MAP Forum

This is gonna be a long one. I've been thinking about and analyzing this for a while now. A lot of societies seem to believe that children (i.e anyone under the age of certain ages, usually 18, 21, or 25) are significantly less competent than adults, in just about every area. Many laws have been created on this premise; kids are limited in their ability to drive, own a gun, get a job, vote, e.t.c. But if the belief in inherent child cognitive inferiority comes into question, that would also call into question the validity of all such laws. (For example, if it is somehow proven that kids are just as competent at handing a firearm safely as adults, this would defeat the purpose of creating age-restrictions on gun ownership.) I am not attempting to be political or discuss laws, but rather, I will begin discussing my thoughts on the (in)validity behind these "ageist" beliefs.

Whenever I begin discussing this idea, the first trope that usually pops into people's minds is something like "But there have been brain scans done, to image the brains of children, which prove that certain parts of their brains are underdeveloped, rendering them unable to make decisions as well as adults." It makes me cringe so much when people say this, because I feel like the logic behind this argument is so easily debunked in many ways. Yes, those brain scans exist, and they accurately depict the state of a person's brain, but I think it could easily be argued that they do not prove cognitive inferiority as people believe they do, for the following reasons, which I will explain in-depth.

(Sorry, I would use a numbered list, but the long paragraphs would make using a numbered list very ugly.)

Reason #1:

You cannot correlate something in the brain, such as "less density of white-matter in the prefrontal cortex" to something very specific, such as "poor math skills". The idea that people believe they can assess a very specific skill in a person, like their ability to do math, based on neuro-imaging, is absurd. Neuro-imaging isn't that advanced. That's like saying you can image a person's brain and look at their brain scan to determine whether or not they like coconuts; you just can't be that specific.

Reason #2:

During the days wherein people in the U.S commonly, proudly, and openly supported racial supremacy, there was a thing called "scientific racism" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism (basically, people cited what they believed was valid "science" to promote the idea that whites were cognitively superior to blacks). Scientific Racism has been debunked on the basis that: the cruel conditions which blacks were subjected to caused a neurological decline, making it unfair to point out those neurological conditions and say "Ha! See? We told you we're superior."

To me, it seems that there are many parallels and similarities between Scientific Racism and the modern "science" that is promoted in modern times to promote the idea that children are cognitively inferior to adults (you could call it "Scientific Ageism").

For one thing, just as Europeans and Americans first created the cruel conditions for Africans that lead to the diminishing of their neuro-development and then cited that poor neuro-developed as justification for subjecting them to cruel conditions, so too did adults do the same to children. I don't know specifics of the history, but I know for sure that child labor laws, compulsory education, voting age restrictions and the like, definitely became common well before the "Science" of children's cognitive development ever existed. Would it not be the case that trying to limit a child's ability to do certain things (like driving, owning a gun, e.t.c) would lead to their brains eventually losing the cognitive capacity to do those things? The "use-it-or-lose-it" rule in evolution basically proves that this would happen. That means that by creating "ageist" laws/rules, you also make children less competent. So, to say that a child is inherently incapable of, for example, wielding a gun safely, when society went out of its way to make children lose their cognitive ability to do so, is absurd. It would be like me injuring someone's legs, and then telling them "Your legs are inherently inferior to mine. This is why I am allowed to ride a bicycle, and you aren't."

How much more competent would children be at certain things (like, for example, driving) if they were allowed to do them more, or at an earlier age, or with fewer restrictions? Whenever I raise this question, people tend to just assume that kids are inherently unable to learn things any faster than society is trying to teach them. E.g it is impossible for a 12-year-old to learn to drive a car as skillfully and as quickly as a 16-year-old can learn it. But how do we know this? Have we put this theory to a scientific test any time within the past half-a-dozen decades? Not that I'm aware of.

People will then usually say "But we don't need to. We already know the answer! The science proves it." Okay. I'm hoping you guys will be smarter than that. Unfortunately, I've had discussions with many scientifically-mined people who actually make that argument, even in light of hearing everything I've typed above. If you do not understand how that argument is circular, then you are probably not taking this discussion seriously. "The Science" has been intellectually discredited (in accordance with my aforementioned rationales) and therefore, more science (valid science, not science that has been either intentionally or unintentionally skewed by decades of social biases) must be done in order to either confirm or disconfirm the statements which were previously thought to have been "proven" to be true by the aforementioned, now-discredited "science". Therefore, you cannot cite "the science" to claim that more science is not necessary. I hate to make points like this that should be obvious to everyone, but it seems like I have to be very careful and cover every base that I possibly can, now matter how absurd it may be It seems, because many people (I'm not saying any of you, but many people in general) are determined to "play dumb" with me when it comes to discussing this idea. They are just so intellectually dishonest, incapable of comprehending nuance, and determined to prevail in the intellectual debate at any cost, even if it means making arguments they inwardly know to be fallacious, circular, dishonest, e.t.c. Again, I am not saying you guys will do this, so don't think that I am attempting to insult anyone on here. Anyways...

Another common trope is "But I and lots of people have experience with kids. Everyone knows, and can tell that kids are incompetent, just by observing them." Yes, you can observe kids. But all of your experiences in dealing with children are based on the social conditions which they are currently subjected to, thereby limiting their potential to be more competent. Therefore, your experiences with kids do not serve as any indication whatsoever of how competent they *could* potentially become if their pre-existing social conditions were radically different. People just assume that children inherently *are* the way they are, failing to exert any imagination to how it could potentially be any different.

Reason #3:

There is a psychological phenomenon called "stereotype threat" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_threatwhich basically is the phenomenon that, if you treat someone with a particular stereotype, it compels them to conform to that stereotype. If you treat someone like they are dumb, they may become measurably dumber. Scientists have recognized that stereotype threat can have relevant implications with race and gender, but it seems they have yet to draw the connection between stereotype threat and age (except, of course, with regards to stereotypes against elderly people. Because apparently the idea of considering how stereotype threat affects children and teenagers isn't an idea that's worth having a single thought about). It is worth considering the possibility that, just maybe, society's constant, blatant messaging to children of them being labelled and perceived as cognitively inferior, is actually making them become that way. This social factor will affect the validity of neuro-imaging, stereotypes and subjective experiences, as well as aptitude tests.

Reason #4:

If children are inherently inferior, why are they able to do certain things better than adults, given practice? For example, I get my butt kicked by children under the age of 10 in video games like Mario Kart (I'm 26). Why can kids learn to drive in Mario Kart really well, but they supposedly cannot learn to drive a real car, or vote? "Well that's different!" Maybe. But then the onus is on you to scientifically prove there is a difference in those things before you can make that assertion. And so far nobody has done that, yet they seem so determined to insist that there are relevant differences, rendering children inherently unable to learn certain things before certain ages.

And there are many more reasons which come to my mind regarding my predisposition on this topic, but that would be reaching more into the realm of philosophy rather than science. The philosophical arguments are also worth considering, but I decided to omit them because this post isn't supposed to be political, but rather, just scientific. (Although I know I did mention some of my own argumentation on the topic, in order to pre-emptively deter people from being fallacious.)

This is a summary of why I believe that "scientific ageism" is really just pseudo-science, used to rationalized already-existing, politically-biased social policies. People get really threatened when I discuss this with them, and I think this is because they understand the uncomfortable implications it would mean for the world, should they make a serious effort to consider it and all of its supporting arguments. It would mean that maybe kids should be allowed to own guns, drive, vote, and perhaps even choose to have intimacy with someone who is significantly older than them. "Oh my gawsh, you're a pedophile!" Nope. Don't. Just don't.

In light of everything I have typed above, can anyone explain to me how "scientific ageism" has a single shred of validity, while at the same time being intellectually reasonable?