4 ms·

"I'm suspicious of this theory that thirteen-year-old kids are intrinsically messed up. If it's physiological, it should be universal. Are Mongol nomads all nih

"I'm suspicious of this theory that thirteen-year-old kids are intrinsically messed up. If it's physiological, it should be universal. Are Mongol nomads all nihilists at thirteen? I've read a lot of history, and I have not seen a single reference to this supposedly universal fact before the twentieth century. Teenage apprentices in the Renaissance seem to have been cheerful and eager. They got in fights and played tricks on one another of course (Michelangelo had his nose broken by a bully), but they weren't crazy. As far as I can tell, the concept of the hormone-crazed teenager is coeval with suburbia. I don't think this is a coincidence. I think teenagers are driven crazy by the life they're made to lead. Teenage apprentices in the Renaissance were working dogs. Teenagers now are neurotic lapdogs. Their craziness is the craziness of the idle everywhere." http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html "Largely because of a quirk of brain development, adolescents, on average, experience more anxiety and fear and have a harder time learning how not to be afraid than either children or adults." This doesn't pass the smell test. Historically, in every culture, young adults (and especially young men) have always been the big risk-takers; from moving to a new country, to dealing drugs, to enlisting in the army, to killing oneself for Allah.

rooster8 12y ago
The article goes on to answer that two paragraphs later: "You may wonder why, if adolescents have such enhanced capacity for anxiety, they are such novelty seekers and risk takers. It would seem that the two traits are at odds. The answer, in part, is that the brain’s reward center, just like its fear circuit, matures earlier than the prefrontal cortex. That reward center drives much of teenagers’ risky behavior. This behavioral paradox also helps explain why adolescents are particularly prone to injury and trauma. The top three killers of teenagers are accidents, homicide and suicide."
- apsec112 12y ago
  That both violates Occam's razor - you need to postulate two mechanisms instead of one, with no evidence presented - and common sense. On the battlefield, the brain's "reward center" (whatever that means) certainly isn't being activated. Yet the army doesn't refuse to recruit 20-year-olds because they'll inevitably be paralyzed with terror when the guns start firing. Indeed, 20-year-old men are the first people that every army wants to recruit, in all cultures and all time periods.
  - philtar 12y ago
    It may not be activated on the battlefield but it's certainly activated as you sign up for the battlefield. Back then it was to be called brave, death wasn't as scary as it is now. Now, we all want to lead long lives and so the things that scare us now are different from what scared them earlier.
  - Swizec 12y ago
    Because they are physically in good shape, healthy, and easily manipulatable. Glory of battle. Glory of startups. Glory of anything. Give me a 20 year old male and some cultural pressure, and I will make you a blind follower of anything.
    - brc 12y ago
      And have few, if any, life achievements to 'lose'. Be it career, wealth, family - whatever.
  - tlb 12y ago
    Occam's razor is a good heuristic for choosing physical laws, but not for human behavior. It's very common for behavior to be driven by two opposing instincts.
  - saraid216 12y ago
    > Yet the army doesn't refuse to recruit 20-year-olds because they'll inevitably be paralyzed with terror when the guns start firing. Indeed, 20-year-old men are the first people that every army wants to recruit, in all cultures and all time periods. That's what basic training is for. That, and developing unit cohesion. Everyone gets paralyzed by terror when the guns start firing. You work through that with desensitization. Part of the training is being shot at by blanks. Young people are recruited because of the items Swizec listed, not because of some magic brain wiring they have at that age. If you don't work through it, you get dead. Which is roughly how firefights between untrained gang members shape up. They freeze up and get shot. Bystanders freeze up and take a stray bullet. As simple as that. That's the fundamental difference between a trained and untrained gunman.
Angostura 12y ago
I found myself a bit suspicious of these two statements as well: 1. > The amygdala — is precocious and develops way ahead of the prefrontal cortex 2. > the brain’s reward center, just like its fear circuit, matures earlier than the prefrontal cortex I had a quick Google but couldn't really find any satisfactory research that would support this. Anyone have any papers? What does "mature" really mean in this context, how is it being measured?
novalis78 12y ago
That's so true. Having spent some time in Asia as a teen, I remember being surprised and impressed by how "normal" (or shall we say "mature" teenagers in South East Asia behaved when compared to their peers in Western Europe). This was in stark contrast to what the majority of adults back home believed to be a fundamental "law" for each generation, but somehow it seemed to have to do more with culture, family situation (large families vs small family in Europe, responsibilities, upbringing, religion etc. etc.) not so much a "phase" of "brain development".
brc 12y ago
Risk taking and enlisting in armies or expeditions or whatever is different to being fearful and crazy (which is what the article is saying). I prefer the pg explanation - the reason we have messed up teenagers is they don't have any life direction or things to do. I was speaking to a relative recently who just made it out of the teenage years. He is completely normal in every respect - doing well with his education, socially well adjusted, healthy, polite. But he had purpose and direction to his life very early on - learned to fly at age 16, got a part time job at 17, had specific interests that he pursued. He mostly ignored trying to fit into the social teenage life and this seems to have been a useful hack in getting around wasting time being an emotional wreck. I think give any teen a direction - even if it is front-line infantry - and they don't develop the neurotic self obsession that is common. Perhaps the reasons that young adults are enlisted in armies and for other risky activitys is precisely because they lack the experience to judge risk well, and because societies have found providing them regimented direction is better than leaving them idle?
- mercer 12y ago
  I grew up in a rather unusual environment where there was a high level of structure, a clear 'purpose' to life, and a safe, understandable environment to learn in. I did not really experience adolescence until well into my twenties when I had moved back into a more standard Western-European way of life. In my attempts to deal with that I found a support group of people coming from similar backgrounds, and regardless of their personality they largely had a similar experience. Anecdotally that at least seems to support your theory.

rooster8 12y ago

The article goes on to answer that two paragraphs later: "You may wonder why, if adolescents have such enhanced capacity for anxiety, they are such novelty seekers and risk takers. It would seem that the two traits are at odds. The answer, in part, is that the brain’s reward center, just like its fear circuit, matures earlier than the prefrontal cortex. That reward center drives much of teenagers’ risky behavior. This behavioral paradox also helps explain why adolescents are particularly prone to injury and trauma. The top three killers of teenagers are accidents, homicide and suicide."

apsec112 12y ago
That both violates Occam's razor - you need to postulate two mechanisms instead of one, with no evidence presented - and common sense. On the battlefield, the brain's "reward center" (whatever that means) certainly isn't being activated. Yet the army doesn't refuse to recruit 20-year-olds because they'll inevitably be paralyzed with terror when the guns start firing. Indeed, 20-year-old men are the first people that every army wants to recruit, in all cultures and all time periods.
- philtar 12y ago
  It may not be activated on the battlefield but it's certainly activated as you sign up for the battlefield. Back then it was to be called brave, death wasn't as scary as it is now. Now, we all want to lead long lives and so the things that scare us now are different from what scared them earlier.
- Swizec 12y ago
  Because they are physically in good shape, healthy, and easily manipulatable. Glory of battle. Glory of startups. Glory of anything. Give me a 20 year old male and some cultural pressure, and I will make you a blind follower of anything.
  - brc 12y ago
    And have few, if any, life achievements to 'lose'. Be it career, wealth, family - whatever.
- tlb 12y ago
  Occam's razor is a good heuristic for choosing physical laws, but not for human behavior. It's very common for behavior to be driven by two opposing instincts.
- saraid216 12y ago
  > Yet the army doesn't refuse to recruit 20-year-olds because they'll inevitably be paralyzed with terror when the guns start firing. Indeed, 20-year-old men are the first people that every army wants to recruit, in all cultures and all time periods. That's what basic training is for. That, and developing unit cohesion. Everyone gets paralyzed by terror when the guns start firing. You work through that with desensitization. Part of the training is being shot at by blanks. Young people are recruited because of the items Swizec listed, not because of some magic brain wiring they have at that age. If you don't work through it, you get dead. Which is roughly how firefights between untrained gang members shape up. They freeze up and get shot. Bystanders freeze up and take a stray bullet. As simple as that. That's the fundamental difference between a trained and untrained gunman.

Angostura 12y ago

I found myself a bit suspicious of these two statements as well: 1. > The amygdala — is precocious and develops way ahead of the prefrontal cortex 2. > the brain’s reward center, just like its fear circuit, matures earlier than the prefrontal cortex I had a quick Google but couldn't really find any satisfactory research that would support this. Anyone have any papers? What does "mature" really mean in this context, how is it being measured?

novalis78 12y ago

That's so true. Having spent some time in Asia as a teen, I remember being surprised and impressed by how "normal" (or shall we say "mature" teenagers in South East Asia behaved when compared to their peers in Western Europe). This was in stark contrast to what the majority of adults back home believed to be a fundamental "law" for each generation, but somehow it seemed to have to do more with culture, family situation (large families vs small family in Europe, responsibilities, upbringing, religion etc. etc.) not so much a "phase" of "brain development".

brc 12y ago

Risk taking and enlisting in armies or expeditions or whatever is different to being fearful and crazy (which is what the article is saying). I prefer the pg explanation - the reason we have messed up teenagers is they don't have any life direction or things to do. I was speaking to a relative recently who just made it out of the teenage years. He is completely normal in every respect - doing well with his education, socially well adjusted, healthy, polite. But he had purpose and direction to his life very early on - learned to fly at age 16, got a part time job at 17, had specific interests that he pursued. He mostly ignored trying to fit into the social teenage life and this seems to have been a useful hack in getting around wasting time being an emotional wreck. I think give any teen a direction - even if it is front-line infantry - and they don't develop the neurotic self obsession that is common. Perhaps the reasons that young adults are enlisted in armies and for other risky activitys is precisely because they lack the experience to judge risk well, and because societies have found providing them regimented direction is better than leaving them idle?

mercer 12y ago
I grew up in a rather unusual environment where there was a high level of structure, a clear 'purpose' to life, and a safe, understandable environment to learn in. I did not really experience adolescence until well into my twenties when I had moved back into a more standard Western-European way of life. In my attempts to deal with that I found a support group of people coming from similar backgrounds, and regardless of their personality they largely had a similar experience. Anecdotally that at least seems to support your theory.