Hacker News Reader

Comment by scott_s | Hacker News Reader

The assertion that teenagers have an 'immature' brain that necessarily causes turmoil is completely invalidated when we look at anthropological research from around the world.

That children and teens have an immature brain is supported by biological research:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1899715

http://harvardmagazine.com/2008/09/the-teen-brain.html

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/09/15/health/2008091...

I was not happy in high school (only ten years ago), so I think efforts to improve that period of people's lives are well spent. But I can't support something that starts from what I consider a faulty premise, which is the assumption that children and teens are miniature adults.

View on HN

What does 'mature' even mean in this context? Don't mistake "not finished growing/changing" with lacking the ability to make mature, thoughtful decisions if given the opportunity/responsibility.

One of the reasons teenagers act so irresponsibly is because they've grown up with the idea that teenagers are inherently irresponsible and therefore aren't completely accountable for their actions. It becomes self-fulfilling.

Full maturation of the brain - and I do think that indicates being able to reliably make "mature, thoughtful" decisions. I don't think you should deprive teenagers the opportunity to do so in the correct environment, but that's different from assuming they have the same mental faculties as adults.

Personally, I don't feel like I was a mature adult until about 22, and I was never considered an especially immature teen or young adult. I'm 28 now.

By that standard, probably half of the over-30s out there are not fully mature....

>I don't feel like I was a mature adult until about 22

Was that about the time you left college? I think a lot of feeling "mature" is actually having responsibility for yourself. If teenagers had responsibility for themselves, and didn't have the artificial environment of high school to pressure them in the wrong direction, I believe nearly all of them could be fully functioning adults.

I don't think mature brain connections correlates with mature decision making. People become adults when they're finally faced with adult decisions and have to deal with the consequences.

All one needs to make mature decisions is a sense of the consequences of actions and an ability to delay gratification to reach later goals. Both of which is fully within the grasp of teenagers, if they're taught properly growing up.

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

Your point is too nebulous for me to know what you're really trying to say. What do you mean by "functioning in 'adult' society"? What, specifically, do you think should be different?

My point is that teenagers are mentally not adults, and as such, they should not be in the same place as society as adults. I'm not saying they should be completely divorced from it, but I worry when people claim that the concept of a "teenager" is completely a cultural construction. Neurological research indicates it is not.

I'm agreeing that they are different. I'm merely stating that the physical and neurological differences are not enough to legislate what young people can and can't do. Society will always view young people as inexperienced, and those youngsters who haven't proven themselves will always have their place in society.

What would I make different? Not that it's practical (or even non-nebulous), but I would restore the "child-adult continuum" that the article mentions, because I agree with the author when he says the age-based restrictions tend to delay the onset of real, actual, adulthood. Which is bad.

Actually, these reasons are perfectly sufficient to draw an arbitrary age line. Everyone thinks they are "special" and the exception to the rule. This attitude is especially prevalent on sites like this. Unfortunately, much like our own estimation of our own driving ability in comparison to our view of the driving abilities of everyone else it is easy to see a strong degree of cognative bias in our answers.

The reason that no one cares too much about an age line like this is that it hits everyone equally and eventually you will age past it. During the years immediately following this event you will see it as as unjust but you demographic insignificance will prevent any real change. Only when you can look back with the benefit of a decade or more of life-experience and hard-won wisdom will you be able to really make an objective judgement; restrictions that were unjust or ill advised from this perspective might change, but I would not expect much to appear unwise...

I don't get it. Your reasoning for supporting an arbitrary age line is because after "a decade or more of life-experience and hard-won wisdom", your perspective changes and you'll know that it's not unwise. I don't doubt the benefit of experience and wisdom, but where is your actual reasoning?

Logistically speaking, an arbitrary age limit is the best option for the way western urban society is set up (it actually self-reinforces the whole thing). The fact is that society does segregate young from old, and it does delay adulthood for a great number of teens.

But I'm young and inexperienced, and in due time I will see that the way our society is set up is the only way, right?

A line needs to be drawn somewhere (since I doubt that you are you suggesting that a five year-old child should be considered "adult" enough to consent to sexual activity or that a ten year-old should be able to legally drive.) Where we draw the line is based upon culture, tradition, and sometimes it will shift up or down based on societal or technological changes. (And _all_ societies are like this, not just this one; a line is drawn in the sand to divide the adults from the children.)

Yeah, I know it sounds lame, but as a matter of fact you _will_ have a better perspective upon the folly of your youth once you are well past it.

I'd contend that with youth I have a better perspective on the folly of your adulthood just as you can perceive the folly of my youth. (I'm 17.) What makes your later view more correct than my earlier view, on this one?

Accumulated experience generally correlates with more appropriate responses, granted. But inappropriate experiences lead to inappropriate responses. How do you verify that your experiences have led to correct conclusions? They are influenced by the society in which you live. And society (the entity itself, not the collection of people involved) generally prefers the status quo, because of natural selection.

Of course there must be a line. There is a minimum level of development necessary for reasonable integration into a society with a specific set of values and expectations. But humans mature at different rates. Age is not the appropriate unit to be using, here. We need a measurement of an individual's ability to _grow_ from immersion in the adult world. Instead of the SATs, we need CATs... Coping Aptitude Tests. It's not such a big leap for the College Board, either. (Now all that's left is to figure out how to measure maturity. Sweet deal.)

This is exactly what I was thinking, but I couldn't come up with a way to articulate it as well as you did. I wanted to add that as you gain experience and wisdom, you may see just how hard it is to change society to behave in the 'ideal' fashion. Meaning as you become older, you learn better how to adapt to what society is and lose the desire to make society what you want it to be, simply because you learn that the former will give you results much quicker.

> I'd contend that with youth I have a better perspective on the folly of your adulthood just as you can perceive the folly of my youth. (I'm 17.) What makes your later view more correct than my earlier view, on this one?

Simple, I have experienced life from both perspectives while you have not. You have no basis for evaluating the folly of my adulthood because you have never experienced your own adulthood, while all of us who have made it this far fondly remember the joys and certainties of our youth. I do so miss that period of youthful rebellion, when we managed to figure out a couple of things about life and felt we were ready to pass judgement on everything around us; this conversation is already maxing out my deja vu quota for the week. Enjoy your youth and keep true to what you believe, it is the only way you will ever effect any change in the world, even though the particular cause that started this thread is a fools errand.

Our brain grows and develops not so much as a function of time but of experiences. I don't think MRI images of modern day teens is really enough to base a conclusion on. It may be true that teens today show less development but the reason for that is not a foregone conclusion.

I think what the author is trying to say in his article is that teens are capable of much more than they are allowed to do. And that very fact may be what causes the results in the research you linked above.

It would be interesting to see if/how this would change if their environment changed. The brain changes significantly based on its environment, so could the brain mature more quickly if the environment forced it to?

I'm not in any way saying it would, but it would be hard to prove otherwise.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com