Would you allow your 13 year old child on this forum?

[FlappyTheKinkajou]

I'm 15. 3 years ago, I tested as smarter, and undoubtedly more mature then an 18 year old.

Something about testing kind of makes that information weird.

 

[repeter]

Something about testing kind of makes that information weird.

Will you simply take my word that I'm mature?

 

[celticlord]

Will you simply take my word that I'm mature?

No.

Smarts and maturity do not correlate.

 

[FlappyTheKinkajou]

Will you simply take my word that I'm mature?

What does it mean for you to be mature?

 

[Goshin]

I'm 15. 3 years ago, I tested as smarter, and undoubtedly more mature then an 18 year old. I have had some crazy feelings before. I've felt intense anger, hatred, passion, lust, sadness, but I am have never let them control me. I've wanted to hurt people, I have wanted to hold people, to love them....but have never lost control. Goshin, it all depends on the person, and age's affect is simply one factor in a large list.

I don't entirely disagree with you. I've known 40 year olds who were as irresponsible as any teenager; I've known 15yo's who were better company and more intresting in conversation than many people twice their age.

However, these are the exceptions, not the norm. Even given that a 15yo may be unusually bright and "mature", there are certain perspectives in which experience makes an enormous difference. I can have a conversation with someone who has had many similar experiences to mine, and a lot of things can go unsaid but understood because of context. 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.

BTW, when I was 15, I argued that intellect and relative maturity were more important than "age" also. Yes, "age" is only a number in one sense, and for some people really that's all it is...but for a good many, "age" means experience, and that does make a difference.

I've put it mathmatically before like this:

E x I = W

Where E is experience, I is Intelligence, and W is Wisdom.

If you compute it out with different variables a few times, you see that people with more intelligence get more wisdom out of their experiences. People with NO intelligence get NO wisdom out of their experiences. :mrgreen:

But, no matter how high a value you assign to Intelligence, if E is 0 then W is 0.

It's just a mathmatical analogy of course, nothing more than a demonstration tool.... but I think it is pretty close to reality.

G.

 

[repeter]

What does it mean for you to be mature?

Well, my definition is different from yours, but I define it as not being childish, not allowing bad emotions to spill out, to avoid vulgarity, and to treat others with respect, regardless of background ( to certain extents of course). I also feel it is to be able to think rationally, and to act rationally.

 

[Tucker Case]

... to avoid vulgarity...

**** that!

 

[FlappyTheKinkajou]

Well, definition is different from yours,

What an assumption.

but I define it as not being childish,

What does being childish mean? What does not being childish mean? What does being childish look like? What does not being childish look like?

not allowing bad emotions to spill out,

What are emotions you would consider bad?

to avoid vulgarity,

agree.

and to treat others with respect, regardless of background ( to certain extents of course).

What actions must one take to show respect to another? Why must you disregard his background?

I also feel it is to be able to think rationally, and to act rationally.

agreed.

 

[repeter]

What an assumption.
What does being childish mean? What does not being childish mean? What does being childish look like? What does not being childish look like?
What are emotions you would consider bad?
What actions must one take to show respect to another? Why must you disregard his background?

I assume that my definition is different, because you and I undoubtedly think differently .

Childish, as in complaing about little things like food not being cooked correctly, not getting to go shopping, that sort of thing. Not being childish as in not getting fussy about the little things in life, like when it starts raining on a day you want to go out.....basically when you act like a 6 year old, when your 10 or older.

Over-reactions with anger, hate, lust when you shouldn't be lustful.

TO show respect to another person, you should listen to what he/she says. You should say thank you, hello, welcome. You should try to view things from their perspective, and you should not simply disregard something they say. You shouldn't be angry with them without reason, you should never hurt another person, and you should in general be kind. Common courtesies people ignore....

Background as in race, skin color, ethnicity, socio-economic status, age, height, weight, gender, etc.

If someone commited a crime, then you don't have the right to disrespect that person, but you should chastise them( to certain extents) for their crime. And crime as in stealing, hurting others, killing, kidnapping, mugging. Nothing like double park, a faux pas, shut the door on someone you didn't know was there, etc.

 

[FlappyTheKinkajou]

I assume that my definition is different, because you and I undoubtedly think differently .

Undoubtedly?

Childish, as in complaing about little things like food not being cooked correctly,

What do you mean?

Over-reactions with anger, hate, lust when you shouldn't be lustful.

How can you tell that you are over-reacting?

 

[rathi]

The thing about experience, is that politics is an area in which teenagers can match adults for experience. Most adults aren't really involved in the process. Simply visiting a site like this for 5 minutes a day and reading the breaking news section makes you much better informed than your average voter. A teenager with enough engagement can get experience.

 

[repeter]

Undoubtedly?
What do you mean?
How can you tell that you are over-reacting?

Well, at least you have less questions this time.

Every human on this planet thinks in their own unique way, so I assumed the same could be said about you and I.

You're asking me to quantify qualitative results..... I don't have an actual dictionary definition of over react.

If someone is acting childish, they are acting like a person below their age. Again.....quantify a qualitative result...I really can't.

 

[FlappyTheKinkajou]

Well, at least you have less questions this time.

Questions=bad?

Every human on this planet thinks in their own unique way,

source?

so I assumed the same could be said about you and I.

"you and ME"

You're asking me to quantify qualitative results.....

Am I?

I don't have an actual dictionary definition of over react.

Be resourceful.

If someone is acting childish, they are acting like a person below their age. Again.....quantify a qualitative result...I really can't.

What behavior sequence should be described in an average lifetime?

 

[repeter]

Questions=bad?
source?
"you and ME"
Am I?
Be resourceful.
What behavior sequence should be described in an average lifetime?

Questions= long post
Sorry
Well, it's kind of hard to define these words without going to a dictionary.
DICTIONARY HERE I COME.

"To react with unnecessary or inappropriate force, emotional display, or violence." Webster's Dictionary.

Childish:
Of, relating to, or suitable for a child or childhood: a high, childish voice; childish nightmares.

Marked by or indicating a lack of maturity; puerile: tired of your childish pranks.
Not complicated; simple.
Affected mentally by old age; senile.

Sorry, I couldn't think of any personal definitions.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Well, my definition is different from yours, but I define it as not being childish, not allowing bad emotions to spill out, to avoid vulgarity, and to treat others with respect, regardless of background ( to certain extents of course). I also feel it is to be able to think rationally, and to act rationally.

Here's the problem, repeter, not only with your definition, but with most others in regards to maturity: describe a test that can objectively define who is and who is not mature or the level of one's maturity. I know of none, and I work in the field.

 

[creativedreams]

Would you allow your 13 year old child to read and post on this forum?

Right now my 13yr old child is caught up in fossil & artifact hunting, nature, and video games(grrr!). He has the least bit interest in what's going on in the big picture and I hope it stays this way as long as possible so he can enjoy the simple things in life.....

 

[Tubub]

If there are some, no need to deny them, eh? I wasn't interested enough in politics to debate online when I was 13 (2 years ago) but I was definetely following events. I have a friend who has been stubborn, outspoken, and generally talkative forever. I've known him since he was 15 ( he's 17 now) but he had to have been mature enough to do this sort of thing.

If your 15, then why on another thread do you say you are going to Harvard and asked your professor about Economics? DOUBLE LIFE HERE :lol:

(BULLSHIUT!!!)

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

If your 15, then why on another thread do you say you are going to Harvard and asked your professor about Economics? DOUBLE LIFE HERE :lol:

(BULLSHIUT!!!)

I think he said he was in a summer program at Harvard. High schoolers often do that.

 

[FlappyTheKinkajou]

I think he said he was in a summer program at Harvard. High schoolers often do that.

Yeah, but asking his teacher about economics? That has GOT to be bull****.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Yeah, but asking his teacher about economics? That has GOT to be bull****.

I think the class he is taking is about economics. Asking a teacher of economics about economics would be completely appropriate.

 

[FlappyTheKinkajou]

I think the class he is taking is about economics. Asking a teacher of economics about economics would be completely appropriate.

It's a trap!

 

[alexa]

Having been exposed to the harsh reality too early with the civil war that started in Lebanon when I was 11, I wanted my son to fully enjoy his childhood as much as possible.

Only two years ago I subscribed him to a news magazine "Le Monde des Ados" designed for teens and now that he's 13 I encourage him to watch the news and ask questions.

I don't want him to base his political learning on the net because there's too much baseless crap being spread around. A forum such as this one would be too confusing for him even if I supervised.

I believe in the step by step learning and understanding of politics, not all at once.

You bring up a different aspect here which hasn't really been addressed - that is how much being aware of politics is good to the security of a young person.

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.

 

[Agnapostate]

This began with my saying that my prime importance with a 13 year old child of mine would be that s/he knew how to keep themselves safe on the internet and in later posts clarified that it was impossible to know who anyone you are talking to is.

I also pointed out that I have never had to deal with this situation as my daughter was over the age of 13 before any unsavory activity started on the internet. In fact she was 14 before I got a computer in 1995

I further pointed out that when my child was 13 she and her friends were aware of most of the scams which were going on anyway including some of the ones I was unaware of.

From the beginning you got on your hobby horse about how in the US (not where I live and I have not heard of the people you mentioned who apparently go on and on about this) there is an over emphasis on the danger to children and you appeared to be critical of any suggestions to children to be aware they did not know who they were talking to - which was what I was suggesting.

My own belief on the need to be aware is simply because of a few real cases we have had here. If I had a 13 year old I would not want them making arrangements in quiet to go off and meet someone they had met on the internet. That is my opinion and no amount of you huffing and puffing is going to change that.

As it happens and something which I also mentioned in my first post, my daughter knew anyway by 13 how to take care of herself so the likelihood of that happening anyway was highly unlikely. That does not change the fact that some children do and does not change the fact that I would want my child to be aware that she does not know who she is speaking to on the net and should be aware it could be anyone.

All right. To be clear, would you then advocate greater restrictions on the computer usage of youth than on the computer usage of other persons? If you would, would you also think it consistent to impose greater restrictions on the computer usage or net-related activities of women in regard to their susceptibility to violent crime committed by men? Would you repeat these same cautions to an older person, or do you approach with a perspective that adopts the assumption that youth are uniquely threatened or endangered by these alleged Internet predators?

That you then suggest I tell my daughter she is in as much danger from her extended family is absurd.

If I am wanting my child to know that when she is on the internet she has to take care I have no need to tell her that people who I know are of know danger to her may harm her.

If however I was educating my daughter on the statistics of various dangers and I had studied the one you mentioned and the statistics you gave were correct in this country then it would be appropriate to tell her that.

That however was not the case.

I of course don't live in the UK, but are you then claiming that youth ages 12 to 17 face a greater danger of physical violence from Internet predators than they do from family members in that country? Do you have statistical evidence to support that assertion?

And when discussing topics like an "indicator of internet predation", my anti-libertarian sentiments incline me to realize that behavioral predictors can be very accurate and useful and ignoring them for fear of labeling removes a valuable tool from ones arsenal.

This isn't merely a matter of "behavioral predictions." It's a matter of being rightfully disdainful of stories like 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.

But, I do agree with the second part of your statement: not all pedophiles are sexual offenders and not all sexual offenders are pedophiles, though the second group is more disputable than the first.

I've found that even those able to accept the fact (so contrary to proper misconception) that not all pedophiles are sexual offenders are unwilling to concede the reality that not all sexual offenders are pedophiles, and that plenty of situational offenders exist. They insist that any person who's sought any form of sexual interaction with children must therefore suffer from the mental illness of pedophilia, without considering the reality of there being specific diagnostic criteria established for that disorder. It's problematic, and I am of the opinion that discussion of its exact nature is a necessary element in preventing it from being utilized in ideological warfare as mentioned above.

Context and terminology is important. One does not discuss sex, for example, with a 4 year old in the same way as with a 12 year old. Restriction of information is not the issue. The ability to process the information is.

Actually, restriction of information is the issue. What's not commonly realized is that restriction of information is not merely so trivial as keeping children "protected" from elements that they are not "prepared" for; it plays a role in creating a chasmic division between adults and youth, the existence of which is then used as a means of justifying further arbitrary discrimination and segregation. But the frank reality is that in many ways, innocence is simply ignorance in a frilly pink dress. It's acceptable because it's manifested in a way appreciated by adult society because it caters to the whims of those who have an interest in upholding adult society. That's the basis behind the arbitrary division of different variants of ignorance; some forms of ignorance are critical to the sustainment of the current division between adults and youth.

I am a relativist on most issues. However, there is a good point to explaining things the way that you are describing in an ancillary way; though a child may live with non-violent parents, they may not always be subjected to non-violent adults, Better to have that understanding than believe that how things are at home is how things are everywhere.

My concern here has merely been on the deliberate ignorance of statistical evidence in favor of preconceived stereotypes and popular misconceptions. It's for that reason that my main focus is not strongly disputing the comments that you've made about the applicability and accuracy of the available statistical evidence; the fact that you show respect for the empirical process itself is already commendable.

 

[Agnapostate]

In my opinion, this would be impossible to assess. What would your proposal around determining this, be?

There are several possible approaches. The psychologist Robert Epstein (The Case Against Adolescence: Rediscovering the Adult in Every Teen, New York: Quill Driver Books, 2007) advocates government administration of competency tests to adolescent youth, with the premise being that successful passage of such tests indicates sufficient competency for what's presently defined as "adult" life. He writes:

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.

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.

"Maturity" is a question-begging term. We use "he's mature for his age" to describe a child or teen that has more sense, intellect and self-restraint than is commonplace.

Maturity, however, is more than just those things. Experience is one of the greatest differences between an exceptionally intelligent 15yo and an average-intelligence 25yo. It is the difference between knowing something intellectually, because you read it in a book, and knowing something in your gut because it actually happened to you (or in your presence) IRL.

I don't believe we can use such experience differentials to warrant or justify vastly different forms of legal treatment for those respective age groups any more than they could be used as such justification for inequitable treatment between those in their mid-20's and those in their mid-30's. We need to recognize the reality that individuals vary tremendously in their respective experiences and behaviors learned from those experiences, and that age alone is thus not a sufficient criterion for discrimination. Matters are complicated further when we consider Joshua Meyrowitz's (The Adultlike Child and the Childlike Adult: Socialization in an Electronic Age, Daedalus, Vol. 113, No. 3, Anticipations (Summer, 1984), pp. 19-48) observation that "those who insist upon the "naturalness" of our traditional conceptions of childhood are basing their belief on a very narrow cultural and historical perspective. Childhood and adulthood have been conceived of differently in different cultures, and child and adult roles have varied even within the same culture from one historical period to another.”

IIRC there is also the issue of brain structure maturity, that those parts of the brain relating to impulse control and so forth do not fully develop until around 20-25.

I wouldn't be so certain to use that as justification for preconceived stereotypes if I were you, much less justification for discrimination in terms of legal policy. I wouldn't personally deny that MRI and fMRI scans (presumably what you're referring to) provide us with intriguing observations of physical brain development, but we must be cautious about extrapolating data from these scans in an attempt to form broad policy approaches, as Jay Giedd, Laurence Steinberg, and Deborah Yurgelun-Todd have been far too quick to do, in my opinion. The chief opponent of this approach thus far has been the aforementioned psychologist Robert Epstein (former editor of Psychology Today), who writes this in The Myth of the Teen Brain, published in Scientific American Mind:

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.

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:

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.

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.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

I don't entirely disagree with you. I've known 40 year olds who were as irresponsible as any teenager; I've known 15yo's who were better company and more intresting in conversation than many people twice their age.

However, these are the exceptions, not the norm.

I've spent a lot of time around my daughter and her friends. I would argue that there is a certain percentage of teenagers, especially amongst the gifted population, where this is the norm. These kids are eerily intelligent and mature.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I've put it mathmatically before like this:

E x I = W

Where E is experience, I is Intelligence, and W is Wisdom.

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.