Often times, when discussing manipulative, or cruel, or otherwise unethical behaviour someone engaged in as a kid or teenager, some will refer to excuses (whether for oneself or someone else) such as "oh, they were young so they were just immature, they wouldn't know better" etc.
This would seem like an adequate excuse for things that were just about immaturity or ignorance. But it's important to remember that maturity and morality aren't exactly the same thing. That someone happened to be immature or ignorant or whatever at the times when they did such things, whatever they may be, STILL doesn't explain away the reality that it's within them to do such things. That alone has implications all its own, whatever circumstances may have applied when they did them.
Don't get me wrong, I believe there is SOME value to these kinds of excuses, at least in the contexts of applying them to very young children. I just think they're overrated, especially in their application to older children or teenagers.
SilverShadow edit: Moved to SMG, as this is better suited for that forum.
I apologize for stepping on toes, but this belongs two boards down...
I apologize for stepping on toes, but this belongs two boards down...
Meh, I wasn't sure which board to put it in and I have a tendency to go for MFC when in doubt. If it belongs two boards down then yeah it should probably be moved there. o.o
I'm not a mod, so I guess we'll just have to play the waiting game. Nice topic though. Should get a few replies.
Maybe it's because most people associate maturity with the ability to control yourself and so when a younger person acts up they're like "Oh, he hasn't been around long enough to know what he should and shouldn't do... oh those young whippersnappers and their inexperience. Always biting them in their patooties it is. *grumbles something about the good old days and hobbles off with their cane*"
I believe if someone knew what they were doing they should be held accountable, regardless of age. If a kid stumbles into the fridge and drinks my expensive wine because they think it's grape juice I wouldn't punish him. I'd just explain that wine comes in glass bottles and grape juice comes in plastic... jar... things. If I TOLD them to stay away from it beforehand then I'd probably do something then.
And as for what you said about it being in them to do such things having implications of their own... well, it's OK to want to do bad things, I think. As long as you don't actually act on them it's all groovy. Like, for instance, sometimes I just feel like making children cry because I think it's funny. Yes, that might make me a bad person but since I don't actually do it I think it's pretty much null if I wanted to do it or not since the consequences and repercussions of making a child cry aren't in motion. Even if someone's kind of a jerk as long as they don't actually do any jerkish things it doesn't matter. It's like a rabid dog on a leash. Yeah, it could do lots of damage and it wants to... but it's not.
Given how universal it is for people to want to make children cry (but know they must not), can we say that it's the natural human state, if only for the sake of arguement (which makes sense, given the reptile brain, how our minds respond to human scent and basic survival instinct. Typically with no concious thought or morality involved, a human will regard a child that is not their own as a threat for their own [potential if applicable] off-spring. Plus you have the whole alpha dominance thing and such blah blah blah).
The thing, though, is that society has ZERO understanding of this. We are a civilized culture. When someone wrongs us and presses our buttons, we have the instinctive urge to punch, to attack, to retaliate. If you've ever been in that kind of situation, you may recognize the clenching of the fist, the heat in your head and the adreneline rush. None of these are concious reactions, this is your body reacting rashly, and you have only a few moments to reign yourself in and prevent explosion.
So the question isn't "When kids do bad things, does it paint them to be bad people as adults?", but "Does a child with bad self-control turn into a "bad" adult"?
I find that given that society doesn't tend to slap too many wrists for jerkass behavior. Infact, all you need do is work retail for a week and realize that the more sociopathic a person acts, the better they succeed in society. Want to make a person lose their job because they spilled water on you? Sure, would you like your meal comped too?
Whereas there is no reward for resistance, as the old Rush song on the subject says (Lock & Key, from Hold Your Fire, a song about the struggle to keep their impulse locked away in case a single slip were to have their freedom revoked), if you are a nice person your entire life, there is NO REWARD. Infact, that same waitress who spilled water on, the nice person would accept her apology and if the waitress was a decent human being, perhaps even tip more for the fact.
Not to say good people are bad and should be done away with. But we're purposefully selecting the hard path which requires more work and more suffering with less reward. If a kid or teenager learns that the easy road is, well, easier, then they will take it. And they will not give a crap what you think about them, because you don't exist in their world.
Ok, but given this information, where does parenting come in? Everything you said is correct, I'm sure, but you can't forget parental imprinting.
I have very little psychology training,
READ: This dumbass had a 1000 level psych class and thinks he's knows everything.
But if there's one thing I've seen its that everyone is different. What "kid" A requires to become a 'good' "adult" is not the same as what "kid" B requires, even if they "act" the same or seem to have similar temperaments. As well, some "kid"s, especially those that have elevated intelligence, early emotional maturity, or are raised by especially... unintelligent parents, will actively use the "I don't know any better" excuse to get what they want.
From my "book learnin'" I did glean that young "kid"s are not self-centered by choice. It's an inherent survival instinct in all animals; as underdeveloped animals are by definition... underdeveloped. They aren't as strong or experienced and cannot defend themselves like a fully developed animal can. To survive they need to constantly be trying to better themselves and take care of themselves... so that they can LEARN to do those very things.
Boil it down? You can't tell someone for SURE what a "kid" needs, because every single one of us are different and some have the exact opposite reactions to things that others do:
12 year old Sarah is told not to make faces at the older kids on the playground and doesn't, becoming playground overlord.
10 year old Craig is told not to make faces to the older kids on the playground and does so, and gets his ginger ass kicked.
You know, just like "adult"s? But do me a favor. Find/Replace every "kid" and "adult" phrase in this rant with the word human, and you might notice something. Something that could help you should you ever find yourself in charge of one of these still developing humans.
For those paying attention I just murdered the original question by changing it into "Does a human with bad self-control turn into a bad human". So, the answer is yes. What I don't see commented on, or at maybe I missed it, is that humans can change and develop. More so while they are initially developing but even true later. A 29 year old that is a selfish slob and turn into a 46 year old philanthropic neat freak. This means that a 9 year old that sticks fireworks in frogs mouths can turn into a 18 year old heading to veterinary college. It's what makes us that awesome.
~Tobe
What qualifies as an adult?
Human or not, "he doesn't know any better" still isn't always a valid excuse. I'll admit, it depends on the circumstances in a high degree, but there's still the sense of right and wrong to take into account. Just because it may or may not make them successful in the world, does that make it right to beat the tar out of your little brother?
Well, Toby beat me to the whole "bad kids become bad adults" subject, but I can offer up a personal account of being too young to know any better. When I was in 1st or 2nd grade, I once kicked a classmate for absolutely NO reason. Well, maybe there was, but certainly not a GOOD reason. It wasn't provoked, and I didn't even hate the other guy (in fact, we became friends afterwards. He didn't know any better either!) I vividly recall the incident, but have no recollection of there being any motive nor premeditation. For whatever reason, I decided that kicking this person would be an action worth engaging in. 20 years later, I've never since kicked a fallen (oh yeah, did I leave that part out? He was lying on the ground. I think somebody else kicked his ass first.) person or had a desire to do so. Now I know better: fallen people shouldn't be kicked, unless it's a fight, in which case you kick 'em until you're sure they won't get back up.
As for all that stuff about making babies cry and viewing any other kids as a threat to Stickghost Jr... Um... Dude, I have no coherent response to that. I'd consider myself more or less an asshole, (I'm too much of an asshole to be a nice person, but I'm too nice to be an asshole) but I've NEVER thought of making kids cry. I don't know why, I mean since I HATE people. Ironically, people actually like to hang out with me. WHY!?! I worked retail a few years, and NOTHING gave me greater satisfaction than telling customers that I couldn't help them (especially if it was actually true.) Okay, so maybe I grew up to be still a "bad" adult, but at least I don't kick people when they're down anymore. Give me that much.
Also, to throw out my Criminal Justice 101 education...
Mens Rea: Desiring to kick fallen people
Actus Reus: Actually kicking fallen people
You may do the first as often as you want and it ain't against the law. Holy crap, upon cracking open the textbook (like I remembered how to spell that!) I see: actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea - "the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind be also guilty". Deep stuff! Of course, that's not the way the legal system really works (they say "ignorance of the law is no excuse") and of course a complete lack of rational thought doesn't mean you shouldn't be locked away if you believe you are the Grim Reaper. I mean, we're sorry you're messed up in the head and all, but we can't let you just run around.
I also learned that you aren't technically stalking someone until you follow them on TWO separate occasions.
For all your lightgun shooting needs and some other insanity too.
I'm guessing it was a poor choice of words on my part to say "within them to do such things" because so far at least a couple users mentioned that there's a difference between "wanting" to do something and actually doing it.
I don't doubt that, though. What I was referring to as "within them" wasn't so much the desire to do so, but the inclination to "actually" do so. It's hard to describe, really.
I don't know, maybe it's because we associate youth with those things because whenever we hear of someone doing it they're young?
Like, for instance, when we hear about someone getting an unwanted pregnancy or STD they're usually young, whether it's in the news or fiction. Yeah, we hear about older people getting them, too, but not as often. So we chalk up part of the reason people get unwanted pregnancies/STDs is because they're young or something?
I'm having trouble coming up with examples...
Drugs, theft, prostitution
I don't know, maybe it's because we associate youth with those things because whenever we hear of someone doing it they're young?
Like, for instance, when we hear about someone getting an unwanted pregnancy or STD they're usually young, whether it's in the news or fiction. Yeah, we hear about older people getting them, too, but not as often. So we chalk up part of the reason people get unwanted pregnancies/STDs is because they're young or something?
I'm having trouble coming up with examples...
I'm not quite sure what "it's" is referring to in the bolded part. o.o
It means "it is" darling.
It means "it is" darling.
... that's not quite what I meant. I meant to ask what the "it" was. CTS said "maybe it's because we associate youth with those things" and I was wondering what he was using that as the reason of. (And while we're at it, what exactly he meant by "those things.")
BTW did you see the PM I sent you?
The reason we blame wrongdoing on immaturity...
Kids win. They are getting smarter with each passing generation thanks to evolution and frankly I am afraid for everyone who participated in this topic.
