« Richard Rorty dies | Main | More utopian (dystopian?) health care plans »
The case against adolescence
Teens in America are in touch with their peers on average 65 hours a week, compared to about four hours a week in preindustrial cultures.
Here is more. The problem, of course, is that a contemporary wise and moderate 33 year old is looking to climb the career ladder, find a mate, or raise his babies. He doesn't have a great desire to educate unruly fifteen year olds and indeed he can insulate himself from them almost completely. He doesn't need a teenager to carry his net on the elephant hunt. Efficient capitalist production and rising wage rates lead to an increased sorting by age and the moral education of teens takes a hit.
Here is an interview with Robert Epstein, recommended. His new book, The Case Against Adolescence, argues that teenagers should be treated much more like adults.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on June 11, 2007 at 06:34 AM in History | Permalink
Comments
As a culture we are delaying childhood until the age of 22 or 23 years old and it is having an extremely negative
impact. Furthermore, young people are told that at 27 or 28 that they are "too young" to get married. The behaviorial impact of this near 30 year childhood is significant. I couldn't agree more with Epstein's observations.
Posted by: Jip at Jun 11, 2007 8:21:05 AM
"Teens in America are in touch with their peers on average 65 hours a week, compared to about four hours a week in preindustrial cultures."
This cannot be true, unless you are talking expressly about pre industrial American farms (if there is such a thing). Other than in the US, rural life is based on the village.
Throughout prehistory, humans probably travelled in small bands, and their would be lots of teens interacting every waking moment. Actually most "adults" would have been teens.
Then, most people gradually settled into villages, where again there were plenty of teen interaction. Much more than 4 hours a week. I have no idea what he is talking about.
Posted by: Robb Lutton at Jun 11, 2007 8:25:19 AM
This phenomenon has long intrigued me. There are peculiar challenges associated with raising children in the post-industrial / information age. I have observed the superiority of the Old-Order Mennonite (horse and buggy) / Amish model. Their children contribute to the family and family business at a very young age. They work side by side with the adults in the community. They learn how to be an adult by being with adults.
Posted by: Martin Kennedy at Jun 11, 2007 8:55:12 AM
I disagree about moral education. Most churches/religious bodies put a lot of effort into moral education and activities for teens, and there are plenty of summer camps, afterschool programs, and extracurricular activities for teens do the same. If anything, IMHO, it is more common for teenagers to be the Lisa Simpson style moralists of their family. (Or Euthyphro-style; this is not a new situation).
I am more sympathetic with 2blowhards' comments about career education and dealing with the real world, but even then, I wonder if the problem isn't lack of adult time, but increased specialization. My father, a lawyer, hectored me to his dying day about the importance of wearing nice suits to work and his disappointment in my attire, a less than useful lesson for my computer programming career, where my coworkers often found my khaki slacks to make me weirdly overdressed. The necessary lessons don't always translate from old fields to new.
Posted by: DK at Jun 11, 2007 8:59:31 AM
My feeling is that delayed maturity - 'psychological neoteny' - has pros and cons, but that overall it is an advantage in modernizing societies - primarily because it keeps people mentally-flexible, which is necessary in a rapidly and unpredictably changing world.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10section3a.t-3.html?ex=1323406800&en=3f6e420bd17f81e6&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Posted by: Bruce G Charlton at Jun 11, 2007 9:16:49 AM
As father's day approaches, I want to thank my father for involving me in meaningful work at a young age. I learned such things as electical wiring that was a good background for my engineering education. While in high school, I treasured the time that I spent outside of school.
DK makes a point about churches. Sure, most churches have specialized youth groups but, the church is an organization where you can continue to be a member throughout your life. The church deals fairly effectively with the transition from child to adult. A child is usually confirmed at 16 or 17 and is technically an adult member of the church.
I have a real problem with the rest of the extra curricular activies that were forced on students to fill out their college applications. Team sports or groups like model UN or student government ended upon graduation. Even if debating an imaginary crisis has value, it did not help us build connections to real governments or institutions which is the most important part of participating in a democracy.
When I worked as an engineer in Germany, I came across an older book in the engineering library that described how a master should treat an apprentice. It had a very detailed plan for introducing the apprentice to his trade guild and the steps to make the apprentice a master in his own right. While ridgid, there were many lessons that I will apply to raising my own children.
Posted by: MH at Jun 11, 2007 10:35:05 AM
This is only something to be worried about if you think that people's moral and social development is primarily a matter of interacting with or being explicitly taught by their elders. As a a matter of fact, that's a contentious claim. Most of the research I'm familiar with points to the influence of peer groups during the teenage years (and this is a cross-culturally stable fact if my understanding is right).
Posted by: Justin Blank at Jun 11, 2007 11:12:01 AM
Justin, have you ever read Lord of the Flies?
Posted by: 8 at Jun 11, 2007 12:11:04 PM
Lutton is right .Life expectancy was 19 years by that time
Posted by: Mja at Jun 11, 2007 1:39:23 PM
Paul Graham has a wonderful essay about just this at http://paulgraham.com/nerds.html
Posted by: me at Jun 11, 2007 1:57:21 PM
8 -
Lord of the Flies is fiction. Very much so.
Posted by: Nic "RedWord" Smith at Jun 11, 2007 2:11:08 PM
I referenced this post in a recent blog.
http://writing-in-the-margins.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Paul R. Dorasil at Jun 11, 2007 2:52:17 PM
When I worked as an engineer in Germany, I came across an older book in the engineering library that described how a master should treat an apprentice. It had a very detailed plan for introducing the apprentice to his trade guild and the steps to make the apprentice a master in his own right. While ridgid, there were many lessons that I will apply to raising my own children.
MH, would love to know the name of this book. Thanks.
Posted by: fustercluck at Jun 11, 2007 8:25:21 PM
I educate unruly 15-year-olds...
On the other hand, while I am surely contemporary, I am neither 33 nor, perhaps, wise.
At any rate, I wholly agree that we infantilize teenagers more than strictly necessary. Octavian conquered the world at 18, you know. Ditto Alexander.
Posted by: Andromeda at Jun 11, 2007 8:57:17 PM
"At any rate, I wholly agree that we infantilize teenagers more than strictly necessary. Octavian conquered the world at 18, you know. Ditto Alexander."
I think that is a really depressing thought for us 30-somethings who still don't actually have anything resembling an accomplishment. :-)
However, do note that both of these figures were born into positions of political priveledge in way that does not replicate in the modern era. I also wonder if modern systems are more complex (due to the ability to transfer information much faster than rider-back) and require longer mentorship.
All that being said, as noted above, Paul Graham has a good point about just how bad the modern situation is.
Posted by: Joseph Delaney at Jun 11, 2007 10:16:09 PM
"I was 24, younger than you are now. But times were different then, I was a man at that age: the master of a large plantation just south of New Orleans." Amazing how fiction often mirrors reality ...
In the present day, I have seen an entire kitchen run VERY competently by a GM that was 22-23 years old and a group of 16-20 year olds (and the shifts that weren't covered by 16-20 year olds were covered by Haitian immigrants, although they were more mid-20s-30s range, but the place still ran smoothly). The GM had no degree (he may have had his GED) but had worked at the place for 6-7 years, and the rest of us were either in high school or in JUCO. We got the 2nd highest franchise rating ever given out by this one team of evaluators during their inspection (in fairness, maybe we were competing against other 16-20 year olds). It "upset me to no end" (family blog, fill in words that we know teens know but want to think they have never seen before - and if your 8-year-old is reading MR then kudos to you, but they still probably know the word) that none of us (save the GM and the guys from Haiti) could legally buy a beer despite the fact that we were responsible enough to show up to work every day and get the job done. And I didn't even like beer then. What's worse is an 18-year-old can get his arm blown off serving the country and still has to wait a few years to legally get a beer.
Love the reference to Alexander conquering the world at 18. We'd just be letting him into the armed forces now. As long as he didn't talk about his male companions. I think it's safe to say he had some.
And the Paul Graham link was interesting. Thanks for posting it.
Ugh ... I could go on ranting about this topic for at least 3 hours ... must return to model building though. Need to climb that ladder.
Posted by: AZ at Jun 11, 2007 10:31:03 PM
My wife and I have been on this general subject for months now, and we've already come to a grand conclusion, which Epstein supports 100%, that despite efforts at reducing the exposure of pop-culture on our youth, they are still molded more so by their peers than their families. (In context to parents taking away the television, et cetera.)
Some of the earlier comments were missing the larger point of our modern society producing a sub-culture where the adolescent mindset goes unchecked. Even in a primitive society where perhaps there would be a great number of young people working together, they would be doing so in the larger context of the working, real world.
Not the little bubble of televised teenage-dom where everything is solved in 60 minutes or less, and we all ride off in the sunset with the girl, the money, the car and the cool tattoo to prove it.
It might be perfectly natural for a 15 year old to think they know everything, but putting them in an insular world that only reinforces such foolishness is devastating.
Posted by: Ray G at Jun 12, 2007 12:36:00 AM
I invite MR's readers to watch any of the many MTV-produced reality shows to see just how stupid, cynical, vapid, and self-absorbed modern young people are.
My Super Sweet Sixteen features spoiled rich kids demanding birthday extravaganzas that cost their parents hundreds of thousands of dollars. They are, without exception, horrible people, and have no problem with everyone knowing it.
The Real World, season after season, is populated by hard-partying, promiscuous, obnoxious, lazy, idiots. The producers assign the kids to work at what anyone would consider cushy jobs (sailing a yacht, producing short weekly radio and TV shows, lifeguarding, marketing for Arista Records) and every season the kids flake out on the work. It's hard to get to work by Noon, you see.
There are others, of course, but they are mostly retreads of the same ideas. What's truly interesting is to see what MTV is teaching kids to value: consumption and sexiness. The rich kids are lauded for squeezing the most out of their parents. No one makes any effort to display any behavior that would be welcome in any workplace. Indeed, if their income were disrupted you get the feeling that these kids would be completely lost.
As Epstein says, kids aren't inherently this stupid and useless. In fact, I'd say they're smart enough to understand the expectations everyone has for them, and exploit them fully. Why be a responsible, decent person if you don't have to be?
Posted by: Christina at Jun 12, 2007 12:47:31 PM
In a NYTimes article, Tyler Cowen argues that the "relatively unstructured lives of U.S. teenagers" ensures production of many young entrepreneurs. How does this impact the case against adolescence?
Posted by: guest at Jun 14, 2007 6:17:57 AM
On page 323 of Case Against Adolescence the author Robert Epstein states in his recommendations that
"parents or school authorities should be able to strike unemancipated young people only when they can demonstrate that other reasonable means of behavior management failed." This permission to strike adolescents and children in school is dangerous and over half the states in the US made it illegal and the important professional societies such as the American Medical Association, American Psychological Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, and National Association of Social Workers among numerous other organizations oppose it. On page 333 he states that corporal punishment is" the only technique we know that can supress behavior immediately or long term." There is no accepted scientific evidence to support this claim. As AN ADMINISTRATOR WITH 33 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE WITH CHILD ABUSE, NEGLECT AND EVERY TYPE OF SITUATION IN BETWEEN this scares me for the children. There is an avalanche of research that opposes his beliefs. Keep this in mind about this book.
Posted by: David Cooperson at Jul 21, 2007 3:01:12 PM
On page 323 of Case Against Adolescence the author Robert Epstein states in his recommendations that
"parents or school authorities should be able to strike unemancipated young people only when they can demonstrate that other reasonable means of behavior management failed." This permission to strike adolescents and children in school is dangerous and over half the states in the US made it illegal and the important professional societies such as the American Medical Association, American Psychological Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, and National Association of Social Workers among numerous other organizations oppose it. On page 333 he states that corporal punishment is" the only technique we know that can supress behavior immediately or long term." There is no accepted scientific evidence to support this claim. As AN ADMINISTRATOR WITH 33 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE WITH CHILD ABUSE, NEGLECT AND EVERY TYPE OF SITUATION IN BETWEEN this scares me for the children. There is an avalanche of research that opposes his beliefs. Keep this in mind about this book.
Posted by: David Cooperson at Jul 21, 2007 3:02:23 PM
I agree wholeheartedly with the philosophy behind Epstein's book. Childhood should end with the biological onset of adulthood. Teens act like children because we give them no other choice. We don't allow them access to meaningful employment and don't give them the option to move out and take responsibility for their own lives. So honestly, why should they act like responsible adults when they get nothing back for it?
As for striking unemancipated kids, if it motivates them to get out on their own more quickly, I say hit away.
Posted by: Omega Wolf at Sep 1, 2007 11:15:18 PM
Assaulting a minor is far to often a venting of frustration by the striker. It is seldom don't with the benefit of victim in mind. Assaulting minors is most often an attempt to humiliate the minor into submission. A healthy family life cannot use humiliation as a tool of teaching acceptable behavior. Adolescents crave respect - even when they suspect they are wrong.
Our culture suppresses self-esteem at a critical point in the developmental transition from child to adult. For the most part, I agree with Epstein (I haven't finished his book yet). I will admit that I struck my son a few times when he was an infant. I slapped his hand when he was endangering himself - to touch a hot stove. But, I always followed that up with an explanation ( not yelling ) of why I did what I did. I note that he stopped crying rather quickly and avoided those dangerous things. When out of doors he was always watched. He never ran into the street - not once. We talked to him as if he were an adult. He's 31 now and he seems just fine with a healthy self-esteem. I would commend the books of Haim Ginnot to complement Epstein.
Posted by: somewhar savvy at Sep 11, 2007 4:56:48 PM
Qualucno sa come posso suddividere una chiavetta da 4 giga in 3 parti, 2 da 500mb e una da 3 giga grz?Ciao a tutti mi hanno detto che quando mi regkstro su adsense prendolo il mio ip ma quale? quello del computer o quello di internet? [url=http://www.chat-libera.net/chat/chat-friuli-venezia-giulia.html]Chat Friuli Venezia Giulia[/url] ____________ addio
Posted by: extiteEtene at Apr 1, 2009 11:02:27 PM
It is seldom don't with the benefit of victim in mind. Assaulting minors is most often an attempt to humiliate the minor into submission. A healthy family life cannot use humiliation as a tool of teaching acceptable behavior. Adolescents crave respect - even when they suspect they are wrong.
Posted by: flash games at May 10, 2009 1:45:51 AM
