Worried about teens taking risks tonight, on New Year’s Eve? Most people think teens take too many risks, and so we should limit the risks teens can take, for their own good. And from the usual lectures we give teens, it seems we think teens underestimate the rate and severity of bad events. But in fact, a
I think Paul Graham had a good explanation for why parents' advice tends to err on the side of safety:
>All parents tend to be more conservative for their kids than they would for themselves, simply because, as parents, they share risks more than rewards. If your eight year old son decides to climb a tall tree, or your teenage daughter decides to date the local bad boy, you won't get a share in the excitement, but if your son falls, or your daughter gets pregnant, you'll have to deal with the consequences.
My thrust was simpler than a few people seem to make it out. I see no reason to make the assumption that adults know better than adolescents, particularly when a value judgment comes in.
Robin - I'm saying the exact opposite. When it comes to judging risk against something as subjective as pleasure, there is no right or wrong. There's what you do and what you don't do. By all means educate kids on the risks, just don't presume to have any divine adult-authority. This isn't just theoretical, this is good practice in trying to educate young people to do things. Anyone ever tried telling a kid not to do something? "I know better, because I use a different part of my brain to you. And I say wait till you're married!" Good luck with that one....
Be rational, explain the risks, and if you've done your job properly, I think most people would be surprised at how rational (most) teens actually are - see the original post by Robin for some evidence! There are as many stupid, irresponsible adults as there are stupid, irresponsible kids. The only difference is that the latter don't seek election to office.
Paul Crowley, an emotive argument need not be constraining or dishonest. Even as they seek increased independence, many teenagers are quite loyal and respectful to their elders and superiors: if one understands that excessively risky behavior may cause emotional distress to one's parents, it's quite admissible to take this into account.
James Bach: I would much rather have kids who were able to make a sober assessment of risks and rewards than ones constrained by nakedly emotive arguments. Not least because it would be very sad for them to miss out on the rewards of drinking and doing drugs.
From last January, The Hybridization of America by Vanderleun George Will loves McDonald'sDon't let the bedbugs bite.Record industry goes after personal use of music. Lots of iPods out there with lots of music on them.Do Dems desire failure in Iraq?Betsy,
Your post was insightful and interesting. Please don't feel the need to spoil it with just-so conjecture about the evolutionary basis of these behavioral traits. It might be true, but it might not. It's going to be extremely hard to prove this either way and I don't think that this speculation adds much.
All I see are estimates of the odds, not the costs. Young people are, more or less by definition, lacking in all sorts of life experiences, both painful and pleasurable. That makes it pretty difficult to really get a handle on the personal costs and benefits of actions.
It's all very well to say that a teenager thinks the chances of getting pregnant from unprotected sex are, say, 50-50 (greater than 1/12). But do you really think most are capable of forming any kind of accurate intuition about what that pregnancy would really mean? All the potential hardships and heartbreaks and joys? I couldn't have. And the odds are pretty meaningless without it.
Insofar as consequences are seriously considered, the complexity and distance of it all tend to wash everything out, so it's often easy to end up on, "oh, f--- it, let's have fun."
All of which is to say that continuing attempts to educate teens about the actual consequences of things, as opposed to just the numerical odds, is at least somewhat helpful, not entirely "dishonestly paternal".
Remember how it was to be adolesent : fun is here, now, immediate, and intense. Risk is abstract, remote, elsewhere. The NYT authors, Reyna and co-workers, make this point strongly in this paper :http://www.psychologicalsci...The bias is not related to estimating probabilities, it's timescale related. Adolescents live in the present.
I'd risk a 1 in 6 chance of dying for "enough money to maintain my present lifestyle indefinitely without working or being supported by others". Then again, I may be undervaluing the negative utility of death...
Adult genes and teenage genes must, at least some of the time, be at cross-purposes.
We should not be surprised if, among other things, adults espouse views that embrace differing discount rates than those used by teens. For example, a parent's genes may be best served by particular teen choices, while the teen's genes may be best served by alternative choices.
Briarandbramble makes a good point. We must always be cautious in our use of EP. You wouldn't want to give the just-so story crowd any ammunition(ideas are soldiers :P)
I read about this same research on MR awhile ago and the conclusion of "gist" was repulsive to me then and now. I see it as basically "I *know* what's best for teens and if we can't reason them into it we will have to scare them into line." In the article the researcher said something like "any sane adult *knows* it's *never* rational to risk a one in 6 chance of dying for *any amount of money*). I think this goes to show that a little statistics can ruin a person and only with a lot of careful thinking can people take their 'book-learning' of statistics and risk analysis and actually manage to use it informally on emotional issues.
How do you imagine honest paternalist interventions going? With alcohol and drugs I can see how it would go and yes, it would probably be moderately effective. But you're suggesting parents sit junior down and explain to him that sex isn't really that great? The kid will never believe another word you say.
I think it's very plausible that they are overestimating the benefits and I like that part of your explanation. What I object to is how you immediately leap into evolutionary pyschology to account for why they might be overestimating when there is a vastly simpler explanation for why this might be happening (namely that it is much easier to overestimate something that it is to correctly estimate something).
Teen brains are immature. They physically work different to adult brains.The prefrontal area is less important in decision-making.James Bach above, is acting correctly in appealing to teen emotions.
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/hea...Another series of MRI studies is shedding light on how teens may process emotions differently than adults. Using functional MRI (fMRI), a team led by Dr. Deborah Yurgelun-Todd at Harvard's McLean Hospital scanned subjects' brain activity while they identified emotions on pictures of faces displayed on a computer screen.5 Young teens, who characteristically perform poorly on the task, activated the amygdala, a brain center that mediates fear and other "gut" reactions, more than the frontal lobe. As teens grow older, their brain activity during this task tends to shift to the frontal lobe, leading to more reasoned perceptions and improved performance.
I think Paul Graham had a good explanation for why parents' advice tends to err on the side of safety:
>All parents tend to be more conservative for their kids than they would for themselves, simply because, as parents, they share risks more than rewards. If your eight year old son decides to climb a tall tree, or your teenage daughter decides to date the local bad boy, you won't get a share in the excitement, but if your son falls, or your daughter gets pregnant, you'll have to deal with the consequences.
http://www.paulgraham.com/l...
Honest Teen Paternalism
Bookmarked your post over at Blog Bookmarker.com!
My thrust was simpler than a few people seem to make it out. I see no reason to make the assumption that adults know better than adolescents, particularly when a value judgment comes in.
Robin - I'm saying the exact opposite. When it comes to judging risk against something as subjective as pleasure, there is no right or wrong. There's what you do and what you don't do. By all means educate kids on the risks, just don't presume to have any divine adult-authority. This isn't just theoretical, this is good practice in trying to educate young people to do things. Anyone ever tried telling a kid not to do something? "I know better, because I use a different part of my brain to you. And I say wait till you're married!" Good luck with that one....
Be rational, explain the risks, and if you've done your job properly, I think most people would be surprised at how rational (most) teens actually are - see the original post by Robin for some evidence! There are as many stupid, irresponsible adults as there are stupid, irresponsible kids. The only difference is that the latter don't seek election to office.
Paul Crowley, an emotive argument need not be constraining or dishonest. Even as they seek increased independence, many teenagers are quite loyal and respectful to their elders and superiors: if one understands that excessively risky behavior may cause emotional distress to one's parents, it's quite admissible to take this into account.
James Bach: I would much rather have kids who were able to make a sober assessment of risks and rewards than ones constrained by nakedly emotive arguments. Not least because it would be very sad for them to miss out on the rewards of drinking and doing drugs.
New Years Day Links
From last January, The Hybridization of America by Vanderleun George Will loves McDonald'sDon't let the bedbugs bite.Record industry goes after personal use of music. Lots of iPods out there with lots of music on them.Do Dems desire failure in Iraq?Betsy,
Many commenters (not Robin in the post) are assuming that teens take too much risk.
There is no good reason to believe this.
Your post was insightful and interesting. Please don't feel the need to spoil it with just-so conjecture about the evolutionary basis of these behavioral traits. It might be true, but it might not. It's going to be extremely hard to prove this either way and I don't think that this speculation adds much.
All I see are estimates of the odds, not the costs. Young people are, more or less by definition, lacking in all sorts of life experiences, both painful and pleasurable. That makes it pretty difficult to really get a handle on the personal costs and benefits of actions.
It's all very well to say that a teenager thinks the chances of getting pregnant from unprotected sex are, say, 50-50 (greater than 1/12). But do you really think most are capable of forming any kind of accurate intuition about what that pregnancy would really mean? All the potential hardships and heartbreaks and joys? I couldn't have. And the odds are pretty meaningless without it.
Insofar as consequences are seriously considered, the complexity and distance of it all tend to wash everything out, so it's often easy to end up on, "oh, f--- it, let's have fun."
All of which is to say that continuing attempts to educate teens about the actual consequences of things, as opposed to just the numerical odds, is at least somewhat helpful, not entirely "dishonestly paternal".
Remember how it was to be adolesent : fun is here, now, immediate, and intense. Risk is abstract, remote, elsewhere. The NYT authors, Reyna and co-workers, make this point strongly in this paper :http://www.psychologicalsci...The bias is not related to estimating probabilities, it's timescale related. Adolescents live in the present.
I'd risk a 1 in 6 chance of dying for "enough money to maintain my present lifestyle indefinitely without working or being supported by others". Then again, I may be undervaluing the negative utility of death...
Adult genes and teenage genes must, at least some of the time, be at cross-purposes.
We should not be surprised if, among other things, adults espouse views that embrace differing discount rates than those used by teens. For example, a parent's genes may be best served by particular teen choices, while the teen's genes may be best served by alternative choices.
Briarandbramble makes a good point. We must always be cautious in our use of EP. You wouldn't want to give the just-so story crowd any ammunition(ideas are soldiers :P)
I read about this same research on MR awhile ago and the conclusion of "gist" was repulsive to me then and now. I see it as basically "I *know* what's best for teens and if we can't reason them into it we will have to scare them into line." In the article the researcher said something like "any sane adult *knows* it's *never* rational to risk a one in 6 chance of dying for *any amount of money*). I think this goes to show that a little statistics can ruin a person and only with a lot of careful thinking can people take their 'book-learning' of statistics and risk analysis and actually manage to use it informally on emotional issues.
How do you imagine honest paternalist interventions going? With alcohol and drugs I can see how it would go and yes, it would probably be moderately effective. But you're suggesting parents sit junior down and explain to him that sex isn't really that great? The kid will never believe another word you say.
I think it's very plausible that they are overestimating the benefits and I like that part of your explanation. What I object to is how you immediately leap into evolutionary pyschology to account for why they might be overestimating when there is a vastly simpler explanation for why this might be happening (namely that it is much easier to overestimate something that it is to correctly estimate something).
Teen brains are immature. They physically work different to adult brains.The prefrontal area is less important in decision-making.James Bach above, is acting correctly in appealing to teen emotions.
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/hea...Another series of MRI studies is shedding light on how teens may process emotions differently than adults. Using functional MRI (fMRI), a team led by Dr. Deborah Yurgelun-Todd at Harvard's McLean Hospital scanned subjects' brain activity while they identified emotions on pictures of faces displayed on a computer screen.5 Young teens, who characteristically perform poorly on the task, activated the amygdala, a brain center that mediates fear and other "gut" reactions, more than the frontal lobe. As teens grow older, their brain activity during this task tends to shift to the frontal lobe, leading to more reasoned perceptions and improved performance.
Alsohttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pag...