Nature or Nurture? Kids brains

[Beavah]

Yah, so in the parent thread a new forum member brings up the notion that has become popular of late that adolescents and teens are, for neurological/developmental reasons somehow fundamentally incapable of judgement, impulse control, or other higher-order processing. The implication whenever this gets brought up is that adults have to take care of these young people into their mid-twenties, because they are by virtue of biology incapable of exercising good judgment on their own.

 

I am obviously on one side of this argument, because I think this notion is complete balderdash, but it's an interestin' and important topic for those of us who work with kids in an outdoor environment where judgment is important, and learning judgment is important.

 

If yeh look at this, this popular press notion that everyone keeps repeatin' comes out of a few very small-scale fMRI studies on selected population, and is purely speculative on the part of the researchers in those papers. But da popular press does what sells copy, and this speculation became a titillating finding. That it flies in the face of decades of cognitive science research is ignored. That it is contradicted by cross-cultural behavioral studies is ignored. That to my mind is the hallmark of a prejudice, eh? Yeh take isolated, small out of context study speculation as "fact" and ignore a mountain of data that says otherwise.

 

As an old fart in an aging population that has increasingly chosen not to have kids, I think one of da worst prejudices we have developed is our prejudice against young people. Traditional scouting is counter-cultural in that way, and therefore practices like youth leadership and patrol method are under assault. Youth can't be trusted to lead or be on their own with their patrol because their biology isn't adequate. We of course have seen those kind of claims in uglier ways involvin' race and gender as well over the years, and I personally don't see these as bein' any different.

 

We had this discussion recently about how young adult ASMs should be viewed with suspicion: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=331624&p=1 which raised similar issues. There I pointed to a good, readable article that I felt addressed the science: Scientific American Article

 

That's my view, but I reckon it's a good thing to discuss, because a belief that teens are incapable really does have profound impacts on how we view patrol method and youth leadership in Scouting.

 

Beavah

 

[packsaddle]

I am of the thought that of what 'nature' giveth, 'nurture' can take away...if the wrong kind of nurture. This is based on a terribly inadequate subsample of selected case studies that I have personally observed and is therefore subject to tremendous potential error.

I agree with the comment, "That it is contradicted by cross-cultural behavioral studies is ignored." But those have been largely inadequate studies as well. I suspect that there are few conclusions we can make about human development or behavior that will not be accompanied by large error terms.

So, on the basis of exercising my increasing embrace of the 'null' side of most hypotheses (which is one more facet of being an 'old fart') I tend to accept the solid foundation upon which nature rests and am suspicious of the mercurial world of those who would promote 'their' versions of 'nurture'.

[Basementdweller]

I know a few young men who simply can't make a judgement call. I think it is a parenting issue in their case. They were raised with no consequences for their actions.

[JMHawkins]

If people under 25 are biologically incapable of being full-fledged, responsible adults, then it's a very, very recent mutuation. For most of our existance as a species, teenagers were expected to be responsible members of society. Most traditional "coming-of-age" ceremonies for boys happen around 12 to 14 years old.

 

At any rate, the concept that our sexual maturity would happen 10 years before we became nuerologically capable of responsibility is nonsense on stilts. It would indicate a level of incompetence in the design of the human genome that creationists would never ascribe to God and darwinists could never explain as any sort of evolutionary process. Raising chidren, especially infants, requires more responsibility than just about any other activity we routinely engage in. Throughout most of our history, teenagers were parents of young children, and if they were incapable of responsibility, none of us would be here. Our ancestors would all have died from neglect as infants.

 

As an engineer, one of the things you learn is a concept loosely called "numeracy." It's that ability to look at the results of a bunch of calculations and decide if the number is reasonable. It helps catch errors. If your calculations show that the girders for the new highway bridge can be made out of steel girders the size of matchsticks, then there's an error somewhere because that's obviously a nonsensical answer. It used to be that science required a good deal of engineering because the scientists had to invent their instruments. I've noticed over the years that scientists have become less and less engineers.

[boomerscout]

"Famous American inventor and futurist Buckminster Fuller (July 12, 1895 July 1, 1983) made perhaps one of the most important observations about the education system over 40 years ago.

 

All children are born geniuses he said and we spend the first six years of their lives degeniusing them.

 

The data seems to bear this out.

 

Longitudinal studies show that while 98% of kindergarten children score in the genius range for divergent thinking, the percentage significantly shrinks the more formal education the child receives!

 

We are born with divergent thinking - the essential ability to be creative which is very much a part of the human DNA. We are hardwired to think creatively.

 

This has shaped the history of human civilization.

 

Yet, most education systems over the last 100 years is to suppress this innate human ability.

 

We have gone down the path of moulding young minds to be average.

 

In suppressing creativity, we have unwittingly encouraged mediocrity.

 

In relegating creativity to footnote in the curriculum, we have diminished the brilliance of millions of students."

 

cribbed from an education website

 

 

[packsaddle]

"At any rate, the concept that our sexual maturity would happen 10 years before we became nuerologically capable of responsibility is nonsense on stilts."

I'm not sure why stilts need to be invoked, lol, but there actually ARE some reasonable explanations for this from the evolutionary side...IF you buy the argument that they DO occur at different times in the life history (and I'm not quite ready to buy this yet).

From a humorous perspective, however, which I enjoy in these matters, I can see the evolutionary advantage of spreading the genome as quickly and far as possible BEFORE we can think about it too carefully. I mean...has anyone watched their children in a temper tantrum and thought to themselves..."What the 'heck' was I thinking?"

 

What I CAN tell you with great certainty is that having children does not necessarily have ANYTHING to do with wisdom. It DOES have a lot to do with having the energy and stamina to be able to invest in those children so that they grow to maturity and go off and spread more of your genome for you. And for THAT, the younger parents have a great advantage over the older parents. Either way, probably shouldn't think about it too carefully or we might opt for that cushy retirement or a hideaway in the islands...instead of that tantrum.

[Engineer61]

Yes.

 

I firmly believe that children, teenagers and young adults do not fully comprehend the long term effects or consequences of their decisions.

 

I also believe that effective (or ineffective) nurturing can alter this capability.

 

Why do we see more obvious examples of this now than 40 years ago? Duh. Larger sample size to draw from and better communication.

 

 

[Kudu]

 

"Traditional scouting is counter-cultural in that way, and therefore practices like youth leadership and patrol method are under assault. Youth can't be trusted to lead or be on their own with their patrol because their biology isn't adequate."

 

Youth can't be trusted to lead or be on their own with their Patrol because we took the Patrol Leaders' position-specific training away from them and undermined backwoods competency with the invention of six-month PORs.

 

I like to use Russell Crowe's "Master and Commander" in "Patrol Leaders Only" training weekends to show our "squeakers" of what they are biologically capable:

 

http://inquiry.net/patrol/training/movies.htm

 

The film might appear "dated" to those who insist that modern indoor office managers know more about "leadership" than Baden-Powell did. Certainly, a tale in which a one-armed 13-year-old midshipman assumes command of a man-of-war ship in a battle at sea would be a poor choice for those who forbid 13-year-old Eagles!

 

Yours at 300 feet,

 

Kudu

http://kudu.net

 

[Eagle92]

Please bear with me. It's been a long time sine I've taken human development courses as part of my education minor. It's also been a while since I took science courses.

 

As others have stated, historically people became adults anywhere from 12-16 years of age. It's only been since the late 19th century if memory serves that the concept of 'adolescence" has come about and the theories, let's face it there is no actual proof, on the human brain not developing until age 25.

 

Let look at some things. Look at the ages of religious ceremonies that mark adulthood and the age it occurs. I know as a Catholic, Confirmation for me was 13.

 

Look at military service records from the colonial period all the way up to the US Civil war and you see 12 and 13 year olds on unit roosters, and sometimes even younger.

 

In another thread on this topic, I mention what Washington, Franklin, and Jefferson, among others, did things at the ages of 18-26, that most people today would not dream of allowing folks in that age bracket do. Washington at 18 was a surveyor for Virginia. and a colonial of militia in his 20s.

 

And let's not forget the Marquis de LaFayette, Custer, and a host of other 'boy generals"

 

And we can go into antiquity. Alexander assumed the throne and began his conquest at age 18.

 

In my opinion, the reason why many youth have no concept of responsibility is because SOCIETY as a whole doesn't encourage it. Let's face it, schools do not hold folks accountable like they did 30, 50, 100 years ago. Businesses which once took folks right out of high school now want folks to have associate degrees or higher. Look at some of the shows on TV where you got late 20 somethings and thirtysomthings acting like their still in HS. shall I go on?

 

I know that my company has a lot of vets on staff. Now part of that is b/c we are a military town, but part of it is because the US military still give 17-25 year old responsibilities, with enforceable consequences. When they get out, they have the sense of responsibility and the discipline that is lacking in most of their non-military peers.

 

[Trevorum]

I think there is abundant evidence that young adults (say, 16-23 years old) tend to make different choices and different decisions than people older than this. That's not to say those decisions are right or wrong, just different. For one thing, people of that age tend not to comprehend as fully our own mortality and the fragility of our lives. They tend to take risks that older people tend to avoid. I remember making absolutely insane choices when I was that age, because I didn't know any better and because it was exciting.

 

That's one of the chief reasons, of course, that cannon fodder has always consisted primarily of people of this age group. As long as there have been wars, most of the warriors who have been killed have been young. Most of the generals and kings of course have been old farts like us.

[scout_father]

I am the new forum member that Beavah is talking about. I want to clear up Beavahs complete misrepresentation of what I brought up for two reasons. 1) I dont like having things incorrectly attributed to me, and 2) I think it would lead to more interesting comments from others.

 

I never used the term fundamentally incapable. I never used the word incapable. I never broached anything about having to take care of kids until their mid-twenties. For the record, I too find Beavahs opening paragraph complete balderdash.

 

The term I used was, difficulty of impulse control. This difficulty is based on kids difficulties with making quick sound judgments. I also said they cant control themselves all the time due to the immaturity of their neurological development . This is all based on current neurological studies by some very prominent doctors and scientists in which I agree. It also helps me understand why sometimes a really good boy does something so out of character, so out of the blue, so nonsensical that it leaves you wondering why; and when asked why, they say I dont know.

 

Keeping in mind I'm not out to change anyone's thinking, it would be interesting to hear your thoughts on these less provocative comments.

[Eagle92]

One of the reasons for "difficulty with impulse control" is that most kids these days do not have responsibilities with consequences. Example of controlling impulses: ever notice kids will spend their parents money like water, but give them money to spend they takle their sweet old time?

 

And while you cite research by neurologists, you forget to add that other neurologists disagree with the research and state other age categories that have the same brain wave patterns.

[Beavah]

Yah, well, let's consider a bit.

 

If yeh don't actually believe that young people are fundamentally incapable of impulse control, then wouldn't the proper response to noting a lack of impulse control be to educate? Perhaps somethin' like what Eagle92 suggests?

 

One of the things that's true is that free play for kids has declined dramatically in favor of adult-organized play dates and activities. So it should be no surprise that self-regulation and impulse control has declined in parallel with that loss of experience. The response then would be that kids need more opportunity for self-directed responsibility. Alternately, yeh could scan kids brains, notice that they don't behave the same as brains that have developed more self-control, and conclude that yeh can't do anything about it so yeh need still more adult presence and control.

 

What struck me about scout_father's approach was that it inserted more adult control, and denied that education, developing discipline, higher levels of youth experience, etc. were able to address the perceived problem. The problem lies entirely with the boys. That to my mind is a statement that he feels the issue is indeed one of fundamental lack of capability. Those are my words, but only because I don't know how else to interpret those actions and words. If yeh believe it is a physical brain feature that yeh can't control, then yeh believe it's a fundamental characteristic.

 

Now here's a thought experiment. When mature, full-frontal lobe adults get stopped by the police for speeding and asked why they're going' so fast, how many do yeh suppose answer honestly? And how many do yeh suppose give some excuse or say "I don't know?". The "I don't know" response from kids is the rational non-committal response to give to an angry authority figure. Like making excuses, it is a learned response, because yeh learn fairly quickly that sayin' "because I think the rule is stupid" or "because I thought it would be fun to try" gets the authority more upset. "I don't know" is a result of adult behavior, not a statement about the kid's mental state.

 

As yeh get older, it's funny how some memories are really strong, eh? One for me is way back in nursery school, there were days when a mom would visit, and during snacks yeh could sit next to your mom. When my mom came, a little girl had sat next to my mom. I was flummoxed. I didn't know what to do. I had no experience with this before. So I pulled the chair out from under the little girl.

 

I'm sure that when my mom, quite upset with me, demanded to know why I had done that I said "I don't know.". But that was just because that is the safest response to give to angry authority. I knew exactly why I had done it, it was because the norm was yeh sit next to your mom, I wanted to do that, someone was there, I'd never experienced that before, and I didn't know what action to take, so I tried one. That one didn't work well, so my trial helped me to learn. I was perfectly capable of controlling my impulses, and in fact I never again pulled a chair out from under anyone. The issue wasn't lack of ability, it was lack of experience. As a four year old with an assigned place at the dinner table at home, I had never had experience with "Excuse me, would you mind moving over one so I can sit next to my mom?". So my mom taught me that option.

 

That's the difference , eh? If yeh believe that kids are capable and expect 'em to learn, then yeh do one thing, and that thing strongly resembles traditional, youth-led, patrol-method Scouting. Yeh give 'em chances to learn. If yeh don't believe they are capable, then yeh do another, eh? And that other more closely resembles adult-run, troop method scouting. Yeh assign seats from now on in young Beavah's nursery school.

 

Beavah

 

 

 

[boomerscout]

I've seen something similar in primary school. During "art" in kindergarten, most everyone paints, draws, sketches and has a grand ol' time. By fifth grade most everyone says they can't do art

[qwazse]

Some things are iterative processes. If Nurture doesn't involve giving the brain lots of challenges, some with a probability of failure, the brain will develop poorly.

 

Nature demands an adaptive system.