teenagers, friends and bad decisions
Cara Barlow
Hi: I noticed this article today, and was hoping Schuyler would comment on
it - when I read it I saw (what I think are) all sorts of problems with the
study and the assumptions that are being made. Best wishes, Cara B
Teenagers, Friends and Bad Decisions
<
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/teenagers-friends-and-bad-decisions/?src=me&ref=general
asked 14 young teenagers (ages 14 to 18), 14 college students and 12 young
adults to play a six-minute video driving game while in a brain scanner.
Participants were given cash prizes for completing the game in a certain
time, but players had to make decisions about stopping at yellow lights, and
being delayed, or racing through yellow lights, which could result in a
faster time and a bigger prize, but also meant a higher risk for crashing
and an even longer delay. The children and adults played four rounds of the
game while undergoing the brain scan. Half the time they played alone, and
half the time they were told that two same-sex friends who had accompanied
them to the study were watching the play in the next room.
Among adults and college students, there were no meaningful differences in
risk taking, regardless of whether friends were watching. But the young
teenagers ran about 40 percent more yellow lights and had 60 percent more
crashes when they knew their friends were watching. And notably, the regions
of the brain associated with reward showed greater activity when they were
playing in view of their friends. It was as if the presence of friends, even
in the next room, prompted the brain�s reward system to drown out any
warning signals about risk, tipping the balance toward the reward."
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
it - when I read it I saw (what I think are) all sorts of problems with the
study and the assumptions that are being made. Best wishes, Cara B
Teenagers, Friends and Bad Decisions
<
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/teenagers-friends-and-bad-decisions/?src=me&ref=general
>"To test how the presence of peers influences risk taking, the researchers
asked 14 young teenagers (ages 14 to 18), 14 college students and 12 young
adults to play a six-minute video driving game while in a brain scanner.
Participants were given cash prizes for completing the game in a certain
time, but players had to make decisions about stopping at yellow lights, and
being delayed, or racing through yellow lights, which could result in a
faster time and a bigger prize, but also meant a higher risk for crashing
and an even longer delay. The children and adults played four rounds of the
game while undergoing the brain scan. Half the time they played alone, and
half the time they were told that two same-sex friends who had accompanied
them to the study were watching the play in the next room.
Among adults and college students, there were no meaningful differences in
risk taking, regardless of whether friends were watching. But the young
teenagers ran about 40 percent more yellow lights and had 60 percent more
crashes when they knew their friends were watching. And notably, the regions
of the brain associated with reward showed greater activity when they were
playing in view of their friends. It was as if the presence of friends, even
in the next room, prompted the brain�s reward system to drown out any
warning signals about risk, tipping the balance toward the reward."
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Joyce Fetteroll
On Feb 5, 2011, at 6:51 AM, Cara Barlow wrote:
common in adults to confuse reality and simulated reality and not be
able to tell the difference. I wonder if they've done studies on the
phenomenon? ;-)
But, also, 14-18 are the social years. It's when kids often get big
time into chatting with others in every way possible.
and funner than each individual." ;-) It's a human phenomenon but for
teens it's something they're first experiencing. I remember feeling
charged up in a group as a teen. They do get goofy and silly. I've
seen it in Kathryn. There's definitely a chemistry thing going on.
Out in the schooled world, there's also the factor that from the first
day that mom abandons the child to school that peers become sort of a
substitute family. So, depending how disconnected kids feel from their
families, how dependent they feel on their peers as being a substitute
for a family's unconditional love, it could ramp up what's already
there.
Joyce
> It was as if the presence of friends, evenThere wasn't any risk of bodily harm. It was a game. It seems fairly
> in the next room, prompted the brains reward system to drown out any
> warning signals about risk, tipping the balance toward the reward."
common in adults to confuse reality and simulated reality and not be
able to tell the difference. I wonder if they've done studies on the
phenomenon? ;-)
But, also, 14-18 are the social years. It's when kids often get big
time into chatting with others in every way possible.
> Dr. Steinberg notes that the brain system involved in rewardI'm betting it's a more subtle "the sum is stronger and more powerful
> processing is also involved in the processing of social information,
> explaining why peers can have such a pronounced effect on decision
> making. The effect is believed to be especially strong in teenagers
> because brain changes shortly after puberty appear to make young
> people more attentive and aware of what other people are thinking
> about them, Dr. Steinberg said.
and funner than each individual." ;-) It's a human phenomenon but for
teens it's something they're first experiencing. I remember feeling
charged up in a group as a teen. They do get goofy and silly. I've
seen it in Kathryn. There's definitely a chemistry thing going on.
Out in the schooled world, there's also the factor that from the first
day that mom abandons the child to school that peers become sort of a
substitute family. So, depending how disconnected kids feel from their
families, how dependent they feel on their peers as being a substitute
for a family's unconditional love, it could ramp up what's already
there.
Joyce
Schuyler
I figured the university students would be more likely to change their behaviour
if they were being watched by someone who they found attractive. My nephew was
involved in a very, very ad hoc "made for Australian television" study about
young men's behavioural response to the presence of an attractive woman
research assistant. They were way more risk taking in her presence than they
were in front of a young man research assistant.
David's response was I bet they get Laurence Steinberg in on it, and boom, next
paragraph, there he was. It's his shtick, the idea that the adolescent brain is
an immature brain that isn't really making appropriate decisions. I'm guessing
that the kind of coalition forming that these researchers are finding is
absolutely important for an adolescent. And I think Joyce is right, it's really
important for a school kid, these are a kind of family who can cut you out of
the will at any moment. They are absolutely essential for your social standing.
Maybe the teenagers' friends were closer friends than the other folks' friends?
Maybe they do more together and so it was more exciting just the idea that they
were watching? My high school friendships were more intense and more important
than at any other time in my life. I love the idea that the thrill of hanging
out with your friends is being looked at and written up in the same kind of way
that addiction is looked at: the reward pathways of the brain light up more.
I think a lot of stuff is about making people feel better. If you can
demonstrate that children, good children, go astray because their brains are
immature than you can feel justified in lots and lots of decisions that limit
their access to whatever it is that their immature brains can't handle. By
making it biological folks can figure that their isn't anything environmental at
play. Usually that's wrong. Usually biology and environment work in tandem. But
if a study of 40 people for whom we know nothing about the selection process
demonstrates that there is a difference in reward function between adolescents
and young adults and adults, well....
I think the interesting thing would be exploring what gains there are to
coalition formation in adolescence. It makes me want to go look at the group
stuff that Eric Smith and Bruce Winterhalder did and may still be doing. And to
look at why there is a declining rate at which same sex coalitions are important
as we age.
Schuyler
________________________________
Hi: I noticed this article today, and was hoping Schuyler would comment on
it - when I read it I saw (what I think are) all sorts of problems with the
study and the assumptions that are being made. Best wishes, Cara B
Teenagers, Friends and Bad Decisions
<
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/teenagers-friends-and-bad-decisions/?src=me&ref=general
if they were being watched by someone who they found attractive. My nephew was
involved in a very, very ad hoc "made for Australian television" study about
young men's behavioural response to the presence of an attractive woman
research assistant. They were way more risk taking in her presence than they
were in front of a young man research assistant.
David's response was I bet they get Laurence Steinberg in on it, and boom, next
paragraph, there he was. It's his shtick, the idea that the adolescent brain is
an immature brain that isn't really making appropriate decisions. I'm guessing
that the kind of coalition forming that these researchers are finding is
absolutely important for an adolescent. And I think Joyce is right, it's really
important for a school kid, these are a kind of family who can cut you out of
the will at any moment. They are absolutely essential for your social standing.
Maybe the teenagers' friends were closer friends than the other folks' friends?
Maybe they do more together and so it was more exciting just the idea that they
were watching? My high school friendships were more intense and more important
than at any other time in my life. I love the idea that the thrill of hanging
out with your friends is being looked at and written up in the same kind of way
that addiction is looked at: the reward pathways of the brain light up more.
I think a lot of stuff is about making people feel better. If you can
demonstrate that children, good children, go astray because their brains are
immature than you can feel justified in lots and lots of decisions that limit
their access to whatever it is that their immature brains can't handle. By
making it biological folks can figure that their isn't anything environmental at
play. Usually that's wrong. Usually biology and environment work in tandem. But
if a study of 40 people for whom we know nothing about the selection process
demonstrates that there is a difference in reward function between adolescents
and young adults and adults, well....
I think the interesting thing would be exploring what gains there are to
coalition formation in adolescence. It makes me want to go look at the group
stuff that Eric Smith and Bruce Winterhalder did and may still be doing. And to
look at why there is a declining rate at which same sex coalitions are important
as we age.
Schuyler
________________________________
Hi: I noticed this article today, and was hoping Schuyler would comment on
it - when I read it I saw (what I think are) all sorts of problems with the
study and the assumptions that are being made. Best wishes, Cara B
Teenagers, Friends and Bad Decisions
<
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/teenagers-friends-and-bad-decisions/?src=me&ref=general
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Schuyler
>>I think the interesting thing would be exploring what gains there are tocoalition formation in adolescence. It makes me want to go look at the group
stuff that Eric Smith and Bruce Winterhalder did and may still be doing. And to
look at why there is a declining rate at which same sex coalitions are important
as we age. <<
-----------------------------
David and I took the dog for a walk and talked about why would someone move
toward risky behaviour in an attempt to keep their friends.
Sometimes I walk past a school when school has just let out, or we drive past
schoolchildren on their way to school and being with a friend is absolutely
pivotal. A group of friends is better than one, but one is so many degrees
better than no other friends. I was on a university campus a few weeks ago and
it was nothing like that. Folks walked alone or with someone else without much
regard. There is something about middle school and high school that makes the
solo child a target.
Why would you risk your life to keep a friend? Because your life isn't worth
living without a friend. Or because you think that the risks are so great if you
don't have a friend that you won't survive.
Maybe it would be worth it to the researchers to examine what in their
environment made these teenagers so willing to put their virtual lives in
jeopardy that wasn't still in the environment for the older folks rather than
just assuming that there is an adaptation that humans have that makes them more
likely to die when they are between the ages of 12 and 20.
Schuyler
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Schuyler
David just sent me this abstract. Dr. Steinberg may have forgotten this paper.
But it argues that it isn't the adolescent brain that is the problem but the
environment.
----------------------------------------
Do Effects of Early Child Care Extend to Age 15 Years? Results From the NICHD
Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development
Author(s): Vandell DL (Vandell, Deborah Lowe)1, Belsky J (Belsky, Jay)2,
Burchinal M (Burchinal, Margaret), Steinberg L (Steinberg, Laurence)3,
Vandergrift N (Vandergrift, Nathan)4
Group Author(s): NICHD Early Child Care Res Network
Source: CHILD DEVELOPMENT Volume: 81 Issue: 3 Pages: 737-756
Published: MAY-JUN 2010
Times Cited: 4 References: 84 Citation MapCitation Map
Abstract: Relations between nonrelative child care (birth to 4 1/2 years) and
functioning at age 15 were examined (N = 1,364). Both quality and quantity of
child care were linked to adolescent functioning. Effects were similar in size
as those observed at younger ages. Higher quality care predicted higher
cognitive-academic achievement at age 15, with escalating positive effects at
higher levels of quality. The association between quality and achievement was
mediated, in part, by earlier child-care effects on achievement. High-quality
early child care also predicted youth reports of less externalizing behavior.
More hours of nonrelative care predicted greater risk taking and impulsivity at
age 15, relations that were partially mediated by earlier child-care effects on
externalizing behaviors.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
But it argues that it isn't the adolescent brain that is the problem but the
environment.
----------------------------------------
Do Effects of Early Child Care Extend to Age 15 Years? Results From the NICHD
Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development
Author(s): Vandell DL (Vandell, Deborah Lowe)1, Belsky J (Belsky, Jay)2,
Burchinal M (Burchinal, Margaret), Steinberg L (Steinberg, Laurence)3,
Vandergrift N (Vandergrift, Nathan)4
Group Author(s): NICHD Early Child Care Res Network
Source: CHILD DEVELOPMENT Volume: 81 Issue: 3 Pages: 737-756
Published: MAY-JUN 2010
Times Cited: 4 References: 84 Citation MapCitation Map
Abstract: Relations between nonrelative child care (birth to 4 1/2 years) and
functioning at age 15 were examined (N = 1,364). Both quality and quantity of
child care were linked to adolescent functioning. Effects were similar in size
as those observed at younger ages. Higher quality care predicted higher
cognitive-academic achievement at age 15, with escalating positive effects at
higher levels of quality. The association between quality and achievement was
mediated, in part, by earlier child-care effects on achievement. High-quality
early child care also predicted youth reports of less externalizing behavior.
More hours of nonrelative care predicted greater risk taking and impulsivity at
age 15, relations that were partially mediated by earlier child-care effects on
externalizing behaviors.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Joyce Fetteroll
On Feb 5, 2011, at 11:01 AM, Schuyler wrote:
of security in numbers. Schooled kids have the security of their
family taken from them and are thrown into an insecure environment
that they don't have the option of escaping from. In that respect it's
much more like prison or a prison camp where it's definitely to
someone's advantage to have a buddy and not be the loner whose
loyalties are iffy.
I doubt much of the behavior is conscious. I'm betting it's got
biological roots that go way back into the early days when protohuman
genetics were "experimenting" with the pros and cons of social groups
and going it alone. We've got these biological pulls going both ways.
When we're secure, we can relax and be loners if we wish. But when we
aren't, being part of a group can feel safer.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Sometimes I walk past a school when school has just let out, or weIs this true of unschooled children? I suspect there might be a factor
> drive past
> schoolchildren on their way to school and being with a friend is
> absolutely
> pivotal. A group of friends is better than one, but one is so many
> degrees
> better than no other friends.
of security in numbers. Schooled kids have the security of their
family taken from them and are thrown into an insecure environment
that they don't have the option of escaping from. In that respect it's
much more like prison or a prison camp where it's definitely to
someone's advantage to have a buddy and not be the loner whose
loyalties are iffy.
I doubt much of the behavior is conscious. I'm betting it's got
biological roots that go way back into the early days when protohuman
genetics were "experimenting" with the pros and cons of social groups
and going it alone. We've got these biological pulls going both ways.
When we're secure, we can relax and be loners if we wish. But when we
aren't, being part of a group can feel safer.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-Maybe it would be worth it to the researchers to examine what in their
environment made these teenagers so willing to put their virtual lives in
jeopardy that wasn't still in the environment for the older folks rather than
just assuming that there is an adaptation that humans have that makes them more
likely to die when they are between the ages of 12 and 20. -=-
I think there's something to be said for the kids knowing that a game is just a game, too, over and above the other considerations. The researchers couldn't have set up a real-life dangerous situation, for fear of legal liability, but I bet if it were real-world danger the results would've been the same anyway.
An interesting test would be dangerous behavior in same-age adults who were parents or not parents, and dividing it out for non-custodial parents. I became more cautious with my own safety when I became a mother. It didn't feel totally logic-and-thought based. Maybe it was a hormonal change. (So it's morbid and beyond the original question, but it might be interesting to know whether a woman who has had a miscarriage later in pregnancy also has the hormonal changes mothers might have, if it's a change. Or maybe it's just a new level of awareness or a new social standing, making parents more aware of the danger of incapacitation or death.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
environment made these teenagers so willing to put their virtual lives in
jeopardy that wasn't still in the environment for the older folks rather than
just assuming that there is an adaptation that humans have that makes them more
likely to die when they are between the ages of 12 and 20. -=-
I think there's something to be said for the kids knowing that a game is just a game, too, over and above the other considerations. The researchers couldn't have set up a real-life dangerous situation, for fear of legal liability, but I bet if it were real-world danger the results would've been the same anyway.
An interesting test would be dangerous behavior in same-age adults who were parents or not parents, and dividing it out for non-custodial parents. I became more cautious with my own safety when I became a mother. It didn't feel totally logic-and-thought based. Maybe it was a hormonal change. (So it's morbid and beyond the original question, but it might be interesting to know whether a woman who has had a miscarriage later in pregnancy also has the hormonal changes mothers might have, if it's a change. Or maybe it's just a new level of awareness or a new social standing, making parents more aware of the danger of incapacitation or death.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Schuyler
-=-Maybe it would be worth it to the researchers to examine what in their
environment made these teenagers so willing to put their virtual lives in
jeopardy that wasn't still in the environment for the older folks rather than
just assuming that there is an adaptation that humans have that makes them more
likely to die when they are between the ages of 12 and 20. -=-
I think there's something to be said for the kids knowing that a game is just a
game, too, over and above the other considerations. The researchers couldn't
have set up a real-life dangerous situation, for fear of legal liability, but I
bet if it were real-world danger the results would've been the same anyway.
================
It was the relative difference. Without peers watching and with peers watching
there was a significant difference only between the teens. They were willing to
risk their virtual lives more with peers watching whereas there was no real
difference between adults with or without peers watching or university students
with or without peers watching. It may not be a particularly refined assessment
of risk, but you are right, they probably can't get them to take actual risks
only the virtual ones.
===============
An interesting test would be dangerous behavior in same-age adults who were
parents or not parents, and dividing it out for non-custodial parents. I
became more cautious with my own safety when I became a mother. It didn't
feel totally logic-and-thought based. Maybe it was a hormonal change. (So
it's morbid and beyond the original question, but it might be interesting to
know whether a woman who has had a miscarriage later in pregnancy also has the
hormonal changes mothers might have, if it's a change. Or maybe it's just a new
level of awareness or a new social standing, making parents more aware of the
danger of incapacitation or death.
=====================
Women who don't breastfeed don't have the same hormonal change that
breastfeeding mothers have. I'm guessing that miscarriage really does have a
different hormonal profile. I don't know if there has been anything about risk
avoidance and motherhood. I remember stuff about motherhood changing behaviour
of teens mothers, making them more responsible.
Schuyler
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
environment made these teenagers so willing to put their virtual lives in
jeopardy that wasn't still in the environment for the older folks rather than
just assuming that there is an adaptation that humans have that makes them more
likely to die when they are between the ages of 12 and 20. -=-
I think there's something to be said for the kids knowing that a game is just a
game, too, over and above the other considerations. The researchers couldn't
have set up a real-life dangerous situation, for fear of legal liability, but I
bet if it were real-world danger the results would've been the same anyway.
================
It was the relative difference. Without peers watching and with peers watching
there was a significant difference only between the teens. They were willing to
risk their virtual lives more with peers watching whereas there was no real
difference between adults with or without peers watching or university students
with or without peers watching. It may not be a particularly refined assessment
of risk, but you are right, they probably can't get them to take actual risks
only the virtual ones.
===============
An interesting test would be dangerous behavior in same-age adults who were
parents or not parents, and dividing it out for non-custodial parents. I
became more cautious with my own safety when I became a mother. It didn't
feel totally logic-and-thought based. Maybe it was a hormonal change. (So
it's morbid and beyond the original question, but it might be interesting to
know whether a woman who has had a miscarriage later in pregnancy also has the
hormonal changes mothers might have, if it's a change. Or maybe it's just a new
level of awareness or a new social standing, making parents more aware of the
danger of incapacitation or death.
=====================
Women who don't breastfeed don't have the same hormonal change that
breastfeeding mothers have. I'm guessing that miscarriage really does have a
different hormonal profile. I don't know if there has been anything about risk
avoidance and motherhood. I remember stuff about motherhood changing behaviour
of teens mothers, making them more responsible.
Schuyler
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
sheeboo2
----I think there's something to be said for the kids knowing that a game is just a
game, too, over and above the other considerations. The researchers couldn't
have set up a real-life dangerous situation, for fear of legal liability, but I
bet if it were real-world danger the results would've been the same anyway.----
Thats what I was thinking too, but when I looked at the comments at the end of the article, where someone else made that claim, the author responded that:
--****"FROM TPP The negative consequence of driving recklessly in the study was to be delayed and lose prize money. In other studies, when the kids weren't in the M.R.I. scanner and had friends with them, the effect was even more pronounced."*****(7th comment down, http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/teenagers-friends-and-bad-decisions/?src=me&ref=general)
It is really important for me to remember when I read stuff like this how I felt reading "Nurture Shock" and the "Hold Your Kids Tight" books. I'm not afraid of my daughter's attachment becoming stronger to her peers than it is to her dad and me. That primary attachment is protected, primarily, by us not sending her off to be on her own for 30+ hours a week.
In "Nurture Shock" I felt angrier and angrier the farther I read because the authors never once seriously looked at SCHOOLING, that what is expected in and created by schools as the origin of all the problems faced by the kids they talk about. School was the elephant in the room. All these messed up kids wouldn't be messed up at all if they weren't in school, if they were treasured for their authentic selves, supported in their desires, had their needs met lovingly.
Dangerous thrill seeking seems to hold some promise of autonomy--but if your self-hood is already secure, if your life--and the hours you spend living it--pass for the most part on your own terms, the need to make a (questionable) point about "freedom" fades away.
Brie
game, too, over and above the other considerations. The researchers couldn't
have set up a real-life dangerous situation, for fear of legal liability, but I
bet if it were real-world danger the results would've been the same anyway.----
Thats what I was thinking too, but when I looked at the comments at the end of the article, where someone else made that claim, the author responded that:
--****"FROM TPP The negative consequence of driving recklessly in the study was to be delayed and lose prize money. In other studies, when the kids weren't in the M.R.I. scanner and had friends with them, the effect was even more pronounced."*****(7th comment down, http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/teenagers-friends-and-bad-decisions/?src=me&ref=general)
It is really important for me to remember when I read stuff like this how I felt reading "Nurture Shock" and the "Hold Your Kids Tight" books. I'm not afraid of my daughter's attachment becoming stronger to her peers than it is to her dad and me. That primary attachment is protected, primarily, by us not sending her off to be on her own for 30+ hours a week.
In "Nurture Shock" I felt angrier and angrier the farther I read because the authors never once seriously looked at SCHOOLING, that what is expected in and created by schools as the origin of all the problems faced by the kids they talk about. School was the elephant in the room. All these messed up kids wouldn't be messed up at all if they weren't in school, if they were treasured for their authentic selves, supported in their desires, had their needs met lovingly.
Dangerous thrill seeking seems to hold some promise of autonomy--but if your self-hood is already secure, if your life--and the hours you spend living it--pass for the most part on your own terms, the need to make a (questionable) point about "freedom" fades away.
Brie
Schuyler
Yes, that's what I'm arguing. There are special circumstances in a not-by-choice
schooled at school child's life that may make them willing to take more risks if
it means having a greater social network. It's an interesting aspect of group
formation. Although not so much if you are experiencing it, much more so if you
are approaching it as an intellectual exercise.
Schuyler
________________________________
===============
Is this true of unschooled children? I suspect there might be a factor
of security in numbers. Schooled kids have the security of their
family taken from them and are thrown into an insecure environment
that they don't have the option of escaping from. In that respect it's
much more like prison or a prison camp where it's definitely to
someone's advantage to have a buddy and not be the loner whose
loyalties are iffy.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
schooled at school child's life that may make them willing to take more risks if
it means having a greater social network. It's an interesting aspect of group
formation. Although not so much if you are experiencing it, much more so if you
are approaching it as an intellectual exercise.
Schuyler
________________________________
===============
Is this true of unschooled children? I suspect there might be a factor
of security in numbers. Schooled kids have the security of their
family taken from them and are thrown into an insecure environment
that they don't have the option of escaping from. In that respect it's
much more like prison or a prison camp where it's definitely to
someone's advantage to have a buddy and not be the loner whose
loyalties are iffy.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
k
>>>Maybe it would be worth it to the researchers to examine what in their environment made these teenagers so willing to put their virtual lives in jeopardy that wasn't still in the environment for the older folks rather than just assuming that there is an adaptation that humans have that makes them more likely to die when they are between the ages of 12 and 20.<<<When, as Joyce mentioned, it's only the game at risk not anyone's real
lives. Virtual lives, cyber lives, cat lives, Mario lives and Kirby
Superstar lives. It would be an indirect study as to real life/lives.
Virtual lives and virtual safety.
>>>I love the idea that the thrill of hanging out with your friends is being looked at and written up in the same kind of way that addiction is looked at: the reward pathways of the brain light up more.<<<There's something for unschooling parents to think about.
The way I see it, when a child is a baby, befriending a child from
infancy lights up a lot of pathways and makes tons of sweet bonding
connections. As the child gets older, it's the same thing. For a
parent (and other important people in the child's life but mainly the
parents for a long time) to keep up the friendship keeps the child's
lights from going out and for the connections follow well into later
years.
~Katherine
Schuyler
The study folks linked it to real risk. They talked about the greater risk of
accident when a teenage driver has peers in the car with them . I don't know if
it was done systematically in the paper with citations demonstrating the
increased real world risk. Of course that finding may be skewed simply because,
as David is pointing out to me, any teenager with a car is more likely to have
friends in the car with them than an adult driver is. That would make a teen
driver much more at risk of having a peer in the car with them when they had an
accident than an older person.
The argument that an age class is more likely to take risks as a part of a
developmentally normal pathway is a big statement. The statement isn't being
questioned by Tara Parker-Pope in her article. She's accepting the idea that
teens are risk taking with their peers because that's just the way their brains
are wired. I don't think that's a fair exploration of this groups findings.
All of the players in the game, the 14 teens, the 14 university students and the
12 adults (if I've got my numbers right) were all playing the same game. Only
the teens changed their response to risk in the face of having peers watching.
Here's an earlier paper Margo Gardner and Laurence Steinberg wrote without the
fMRI to explore the specific pathways: http://tinyurl.com/66byotr. If anyone is
interested in the game played or the methods used this one is probably similar
to the more recent study with the fMRI. In this paper they conclude with this:
"Thus, interventions aimed at reducing risky behavior among ado-
lescents and young adults—particularly those from ethnic minority
groups— ought to focus some attention on increasing individuals’
resistance to peer influence. For reasons not yet understood, the
presence of peers makes adolescents and youth, but not adults,
more likely to take risks and more likely to make risky decisions."
In the later paper I sent the abstract for Laurence Steinberg, among others,
found:
"More hours of nonrelative care predicted greater risk taking and impulsivity at
age 15, relations that were partially mediated by earlier child-care effects on
externalizing behaviors."
It seems that the way to minimise the risk taking behaviour of teens and young
adults is to have more care by relatives and less time in child-care.
Schuyler
________________________________
lives. Virtual lives, cyber lives, cat lives, Mario lives and Kirby
Superstar lives. It would be an indirect study as to real life/lives.
Virtual lives and virtual safety.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
accident when a teenage driver has peers in the car with them . I don't know if
it was done systematically in the paper with citations demonstrating the
increased real world risk. Of course that finding may be skewed simply because,
as David is pointing out to me, any teenager with a car is more likely to have
friends in the car with them than an adult driver is. That would make a teen
driver much more at risk of having a peer in the car with them when they had an
accident than an older person.
The argument that an age class is more likely to take risks as a part of a
developmentally normal pathway is a big statement. The statement isn't being
questioned by Tara Parker-Pope in her article. She's accepting the idea that
teens are risk taking with their peers because that's just the way their brains
are wired. I don't think that's a fair exploration of this groups findings.
All of the players in the game, the 14 teens, the 14 university students and the
12 adults (if I've got my numbers right) were all playing the same game. Only
the teens changed their response to risk in the face of having peers watching.
Here's an earlier paper Margo Gardner and Laurence Steinberg wrote without the
fMRI to explore the specific pathways: http://tinyurl.com/66byotr. If anyone is
interested in the game played or the methods used this one is probably similar
to the more recent study with the fMRI. In this paper they conclude with this:
"Thus, interventions aimed at reducing risky behavior among ado-
lescents and young adults—particularly those from ethnic minority
groups— ought to focus some attention on increasing individuals’
resistance to peer influence. For reasons not yet understood, the
presence of peers makes adolescents and youth, but not adults,
more likely to take risks and more likely to make risky decisions."
In the later paper I sent the abstract for Laurence Steinberg, among others,
found:
"More hours of nonrelative care predicted greater risk taking and impulsivity at
age 15, relations that were partially mediated by earlier child-care effects on
externalizing behaviors."
It seems that the way to minimise the risk taking behaviour of teens and young
adults is to have more care by relatives and less time in child-care.
Schuyler
________________________________
>>>Maybe it would be worth it to the researchers to examine what in theirWhen, as Joyce mentioned, it's only the game at risk not anyone's real
>>>environment made these teenagers so willing to put their virtual lives in
>>>jeopardy that wasn't still in the environment for the older folks rather than
>>>just assuming that there is an adaptation that humans have that makes them more
>>>likely to die when they are between the ages of 12 and 20.<<<
lives. Virtual lives, cyber lives, cat lives, Mario lives and Kirby
Superstar lives. It would be an indirect study as to real life/lives.
Virtual lives and virtual safety.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-
The way I see it, when a child is a baby, befriending a child from
infancy lights up a lot of pathways and makes tons of sweet bonding
connections. As the child gets older, it's the same thing. For a
parent (and other important people in the child's life but mainly the
parents for a long time) to keep up the friendship keeps the child's
lights from going out and for the connections follow well into later
years.-=-
Are you talking about a child being friends with his parents?
That paragraph confused me.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
The way I see it, when a child is a baby, befriending a child from
infancy lights up a lot of pathways and makes tons of sweet bonding
connections. As the child gets older, it's the same thing. For a
parent (and other important people in the child's life but mainly the
parents for a long time) to keep up the friendship keeps the child's
lights from going out and for the connections follow well into later
years.-=-
Are you talking about a child being friends with his parents?
That paragraph confused me.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
k
>>>"Thus, interventions aimed at reducing risky behavior among adolescents and young adults [...] ought to focus some attention on increasing individuals’ resistance to peer influence.<<<So exactly what do they think one can do with this finding?
>>>> The argument that an age class is more likely to take risks as a part of a developmentally normal pathway is a big statement. The statement isn't being questioned by Tara Parker-Pope in her article. She's accepting the idea that teens are risk taking with their peers because that's just the way their brains are wired. I don't think that's a fair exploration of this groups findings. <<<
If it's the way teens are wired, is the idea to restrict their access
to cars? Put them behind bars until they are older? I'm just reaching.
I was 30+ when I engaged in risky behaviors like smoking, for the
first time ever, due to peer (and family and other cultural)
influences. What's a risky behavior? I've quit smoking now but lots of
people don't. (Was I a regressed adult still in some special sort of
adolescence?) I'm not the only one. How about men who engage in road
rage with the wider group of peers (often other male drivers, but
sometimes female drivers) that is now the society at large? What is a
peer, really? How far out of one's age group do one's peers quit being
considered one's peers? I have colleagues who are 20+ years older than
me. But then the word "peer" would have a lot more specific meaning if
I were still in school segregated by age, and that distinction
disappears as soon as a person steps foot in on a college campus and
meets quite a few younger and older people engaged in very similar
things.
Oh. School. Nevermind then. :)
~Katherine
k
I'm talking about parents befriending their children.
~Katherine
~Katherine
On 2/5/11, Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
> -=-
> The way I see it, when a child is a baby, befriending a child from
> infancy lights up a lot of pathways and makes tons of sweet bonding
> connections. As the child gets older, it's the same thing. For a
> parent (and other important people in the child's life but mainly the
> parents for a long time) to keep up the friendship keeps the child's
> lights from going out and for the connections follow well into later
> years.-=-
>
> Are you talking about a child being friends with his parents?
> That paragraph confused me.
>
>
> Sandra
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
Sandra Dodd
-=-I'm talking about parents befriending their children.-=-
It's not what "friends" meant in the study, and I don't think we should confuse the terms.
Keith's my husband. We're also plenty friendly, but if I introduced him as "this is my friend, Keith," it would not be clarifying.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
It's not what "friends" meant in the study, and I don't think we should confuse the terms.
Keith's my husband. We're also plenty friendly, but if I introduced him as "this is my friend, Keith," it would not be clarifying.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Jenny Cyphers
***The argument that an age class is more likely to take risks as a part of a
developmentally normal pathway is a big statement. The statement isn't being
questioned by Tara Parker-Pope in her article. She's accepting the idea that
teens are risk taking with their peers because that's just the way their brains
are wired. I don't think that's a fair exploration of this groups findings. ***
I know these kinds of studies generalize, but sometimes they irritate me in
their generalizations. I was not a risk taking teenager. My oldest daughter is
to some extent, but she's more considerate of her actions like I was at her age.
Partly that's genetics and partly that's environment.
I don't think it's fair to assume that all or most teens brains are wired a
certain way. I totally agree with what Schuyler is saying here! Some teens are
risk takers, some teens are risk takers because they are reacting to their
environment and some are that way because they are genetically that way, and
there's a big huge mix in the middle.
The peer environment of schooled kids is soooooo far different than the peer
environment of unschooled teens that it's hard to look at a study like this and
not wonder about that effect. I wonder about it EVERY time I see some kind of
statistical study done on children and teens.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
developmentally normal pathway is a big statement. The statement isn't being
questioned by Tara Parker-Pope in her article. She's accepting the idea that
teens are risk taking with their peers because that's just the way their brains
are wired. I don't think that's a fair exploration of this groups findings. ***
I know these kinds of studies generalize, but sometimes they irritate me in
their generalizations. I was not a risk taking teenager. My oldest daughter is
to some extent, but she's more considerate of her actions like I was at her age.
Partly that's genetics and partly that's environment.
I don't think it's fair to assume that all or most teens brains are wired a
certain way. I totally agree with what Schuyler is saying here! Some teens are
risk takers, some teens are risk takers because they are reacting to their
environment and some are that way because they are genetically that way, and
there's a big huge mix in the middle.
The peer environment of schooled kids is soooooo far different than the peer
environment of unschooled teens that it's hard to look at a study like this and
not wonder about that effect. I wonder about it EVERY time I see some kind of
statistical study done on children and teens.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-I don't think it's fair to assume that all or most teens brains are wired a
certain way. I totally agree with what Schuyler is saying here! Some teens are
risk takers, some teens are risk takers because they are reacting to their
environment and some are that way because they are genetically that way, and
there's a big huge mix in the middle.-=-
If it's proven, though, it would no longer be an assumption.
I've seen unschooled teens be reckless in groups. I've seen my own kids and lots of their friends grow into, through, and out of teen years, and have seen them show off for each other, and then get older and be less likely to take risks just to compete for approval within the group.
I don't think it's an assumption that there are stages people go through in their normal human development. It's been pretty well established for a long time. "Most" is most. Not all. Some people are lifelong adrenaline-loving stunt men or athletes or race car drivers or sky divers or mountain climbers. They are probably (in general, most of them) more careful as adults than they were as teens.
Some kids are very confident and charismatic, and they probably don't risk as much as those who are needier of attention. That wan't tested, nor does it seem to me it needs to be. there's no sense labelling and identifying kids as to their level of social desireability or desire. Being able to advise kids to be careful, and reminding them that there are realities that have to do with being primates, or realities that pre-date schools. It's not all about school.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
certain way. I totally agree with what Schuyler is saying here! Some teens are
risk takers, some teens are risk takers because they are reacting to their
environment and some are that way because they are genetically that way, and
there's a big huge mix in the middle.-=-
If it's proven, though, it would no longer be an assumption.
I've seen unschooled teens be reckless in groups. I've seen my own kids and lots of their friends grow into, through, and out of teen years, and have seen them show off for each other, and then get older and be less likely to take risks just to compete for approval within the group.
I don't think it's an assumption that there are stages people go through in their normal human development. It's been pretty well established for a long time. "Most" is most. Not all. Some people are lifelong adrenaline-loving stunt men or athletes or race car drivers or sky divers or mountain climbers. They are probably (in general, most of them) more careful as adults than they were as teens.
Some kids are very confident and charismatic, and they probably don't risk as much as those who are needier of attention. That wan't tested, nor does it seem to me it needs to be. there's no sense labelling and identifying kids as to their level of social desireability or desire. Being able to advise kids to be careful, and reminding them that there are realities that have to do with being primates, or realities that pre-date schools. It's not all about school.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
plaidpanties666
Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
This is something I've talked about off and on with a couple of my male co-workers - how our decision making has shifted away from riskier options as a result of becoming parents. The custodial/non-custodial issue interests me, in particular, because it could shed some light on some of Ray's bio mom's earlier behaviors. For several years she had the ability to step away from parenting any time she chose, and during that time she engaged in much riskier behavior than she has since her second child, whom she never perceived the option of handing into another's care.
I think the social forces also change once you have kids - parents who take more risks aren't seen in the same kind of positive light as parents who are solid and dependable.
---Meredith
>> An interesting test would be dangerous behavior in same-age adults who were parents or not parents, and dividing it out for non-custodial parents.*****************
This is something I've talked about off and on with a couple of my male co-workers - how our decision making has shifted away from riskier options as a result of becoming parents. The custodial/non-custodial issue interests me, in particular, because it could shed some light on some of Ray's bio mom's earlier behaviors. For several years she had the ability to step away from parenting any time she chose, and during that time she engaged in much riskier behavior than she has since her second child, whom she never perceived the option of handing into another's care.
I think the social forces also change once you have kids - parents who take more risks aren't seen in the same kind of positive light as parents who are solid and dependable.
---Meredith
plaidpanties666
Schuyler <s.waynforth@...> wrote:
To tie this in to Sandra's supposition about parents vs non-parents, parents can get attention and "rewards" from peers for "good behavior" - driving like a maniac, for instance, got one of my former housemates into a lot of trouble with his wife - trouble of the "withholding sex" variety. So he was very directly rewarded for more responsible behavior and punished for irresponsible behavior.
Ray has been learning to drive using friends' cars, as his own needs a lot of work in order to run. His friends don't tend to encourage reckless driving, though - but they're also older and own the cars he's driving, as well as being hippie types who don't want to come to the attention of police in the local small towns. So Ray is encouraged to drive conservatively.
That's one of the advantages of having a peer group that isn't defined within the fairly narrow confines of school - young people get to share a range of experience and strategies and can focus on different goals.
---Meredith
>> "More hours of nonrelative care predicted greater risk taking and impulsivity atThat makes sense - child-care tends to set up situations where one of the most reliable strategies for a child to get attention is by risk-taking or otherwise "disruptive" behavior. Not that it doesn't happen in homes, too, but there's more of a chance in a home that a child will get attention for "good" behavior, too.
> age 15, relations that were partially mediated by earlier child-care effects on
> externalizing behaviors."
>
> It seems that the way to minimise the risk taking behaviour of teens and young
> adults is to have more care by relatives and less time in child-care.
To tie this in to Sandra's supposition about parents vs non-parents, parents can get attention and "rewards" from peers for "good behavior" - driving like a maniac, for instance, got one of my former housemates into a lot of trouble with his wife - trouble of the "withholding sex" variety. So he was very directly rewarded for more responsible behavior and punished for irresponsible behavior.
Ray has been learning to drive using friends' cars, as his own needs a lot of work in order to run. His friends don't tend to encourage reckless driving, though - but they're also older and own the cars he's driving, as well as being hippie types who don't want to come to the attention of police in the local small towns. So Ray is encouraged to drive conservatively.
That's one of the advantages of having a peer group that isn't defined within the fairly narrow confines of school - young people get to share a range of experience and strategies and can focus on different goals.
---Meredith
Schuyler
But it isn't proven. Or at least the controls that they had in place weren't
sufficient enough, in my opinion, to prove their hypotheses. One of the controls
that I think is pivotal is parental care given the findings of the study with
Laurence Steinberg as 5th author that 15 year olds who had less time in daycare
and non-relative care were more risk averse. I also think that their hypotheses
are relatively unclear. I think they found something and then wanted to find it
again and then slapped on an explanation.
I went looking at my favourite demography, the book on the Ache, a hunter
gatherer group in Paraguay, to see what their age specific mortality looked
like. Dr.s Hill and Hurtado were kind enough to include the age specific
mortality profiles for 3 different populations, the Ache, the Yananomo, and the
!Kung. The data as presented seems to show that the teen years have a pretty low
risk of death. That finding is at odds with the idea that folks are more likely
to die or at least put themselves at risk in the teen years because of some
developmental stage that humans go through.
Okay, it's kind of disturbing if you go and find age specific mortality data.
Just reading through a paper by Mike Gurven and Hilly Kaplan there isn't any
spike in mortality over the teen years among hunter gatherer groups, among
peasant groups, from Swedish historical data from 1751-1759, even from
prehistoric data (presumably from skeletal remains), and for wild chimpanzees
and captive chimpanzees. Looking at raw number data for the U.S. from 1999 to
2006, however, there is a spike in car accident deaths involving 15 to 24 year
olds that then levels back out, although never returning to the lows of earlier
age groups with boys at a much greater risk than girls across all later age
groups.
That suggests a cultural condition and not a genetic condition.
Schuyler
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
sufficient enough, in my opinion, to prove their hypotheses. One of the controls
that I think is pivotal is parental care given the findings of the study with
Laurence Steinberg as 5th author that 15 year olds who had less time in daycare
and non-relative care were more risk averse. I also think that their hypotheses
are relatively unclear. I think they found something and then wanted to find it
again and then slapped on an explanation.
I went looking at my favourite demography, the book on the Ache, a hunter
gatherer group in Paraguay, to see what their age specific mortality looked
like. Dr.s Hill and Hurtado were kind enough to include the age specific
mortality profiles for 3 different populations, the Ache, the Yananomo, and the
!Kung. The data as presented seems to show that the teen years have a pretty low
risk of death. That finding is at odds with the idea that folks are more likely
to die or at least put themselves at risk in the teen years because of some
developmental stage that humans go through.
Okay, it's kind of disturbing if you go and find age specific mortality data.
Just reading through a paper by Mike Gurven and Hilly Kaplan there isn't any
spike in mortality over the teen years among hunter gatherer groups, among
peasant groups, from Swedish historical data from 1751-1759, even from
prehistoric data (presumably from skeletal remains), and for wild chimpanzees
and captive chimpanzees. Looking at raw number data for the U.S. from 1999 to
2006, however, there is a spike in car accident deaths involving 15 to 24 year
olds that then levels back out, although never returning to the lows of earlier
age groups with boys at a much greater risk than girls across all later age
groups.
That suggests a cultural condition and not a genetic condition.
Schuyler
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Pam Sorooshian
On 2/6/2011 8:44 AM, Schuyler wrote:
limber and so less likely to be injured doing risky things. And, they
fight off infection better and are less likely to die from the same
injury that would kill someone older.
They could be taking more risk because they are less likely to be
seriously injured and less likely to die if they are.
In that case, noting that they are in fact less likely to be seriously
injured or die isn't proof that they're taking less risk, it is a reason
that they might be taking more risk.
Recently, football players are saying they are hitting way harder, using
their heads to hit way harder, because of the better football helmet
technology. More protection is leading to greater risk-taking.
-pam
> The data as presented seems to show that the teen years have a pretty lowProbably, on average, they have better eyesight, they're stronger, more
> risk of death. That finding is at odds with the idea that folks are
> more likely
> to die or at least put themselves at risk in the teen years because of
> some
> developmental stage that humans go through.
limber and so less likely to be injured doing risky things. And, they
fight off infection better and are less likely to die from the same
injury that would kill someone older.
They could be taking more risk because they are less likely to be
seriously injured and less likely to die if they are.
In that case, noting that they are in fact less likely to be seriously
injured or die isn't proof that they're taking less risk, it is a reason
that they might be taking more risk.
Recently, football players are saying they are hitting way harder, using
their heads to hit way harder, because of the better football helmet
technology. More protection is leading to greater risk-taking.
-pam