[EnderD_503]

Originally Posted by evolveme

The brains of teenagers are not fully formed. Their frontal lobes are "sluggish." They are high on impulsiveness and weak on decision making skill. This article from NPR came about when a pediatric neurologist decided to study what the heck was up with her teenage sons and why they appeared to be making such ridiculous decisions.

It isn't believed that brains are fully developed until into the twenties. So, I agree with Medusa, that while we can (must) hold these teenagers responsible for the poor choices they are making (we have to teach all kids to be accountable for themselves), it is really the parents here who must own what has occurred. Constance and every other teenager like her deserves that much.

Hi evolveme, while what you say about teenage brain development is true, I hesitate to accept that that was the reason behind this incident. Here's another article on the subject of teenage brain development (from 2002, but makes similar statements as your article) http://www.actforyouth.net/documents...olbraindev.pdf.

In a study conducted at Boston’s McLean Hospital, psychologist Deborah Yurgelun-Todd and colleagues showed pictures of people wearing fearful expressions to teenagers between the ages of 11 and 17 while the teens had their brains scanned using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). She found that compared to adults the teens' frontal lobes (the seat of goal-oriented rational thinking) are less active and their amygdala (a structure in the temporal lobe that is involved in discriminating fear and other emotions) is more active. The teens often misread facial expressions, with those under the age of 14 more often seeing sadness or anger or confusion instead of fear. Older teenagers answered correctly more often and exhibited a progressive shift of activity from the amygdala to the frontal lobes.

We know that Constance is 18 years old and we can safely assume her fellow students were as well since it was a senior prom. The findings of that particular study suggest that older teens display a higher degree of accuracy in interpreting facial expressions/emotion as well as in their ability to make decisions. It also suggests a progressive shift to the frontal lobes in older teenagers. If we consider that 18 year olds are, on average, much better at decision making and reading emotion than their younger counterparts, we can assume that they are at least, to some degree, capable of making rational decisions.

If we also consider that it is far from uncommon for adults with fully developed frontal lobes to make many poor decisions, I wonder how we can differentiate between a poor decision one makes as a teenager and a poor decision one makes as an adult, and if these adults made the same poor decision as these 18 year olds, can we really say, without a shadow of a doubt, that these teenagers simply made the decision because they were 18 and not 38? What these studies on teenage brain development show is that teenagers are more likely to make poor decisions because the frontal lobe is still developing, not that every poor decision they make is because of it. If that were the case, then adults with fully formed frontal lobes would not be making poor decisions.

I'm also unsure if I follow in your reasoning about owing Constance that much. To me, all persons involved should be owning up to what they did, not just the adults. I realise that you claim that the teens should also be held responsible, but I'm not sure I understand why there should be any difference between the responsibility taken by the teenagers and the adults. Considering both made equally wrong decisions, we shouldn't necessarily assume that one group did so just because they may be more likely to. We don't know that that isn't a decision they wouldn't have made as adults. I also think that by claiming "that while we can (must) hold these teenagers responsible for the poor choices they are making (we have to teach all kids to be accountable for themselves), it is really the parents here who must own what has occurred," we are taking away the weight of that responsibility. It's a bit like saying "you're responsible, but not really."

The other issue I thought I'd bring up is treating teenagers and young adults in general as though they are not real human beings because "their brains aren't grown up" and that that affects every single thing they do. To talk to a teenager like that (as this mother does in the article you posted) is really condescending and teenagers do pick up on that, which can lead to bigger problems, imo.

Originally Posted by evolveme

Respectfully, EnderD:

To me, believing that this has nothing to do with a lack of emotional intelligence seems to contradict what-all else you have to say. It is the very lack here of this kind of intelligence -- not erudition, not academic learning -- but emotional wisdom, that leaves a person bereft of compassion and too open to the whim of the herd. To cruelty. To pointless and unnecessary derision. To "lashing out" at the unknown.e

Lack of "emotional intelligence" (a difficult term to use anyway) is not always correlated with lashing out at the unknown, nor is it necessarily linked to compassion. Emotional intelligence is largely defined by the ability to interpret another human being's emotion, however, interpreting emotion correctly does not necessarily bear any testament to what a person does with that information. You seem to assume, and correct me if I'm wrong, that because a person correctly interprets another's emotions, that they will automatically be compassionate. A person may very easily understand that their victim is fearful or angry, but they may continue their torment of that person for a number of reasons, whether that be out of their own subconscious fear, their desire to feel powerful or myriad of other reasons. If the aggressors believed they were in the right (with their fear being subconscious rather than conscious), then it becomes difficult to evaluate emotional intelligence. At the same time we might interpret that, as you say, as a lack in the ability to see subconscious fear, but if that is the case how entirely aware are any of us of our subconscious?

Admittedly, I take issue with the term "emotional intelligence" because it is a bit of an unclear term that can be interpreted in a number of ways.