quote:For example, the researchers might say: "You want to go to the cinema. Do you look at the newspaper?"
When thinking about what they would do, both age groups used the same neural pathway; but different parts of the pathway were most active in the two groups.
Adults used a brain area towards the front of the pathway, called the medial prefrontal cortex, to come up with their answers. Adolescents showed more brain activity in the superior temporal sulcus - an area at the rear.
"The superior temporal sulcus is usually used in making simple actions, or watching other people make actions," said Dr Blakemore. "We think adolescents are performing this task by simply thinking about the action they're going to take.
"The part of the brain that the adults are using more is involved in much higher level thinking, such as thinking about the consequences of your actions in terms of other peoples' emotions and feelings."
I'm posting this without comment.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read this the other day, and I have a question: Are teens not taking into account the feelings of others because their brains will not allow them to, or are they not using their brains in a way that shows up that way simply because they are taught that it's okay to be that way as teens?
Not all teens are ignorant of the feelings of others. Is that because their brains are different or because they've been taught differently?
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
And I would add to that: Are teens' brains really going to change or did these researchers just happen to get ahold of a group of young people with less empathy?
There's nothing in the research reports I've seen to suggest that this possibility isn't also valid.
But really, I'm most curious about the teens who DO show empathy and more "adult" decision-making. Did their brains mature early and thus show the adult activity patterns, or do they accomplish their mental feats another way?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's hard to draw the line between nature and nurture in these cases, even conceptually. Are these sorts of changes in the brain learning, or are they physical maturation?
Perhaps there's no principled difference between the two.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And what about adults who show little empathy in their decision-making? Was their brain growth stunted in some way?
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Megan: that's a good question. Speaking from personal experience, I would say: Yes.
My mother-in-law developed toxemia in her first pregnancy (1956). Her doctor prescribed a can of beer a day as a diuretic. (She was too young to buy, so her husband had to.)
She continued to drink beer during four pregnancies, in between and for the rest of her life. I don't know if her kids had fetal alcohol syndrome or not, but for the most part they have made some real bone-headed mistakes in their lives. The oldest one is the best - although he didn't graduate from high school, he is a very productive member of society, homeowner, etc. The other three, however ...
One let a gambling problem cost him his family. He later was arrested for meth-making and spent time in prison. We don't know where he is or if he's even alive.
One was a master shoplifter for many years, until he was caught. He cost his dad a job because they worked for the same company and he did a payroll scam. F-I-L retired because of it.
And the last (actually third of four sons) develops strong attachments to Internet friends. This to the point of planning to leave his family and go live with one or another of these friends. (All female, of course.) He's currently planning to leave in about three weeks to go stay with his best friend - a married woman with two young children. She's got cancer and needs to take care of herself, but he's still planning to go there. He changes his mind frequently - to the point where he says one day he's leaving for good, the next that he's going for a couple of weeks, then he says he's going to move to a different state or even just move in our area but just not live with us.
So, yeah, I think that these four men, based on what I know about them, did have something stunted or affected. There are other factors, of course. My husband started smoking at the age of five and his parents didn't stop him. All four boys smoked pot and did other drugs. They all stole - whether cars, cash, bikes, etc. Their parents didn't take them to church. (Which I think is very much related to their problems.)
I think it's a combination of nature (alchohol during pregnancy, smoking, drugs) and nurture (no spiritual guidance or making them know that their actions do have consequences).
I have sooo much more to say, but I think I'm on the verge of ranting. Posts: 2034 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would argue that some lack of empathy is important for teens. Would a teen have the guts to pick the major he wanted if he really had to stop and consider his dad's hurt feelings at not picking his major? Would teens ever leave home if they fully considered how lonely their mothers would be?
When your life is only fifteen years long, a few years sounds like forever. Here at twenty-five, the idea of a couple years is turning into an eyeblink. My idea of adjusting to something in a few years is very different from what it would have been as a teen.
At eighteen, I could barely stand the thought of another four years of school. (And quit, I would add.) Now I'm planning on working for another five years before I go back full time. If I had fully considered my parent's feelings on my quitting school, I don't think I could ever have made the decision that was best for my mental health. I also couldn't conceive of enough time going by that I wouldn't mind going back.
I would argue that adults consider others' feelings becuase we feel like we have more time. Putting off what we want for others is ok becuase we can always work towards it later. I'm sure chemistry has a lot to do with it, but it's chemistry with a purpose.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is interesting. I teach fifth graders, who are preadolescent. I have been noticing that the "kids these days" seem less and less able to solve problems. The first "problem" is often to follow the directions of the teacher, or of the peice of paper handed out. The students come in to us, and the fourth grade teachers categorize them as "low." I do not see low at all, but I see a HUGE difficulty for them in following directions.
I call it my Gameboy theory. I think kids are approaching the world as they do a Gameboy game. Turn it on, try it, then ask someone for help or get the cheat sheet.
Is this bad? Not necessarily. I just think it is really different, and I wonder what it means. Am I right or wrong? Do other teachers or parents see this?
My kids are both readers and thinkers, but I still see this impatience to read directions. They just want to jump right in.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I want to know what the other questions were. Because whether or not you look at a paper when going to a movie seems like something that...I guess I don't really understand the connection of newspaper + movie. It reads to me to be more something of, "If you want to go to a movie, do you look it up in the newspaper?"
posted
Could there be some kind of difference because most adults would look up movie times in the newspaper, whereas most teenagers would look it up online?
I guess I just don't see how the questions they're asking measures what they're trying to measure.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Would a teen have the guts to pick the major he wanted if he really had to stop and consider his dad's hurt feelings at not picking his major?
I seemed to have managed it. There's a difference between having empathy for the feelings others and giving in to the influences.
quote:I have been noticing that the "kids these days" seem less and less able to solve problems.
I agree, to an extent. I think there is less emphasis than there has been in the past on figuring things out for yourself. This might be related to the wish to do things right away.
This is somewhat off topic, but...
At the summer camp I run, I often give students (aged 5-7ish) a simple task to do, like, "draw a picture from Peter and the Wolf". This isn't a technically difficult. They can all put a pencil on a paper and draw a cat, a bird, a duck, a boy, a pond, a wolf or a meadow or at least an approximation of them.
However many of them have no idea where to start, even if I go through the picture book and the story again. This doesn't sound like problem solving but I think it is the same thing. They don't want to choose what to do, or to try a couple of things, they want to be told. If I said "draw Peter" they'd have no problem drawing a boy.
I think the process of choosing what to draw and how to go about drawing it is an exercise in problem solving that shows that many children do not approach problems with the intent to solve them. They know that should they wait long enough, someone will come and tell them what to do.
I should add that if I do a craft in which everyone turns out pretty much the same thing, no one has a problem. There is no problem to be solved.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not one to try and discredit science based on my feelings, but such tests are difficult to interpret. We know so very little about the brain. Not to mention that we are terrible observers of ourselves.
Oh, yeah, and that question is just weird.
I am no expert, but I can think of better tests for empathy.
Again, not trying to discredit results, just pointing out their lack of conclusive meaning.
It is, I supose, perfectly rational that the young of a species, focused on breeding, might be more competitive and less maternal/paternal. It actualy makes a lot of sense, but I still don't see how it relates to newspapers and cinema.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And a strange one. The B.B.C. does not link to the journal study.
P.S. the picture is offensive, and strangly of a man who is at least twenty-five and thus not a teenager. It also appears to have been taken circa 1970, judging by his paisley clothes.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oops...sorry Pel, I erased my post saying that this wasn't the only question, because I realized pH had already said that.
It is a strange question.
I think that picture is also somewhat disturbing. I didn't look closely at the dude, but now that you mention it, he doesn't exactly looke like an 11-17 year old old. They probably needed someone's face for the article and came up with that. Oh well...
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The picture is taken from an old british comedy television show which most Brits would recognise although the name of the show and the character escapes me at the moment. The BBC often does that with slightly amusing articles.
The character was the stereotypical over-surly teenager, although he was clearly not played by a teenager.
It's supposed to be funny.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I mean, if the other questions are as strange as that one, it could be that the teens think differently because they're more likely to use cell phones, the Internet, mp3 players, and so forth. Maybe younger minds approach things differently because of different technology, so the thought process changes, or something. I'm glad I'm not the only one who found that question confusing; I thought I was missing something!
posted
Nope. And I don't really understand how they get from questions like that example to something a reasonable person would label "empathy."
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CaySedai: Their parents didn't take them to church. (Which I think is very much related to their problems.)
Are you saying that you think that parents who don't take their children to church are possibly causing stunted brain growth or a lack of empathy?
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm saying that my in-laws, who didn't take their children to church, failed in pretty much every way to give them a moral basis for conducting themselves. Taking the kids to church might have helped in that regard.
Now we have the six pillars of character taught in the schools. These are, for the most part, not linked to any religion. (They do mention the Golden Rule.) I think a large part of the reason these have to be taught in the schools is because parents aren't teaching their kids to be moral people.
And, yeah, morality and brain function aren't necessarily linked, but having a lack in both areas is a greater handicap.
Posts: 2034 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe it's because I am a teenager, maybe it's because I've just spent the whole day reading up on modern philosophers, maybe it's because it's nigh midnight... but I feel like posting on the subject.
Just to be up front, I fully recognize that I am in no way credible on my analysis on the human brain other than I am a teenager and thus in the pool. So read what I have to say with a grain of salt.
I think a lot of the reason we teenagers don't think of consequence first is because we haven't had to experience it as much. I believe that maybe we are hard-wired to think on our impulses to start with. A simple decision on what we want to do. What feels good.
It seems like it would be a valid way to survive. I'm hungry, go eat. (Very teenagesque) I'm bored, go find entertainment. (Teenager again.) I'm lonely, find interaction. (Teen.)
The difference is we start to get introduced to the results of our impulsive actions. We see the consequences again and again.
For example, let's say you were invited to watch a movie, it'll be late and your parents aren't home... but it's a movie you've wanted to watch for a long time. Let's say you've never really been introduced to a strict curfew.
So you go to the movie and have a blast, but when you return, you find your parents frantic about where you've been, not even leaving a note. Thus they punish you and you see the consequences.
The next time such a situation comes up, I doubt it'll be quite as impulsive and simple of a decision. You have your parents to take into account and won't want to be punished again.
So I think that what happens is we see the consequences again and again so often that eventually our brains just naturally shift to looking at the consequences first.
And there you have my analysis.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like I said, could be wrong. I haven't been punished either, and I'm thinking I'm turning out all right. For me it's just I've always been given a brightline as to what is acceptable and what isn't. So if anything could push that I recognize it.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I'm saying that my in-laws, who didn't take their children to church, failed in pretty much every way to give them a moral basis for conducting themselves."
Are the two in any way related? Judging by the way that a significant minority of priests and ministers act....
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I was never really punished for anything as a teen, and I think I turned out fine.
I think punishments and natural consequences are different. Even if you didn't get punished for upsetting your parents, you might still try and avoid repeating something that upset them a lot. I think Vadon has an interesting point.
I think that part of the reason that many teens are less empathetic is because of their expectations. I think that in many families a) the kids are fairly spoiled and usually get their way or b) everybody around them is very selfish. They don't think very deeply about how their decisions impact others because they've never been trained to do so. I think kids in the "a" category are more likely to pick up that skill later on when they're taken out of their spoiled environment.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
In regards to punishment, I suspect raising a kid is more of an art than a science. By that I mean that I'd think there are no rules you can follow for all children. Each must be approached in a way unique to them. Punishment probably works for some, but not for others.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't get the impression that the questions were at all designed to demonstrate empathy or the lack thereof; they were used to get people to think of processes, etc., so that it could be determined which part of the brain was used in figuring things out. Then the extrapolation seemed to be: since adults use part X, which is also associated with empathy, perhaps this explains why teenagers are less empathetic or more self-centered in decisionmaking contexts.
Posts: 628 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Their parents didn't take them to church. (Which I think is very much related to their problems.)"
I don't take my children to church, and I am very aware of their moral upbringing. We talk and argue and think about decisions, how they impact others, how they impact them, me, the world, all the time.
(I am not offended, but I felt this was important to say.)
Posts: 628 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm...this is purely subjective, but I'm not surprised by the findings.
I remember trying very hard to be a "good person" as a teenager, but what that seemed to entail (empathy, self-sacrifice, turning the other cheek) seemed almost impossible. I didn't feel empowered by ignoring slights - I felt robbed. That various tormenters were the scum of the earth made a whole lot more sense than thinking they were having a bad day.
It's not a struggle now to do those things (though of course I still fail at it often), but I don't think I'm a better person. I think that I'm secure and confident enough that I'm not as easily threatened, and I think that, for some reason, those things are infinitely easier now.
Maybe this is the reason.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Hmm...this is purely subjective, but I'm not surprised by the findings.
I remember trying very hard to be a "good person" as a teenager, but what that seemed to entail (empathy, self-sacrifice, turning the other cheek) seemed almost impossible. I didn't feel empowered by ignoring slights - I felt robbed. That various tormenters were the scum of the earth made a whole lot more sense than thinking they were having a bad day.
It's not a struggle now to do those things (though of course I still fail at it often), but I don't think I'm a better person. I think that I'm secure and confident enough that I'm not as easily threatened, and I think that, for some reason, those things are infinitely easier now.
Maybe this is the reason.
Katharina- I totally see the former behavior in myself now. It makes me very happy to know that I'll probably grow out of it.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think teens do think differently so it wouldn't surprise me at all to find out they use a different part of the brain. My youngest brother (20) dates a girl who is 18 and just went off to college. She couldn't wait to get out of the house, away from her mother. My brother was the same way a couple of years ago, which is why he moved in with me. I remember being the same way at their age. I think we are wired to leave the house at certain age, to go out and start our own family ect. Something in the teenage brain may tell us it's time.
As far as empathy goes, I thing teens just haven’t experienced enough to really understand how things affect others. People tend to be very self-centered at that age and it take some life to learn to have empathy for others.
Posts: 555 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Part of me believes -- with very little actual scientific knowledge to back the belief up, mind you -- that much of the response here about how adults and teens feel, how they think they think, or how they think the other thinks (based on their behavior or communication), is jumping a half-a-step farther into specifics of self-consciousness than the cited study would justify.
The study measured brain activity, period.
I don't think we know, for example, whether in "simply thinking about the action they're going to take," the subject might in fact self-identify as 'empathetic,' 'considering consequences,' 'considering the feelings of others,' or any number of thought patterns that would otherwise seem to fall under the other label of 'higher order' thinking.
In other words -- I don't necessarily see a correlation (or see that there MUST be a correlation) between what the study observed and what all of us -- adults and teens -- actually think we are thinking about or actually think we are feeling.
(It is tempting, because stereotypes of teens do include 'selfishness,' 'belief of immortality,' etc. But the link from science to stereotype is not conclusive in this context, IMO.)
I have a deeper point, too. A lot of research in 'brainology' (loosely defined) has identified broad and sometimes surprising elasticity to brain pathways.
How rapidly infants learn. How hemispherectomy patients regain binocular vision. How lifelong musicians (and other experts/virtosos) show more trans-hemisphere structures than 'normal' people. Etc.
It is not surprising to me at all that teens -- still in a juvenile stage of life and only JUST beginning to enter the realm of autonomous decision-making at all -- should have, in some sense, coarser-grained or perhaps less-practiced pathways for those kinds of operations.
In this context, becoming 'empathetic' in a decision-making context -- or to be more precise, the development of brain pathways in areas associated with empathy and higher-order thinking -- is not a switch that is on or off. It apparently develops -- probably with experience.
A teen's brain is soaking up experience; and perhaps cannot use the pathway till the way is forged. So they decide on going to a movie based on raw pleasure principle, but find something about the way the evening goes offends a friend. (They may even have thought they were taking the friend's feelings into account; they just weren't very practiced at it.) That experience establishes the very pathway required for the friend's feelings to be taken into account next time.
posted
"It is a bad idea to judge a group by the way a minority of its members act."
It is a worse idea to claim that religion, and, by context, Christianity, and morality inexorably intwined.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pel, since no-one here actually did that, but you displayed collosally rude behavior, I'd think you might wise up and either keep silent or apologize.
Instead, you are still being a jerk.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay. My in-laws didn't take their kids to church or in any way teach them the consequences of their actions. To me, those things are related. However, I do recognize that in some cases, parents are able to teach their kids to be moral, responsible people without going to church. I happen to think that if my in-laws had taken their kids to church, maybe they wouldn't have made some of the bad choices that they did (stealing, drugs, etc.).
My mother-in-law's idea was to not take the kids to church and let them decide when they grow up what church they want to belong to. She taught them nothing about the Bible or anything, so they had no interest in going to chuch when they grew up. To me, that's like not talking to your kids while they are growing up, and they can decide what language they want to speak when they are adults.
I will admit part of the reason I sound so militant about this is because of being married to someone like this. I got involved with him when I was being rebellious, but now I'm trying to work things out. It's hard enough to be married without trying to go in opposite directions. And I feel massive amounts of guilt over the many years that we didn't go to church, and I didn't teach my children very much in that time. I'm trying to make up for that.
Whether you believe in God or not, you still have to teach your kids to be moral and responsible. And a lot of parents today are failing to do that.
Posts: 2034 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think we are wired to leave the house at certain age, to go out and start our own family ect. Something in the teenage brain may tell us it's time.
Or it's completely cultural, because two hundred years ago you'd probably arguing that by 14 people are just wired to leave the house.
It only becomes socially acceptable for teens to leave home after they've completed a mandatory sentence of compulsory schooling, all others that leave earlier are prejudged with a negative label, usually juvenile delinquent, dropout, or unwed mother, for example.
These cultural forces are operating on us subconsciously and are a basic part of how we're trained to think, and how we're expected to think based on how our society and culture categorizes us.
Posts: 128 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: It is tempting, because stereotypes of teens do include 'selfishness,' 'belief of immortality,' etc.
I often cannot tell the age of people on the internet generally or on this forum specifically. I see the teenagers and 'adults' pretty much acting exactly alike.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There could be lots of reasons for that. The teens who are fans of OSC might be among the more mature and more literate among their peers. Also, the anonymous nature of the web might encourage (or fail to discourage) immature behavior among older folks, so sort of a "leveling" factor is going on. Then again, there's the positive influence of the Hatrack behavioral norms, TOS, etc. that would tend to raise the level of behavior somewhat.
We have had some pretty immature stuff happen here. But specifically with relation to displaying awareness of the feelings of others, I wouldn't generally be able to tell the differences in people's ages either. Sometimes I can, but not always. I think it comes out the most in posts about relationship issues, or the dead give-away posts griping about parents or something like that.
Often, when people say what their age is, I'm very surprised.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
I don't know if it's relegated to the forum, though. As I get older, I see people do the same stupid crap over and over and over again, as one poster hinted upthread.
Coversely, those who are mature tend to be mature from the beginning.
I fervently believe in the ideal of the ability of people to change themselves and grow, but sometimes I really wonder if biology really isn't destiny.
I don't know. I know there are people who have wild streaks and settle down, but then there are also people who walk the straight and narrow path and the next thing you know they've left the family for their gay lover in California.
God, insomnia makes me so morose.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, not to name names, but tinyurl.com is a *really, really* awesome site for the shortening of long links. *throttle*
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I remember trying very hard to be a "good person" as a teenager, but what that seemed to entail (empathy, self-sacrifice, turning the other cheek) seemed almost impossible. I didn't feel empowered by ignoring slights - I felt robbed. That various tormenters were the scum of the earth made a whole lot more sense than thinking they were having a bad day.
It's not a struggle now to do those things (though of course I still fail at it often), but I don't think I'm a better person. I think that I'm secure and confident enough that I'm not as easily threatened, and I think that, for some reason, those things are infinitely easier now.
I've experienced this too, and I usually attribute it to a growing sense of perspective regarding my place in the world. As a teenager, overhearing someone talking about, say, my poor taste in hairstyles would have been devastating. Now, though, at the ripe old age of almost-25, I've had enough experience with petty insults (both giving and receiving, unfortunately) that, while they still hurt, they're far easier to brush off as something that really doesn't matter in the long run.
I still find myself falling into that teenage-like tunnel vision, where whatever bad thing happening is the Worst Thing Ever and I'll Never Live Through This and I Wish I Could Just Get Sucked Into the Earth and Die (haha, I just started a thread about such a topic last week!), but it's happening less and less, and is easier to snap out of and view from a more detached, mature perspective. Posts: 1681 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: By the way, not to name names, but tinyurl.com is a *really, really* awesome site for the shortening of long links. *throttle*
Yes! Especially when the link doesn't even work.
quote:Originally posted by ElJay:
quote:The teens who are fans of OSC might be among the more mature and more literate among their peers.
Or, you know, the adults here could all be really immature.
Only some of 'em. *prim*
And welcome to Hatrack, Adam_S! Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
He changes his mind frequently - to the point where he says one day he's leaving for good, the next that he's going for a couple of weeks, then he says he's going to move to a different state or even just move in our area but just not live with us.![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I haven't been punished either, and I'm thinking I'm turning out all right. For me it's just I've always been given a brightline as to what is acceptable and what isn't. So if anything could push that I recognize it.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
