[evolveme]

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

If we also consider that it is far from uncommon for adults with fully developed frontal lobes to make many poor decisions, I wonder how we can differentiate between a poor decision one makes as a teenager and a poor decision one makes as an adult, and if these adults made the same poor decision as these 18 year olds, can we really say, without a shadow of a doubt, that these teenagers simply made the decision because they were 18 and not 38? What these studies on teenage brain development show is that teenagers are more likely to make poor decisions because the frontal lobe is still developing, not that every poor decision they make is because of it. If that were the case, then adults with fully formed frontal lobes would not be making poor decisions.

I believe I went to senior prom as a Freshman, Sophomore, Junior and Senior. One could go provided their date was a Senior. I was only 18 the final year that I went. I'm not postulating here that this is the case of the students at this Mississippi "Secret Prom," but I imagine a good many of those students were not legal adults; not 18 years old. Can we say that these teens made any decision simply because they were [teenagers] and not because they were "38"? Well, EnderD, I imagine they made whatever poor decisions they made based on a number of factors: inexperience, lack of social awareness, lack of empathy, need to be accepted, having been raised in an environment of intolerance, impulsiveness indicative of their age, etc. Some of these things are, yes, more associated with being a teenager than with simply being a (depraved?) human.

A fully formed frontal lobe is not the card and key to good decision making, as you seem to suggest.

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

I'm also unsure if I follow in your reasoning about owing Constance that much. To me, all persons involved should be owning up to what they did, not just the adults. I realise that you claim that the teens should also be held responsible, but I'm not sure I understand why there should be any difference between the responsibility taken by the teenagers and the adults. Considering both made equally wrong decisions, we shouldn't necessarily assume that one group did so just because they may be more likely to. We don't know that that isn't a decision they wouldn't have made as adults. I also think that by claiming "that while we can (must) hold these teenagers responsible for the poor choices they are making (we have to teach all kids to be accountable for themselves), it is really the parents here who must own what has occurred," we are taking away the weight of that responsibility. It's a bit like saying "you're responsible, but not really."

This is a fine line you've attempted to parse from my words. Basically, it comes down to the fact that I believe all children are led toward acts of wrong-doing or right-doing originally by the adults in their given environment. Their motivations are eventually their own, but their aims are given birth in the arms of the adult humans that teach them by word and by example. By witnessing acts of cruelty, children learn to enact their own motivations for power in harmful ways. By having parents and teachers expressing negative and hateful sentiment toward Constance, and providing a "safe" prom for their own children away from her, they created an environment wherein their own children could be protected and inspired toward the acting out of their aggressions.

In a just society, we do not punish a child for the same crime and in the same way that we do an adult. In a *just* society.

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

The other issue I thought I'd bring up is treating teenagers and young adults in general as though they are not real human beings because "their brains aren't grown up" and that that affects every single thing they do. To talk to a teenager like that (as this mother does in the article you posted) is really condescending and teenagers do pick up on that, which can lead to bigger problems, imo.

I didn't get this from the same article. But, you know, when I speak to my teenager like this, she doesn't pick up on it at all (I blame her poor undeveloped brain). Do yours? Also, in our home, people aren't considered real humans until they can understand tax law and the true nature of death.

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

Lack of "emotional intelligence" (a difficult term to use anyway) is not always correlated with lashing out at the unknown, nor is it necessarily linked to compassion. Emotional intelligence is largely defined by the ability to interpret another human being's emotion, however, interpreting emotion correctly does not necessarily bear any testament to what a person does with that information. You seem to assume, and correct me if I'm wrong, that because a person correctly interprets another's emotions, that they will automatically be compassionate. A person may very easily understand that their victim is fearful or angry, but they may continue their torment of that person for a number of reasons, whether that be out of their own subconscious fear, their desire to feel powerful or myriad of other reasons. If the aggressors believed they were in the right (with their fear being subconscious rather than conscious), then it becomes difficult to evaluate emotional intelligence. At the same time we might interpret that, as you say, as a lack in the ability to see subconscious fear, but if that is the case how entirely aware are any of us of our subconscious?

Admittedly, I take issue with the term "emotional intelligence" because it is a bit of an unclear term that can be interpreted in a number of ways.

When I did a search to try to understand where you might be gleaning this very basic utilization of emotional intelligence, Wikipedia did express a similar point of view, but I don't consider Wikipedia an always valid or comprehensive enough source.

Here, I quote some examples on the utilization of EQ that I find relevant to the issue at hand. You may or may not find them of use.

“Payne (1986)… believed that emotional intelligence could be fostered in the schools by liberating emotional experience through therapy. Liberating feelings, he wrote, ‘will be no easy task politically…in terms of the social unrest it will likely create. But we must come to terms with this or continue to raise generations of adults who behave in emotionally ignorant—and, therefore, destructive—ways” (Payne, 1986, p. 441).

“…Cooper’s (1996/1997) EQ map begins with emotional self-awareness, emotional awareness of others, interpersonal connections,…resilience, creativity, compassion, and intuition, among other things” (Caruso, Mayor, & Salovey, 2000, p. 102).

As for the remainder of your post, you seem to be addressing sociopathic behavior or antisocial personality traits. This kind of pathology can be found in approximately 4% of the population. I’ve joked that it is more prevalent in teenagers. But I was only joking.