Nature or Nurture? Kids brains

[SeattlePioneer 144]

That's true, but those Webelos can produce some sharp looking Pinewood Derby cars! But not "art"!

[TAHAWK 1420]

There is massive data collected by the insurance industry regarding driving behavior. The young, AS A GROUP, are significantly more likely to engage in risky driving behaviors than those 25 or older.

 

This has little to do with creativity or intelligence at such.

 

As we are supposed to be teaching youth to be better and more responsible citizens, there seems little basis to use this data to support failing to allow youth the experience of leading.

 

 

[qwazse 4345]

Young drivers do express a "creative" use of the technology that can be deadly.

 

Since we can't deny people cars until they are in their thirties, there is no way we can be entirely certain that the difference in accident rates is entirely developmental.

[Beavah 205]

The young, AS A GROUP, are significantly more likely to engage in risky driving behaviors than those 25 or older.

 

Yah, but there's no way to separate that from lack of experience. Is it because they're young, or because they have only a few years of experience driving?

 

And if it's truly because they're young, is it because of biology, or because it's the first time they've managed to get some freedom from helicopter parents and locked down schools? Or is it because "recreational driving" by all ages is a bit less safe, and young people do a lot more "recreational driving" as a fraction of their driving time, where the driving time of adults is mostly commuting?

 

It's interesting to note that young pilots have comparable accident records to older folks, and actually show better safety statistics as student pilots than older people. A 16 year old flyin' by himself is safer than a 40 year old who is in the same phase of workin' on getting his license. In addition, all the evidence suggests that pilots over age 55 have significantly higher accident rates then young folks, and the FAA mandates retirement from airline work for a pilot at age 60.

 

So if we use the statistics for flyin' airplanes, it's us old folks we should be worried about, eh? The 16 year olds do fine.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[packsaddle 753]

I'm doing this way too often...agreeing with Beavah...I'll try to make up for it some other time.

I'm reminded of Mark Twain's list of great lies: Lies, Damn lies, and Statistics. The statistics used by insurance companies don't (and don't need to) account for the mechanisms producing an effect. All they need to do is accurately account for the effect in a statistically reliable manner. So their prediction of an age-dependent shift in risk is accurate enough to charge different insurance rates and make a profit. That prediction says virtually nothing about the underlying reasons for the difference in risks, as Beavah noted.

[skeptic 997]

So, did younger horse riders, or wagon drivers also show similar stats? Just asking.

 

Oh, and what effect will the trend to many teens not getting licenses as soon as possible, some waiting to 20's, when a job makes them, and a few simply not doing it? This is partly because of cost of driving and having a car, but also may be affected by stricter rules by the government.

 

I have thought for a long time now that we may underestimate our youth. Overprotected kids are likely to be less able to fend for themselves should the need arise. That can even be seen in history when you read about "rich kids" or youth of "royals" who never had to raise a finger growing up, suddenly having the servants and luxury pulled out. Same age kids from the general populace mostly quite capable, it appears.

 

Focus too narrowly on anything, and you can find a problem or aberration. Kind of like staring at something until your eyes play tricks.

[Beavah 205]

I'm doing this way too often...agreeing with Beavah

 

Yah, well. I reckon it's because I sorta grow on yeh over time, eh? Like a fungus.

 

B

[Eagledad 2779]

>>So if we use the statistics for flyin' airplanes, it's us old folks we should be worried about, eh? The 16 year olds do fine.

[TAHAWK 1420]

Didn't say a word about the cause(s) of the motor vehicle accident statistics.

 

Only point I propose is that, regardless of the cause(s) for risky behavior, such behavior is not a good rationale for depriving youth of the learning opportunity of leading.

[Beavah 205]

Data shows the 65 year old airline pilot is as good a pilot as the 25 year old flying the same airplane.

 

Well, allowin' airline pilots over age 60 has only been around for a few years, so I don't reckon there's much data yet, eh? I'm basin' what I'm saying off of the research review done by Dana Broach published by da Office of Aerospace Medicine. While there have been conflicting studies, the most methodologically sound showed an increasing accident rate with age. To quote the review, "However, while study outcomes vary, the overall pattern of results suggest that there may be some risk associated with allowing pilots age 60 and older to operate complex, multi-engine with 10 seats or more in passenger operations."

 

None of that is particularly relevant to this discussion, though, because what the data do clearly show is that young folks do no worse than older folks, and are demonstrably better at dealing with new or unanticipated situations. There's no question that experience counts, and of course a lot of experience can compensate for our losses as we get older. Thank goodness! But young folks with the same basic set of experiences or time in type will do as well or better.

 

Havin' kids in the car also affects the accident rate for adult drivers, eh? So I think we also have to be a bit circumspect about prohibiting passengers for teens when we know that passengers cause similar issues for adults.

 

Again, I reckon this is better addressed with education. It's pretty easy to expose young folks to distractions in a safe way and help 'em learn when to ignore extra inputs and just drive the car (or pull over). The best way to solve da problem is not by hovering over 'em and removing or prohibiting one type of distraction, but to instead teach 'em how to recognize and handle many distractions of various types. By removin' distractions through law or policy we think we're helping, but in reality we're preventing them from learning how to cope. It's just another form of helicoptering.

 

Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[packsaddle 753]

Skeptic: "So, did younger horse riders, or wagon drivers also show similar stats?"

I'm not sure about horse riders but back in the 1960's I received my driver license at age 15 and started driving a school bus at age 16...just like ALL of the school bus drivers of that time. And I can tell you this: the driving record for the buses back then was as good or better than the adult bus drivers today. My bus had a manual transmission and I had to double-clutch to shift. The qualifying test was brutal. At one point, in that manual transmission bus, each of us had to demonstrate the ability to stop on a steep hill, turn off the engine and then restart it and begin forward motion without even a hint of rolling backwards. I doubt there are many adults today who could do that...especially with a bus load of screaming children behind them.

[skeptic 997]

Pack; that is funny about the hill. I like to tell kids today about our test in a 58 Chevy with dual controls; back when driver ed was the norm. We had a 30% or a bit more hill above town. The driver ed teacher would drive us up there, park on the hill, then give us the same test. It was a 3 speed manual on the column, as was fairly common then. I can still do the trick with a car, but not sure how I would fare with a truck. Parallel parking was also a fun test; took me a while to get close enough to the curb for him, but still do a fairly good job most of the time. Driving a truck for the Forest Service in 69, I was introduced to the electric clutch on the stick. Never really got that down like I would have liked, though got it to work. Fun times.

[boomerscout 35]

Younger set has more accidents? Is it because this group is more likely to drive a bunch of beaters ready for the scrapyard and shod with worn tires? Addition of go-fast equipment wouldn't factor in, of course.

[TAHAWK 1420]

"Younger set has more accidents? Is it because this group is more likely to drive a bunch of beaters ready for the scrapyard and shod with worn tires? Addition of go-fast equipment wouldn't factor in, of course."

 

Children of the wealthy under 25 have elevated rate of accidents/mile driven.

Children of college-educated under 25 have elevated rate of accidents/mile driven.

"Stupid" is apparently no respector of class or intelligence.

 

Still no reason not to have youth experience leading.

 

 

[Eamonn 61]

Kinda think that all of us know and are aware that kids are not the same as adults.

I'm not sure when a child starts knowing that some things are right while others are wrong.

There is very often a big fuss when teenagers who are charged with some crimes are charged as adults. Why? I think many of us do hold to the idea that young people are not as accountable as older folks are.

It might be interesting to look at young people in other countries and other cultures and see how they measure up?

Does a young guy in certain parts of war torn Africa grow up faster than a spoiled brat from PA? - I don't know.

Some MRI's have shown that the brains of young people are not as developed as older adult brains.

Ea.