Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggy
As a qualified educator of the 11-18 age group I disagree with your generalisation.
|
Respectfully, appealing to one’s position as a “qualified educator” does not, in itself, negate a generalisation, nor does it automatically provide a counterpoint grounded in fact. Authority is not a substitute fo argument. While educators may have valuable insight, experience alone does not invalidate the broader psychological and neurological consensus around adolescent cognitive developmnt
Developmental psychology, neuroscience, and behavioural studies consistently show that the prefrontal cortex (the part of the brain responsible for executive function, impulse control, and long-term planning) is still developing well into the mid 20s. This is why 16 year olds, despite being capable of moments of maturity, often struggle with complex risk assessment, susceptibility to peer influence, and longer-term consequence evaluation. A reason why car insurance for young adults even into mid 20s can cost a considerable amount more, even if a 23 year old has been driving longer than a 33 year old. This isn’t a moral judgement, it’s a biological reality, one supported by findings from organisations like the American Psychological Association and echoed in UK government guidelines on youth sentencing and safeguarding, as has already been touched on in this thread.
This doesn’t mean young people lack value, voice, or intelligence. But being “capable of expressing opinions” is not the same as being developmentally ready to make far reaching societal decisions. If we extend the logic of using personal experience to rebut scientific generalisations, then every teacher, parent, or youth worker who has seen the opposite must also be equally valid, and that renders the argument circular. A nuanced conversation about capability should be based on data, psychology, and long-term civic impact, not solely on anecdotal exceptions.