
Are "teens" born or made? An interesting twist. - ChuckMcM
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
======
hasenj
It's my opinion that "adolescence" is a new social construct that is not
universal and not innate. It's more likely to be a self-fulfilling prophecy
more than anything else.

In older times, teenagers (above say, 14) were considered men, or young
adults. They would fight in armies, or even lead them. They were likely to be
married and maybe even have children.

For all intents and purposes, people of age 16 are not much different from
other adults except in that they don't have much experience in life. The only
reason they "rebel" is that society still treats them like children. Imagine a
30 year old man being treated as a little hopeless child by his parents; of
course he will show signs of resentment. It's not because he's "crazy", it's
the natural response.

Perhaps the reason is partly due to school. If you're in school (below
university/college level) you're a child "by definition" so to speak (from the
society's point of view).

If I was in charge, I would design the school system so that elementary and
secondary school end by the age 14 and then when you're 15 you'd be already in
college.

~~~
ardit33
"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).

~~~
electromagnetic
> (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.

~~~
wtn
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.

~~~
electromagnetic
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.

------
patio11
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.

~~~
Andrew_Quentin
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.

~~~
ahoyhere
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..."

~~~
kenjackson
_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.

~~~
ahoyhere
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.

~~~
kenjackson
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.

~~~
ahoyhere
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.

~~~
kenjackson
_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.

------
SoftwareMaven
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!

~~~
teyc
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.

~~~
wisty
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.

~~~
teyc
Quite the contrary. It is the availability of massive amount of idle time that
creates a demand/outlet.

------
forkandwait
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?

------
mml
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.

~~~
kenjackson
_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?

~~~
nolanw
The article points out that the societies have no word for "adolescent". The
parent was using a synonymous term, not one involving counting.

------
aik
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.

~~~
gallamine
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...](http://www.amazon.com/Different-Kind-Teacher-American-
Schooling/dp/1893163407/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1299594071&sr=8-1)) or _Dumbing
Us Down_ ([http://www.amazon.com/Dumbing-Down-Curriculum-Compulsory-
Sch...](http://www.amazon.com/Dumbing-Down-Curriculum-Compulsory-
Schooling/dp/0865714487/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1299594084&sr=1-1))

------
notahacker
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.

------
DanielBMarkham
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.

~~~
notahacker
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.

------
Detrus
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.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
>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/...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthcomment/geoffrey-
lean/6418553/Why-boys-are-turning-into-girls.html); other articles note the
increase in the use of soya in countless processed foods and the high levels
of oestrogenic chemicals it has.

~~~
Detrus
[http://www.cfah.org/hbns/archives/viewSupportDoc.cfm?support...](http://www.cfah.org/hbns/archives/viewSupportDoc.cfm?supportingDocID=936)

<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.

------
D_Alex
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.

------
skeltoac
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.

~~~
gallamine
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?

------
simonsquiff
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>

------
gohat
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.

------
mhb
A PhD who doesn't know that "data" is plural?

~~~
D_Alex
"Data is accepted as a singular mass noun in everyday educated usage" -
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data>, references given.

