Are "teens" born or made? An interesting twist.(thesocietypages.org)
thesocietypages.org
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
15 comments
"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).
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).
> 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".
"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".
> (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.
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.
If you read between the lines, the authority of his office made it possible (and necessary) to order people around, but he didn't have the experience and training to be charismatic about it--he had not yet developed leadership skills.
Your point? Only good bosses have learnt leadership skills, bad bosses generally don't have the experience or training to be charismatic about it. I've seen far more bad bosses than good bosses.
The point you're making applies as much to a 40 year old boss as it does to a 16 year old boss. Leadership is an acquired skill without an age restriction, but people here on HN seem to want to instate an arbitrary age restriction on how they determine "too young" to be a boss. I really don't get why this would be when software and other tech industries are generally youth orientated and seen as ageist.
The point you're making applies as much to a 40 year old boss as it does to a 16 year old boss. Leadership is an acquired skill without an age restriction, but people here on HN seem to want to instate an arbitrary age restriction on how they determine "too young" to be a boss. I really don't get why this would be when software and other tech industries are generally youth orientated and seen as ageist.
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.
I would argue that the mental differences between a 28 and 40 year old are much less, however.
I'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.
How does the fact that the average age of first child in western societies hitting the 30 year old mark support the argument that there is a dramatic mental difference between those in their mid-20s and those in their mid-30s?
Maybe 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).
Heh - 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.)
(And thank god, because the 23-year-old me was both insufferably stupid and didn't know it.)
(Now at least I know it.)
Remind 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. :-)
At least we know there's a nonzero probability that your perceived insufferable stupidity is monotonically decreasing. :-)
I think most cultures consider their elders to have much much more wisdom than regular men.
Forty years old is an elder?
Not that per se, but wisdom increases with experience and age is a big factor in having experience. A 50 year old person is likely to have experienced much more than a 30 year old. So it's natural that you will find 16 year olds lacking in experience compared to say 28 year olds.
I'd say 28 year old entrepreneurs have very different risk profiles than 40 year olds, and therefore think very differently.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
I'm not sure if this person meant it in the same way, though.
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?"
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?"
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.
If our brains are continuously changing throughout our lives, you'll see differences on either side of any arbitrary cutoff point.
> 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.
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.
The 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.
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.
"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.
That was not what I meant in my original reply. Teenagers' brains are different from that of an adult - different in a way that a 30-year-old and a 50-year-olds brains are not different.
So, to be clear, the original claim was that teenagers are adults minus the experience. That claim is demonstrably not true. See http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1241194... or any other story that pops up when you Google "teenage brains."
So, to be clear, the original claim was that teenagers are adults minus the experience. That claim is demonstrably not true. See http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1241194... or any other story that pops up when you Google "teenage brains."
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.
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.
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.
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.
But it does serve as a sort of evidence that 16th century society didn't view teenagers the same way modern society views them.
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.
And nobody considers that a scandal, compared to them acting against their families' wishes.
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).
Replace "fighting in armies" with "working in the fields".
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.
I'd be hard pressed to name ONE class that was worth my time to attend.
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?
I 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.
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.
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.
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. :-)
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. :-)
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.
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.
> 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.
Most people in the UK would feel the same way. (I'm not sure if that's true to the same extent in non-English-speaking European countries.)
Most people in the UK would feel the same way. (I'm not sure if that's true to the same extent in non-English-speaking European countries.)
Are you still in Japan?
Asking because I'm curious whether this kind of adult/child relationship stigma is as prevalent there as it is in the U.S.
Asking because I'm curious whether this kind of adult/child relationship stigma is as prevalent there as it is in the U.S.
I think alienation from the larger community is not that abnormal of an experience these days.
That's quite possibly true. Maybe the plight of suburbia. While I agree that adult/child hanging out is not common, I don't think it ever was all that common. I can't imagine I'd have any reason to talk to most children. It's not that I'm afraid of a phone call, but I just don't think it would be very interesting to me.
At best I think you find that one adult who you can relate to in some offbeat way. Maybe painting fences, as you suggest. But still that just raises your number of adults to 4. It's just not common that a child will associate freely, and w/o supervision, with 150 random adults in their childhood.
That's quite possibly true. Maybe the plight of suburbia. While I agree that adult/child hanging out is not common, I don't think it ever was all that common. I can't imagine I'd have any reason to talk to most children. It's not that I'm afraid of a phone call, but I just don't think it would be very interesting to me.
At best I think you find that one adult who you can relate to in some offbeat way. Maybe painting fences, as you suggest. But still that just raises your number of adults to 4. It's just not common that a child will associate freely, and w/o supervision, with 150 random adults in their childhood.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..."
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..."
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.
This simply isn't consistent with those people who are given a lot of responsibility. Like those who leave home at 12 or so and go into the world on their own. You'd think they grow into the power brokers of this country, but instead they usually get the short end of the stick.
The US prison population is full of people who decided at an early age to shun their parents and branch out on their own. Although one thing I've noticed is that black people tend to think white people are really goofy -- even adults. Maybe while blacks are incarcerated at higher rates, they're actually more mature, on average.
In any case, having the shackles lifted (no adult supervision) doesn't seem to result in a better life.
This simply isn't consistent with those people who are given a lot of responsibility. Like those who leave home at 12 or so and go into the world on their own. You'd think they grow into the power brokers of this country, but instead they usually get the short end of the stick.
The US prison population is full of people who decided at an early age to shun their parents and branch out on their own. Although one thing I've noticed is that black people tend to think white people are really goofy -- even adults. Maybe while blacks are incarcerated at higher rates, they're actually more mature, on average.
In any case, having the shackles lifted (no adult supervision) doesn't seem to result in a better life.
There is an difference between taking responsebility for your own life and be left alone by your parents.
I'm currently 18 i didn't ever wanted to behave like an typical immature teenager. I think part of the reason is that my parents didn't disallow me anything. so they weren't my opponent, but a role model.
Straw man argument. I never said "stop supervising kids at 10 years old" or "12 year olds should leave home." Neither did I say that kids from impoverished homes fare better on cognitive tests. Ludicrous.
Not a strawman. But these are some of the few examples where teens effectively go into the adult world (in many cases acting as adults). And kids from impoverished homes often have to run the house. There aren't many controls. so I took some of the few that exist, as imperfect as they are.
The thing that is hard to reconcile is that the people who seem to be most lauded as successful have had the most supervised childhoods. Folks like Gates, Jobs, Obama, Clinton, etc... What they do share in common is that they break from the mold at about the cusp of traditional adulthood (around 18-21) -- not at age 13.
The thing that is hard to reconcile is that the people who seem to be most lauded as successful have had the most supervised childhoods. Folks like Gates, Jobs, Obama, Clinton, etc... What they do share in common is that they break from the mold at about the cusp of traditional adulthood (around 18-21) -- not at age 13.
Of course it's a straw man argument. Again, I never said that the solution was to force children to fend for themselves from 12 years old, or your latest number, 13.
What I said was: "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."
And "How can you learn that stupidity leads to crisis if you're never allowed to make your own decisions?"
Children from impoverished backgrounds in the United States are raised, such as it is, with incredible differences compared to children of well-off parents. They have a "30 million word gap" in terms of words spoken to them. They are not asked questions that cause them to think. They do not receive adequate nutrition.
You can't compare a poor child whose parents ignored him with a middle class child whose parents let him make his own decisions, like whether or not to do his homework, go to bed at a reasonable hour, earn and spend his own money, pay for some of his own bills, prepare his own lunches & do his own laundry, make dinner for the rest of the family, clean his room or not, work at a meaningful apprenticeship, date who he wanted when he felt ready to date, get piercings or dye hair, wear what he wants, etc.
In short: you are a troll. I hope you are joking but if you don't realize that you are a troll, you seriously need to deepen your thinking on subjects because you're just flapping about on the surface of a topic but you think you're making waves.
What I said was: "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."
And "How can you learn that stupidity leads to crisis if you're never allowed to make your own decisions?"
Children from impoverished backgrounds in the United States are raised, such as it is, with incredible differences compared to children of well-off parents. They have a "30 million word gap" in terms of words spoken to them. They are not asked questions that cause them to think. They do not receive adequate nutrition.
You can't compare a poor child whose parents ignored him with a middle class child whose parents let him make his own decisions, like whether or not to do his homework, go to bed at a reasonable hour, earn and spend his own money, pay for some of his own bills, prepare his own lunches & do his own laundry, make dinner for the rest of the family, clean his room or not, work at a meaningful apprenticeship, date who he wanted when he felt ready to date, get piercings or dye hair, wear what he wants, etc.
In short: you are a troll. I hope you are joking but if you don't realize that you are a troll, you seriously need to deepen your thinking on subjects because you're just flapping about on the surface of a topic but you think you're making waves.
In short: you are a troll. I hope you are joking but if you don't realize that you are a troll, you seriously need to deepen your thinking on subjects because you're just flapping about on the surface of a topic but you think you're making waves.
Thanks. I needed a tldr on that one. What you say may all be true. Hard for me to know because my brain hasn't fully formed since I wasn't allowed to do crack rocks and rob liquor stores in the evening with my friends.
In any case you can raise your children to be effectively parentless. That's your choice. Charlie Sheen gets paid better than most.
Thanks. I needed a tldr on that one. What you say may all be true. Hard for me to know because my brain hasn't fully formed since I wasn't allowed to do crack rocks and rob liquor stores in the evening with my friends.
In any case you can raise your children to be effectively parentless. That's your choice. Charlie Sheen gets paid better than most.
Well said. By defining teens, we have also inadvertently defined who they are not.
_How can you learn that stupidity leads to crisis if you're never allowed to make your own decisions?_
I don't agree with this. The whole thing about mixing with adults is the adults will tell the kids to avoid repeating the mistakes they made when they were young. The whole idea of "rebels without a cause" is based on the understanding that if they knew and internalized the knowledge, teens would be much more careful. By not taking teens into the adult tribe, the teens end up having to create their own tribes and culture.
_How can you learn that stupidity leads to crisis if you're never allowed to make your own decisions?_
I don't agree with this. The whole thing about mixing with adults is the adults will tell the kids to avoid repeating the mistakes they made when they were young. The whole idea of "rebels without a cause" is based on the understanding that if they knew and internalized the knowledge, teens would be much more careful. By not taking teens into the adult tribe, the teens end up having to create their own tribes and culture.
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.
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.
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.
Oh, the problem wasn't with your text--it was with the parser.
I deny the possibility of such a thing: I'm the professional communicator. If I get misunderstood then there was an opportunity for me to have phrased it better.
(Ditto for when Mrs. Smith thinks she was triple charged by The Googles for her software because she thinks one mail from me, one mail from Google, and one confirmation page counts as three charges. Not her fault -- my fault. I live and breathe e-commerce -- I should have made that more clear for someone who might only buy one thing online ever.)
(Ditto for when Mrs. Smith thinks she was triple charged by The Googles for her software because she thinks one mail from me, one mail from Google, and one confirmation page counts as three charges. Not her fault -- my fault. I live and breathe e-commerce -- I should have made that more clear for someone who might only buy one thing online ever.)
> Ditto for when Mrs. Smith thinks she was triple charged by The Googles [...] I should have made that more clear for someone who might only buy one thing online ever.
An intriguing observation, how did you solve the problem?
An intriguing observation, how did you solve the problem?
It is hard not to respect someone who treats their customers right AND treats fellow HN readers like customers, even when they are clearly in the wrong as I was.
I went to your profile and to bingocardcreator.com and appointmentreminder.org just to see how I may avail myself of such excellent service :) While I find myself not currently in the need for either product, I will be on the lookout for potential users for both.
Rock on.
I went to your profile and to bingocardcreator.com and appointmentreminder.org just to see how I may avail myself of such excellent service :) While I find myself not currently in the need for either product, I will be on the lookout for potential users for both.
Rock on.
I can confirm this finding. Assuming he hasn't edited his comment since my reply (a very fair assumption), I entirely missed his point.
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.
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!
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quite the contrary. It is the availability of massive amount of idle time that creates a demand/outlet.
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.
Have you seen the photos of kdis making bricks in the third world? These children are going to have just as much problems relating to adults.
The real matter is because there is no regular "place" where teens are welcome. Not in the office, nor in a workshop. They end up being with other "lost" teens.
The real matter is because there is no regular "place" where teens are welcome. Not in the office, nor in a workshop. They end up being with other "lost" teens.
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.
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.
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.
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...)
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...)
Wow, (at the risk of breaking the anti-meta rule) this is the kind of comment I love and come to HN for.
This entire topic has been heavily on my mind for the last few months as I'm transitioning to legal adulthood and am in the college application process. Questions about who and what I am as a person and what I'll do for the rest of my life have been prime things in the back of my head throughout the day, and along with it, a lot of existentialist crisis.
I've spent the last 7 years at the same 2 public schools and community college, and before that 6 years at private/theme/charter schools that had unique teaching styles and freedoms that they gave their students. I felt like I matured better there than during my time at public high school and middle school. Yet during the last two years at community college (I was/am dual-enrolled) the new feeling of freedom from inane rules like asking for permission to do real silly and small things like going to the bathroom, getting up to sharpen my pencil or blow my nose, and daily attendance to classes I had limited choice over was exhilarating at first. Having all this freedom all at once after 11 years of harsh rules however proved to be too much of a rush and with little to no accountability to authority figures who were always checking on your work and setting soft/easy boundaries on assignments and guidelines to be strictly followed...I lapsed into a phase of constant gaming and wasting time on other non-productive things (like HN ;).
After my grades came back that first semester, along with it was a cold slap of reality and a realization that I had to take responsibility over my own education and learn and excel in everything I do for my own sake. This is when I began to learn Python seriously, treat school as a day-job that I did well on. In normal school, there is little to push the person to do more than what is required after a certain "honors" level (the kinds of classes I took during my first two years of high school before transitioning to dual-enrollment). I never really thought of learning pure math recreationally, or that was A Thing even.
I think Heidegger's idea you mention is a great way to describe the feeling of "becoming" into someone/something that I'm not sure of yet. This idea is explained in pretty-good manner here[1] by Mac thecaster, a really interesting guy who has been lifecasting his own development in life for quite a few years now since he was 15 and now is about 19/20.
Getting involved in real-world activities as a teen has also helped me develop better as an adult; I've worked jack-of-all-trades at an ethnic restaurant, and learned to haggle/negotiate while buying meats, sell products to potential customers, treat them well so they spend more and often, and how to clean many types of things. I've learned from criminals, former DJs and salesmen, and auto-mechanics while working side-by-side with them washing dishes, grilling large orders of steaks, and had many more experiences while being treated as an adult than before in my life.
This is partly why I believe most people who go on summer trips with programs like People to People[2], and EPGY[3], and other summer learning or traveling retreats are more wholesome and well-rounded people. Considering the formidable costs associated with these organized trips and learning retreats, the mostly affluent/well-off kids are able to actually go to them, or even be aware of their existence (from siblings or peer-networking amongst parents from the same socio-economic class). This can be correlated with the recent post about[4] how more confident and successful children born into prosperous families are and decides a lot of things for them in the long run.
[1]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRgxp71tDgk
[2]: http://www.peopletopeople.com/Pages/default.aspx
[3]: http://epgy.stanford.edu
[4]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2296550
This entire topic has been heavily on my mind for the last few months as I'm transitioning to legal adulthood and am in the college application process. Questions about who and what I am as a person and what I'll do for the rest of my life have been prime things in the back of my head throughout the day, and along with it, a lot of existentialist crisis.
I've spent the last 7 years at the same 2 public schools and community college, and before that 6 years at private/theme/charter schools that had unique teaching styles and freedoms that they gave their students. I felt like I matured better there than during my time at public high school and middle school. Yet during the last two years at community college (I was/am dual-enrolled) the new feeling of freedom from inane rules like asking for permission to do real silly and small things like going to the bathroom, getting up to sharpen my pencil or blow my nose, and daily attendance to classes I had limited choice over was exhilarating at first. Having all this freedom all at once after 11 years of harsh rules however proved to be too much of a rush and with little to no accountability to authority figures who were always checking on your work and setting soft/easy boundaries on assignments and guidelines to be strictly followed...I lapsed into a phase of constant gaming and wasting time on other non-productive things (like HN ;).
After my grades came back that first semester, along with it was a cold slap of reality and a realization that I had to take responsibility over my own education and learn and excel in everything I do for my own sake. This is when I began to learn Python seriously, treat school as a day-job that I did well on. In normal school, there is little to push the person to do more than what is required after a certain "honors" level (the kinds of classes I took during my first two years of high school before transitioning to dual-enrollment). I never really thought of learning pure math recreationally, or that was A Thing even.
I think Heidegger's idea you mention is a great way to describe the feeling of "becoming" into someone/something that I'm not sure of yet. This idea is explained in pretty-good manner here[1] by Mac thecaster, a really interesting guy who has been lifecasting his own development in life for quite a few years now since he was 15 and now is about 19/20.
Getting involved in real-world activities as a teen has also helped me develop better as an adult; I've worked jack-of-all-trades at an ethnic restaurant, and learned to haggle/negotiate while buying meats, sell products to potential customers, treat them well so they spend more and often, and how to clean many types of things. I've learned from criminals, former DJs and salesmen, and auto-mechanics while working side-by-side with them washing dishes, grilling large orders of steaks, and had many more experiences while being treated as an adult than before in my life.
This is partly why I believe most people who go on summer trips with programs like People to People[2], and EPGY[3], and other summer learning or traveling retreats are more wholesome and well-rounded people. Considering the formidable costs associated with these organized trips and learning retreats, the mostly affluent/well-off kids are able to actually go to them, or even be aware of their existence (from siblings or peer-networking amongst parents from the same socio-economic class). This can be correlated with the recent post about[4] how more confident and successful children born into prosperous families are and decides a lot of things for them in the long run.
[1]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRgxp71tDgk
[2]: http://www.peopletopeople.com/Pages/default.aspx
[3]: http://epgy.stanford.edu
[4]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2296550
I found both "Manhood" and "Raising Boys" by Steve Biddulph ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Biddulph ) interesting reads. I can't say I agreed with everything in them, but they were thought provoking with the obligatory "that's obvious... why hadn't I thought of that already?" moments of a well written book.
If you happen to be Christian I also found "Healing the Masculine Soul" (Dalby, http://www.amazon.com/Healing-Masculine-Soul-Restoration-Man... ) helpful, but it is both explicitly Christian and theology heavy.
Edit: sorry, posted this in reply to the wrong comment by mistake.
If you happen to be Christian I also found "Healing the Masculine Soul" (Dalby, http://www.amazon.com/Healing-Masculine-Soul-Restoration-Man... ) helpful, but it is both explicitly Christian and theology heavy.
Edit: sorry, posted this in reply to the wrong comment by mistake.
The classical notion of ecstasis is to be outside oneself, as in the phrase "beside oneself with joy". That's very different from inhabiting an expanded self. Are you saying that Heidegger revised the classical notion? If so, did he do this as part of an extended critique?
Nietzsche was a classicist and Heidegger's whole philosophy (if I remember grad school) was about taking off from classical roots, so it's unlikely they would have changed this concept without saying why. I'd like to know where they say it.
This isn't merely theoretical. My experience has been that Nietzschean self-assertion, at least in its more vulgar forms, leads to unhappiness in the long run - and that taking the focus off self, as suggested by the etymology of "ecstasy", is a more viable strategy. (Then again - not necessarily in adolescence, but later.)
Nietzsche was a classicist and Heidegger's whole philosophy (if I remember grad school) was about taking off from classical roots, so it's unlikely they would have changed this concept without saying why. I'd like to know where they say it.
This isn't merely theoretical. My experience has been that Nietzschean self-assertion, at least in its more vulgar forms, leads to unhappiness in the long run - and that taking the focus off self, as suggested by the etymology of "ecstasy", is a more viable strategy. (Then again - not necessarily in adolescence, but later.)
> The classical notion of ecstasis is to be outside oneself, as in the phrase "beside oneself with joy".
Heidegger didn't really believe in a transcendent self, as far as my very amateur reading can tell. Rather, I think he was critiquing all things transcendent (yeah, Plato and Kant), and trying to show how things and experience would feel transcendent, even if they aren't.
I also think he used a lot of irony -- he talks about authenticity, and he sort of means it but he also sort thinks that any personal transcendence is just balderdash; so authenticity is facing both death and the lack of any final answer as to what is authentic. (All that a Dasein "is" is something that wonders what it "is". This self-questioning of being, or "is-ness", of both the world and ourselves, is fundamental to the human condition, and is where the "Being" of "Being in Time" comes from.)
Re ecstasis: He was talking about the phenomenological experience of interacting with the world. And I interpret "ecstasis" to mean "the process of expansion into the world" -- sort of getting outside one's "self", but with a sort of ironic notion of selfhood. Again, there is irony and allusion to the classical notion, but recast in his own phenomenology.
My rather loose interpetation of Nietzsche is that supposedly nietzschean self assertion is not really Nietzschean at all, but rather naive and foolish and immature. Zarathustra counsels against going to the city and indulging in pleasure.
YMMV -- I am just a guy talking in a bar about these things.
Heidegger didn't really believe in a transcendent self, as far as my very amateur reading can tell. Rather, I think he was critiquing all things transcendent (yeah, Plato and Kant), and trying to show how things and experience would feel transcendent, even if they aren't.
I also think he used a lot of irony -- he talks about authenticity, and he sort of means it but he also sort thinks that any personal transcendence is just balderdash; so authenticity is facing both death and the lack of any final answer as to what is authentic. (All that a Dasein "is" is something that wonders what it "is". This self-questioning of being, or "is-ness", of both the world and ourselves, is fundamental to the human condition, and is where the "Being" of "Being in Time" comes from.)
Re ecstasis: He was talking about the phenomenological experience of interacting with the world. And I interpret "ecstasis" to mean "the process of expansion into the world" -- sort of getting outside one's "self", but with a sort of ironic notion of selfhood. Again, there is irony and allusion to the classical notion, but recast in his own phenomenology.
My rather loose interpetation of Nietzsche is that supposedly nietzschean self assertion is not really Nietzschean at all, but rather naive and foolish and immature. Zarathustra counsels against going to the city and indulging in pleasure.
YMMV -- I am just a guy talking in a bar about these things.
I appreciate the reply, but I don't know what most of these words mean.
I guess the advantage of talking in a bar is that you can get an intuitive read of where the other person is coming from, then line up your personal vocabulary to better match theirs. This makes for more satisfying communication. Online discourse seems particularly ill-suited to talking about anything hard to define.
I guess the advantage of talking in a bar is that you can get an intuitive read of where the other person is coming from, then line up your personal vocabulary to better match theirs. This makes for more satisfying communication. Online discourse seems particularly ill-suited to talking about anything hard to define.
I'll summarize for you:
Nietzsche was nuts and Heidegger, like some sort of pre-computer age Perl programmer, had extreme difficulty explaining or even, apparently, _understanding_ what he had previously written. Sound familiar? Today philosophers' continue to argue about what they believe Heidegger was _trying_ to say as well as what he said.
If you absolutely _must_ consider any of this further I could do no better than recommend "Why Heideggerian AI Failed and how Fixing it would Require making it more Heideggerian" by Hubert L. Dreyfus, perhaps after a half-carafe of wine. For true inspiration, LSD would likely be better.
Sorry, that's the best I've got.
Nietzsche was nuts and Heidegger, like some sort of pre-computer age Perl programmer, had extreme difficulty explaining or even, apparently, _understanding_ what he had previously written. Sound familiar? Today philosophers' continue to argue about what they believe Heidegger was _trying_ to say as well as what he said.
If you absolutely _must_ consider any of this further I could do no better than recommend "Why Heideggerian AI Failed and how Fixing it would Require making it more Heideggerian" by Hubert L. Dreyfus, perhaps after a half-carafe of wine. For true inspiration, LSD would likely be better.
Sorry, that's the best I've got.
[deleted]
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...
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...
> Remember that this feeling is not necessarily correct.
It is natural non the less.
> They are really asking to be challenged or given responsibility, and they probably will fail or need a lot of help.
So it's the responsibility of their parents and the society at large to help them become independent, instead of beating them down and accusing them of being stupid and irrational.
It is natural non the less.
> They are really asking to be challenged or given responsibility, and they probably will fail or need a lot of help.
So it's the responsibility of their parents and the society at large to help them become independent, instead of beating them down and accusing them of being stupid and irrational.
Epstein published the horribly named "teen 2.0" if youre interested in his brand of thinking on the matter
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.
"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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
> 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".
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".
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?
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?
The article points out that the societies have no word for "adolescent". The parent was using a synonymous term, not one involving counting.
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.
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.
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...)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'd be interested to know how to even count "how many" restrictions one is subject to.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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
"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
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.
If so, then something like adolescence could likely also be susceptible to such an effect.
[deleted]
[deleted]
A PhD who doesn't know that "data" is plural?
"Data is accepted as a singular mass noun in everyday educated usage" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data, references given.
[deleted]
[deleted]
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.