many teenagers, and perhaps soci

But that's not the point. People with brains that are still developing are perfectly capable of functioning in 'adult' society. Many teenagers, and perhaps society as a whole, would benefit it we allowed those willing young people to make 'adult' contributions.

scott_s 17y ago
Your point is too nebulous for me to know what you're really trying to say. What do you mean by "functioning in 'adult' society"? What, specifically, do you think should be different? My point is that teenagers are mentally not adults, and as such, they should not be in the same place as society as adults. I'm not saying they should be completely divorced from it, but I worry when people claim that the concept of a "teenager" is completely a cultural construction. Neurological research indicates it is not.
- thewiglaf 17y ago
  I'm agreeing that they are different. I'm merely stating that the physical and neurological differences are not enough to legislate what young people can and can't do. Society will always view young people as inexperienced, and those youngsters who haven't proven themselves will always have their place in society. What would I make different? Not that it's practical (or even non-nebulous), but I would restore the "child-adult continuum" that the article mentions, because I agree with the author when he says the age-based restrictions tend to delay the onset of real, actual, adulthood. Which is bad.
  - evgen 17y ago
    Actually, these reasons are perfectly sufficient to draw an arbitrary age line. Everyone thinks they are "special" and the exception to the rule. This attitude is especially prevalent on sites like this. Unfortunately, much like our own estimation of our own driving ability in comparison to our view of the driving abilities of everyone else it is easy to see a strong degree of cognative bias in our answers. The reason that no one cares too much about an age line like this is that it hits everyone equally and eventually you will age past it. During the years immediately following this event you will see it as as unjust but you demographic insignificance will prevent any real change. Only when you can look back with the benefit of a decade or more of life-experience and hard-won wisdom will you be able to really make an objective judgement; restrictions that were unjust or ill advised from this perspective might change, but I would not expect much to appear unwise...
    - thewiglaf 17y ago
      I don't get it. Your reasoning for supporting an arbitrary age line is because after "a decade or more of life-experience and hard-won wisdom", your perspective changes and you'll know that it's not unwise. I don't doubt the benefit of experience and wisdom, but where is your actual reasoning? Logistically speaking, an arbitrary age limit is the best option for the way western urban society is set up (it actually self-reinforces the whole thing). The fact is that society does segregate young from old, and it does delay adulthood for a great number of teens. But I'm young and inexperienced, and in due time I will see that the way our society is set up is the only way, right?
      - evgen 17y ago
        A line needs to be drawn somewhere (since I doubt that you are you suggesting that a five year-old child should be considered "adult" enough to consent to sexual activity or that a ten year-old should be able to legally drive.) Where we draw the line is based upon culture, tradition, and sometimes it will shift up or down based on societal or technological changes. (And _all_ societies are like this, not just this one; a line is drawn in the sand to divide the adults from the children.) Yeah, I know it sounds lame, but as a matter of fact you _will_ have a better perspective upon the folly of your youth once you are well past it.
        David 17y ago
        I'd contend that with youth I have a better perspective on the folly of your adulthood just as you can perceive the folly of my youth. (I'm 17.) What makes your later view more correct than my earlier view, on this one? Accumulated experience generally correlates with more appropriate responses, granted. But inappropriate experiences lead to inappropriate responses. How do you verify that your experiences have led to correct conclusions? They are influenced by the society in which you live. And society (the entity itself, not the collection of people involved) generally prefers the status quo, because of natural selection. Of course there must be a line. There is a minimum level of development necessary for reasonable integration into a society with a specific set of values and expectations. But humans mature at different rates. Age is not the appropriate unit to be using, here. We need a measurement of an individual's ability to _grow_ from immersion in the adult world. Instead of the SATs, we need CATs... Coping Aptitude Tests. It's not such a big leap for the College Board, either. (Now all that's left is to figure out how to measure maturity. Sweet deal.)

scott_s 17y ago

Your point is too nebulous for me to know what you're really trying to say. What do you mean by "functioning in 'adult' society"? What, specifically, do you think should be different? My point is that teenagers are mentally not adults, and as such, they should not be in the same place as society as adults. I'm not saying they should be completely divorced from it, but I worry when people claim that the concept of a "teenager" is completely a cultural construction. Neurological research indicates it is not.

thewiglaf 17y ago
I'm agreeing that they are different. I'm merely stating that the physical and neurological differences are not enough to legislate what young people can and can't do. Society will always view young people as inexperienced, and those youngsters who haven't proven themselves will always have their place in society. What would I make different? Not that it's practical (or even non-nebulous), but I would restore the "child-adult continuum" that the article mentions, because I agree with the author when he says the age-based restrictions tend to delay the onset of real, actual, adulthood. Which is bad.
- evgen 17y ago
  Actually, these reasons are perfectly sufficient to draw an arbitrary age line. Everyone thinks they are "special" and the exception to the rule. This attitude is especially prevalent on sites like this. Unfortunately, much like our own estimation of our own driving ability in comparison to our view of the driving abilities of everyone else it is easy to see a strong degree of cognative bias in our answers. The reason that no one cares too much about an age line like this is that it hits everyone equally and eventually you will age past it. During the years immediately following this event you will see it as as unjust but you demographic insignificance will prevent any real change. Only when you can look back with the benefit of a decade or more of life-experience and hard-won wisdom will you be able to really make an objective judgement; restrictions that were unjust or ill advised from this perspective might change, but I would not expect much to appear unwise...
  - thewiglaf 17y ago
    I don't get it. Your reasoning for supporting an arbitrary age line is because after "a decade or more of life-experience and hard-won wisdom", your perspective changes and you'll know that it's not unwise. I don't doubt the benefit of experience and wisdom, but where is your actual reasoning? Logistically speaking, an arbitrary age limit is the best option for the way western urban society is set up (it actually self-reinforces the whole thing). The fact is that society does segregate young from old, and it does delay adulthood for a great number of teens. But I'm young and inexperienced, and in due time I will see that the way our society is set up is the only way, right?
    - evgen 17y ago
      A line needs to be drawn somewhere (since I doubt that you are you suggesting that a five year-old child should be considered "adult" enough to consent to sexual activity or that a ten year-old should be able to legally drive.) Where we draw the line is based upon culture, tradition, and sometimes it will shift up or down based on societal or technological changes. (And _all_ societies are like this, not just this one; a line is drawn in the sand to divide the adults from the children.) Yeah, I know it sounds lame, but as a matter of fact you _will_ have a better perspective upon the folly of your youth once you are well past it.
      - David 17y ago
        I'd contend that with youth I have a better perspective on the folly of your adulthood just as you can perceive the folly of my youth. (I'm 17.) What makes your later view more correct than my earlier view, on this one? Accumulated experience generally correlates with more appropriate responses, granted. But inappropriate experiences lead to inappropriate responses. How do you verify that your experiences have led to correct conclusions? They are influenced by the society in which you live. And society (the entity itself, not the collection of people involved) generally prefers the status quo, because of natural selection. Of course there must be a line. There is a minimum level of development necessary for reasonable integration into a society with a specific set of values and expectations. But humans mature at different rates. Age is not the appropriate unit to be using, here. We need a measurement of an individual's ability to _grow_ from immersion in the adult world. Instead of the SATs, we need CATs... Coping Aptitude Tests. It's not such a big leap for the College Board, either. (Now all that's left is to figure out how to measure maturity. Sweet deal.)