Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Boges

Adolescence until 25?

Recommended Posts

I think everything is happening later in life for youths/early adults. They stay in school longer, they travel, get married later, have kids later. I guess the reality is that the life expectation is now longer and people are working longer which is passed down to our kids who then delay growing up knowing there is lots of time to do all the adult things.

Back in my parents generation, it was get a job, get married and have kids all around 18. Now we feel sorry for a girl who gets pregnant before 21.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24173194

Is this is because kids these days can't find jobs that even remotely allow them to be financially independent until well into their 20's, sometimes 30's?

I do think this is just a way for child psychologist's to make work for themselves. At no point in human history would anyone consider people that have been alive for 25 years to not be a fully functioning adult.

People were forced to be adults in their early teenage years. This is just another way to coddle the upcoming generation if you ask me.

This really has nothing to do with coddling. It has to do with psychological analysis and growth trajectory research. The issue is that people go through a variety of pathways in their transition to adulthood and that doesn't happen in the same way or at the same times for everyone. Saying that adolescence extends to the age of 25 is hardly controversial in this framework. You have very few kids these days crossing the typical adulthood milestones after high school (age 18). Those milestones include moving out on their own, entering long-term romantic partnerships, having children, and beginning long-term careers. The vast majority of kids go on to post-secondary education and try on different experiences, provided their families have the resources to allow them a safety net for the "yo-yo effect." The "yo-yo effect" is the idea that some kids start adulthood, get out on their own, then end up back home for a variety of reasons, one of them obviously financial. Some people start post-secondary education in one field and change part way through or do something different entirely.

So anyway, long story short, it really has nothing to do with "coddling" kids. It has to do with the way researchers conceptualize developmental phases and that has everything to do with the way we distinguish adulthood from childhood. Like I mentioned above, typically this has to do with particular milestones, as it is not at all analytically useful to simply use chronology as your benchmark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the law says 18.

Should the parents be legally bound to provide for their child until 25 now? What about 30?

The legal definition is more or less irrelevant for the purposes of the article you posted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or a PhD in any field.

That being said, treating people in their 20s as children is insulting and demeaning. Being condescended to and not being considered a "fully functional adult" is not being coddled (as the OP claims) but being relegated to a 2nd class position in society.

This is a complete misinterpretation of what's being argued. Adolescents are not children. It's an entirely different developmental phase. No one's talking about treating them like a child or some 2nd class position in society. Only someone that has some sort of ageist disdain for young adults would argue that. Edited by cybercoma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or a PhD in any field.

If someone went straight from high school to university until they received their Ph.D., it would probably take more like 12 years in reality. Seven years is like a basic liberal arts undergraduate and some professional training afterward. I know a kid in his early 20s who is pursuing a four-year business degree and four years of journeyman electrician training with the plan of starting his own electrician business. It is becoming increasingly difficult to get any reasonable income without a whole lot of education. That's why it's becoming increasingly rare for kids to be settled and financially independent before they're 25.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a complete misinterpretation of what's being argued. Adolescents are not children. It's an entirely different developmental phase. No one's talking about treating them like a child or some 2nd class position in society. Only someone that has some sort of ageist disdain for young adults would argue that.

Note this post from another member earlier in the thread:

So no Voting, Driving, Drinking, Sex, etc, until 25, eh?

Suits me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone went straight from high school to university until they received their Ph.D., it would probably take more like 12 years in reality. Seven years is like a basic liberal arts undergraduate and some professional training afterward. I know a kid in his early 20s who is pursuing a four-year business degree and four years of journeyman electrician training with the plan of starting his own electrician business. It is becoming increasingly difficult to get any reasonable income without a whole lot of education. That's why it's becoming increasingly rare for kids to be settled and financially independent before they're 25.

I agree with what you've said, but financial independence is not a necessary criterion for adulthood. Is a person who is dependent on their spouse not an adult? Is an older person who is dependent on their relatives not an adult? Is a disabled person living on disability checks not an adult? I think the whole push to classify increasingly older people, now well into their mid 20s as "kids" is a result of entrenched 60+ old baby-boomers (who still hold the vast majority of power, wealth, and influence in our society) looking at their little babies (since they are their children and grandchildren) and just making unfounded emotional conclusions, rather than being based on any legitimate scientific research.

Edited by Bonam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a complete misinterpretation of what's being argued. Adolescents are not children. It's an entirely different developmental phase. No one's talking about treating them like a child or some 2nd class position in society. Only someone that has some sort of ageist disdain for young adults would argue that.

Adolescents aren't children, and IMO an 18-25 year old isn't an adolescent. At most there should maybe another category for this 18-25 year group. There's a big difference in most 20 year olds compared to 30 year olds. Maybe "young adult" should refer to people in their late teens to mid 20's. If you're in your early 20's you are definitely an adult, but you're probably at a different stage of emotional maturity than those in their early 30's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're in your early 20's you are definitely an adult, but you're probably at a different stage of emotional maturity than those in their early 30's.

Got any evidence of this? I think people in their 20s and 30s are both fully adult. The level of emotional maturity varies on an individual-to-individual basis. I know plenty of thirty-somethings that are not that mature and twenty-somethings that are more mature, and vice versa. I don't know why people keep persisting with these meaningless classifications. Would it be helpful to anyone or anything if we classified people in their forties as "adults" and people in their fifties as "tired adults"?

There's only two meaningful classifications: the age group that does not have the full rights and responsibilities associated with adulthood (minors), and the age group that does (adults).

In regards to the point that this is more related to medical/psychological treatments than treatment in society... one would think that even a half-competent psychologist would be able to glean a lot more by interacting with the individual patient in question and developing a personalized treatment plan, rather than making blind assumptions based on their age and hoping for the best.

Edited by Bonam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got any evidence of this? I think people in their 20s and 30s are both fully adult. The level of emotional maturity varies on an individual-to-individual basis. I know plenty of thirty-somethings that are not that mature and twenty-somethings that are more mature, and vice versa. I don't know why people keep persisting with these meaningless classifications. Would it be helpful to anyone or anything if we classified people in their forties as "adults" and people in their fifties as "tired adults"?

There's only two meaningful classifications: the age group that does not have the full rights and responsibilities associated with adulthood (minors), and the age group that does (adults).

In regards to the point that this is more related to medical/psychological treatments than treatment in society... one would think that even a half-competent psychologist would be able to glean a lot more by interacting with the individual patient in question and developing a personalized treatment plan, rather than making blind assumptions based on their age and hoping for the best.

I completely agree that people should be judged on an individual, case-by-case basis. I was of course only speaking in generalities.

There's only two meaningful classifications: the age group that does not have the full rights and responsibilities associated with adulthood (minors), and the age group that does (adults).

Why should this be the case? Why define a set age limit on everyone? Similar to your point, some people may be mature and intelligent enough to vote at age 16, moreso than some 20-year-olds. There's no age limit you can draw that will apply to everyone equally. Shouldn't some rights be based on merit rather than age? Maybe it would be too inefficient this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this is because kids these days can't find jobs that even remotely allow them to be financially independent until well into their 20's, sometimes 30's?

I do think this is just a way for child psychologist's to make work for themselves. At no point in human history would anyone consider people that have been alive for 25 years to not be a fully functioning adult.

People were forced to be adults in their early teenage years. This is just another way to coddle the upcoming generation if you ask me.

When people were "adults" in early teen years, the families lived as multigenerational, not nuclear units. Thus, there really was no magic moment when people became adults.

I think it is quite reasonable that people's skills don't become independently marketable until age 27 or so, and that would be the start of true self-sufficiency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why should this be the case? Why define a set age limit on everyone? Similar to your point, some people may be mature and intelligent enough to vote at age 16, moreso than some 20-year-olds. There's no age limit you can draw that will apply to everyone equally. Shouldn't some rights be based on merit rather than age? Maybe it would be too inefficient this way.

I agree that ideally everyone should be judged on an individual basis and accorded rights and responsibilities appropriately. That would certainly be a positive change and I would support any realistic implementation of this, though I foresee various constititional issues if one tried to limit the right to vote to only people that could pass a certain test, for example.

However, my main point in this thread is to combat the rampant discrimination that some people seem to have against 20-somethings, and their desire to relegate 20-somethings to some category that is deprived of the full rights and responsbilities that they deserve as members of our society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note this post from another member earlier in the thread:

We're talking about a developmental phase and the way researchers analyze growth trajectories and life course interactions. You're talking about political ideas and value judgments, which has absolutely nothing to do with the purpose of the OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got any evidence of this? I think people in their 20s and 30s are both fully adult. The level of emotional maturity varies on an individual-to-individual basis. I know plenty of thirty-somethings that are not that mature and twenty-somethings that are more mature, and vice versa. I don't know why people keep persisting with these meaningless classifications. Would it be helpful to anyone or anything if we classified people in their forties as "adults" and people in their fifties as "tired adults"?

There's only two meaningful classifications: the age group that does not have the full rights and responsibilities associated with adulthood (minors), and the age group that does (adults).

It doesn't mean they're not useful because you can't understand how or why. You keep insisting on legal and political definitions of adulthood which have absolutely nothing to do with psychological or social science research. When we're trying to understand predictors of certain outcomes and the way people behave or are affected by certain things in their lives, the legal definitions doesn't work. For most predictive modelling, having a dichotomous predictor for age would be about as close to meaningless as you could get. The more independent variation the better. So for a range of ages, we see more similarities with adolescents (12-17 year olds) among 18-25 year olds than we see similarities in that age group with 26-35 year olds. There's no simple way of explaining it without getting into academic research explaining why this is the case with quantitative models showing these outcomes.

One of the crucial differences between childhood and adulthood is your attachment to your immediate family versus creating your own immediate family. The average age of marriage and starting a family is now around 27 years old. Despite there being myriad different types of romantic partnerships, people still generally get married or cohabit in long-term relationships and begin families. This isn't happening until the late 20s. In the early 20s, a lot of people move out of their home and into residence for university, but come back to their parents place for the summer or after graduating stay home with parents for a year or so preparing for permanent departure from their childhood homes. For these reasons and many more it's not meaningful to just consider everyone over 18 completely an adult for different analytical purposes. Still further, other researchers have suggested that there is a phase between adolescence and adulthood that is an entirely other developmental phase because people are neither fully an adult nor quite an adolescent.

There are many varied opinions on this. But what you have to understand is that strictly sticking to a legal definition or dichotomizing people into adult and child categories is not at all helpful or meaningful for social scientific research. It introduces a lot of errors into quantitative modelling by limiting the variability in the data.

Edited by cybercoma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, my main point in this thread is to combat the rampant discrimination that some people seem to have against 20-somethings, and their desire to relegate 20-somethings to some category that is deprived of the full rights and responsbilities that they deserve as members of our society.

No one is depriving anyone of rights and responsibilities. I don't think you understand at all the purpose of researchers including 18-25 year olds in the adolescent category. It has nothing to do with saying they shouldn't vote, drive, or have any other rights and responsibilities. It's not a value judgment. Instead, it is an observation of their social, psychological and emotional characteristics that shows they have more in common with adolescents than people that are considered adults.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the whole push to classify increasingly older people, now well into their mid 20s as "kids" is a result of entrenched 60+ old baby-boomers (who still hold the vast majority of power, wealth, and influence in our society) looking at their little babies (since they are their children and grandchildren) and just making unfounded emotional conclusions, rather than being based on any legitimate scientific research.

Do you have any reason to suspect that the scientific research referenced in the original article is illegitimate?

"Neuroscience has shown that a young person's cognitive development continues into this later stage and that their emotional maturity, self-image and judgement will be affected until the prefrontal cortex of the brain has fully developed.

Alongside brain development, hormonal activity is also continuing well into the early twenties"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24173194

Is this is because kids these days can't find jobs that even remotely allow them to be financially independent until well into their 20's, sometimes 30's?

I do think this is just a way for child psychologist's to make work for themselves. At no point in human history would anyone consider people that have been alive for 25 years to not be a fully functioning adult.

For large parts of human history, 25 would be effectively middle age.

People were forced to be adults in their early teenage years. This is just another way to coddle the upcoming generation if you ask me.

Or maybe it's recognizing the social context has changed a lot since granpappy was sent down to the mines at 12.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For some 18-25, they have an adult body but some haven't matured as yet, like those born in the first part of the year, are more mature than the kids born in the last half. It also has to do with their home life, are they are given responsibilties around the house, a part time job, respect to parent and other adults and who their friends are. Unfortunately, some young people are force to living at home because of the unemployment or if thye are still going to school. I read a report that stated the baby boomers may have high debt because of trying to help their kids and so retirement are not in the cards for them. Do you think (WE) boomers help our kids too much????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People that are 25 are not kids, and you should not refer to them as such, it is insulting. That's blatant age discrimination.

So what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what?

So what? Go back to the retirement home old man, the adults are talking. If it's rude to say that to a 50 year old, it's rude to say the equivalent to a 25 year old. And sure, people are free to be rude if they want, but they should realize that that's all their doing in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the crucial differences between childhood and adulthood is your attachment to your immediate family versus creating your own immediate family. The average age of marriage and starting a family is now around 27 years old. Despite there being myriad different types of romantic partnerships, people still generally get married or cohabit in long-term relationships and begin families.

If your measure is whether someone has started their own family, how about you classify people by, you know, something totally crazy like if they have actually started their own family or not, rather than by making blind assumptions based on age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For these reasons and many more it's not meaningful to just consider everyone over 18 completely an adult for different analytical purposes. Still further, other researchers have suggested that there is a phase between adolescence and adulthood that is an entirely other developmental phase because people are neither fully an adult nor quite an adolescent.

Instead, it is an observation of their social, psychological and emotional characteristics that shows they have more in common with adolescents than people that are considered adults.

And who is it that is considered "adults" that these 18-25 year olds have so little in common with? Are adults those between 25-35, those between 30 and 50? Between 35 and dead? Who got to make up this new definition of adults, and why? It's a matter of reference frame. When the researchers are old boomers in their 50s and 60s, of course they see 18-25 year olds as having more in common with 16-18 year olds than with themselves (themselves being their reference for an "adult"). Duh.

So to address your last sentence... no, 25 year olds don't have "less in common with people who are considered adults" because 25 year olds ARE considered adults, except by old fogies whose grandchildren are 25. It's just the flip side of the coin from 13 year old kids thinking "OMG 25 IS SO OLD!! GROSS!!", and no more insightful nor mature.

As to observations of brain changes, for those of you that don't know, the brain continues to change and adapt and form new pathways and destroy old ones for the entirety of one's life, from birth to death. The rate at which this happens generally slows on a pretty much continual basis, and there are no hard dividing lines between when a cortex is "developing" vs "developed". Furthermore, what a person does with their brain can vastly influence its rate of change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't know the answers to the questions you're asking then you obviously have no idea what the article is talking about. This is about psychologists and social scientists understanding the things that affect 18-25 year olds socially, psychologically, and physiologically. It's not ageism any more than pediatrics or geriatrics is ageism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...