Only if I supervised the participation
My daughter had no interest in politics when she was growing up. She belonged to that generation who felt completely powerless concerning their ability to change anything and although I would try and engage her in discussions, she had no real involvement - always with the reason that nothing she could no would change anything. For her politics was something she just trusted to the country she was from, almost in retrospect like a kind of super parent figure.
The change came for her with the Iraq war. I had warned her before the war of all my misgivings and she had listened for a short while and muttered really and oh in appropriate places but I was to discover later she had not taken in anything I had said. However when she discovered that Tony Blair had lied to us about weapons of mass destruction, she was totally shocked and temporarily devastated. Now she was around 22/23 at the time and her shock really surprised me because it wasn't until then that I realised that she had had this naive trust of our country.
She had nightmares for a couple of nights and was disturbed for a week. Then it settled and she had a much more real, grown up and critical view of politics.
This issue has not really been addressed.
Being 12 at the time of the Cuba missile crises myself and growing up with the constant knowledge that we could be blown asunder in our sleeps by nuclear weapons certainly caused an unnecessary amount of fear in my childhood.
I guess with a 13 year old I would still think they, well most of them, are well able to choose what they look at and come to their own decisions - but maybe there are other considerations.
Last edited by alexa; 06-26-09 at 03:48 AM.
this one, which is a symptom of a culture uninterested in the statistical reality that children may as well be struck by lightning as be kidnapped by a stranger and more interested in perpetuating crude myths about "stranger danger." As with the term "terrorist," we shouldn't be surprised to see the term "pedophile" become a crude device utilized for ideological warfare. For example, it's a reality that NAMBLA's historic identification with the early gay rights movement inclines some modern social conservatives to link the two; more than that, you'll find that Conservapedia's page on NAMBLA is descriptive of the organization as one of left-wing ideology. While that may actually be true to some extent, this description betrays an intent to connect certain leftist causes with pro-pedophile causes.
Though my opposition to competency tests has waned to some degree in recent years, it still remains to some extent. Aside from the more standard technical objections (whether criteria determination would be fair and objective, whether these tests could actually reflect technical ability, whether there would be certain areas where there would exist a propensity towards inaccurate results, etc.), I genuinely don't believe that competency tests are necessary in most cases. I'm of the belief that the best means of illustrating sufficient ability to exercise the rights and responsibilities of self-determination is to attempt it. Failure could mean a longer period of parental dependence and preparation for re-engagement in such exercises, and success could mean the gradual expansion of self-determination to all other facets of life. I can of course imagine a number of objections that you may have to such advocacy, and this and another thread has prompted me to start a thread specifically devoted to this topic. I'll probably do that sometime over the weekend when another person who I know would have a strong interest in the discussion will return.Young people should be extended full adult rights and responsibilities in each of a number of different areas as soon as they can demonstrate appropriate competence in each area. Passing appropriate tests will allow competent young people to become emancipated, sign contracts, start businesses, work, marry, and so on, but I am not suggesting that young people be given more "freedom." We need to start judging young people by their abilities, not their age, just as we're now increasingly doing with the elderly.
The Myth of the Teen Brain, published in Scientific American Mind:
Similar analysis is typically regarded to come from sociologist Mike Males, The "Teen Brain" Craze: New Science, or Ancient Politics?, though his approach primarily centers around evaluating the apparent lack of a connection between physical brain development and the actual behaviors of adolescents and similar age youth, since it would seem that a faulty or underdeveloped brain would make one inclined to greater risk-taking and similar behaviors. He writes this:This work seems to support the idea of the teen brain we see in the headlines until we realize two things. First, most of the brain changes that are observed during the teen years lie on a continuum of changes that take place over much of our lives. For example, a 1993 study by Jésus Pujol and his colleagues at the Autonomous University of Barcelona looked at changes in the corpus callosum—a massive structure that connects the two sides of the brain—over a two-year period with individuals between 11 and 61 years old. They found that although the rate of growth declined as people aged, this structure still grew by about 4 percent each year in people in their 40s (compared with a growth rate of 29 percent in their youngest subjects). Other studies, conducted by researchers such as Elizabeth Sowell of the University of California, Los Angeles, show that gray matter in the brain continues to disappear from childhood well into adulthood. Second, I have not been able to find even a single study that establishes a causal relation between the properties of the brain being examined and the problems we see in teens. By their very nature, imaging studies are correlational, showing simply that activity in the brain is associated with certain behavior or emotion. As we learn in elementary statistics courses, correlation does not even imply causation. In that sense, no imaging study could possibly identify the brain as a causal agent, no matter what areas of the brain were being observed.
Of far greater interest to me personally is the literature on the actual mental abilities and competence of adolescents and other youth to make rational and informed decisions, not snapshots of physical brain development that may necessarily diverge from analyses of actual mental functioning: effectively another necessary distinction between "the brain" and "the mind." I've referred to some of it here in the latest thread about parental notification/consent for abortion. And as I said, I'll probably be starting a thread devoted specifically to that topic, and I'll expect that you'd be interested in contributing.1. Adolescents, immature brains and all, are doing far better today than the supposedly cerebrally-developed midlifers complaining about them.
2. Scientists always seem to find biological flaws in the brains of populations that politicians and the public find fearsome or blameworthy for social problems.
3. The preponderance of laboratory research does not find significant differences between adult and teenage cognitive ability.
4. Scientists have not compared teenage and adult risk taking on a level playing field.
Conclusion: The supposedly immature brain development that renders teenagers naturally risk-prone mysteriously fails to affect teenagers from more affluent backgrounds, or from Europe or Japan (where youth poverty rates and dangers are low), who routinely display risks lower than adults do. Rather, “science’s discovery” of the problematic “teenage brain” is just the latest in a long, disgraceful history of alliances between officials, interest groups, sensational media, and a small number of scientists who serve their needs. The ability of authorities to scapegoat unpopular, powerless groups in society instead of facing difficult social problems—in this case, rising middle-aged drug and crime epidemics and the effects of poverty on youth risk—endangers Americans by preventing realistic solutions to serious crises.
Last edited by Agnapostate; 06-26-09 at 05:40 AM.
They sometimes have difficulty relating to their peers because they are so much more mature, in fact. My daughter is one of them. But, she's far from the only one.
This idea that teenagers are less capable of dealing with adult matters does not match my experiences with teens. In fact, more often than we would like to contemplate, teens deal with adult subjects that many of us refuse to contemplate: substance addicted parents, raising siblings, working to support the family. When you look specifically at inner city areas where crime is rampant, teen involvement in adult matters is even greater.
It largely depends on the teenager. My daughter unfortunately watched the dissolution of my marriage, and has subsequently had to cut off most contact with her father because he emotionally abused her (frequent references to her being fat, ugly, stupid, and iodiotic...she is none of those things). Let me tell you...her life experiences have made her far more mature than her father.With someone lacking a certain experience (such as having been married, being a parent) there are many things they are very unlikely to really understand on a deep level, for lack of that experience.
She not only understands the concept of marriage, but she also understands what it means to be a parent because I am very transparent in my parenting. She also understands the concept of having to cut someone out of your life because they are destructive to you. That's serious stuff.
The concept of wisdom versus intelligence is a false one.I've put it mathmatically before like this:
E x I = W
Where E is experience, I is Intelligence, and W is Wisdom.
You're trying to characterize something that is a subjective idea in concrete terms. Some people are very intelligent, have had lots of experience, and still haven't learned from them. They lack common sense, something my daughter has in spades, and something that is also subjective and impossible to quantify. There are multiple types of intelligence.
Last edited by Catz Part Deux; 06-26-09 at 06:17 AM.
I can tell you categorically that no one among the members of my family has been involved in physical violence against 12-17 year olds.
To give an example of parental responsibility. My daughter had got herself an HND in dance and was offered a place for one year to convert that into a degree - the first time the college had ever allowed anyone to do this in just one year. Her boyfriend however did not want her to do this because he was terrified she would meet someone new and leave him. I was adamant in my belief that what she should do was the degree. It is probably the only time I have held firm to my belief rather than just leaving it as an open decision for her - though of course it was her decision.
She is now very happy she did this as she has work she would not otherwise have got. That is parental responsibility. Speaking out on what you believe is best for your children. Some parents may think differently to myself and I may even believe they are wrong but they are doing what they believe is best for their children. Once a youth becomes independent they are responsible for themselves.
Last edited by alexa; 06-26-09 at 07:22 AM.
I think I've been scarred for life...
But on the other hand, I'm far better-informed than I was, and this is one of the better places on the internet to get a sense of the modern conservative viewpoint, as well as a source for interesting news you don't tend to see in the papers or on Yahoo.
If my future 13-year-old shares my curiosity, political interest and, for lack of a less narcissistic-sounding word, intelligence, I'd have no issue at all with them joining. If they were less sensible and more impressionable, I'd probably keep them away until I was convinced they could visit without getting sucked in by the 9/11 Truthers or blindly following the twisted envoronmental, social and financial arguments of certain posters.
Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat
You are talking, in this case, about teens who have had experience that is at least somewhat outside the norm... which I consider to prove my point about experience.This idea that teenagers are less capable of dealing with adult matters does not match my experiences with teens. In fact, more often than we would like to contemplate, teens deal with adult subjects that many of us refuse to contemplate: substance addicted parents, raising siblings, working to support the family. When you look specifically at inner city areas where crime is rampant, teen involvement in adult matters is even greater.
It largely depends on the teenager. My daughter unfortunately watched the dissolution of my marriage, and has subsequently had to cut off most contact with her father because he emotionally abused her (frequent references to her being fat, ugly, stupid, and iodiotic...she is none of those things). Let me tell you...her life experiences have made her far more mature than her father.
Semantics. I wasn't attempting to postulate a whole and complete theory of intelligence, experience and wisdom or common sense as a doctoral thesis; I was simply explaining and illustrating that experience does make a difference.The concept of wisdom versus intelligence is a false one.
You're trying to characterize something that is a subjective idea in concrete terms. Some people are very intelligent, have had lots of experience, and still haven't learned from them. They lack common sense, something my daughter has in spades, and something that is also subjective and impossible to quantify. There are multiple types of intelligence
Yes, there are people who are "intelligent" in a narrow, specialized manner ("book smart" as we say in Dixie) who have no common sense (also called wisdom, depending on how you want to define things.) I was referring to intelligence in the broader sense, of people who are capable of realizing cause and effect, analyzing their experiences and extracting the lessons or causal elements, etc.
Yes, everyone is an individual, and age is only one factor. However if you look at the median line of humanity, rather than the extremes of the gifted and the impaired, I think that wisdom is largely a function of age and experience, partly dependent on the person's intellectual ability to analyze and learn from their experiences.
Fiddling While Rome Burns
Carthago Delenda Est
"I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."