"We've invented adolescence, and stretched it out too far" says psychologist

[Jon Miller]

uote

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi


I wouldn't start in until high school myself, but in any case, I was just saying that such a system would have better results than the one you're proposing, not that it was a cure-all.

How so? In fact, I know people who stay home to help their family in the job (they aren't suppose to. They definitely don't have an advantage in learning the needed skills to have opportunity (Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic).

Yes. You do know that it has been proven that what is learned at the beginning of a semester is often forgotten by the end of it? It's based on continuity of use for a given bit of information, not just continuity of education in general. And in any case, I've already said that a year-round curriculum wouldn't be bad if it is taught much differently than the current system. I just wouldn't make it as long (either in weeks in session or hours per day) as you propose.

Continuity of Use. But a lot of things build on eachother (in reading, writing, and arithmetic). If the skills keep being used (those classes are required every term), then they will continue to build. Sure, a lot of history, art, science, what have you will be forgotten. But those are just suppose to let the kid have some general experience with such things which they might remember later (classes wouldn't be rote memorization) and maybe know what direction they want to go later.

Perhaps because structured recreation is not the same thing as unstructured time? You're suggesting 55hrs/wk of structured time. I don't care what you're doing in those 55hrs/wk, you can make them all play tag for all I care, it is not the same as unstructured time in which a child has to make decisions and learn to function as an independent human being.

You are making a lot of assumptions about my Recreation Time and Study Hall time. I had assumed that they could do whatever they wanted, within the confines of the school. There would, I imagine, be video games, a library, a gym, outside stuff, some toys, maybe even some TVs. I meant recreate, I didn't mean someone forcing them to play Tag.

I always hated when they would force me to go outside and I would sit on the curb to read my book instead of doing so inside.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


There are plenty of adults who aren't financially independent.

In fact, the model for most of the world, up until very recently is that you never were expected to be financially independent. You lived in your parents home and then you got married and moved out. So you would always be supported or supporting someone else.

Having 20 years where you are neither with your folks nor married was pretty much unheard of.

How can you expect to be able to make your own choices if your parents have to pay for your choices? How can you be responsible for your own purchases if your parents are paying for your food and shelter (some of the most expensive parts of it). And I did say capitalist society!

I know lots of people who at age 26 aren't really mature yet. That is because they live at home and are still not responsible for their own lives. In old times, being responsible for your own life meant a lot less since it was a more communal time, now is not.

This is something that I disagree with strongly. People who say that they have the right to do something, but then it is their parents who pay for it. How do they have the right to force their parents to pay for it? If you are living at your parents house, you should follow their rules. If you don't want to follow their rules, then move out.

Being independent is very important part of adulthood in our current society. It isn't independent to do whatever you want and then expect your parents to pay for it.

I also expect people to get married younger if the age where people are adults is lower. Additionally, I expect a lot less divorces, as a lot of divorces happen because the people who marry still want to be children. If they are never taught that they should stay being a child forever, which the current system teaches, then they will not wish to return to such a state so often.

JM

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


That doesn't answer my question. How can you be an adult (in a capitalist society) without being financially indepedent?

JM

This is the heart of it. The fundamental assumption of all societies I can think of, at all times, has been that the economically dependent are subject to the power of those upon whom they depend.

300, 200, even 100 years ago it might have been possible for a Western teen to be financially independent of his parents, either through apprenticeship or through homesteading. Neither of these is possible any longer in any meaningful way in an advanced capitalist society. What is possible is low-wage labor; the emancipation of teens would likely creat a new, large underclass -- not something democracies need.

[Odin]

Jon, not every young person would be able to handle what you are proposing. There are lots of people who function and learn better in a relatively unstructured environment (I am one of them).

One-size-fits-all education proposals that forget that people have different personalities, temperaments, and dispositions:

[Ben Kenobi]

How can you expect to be able to make your own choices if your parents have to pay for your choices? How can you be responsible for your own purchases if your parents are paying for your food and shelter (some of the most expensive parts of it). And I did say capitalist society!

Where did I say the parents would be paying for their choices. I am making the point is that it was unusual for one to be financially independent from their family. Either they were in their parents home, or they were married, with little time that would be devoted away from a family. You would always be supported or supporting others.

A better definition would be that adulthood is not financial or material independence, but the onset of many things, such as having a wife and kids of your own and a family to support. Adults are old enough to get married, children do not. I am comparing the folks I do know who are married with kids, and the ones that don't, and how different they are from one another. I think we are doing kids a disservice by insisting that they learn to become financially independent on their own prior to getting married, rather then getting married and having a family of one's own to support. The pattern did not used to be wait until you are 30 to get married, the pattern was as soon as you were old enough to work on your own you moved out, got married, had kids and made your own family.

This is something that I disagree with strongly. People who say that they have the right to do something, but then it is their parents who pay for it. How do they have the right to force their parents to pay for it? If you are living at your parents house, you should follow their rules. If you don't want to follow their rules, then move out.

I left at 18, Jon. I fully hear what you are saying, just I don't think it is good for adolescents to expect to wait 10 years before they get married. The happiest people I know got married right after they graduated high school.

I also expect people to get married younger if the age where people are adults is lower. Additionally, I expect a lot less divorces, as a lot of divorces happen because the people who marry still want to be children. If they are never taught that they should stay being a child forever, which the current system teaches, then they will not wish to return to such a state so often.

I would think that if children expected that when they were old enough to leave the house that they would get married, things would be very different today.

The other thing is that I know several young woman who are woman and adults, who are not financially independent from their families. Their husband works, and they stay home and look after their children. Would you consider these women children or adults?

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Odin
Jon, not every young person would be able to handle what you are proposing. There are lots of people who function and learn better in a relatively unstructured environment (I am one of them).

One-size-fits-all education proposals that forget that people have different personalities, temperaments, and dispositions:

We have that. I am suggesting making it 9 years instead of 12!

Other things that have been tried have failed, or required a lot more resources (particularly people).

JM

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Where did I say the parents would be paying for their choices. I am making the point is that it was unusual for one to be financially independent from their family. Either they were in their parents home, or they were married, with little time that would be devoted away from a family. You would always be supported or supporting others.

A better definition would be that adulthood is not financial or material independence, but the onset of many things, such as having a wife and kids of your own and a family to support. Adults are old enough to get married, children do not. I am comparing the folks I do know who are married with kids, and the ones that don't, and how different they are from one another. I think we are doing kids a disservice by insisting that they learn to become financially independent on their own prior to getting married, rather then getting married and having a family of one's own to support. The pattern did not used to be wait until you are 30 to get married, the pattern was as soon as you were old enough to work on your own you moved out, got married, had kids and made your own family.



I left at 18, Jon. I fully hear what you are saying, just I don't think it is good for adolescents to expect to wait 10 years before they get married. The happiest people I know got married right after they graduated high school.



I would think that if children expected that when they were old enough to leave the house that they would get married, things would be very different today.

The other thing is that I know several young woman who are woman and adults, who are not financially independent from their families. Their husband works, and they stay home and look after their children. Would you consider these women children or adults?

They are married. They form part of the adult with the father. Or do you not agree that marriage unites?

Have you read what I have written? And what others have written? The reason why people delay, and should, to get married/etc is because they are still children, or desire to be so. This lasts well past age 18, as described in my posts and the essay provided by aneeshm and the OP. It is this extended adolescence, which (adolescence) (biologically) shouldn't even exist, which causes people not to marry until they are 30. They are still desiring to be children before that, and some continue to do so for much later then even 30.

As I said, I think that if you had people becoming at adults at 14 instead of 22 (general age) that you will have people marrying at 18 instead of 26. I think that this would be better for everyone.

Please read and use logic if you desire to take part in the conversation.

JM

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
The reason why people delay, and should, to get married/etc is because they are still children, or desire to be so.

This isn't completely true. There are plenty of people who are mature and actually want to get married, but they don't do so because they haven't found the right person. I think marriage is a great thing, and I got married recently at a relatively young age (we both were 24), but I think that encouraging people to rush out and get married is disasterous.

There's no point in getting married unless you've found the right person. It's not necessarily a sign of maturity (in many cases it's actually the opposite- for example people who meet each other and marry after a month just for the thrill do so out of immaturity, not out of maturity)

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by OzzyKP


No, that is absolutely not true, as I said then. Pick up Epstein's book. Mentally we reach our peak at about 15. It is all down hill from there.

The real question is if 50 year olds biologically unfit to be regarded as adults.

Wasn't that a Sliders episode?

[Wiglaf]

No, that is absolutely not true, as I said then. Pick up Epstein's book. Mentally we reach our peak at about 15. It is all down hill from there.

ozzykp you are too much

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Wycoff


This isn't completely true. There are plenty of people who are mature and actually want to get married, but they don't do so because they haven't found the right person. I think marriage is a great thing, and I got married recently at a relatively young age (we both were 24), but I think that encouraging people to rush out and get married is disasterous.

There's no point in getting married unless you've found the right person. It's not necessarily a sign of maturity (in many cases it's actually the opposite- for example people who meet each other and marry after a month just for the thrill do so out of immaturity, not out of maturity)

People are very immature between the ages of 18 and 26. This makes it a lot harder to find the right person.

JM

[Ben Kenobi]

They are married. They form part of the adult with the father. Or do you not agree that marriage unites?

Yes it does, I hadn't see it that way. That's why I was using a different argument.

Have you read what I have written? And what others have written? The reason why people delay, and should, to get married/etc is because they are still children, or desire to be so.

I agree with you. I also know that there are many people who do want to get married at a young age who are discouraged by society from getting married so young.

Please read and use logic if you desire to take part in the conversation.

Well I'm not sure why you don't think I wouldn't be an ally in this conversation. I suggest you read my first post before jumping to conclusions.

I was disputing your absolute statement that the only type of adult independence is through financial independence, as I feel that it distorts the argument you are trying to make. I agree with you totally that all these other presuppositions you make are correct.

[Jon Miller]

I would think you were an ally, that is why I did understand your argument against me based on late marriage?

JM

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
That doesn't answer my question. How can you be an adult (in a capitalist society) without being financially indepedent?

As pointed out, there are many people who we currently label adults who are not financially independent. But yes, in our society, this is part of being an adult. However, it is not all of being an adult, and your system woefully neglects a lot of those other aspects (independence, social development, etc.)

Evidence. Not just my own.

Expand thy mind.

When we have a greater number of activities going on, things need to be structured. When there are a limited number of activities, if they decide to look at herbs at 3 or at 7 they can still do it. On the other hand, if they want to learn how to read, the teacher is only available between 3 and 3:55.

Perhaps you need things to be structured. This is not the only way, nor is it necessarily the best way. Once you learn to live without other people imposing structure upon you, you can impose it upon yourself. This too is part of being an adult. If the reading teacher is only available between 3 and 3:55, then that's when you have to do your reading...but what about all the parts of growing up that don't require a teacher? Or do you really think the classroom is the only (or even the most important) source of education?

You are saying that 4 hours isn't enough time to work towards goals, etc? Even watch some (not a ton) of TV? They should be spending some time studying anyways, why not set time aside during school for them to do that if they wish? How is that negative? (THey could also read or recreate or the like, I Guess).

Because then they're not doing it on their own! They're doing it because somebody else told them to, not because they find it rewarding. Even if they only do the homework because they know their parents expect them to, that's better than doing it right now, because they have no other choice. They do not have the opportunity to decide whether or not they value the work they're being given, to prioritize it alongside friends, television, and other parts of their life. Learning becomes something that happens in a school and stops when you get home, and when you finish school you're all done, period.

Umm, reality does conform to my concept. There are excamples of it done right, like it Kuci's highschool/etc. THe fact that it sometimes hasn't been implemented right isn't a failure of the idea, rather the application. And you haven't clearly said why it was socially damaging? A essay on why the current delayed educational system, caused it part by people giving plenty of time to play, is socially damaging has already been presented.

Look up the research. Robert Slavin, if I remember correctly. Homogeneous grouping only works in very specific circumstances, and even then provides few upsides while introducing several drawbacks (for performance, achievement, and social development.)

How so? In fact, I know people who stay home to help their family in the job (they aren't suppose to. They definitely don't have an advantage in learning the needed skills to have opportunity (Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic).

Can you be more specific, or at least clear enough that I have any idea what this has to do with the point? I wasn't saying we should have kids drop out at 14 and go to work instead.

Continuity of Use. But a lot of things build on eachother (in reading, writing, and arithmetic). If the skills keep being used (those classes are required every term), then they will continue to build. Sure, a lot of history, art, science, what have you will be forgotten. But those are just suppose to let the kid have some general experience with such things which they might remember later (classes wouldn't be rote memorization) and maybe know what direction they want to go later.

I already agreed that a year-round school year isn't inherently harmful...I never disagreed about that. It is the structure, timing, and lack of independence that makes your specific picture of what year-round education looks like so far off the mark.

You are making a lot of assumptions about my Recreation Time and Study Hall time. I had assumed that they could do whatever they wanted, within the confines of the school. There would, I imagine, be video games, a library, a gym, outside stuff, some toys, maybe even some TVs. I meant recreate, I didn't mean someone forcing them to play Tag.

So, what, it's just state-sponsored babysitting then? That'll work well...not only do you make sure the kids are constantly watched, but you pay the teachers to be as hands-off as possible while still controlling hundreds or thousands of kids in a confined space. And you just doubled the budget again by building and maintaining all these new facilities.

How can you expect to be able to make your own choices if your parents have to pay for your choices? How can you be responsible for your own purchases if your parents are paying for your food and shelter (some of the most expensive parts of it). And I did say capitalist society!

There are, in fact, consequential life decisions that do not require a loan from your parents that kids may need to learn about before they set out into the world. Your focus on money as the ultimate goal of growing up is a bit disturbing (though not uncommon.)

I also expect people to get married younger if the age where people are adults is lower. Additionally, I expect a lot less divorces, as a lot of divorces happen because the people who marry still want to be children. If they are never taught that they should stay being a child forever, which the current system teaches, then they will not wish to return to such a state so often.

That is indeed an interesting theory. Not one supported by any evidence I can think of, mind you, but interesting nonetheless.

We have that. I am suggesting making it 9 years instead of 12!

We have that due to lack of resources, and apparently lack of resources would no longer be a problem under your plan, so why not try something different and see if it works a bit better instead of just declaring the system inherently bad and making it as short as possible? Are you trying to make people hate learning?

the essay provided by aneeshm

The essay provided was by Paul Graham, who while sometimes interesting, I would not accept as a canonical source on, well, much.

Please read and use logic if you desire to take part in the conversation.

As I said, I think that if you had people becoming at adults at 14 instead of 22 (general age) that you will have people marrying at 18 instead of 26. I think that this would be better for everyone.

People are very immature between the ages of 18 and 26. This makes it a lot harder to find the right person.

And they'll be magically more mature at 14 just because they spent more time in school (where they were told what to do all the time and didn't have to think for themselves beyond their academic lessons?)

[Ben Kenobi]

I would think you were an ally, that is why I did understand your argument against me based on late marriage?

I was arguing that marriage is a way in which we have adults who are not financially independent through their own means, such as when the wife stays home to raise her children. She's dependent on her husband. That's all I was arguing, not against anything else you have said.

I hope what I meant by what I said is clearer now.