Critical Comparative Review of Two Articles about Adolescence Question - Essay Example

Dr. Rose Developmental Psychology January 12, Critical Comparative Review of Two Articles Teenager and adolescents have a natural tendency towards taking risks and doing negative things in society. Adolescence is seen amongst most people as the transition between childhood and adulthood. They are neither children nor adults. Hence, they occupy a distinctive class in society. Several approaches and theories have been put forward to explain the reason why teenagers and adolescents are often associated with negative habits and attitudes. The two writers being reviewed in this essay provide various explanations to the “adolescence question”. The writers seem to differ significantly, since one explains the issue from a point of view of nature whilst the other explains it from the point of view of nurture. Wallis argues that there are researchers that show that the brain development in adolescence involves a number of changes that causes young people to tilt towards negative practices. Epstein on the other hand supports the view that adolescent attitudes are shaped by the external environment within which they transit from childhood to adulthood. There are various pointers where this debate is highlighted. Brain V Environment The fundamental thesis put forward by the “brain psychologists” is that the human brain changes significantly throughout life (Wallis 56). Some classical scientists who lived about a hundred years ago postulated that the human brain does not develop after age 12. This is a view that the brain-psychologists reject. They have proven that the brain goes through various forms of metamorphosis in the teenage years albeit slow and gradual changes. The nurture school of thought is supported by social scientists from a vast scope of disciplines that support an anthropological explanation of adolescent behavior. Therefore, Epstein argues that “recapitulation – a theory from biology that asserts that individual development (ontogeny) involved evolutionary development (phylogeny)” (58). This position asserts that the individual is the product of the society and the environment around which s/he grows. Also, people are more likely to repeat the mistakes and deficiency shown by their parents whilst they were growing up. Thus, teenagers are not always in the wrong. However, the circumstances in the environment around them causes them to take up actions and activities that ends up with several results that seem to present them as reckless. Nature V Nurture Both of the articles under review accept the fact that teenagers are reckless and are interested in negative activities and processes. However, the two articles differ in the logical explanation that must be given for this tendency. From a critical review, the “brain psychologists” seem to embrace the ideology that teenagers have a number of brain formation issues that causes them to do what is wrong rather than what is right. This is because as their brain develop in the teens, they tend to have natural tendencies and inclinations towards actions and activities that are anti-social in nature and in outlook. Thus, teenagers are naturally tilted towards risk, recklessness and negativity. On the other hand, Epstein and his “nurture” school of thought argue that some adolescents nurture negative attitudes not because it is an inclination in them but it is a choice. This is because, in a study of 186 pre-industrial societies which involve societies around the world where people live very basic lives and do not have to rely on modern tools and techniques, they found that 60% of these societies had no word for “adolescence”. This implies that in societies that are not modern like ours, people have to make the transition from childhood to adulthood without having the luxury or misfortune of having to go through adolescence. The position of Epstein is somewhat true because the concept of “childhood” as we have it today evolved about 400 years ago after the Protestant Reformation. Before then, the concept of structured formal education did not exist. People had to start working at young ages of about 7 and from there, they had to start families very early in life. Thus, such persons did not have the chance to attract attention and live fun lives as young children in industrialized nations do. Hence, it can be stated that anti-social behaviors amongst adolescents in todays world has to do with the social structure, rather than some inherent inclinations. Empirical Findings in “Brain Psychology” and Criticisms A careful longitudnal study presented by various authorities in the field of brain psychology provides some important clues and directions about how people tend to move in certain directions in life. Studying twins showed that some brain development patterns seem to support certain preferences in life. The use of MRI scans tend to show how these brains grow and develop and this can form the basis of some kinds of predictions. The fundamental study of the brain psychologists indicate that from gestation, the brain begins to form quickly and fast. In months 3 – 6, a fetus in its mothers womb begins to produce millions of brain cells and from months 6 – 9, the fetus shed its brain cells in order to become a normal person. Where the shedding process does not go well, the child become autistic. At the age of 6, a person has developed 90% - 95% of his brain cells. This indicates that the vast majority of a persons mind and brains are formed in totality before they enter their adolescence. However, towards adolescence, the gray matter in a persons brain thickens and this is completed at age 11 for girls and about 12.5 for boys. This tends to explain why girls mature faster than boys towards the teen-age years. However, this does not end at that age. Within the adolescent years, a lot of changes occur that affects the human mind and behavior of young people. Although this makes sense, the people who support the “nurture” school of thought argue that culture plays a significant role in the way people end up behaving in their adolescent years. This is because if there was a change in the way people thought and reasoned in the olden days, why were young people in the world before the beginning of the 20th Century more responsible than they are today? There must be some matters and some issues that explain these differences. One of such obvious explanations is the fact that young people today have a lot of time and are over-protected. This is because in the past, people had to make the transition quickly. Right from childhood, a person had to start working, raise a family and prepare for a future. However, in our hedonistic society today, children are given the chance to learn for 12 – 16 years of their lives after age 6. Thus, the social system does not hold these persons accountable. Hence, they end up getting too much freedom and opportunities and they abuse this and cause problems and troubles like taking unnecessary risks and engaging in negative activities. Relationship Between Brain and Hormones Again, Epstein and Wallis agree that young people come up with irrational behaviors and take up unnecessary risks. However, Wallis argues that there is a relationship between the brains formation and development at adolescence and the behavior of their hormones. This is because there is a general linkage between hormonal changes and emotions (Wallis 63). And just as estrogen and testosterone are hormones that cause development amongst adolescents, these hormones can be directly linked to some changes in the activities of adolescents like seeking risk situations and adventure as a means of entertainment as well as experimentation with drugs and alcohol. Epstein on the other hand believes that a casual relationship between changes in brain cells does not justify negative activities and negative processes. Epstein argues that there is a rebellious nature of some of these young people and since there are too many restrictions and too many laws in the society, these young people, who have a lot of time on their hands tend to seek to break a lot of these rules and this leads to problems and issues. Epstein also refutes this case by identifying that in most cases, young people are brighter and more intelligent than adults. Thus, if we are claiming that hormones cause young people to act negatively in most situations, then one will not expect young people to be better than adults in any area. However, that is not the case. At times, young people are better and brighter than older persons. Also, there are biological roots to some of these problems and in some cases, young people misbehave and carry out negative activities similar to their parents and ancestors. Thus, the formation of the brain cells and brain positioning does not necessarily make young people behave in a certain way, but rather external environmental factors that a person can choose to accept or not. Conclusion The articles accept that young people are generally reckless, adventure seeking and antisocial in many aspects of life. However, there are two types of explanations that are put forward for this. One school of thought believes that it is as a result of nature rather than the external environment. Another believes that the external environment and biological factors imposes challenges on a person and an adolescent can choose whether to indulge in these negative behaviors or not. On a personal note, I think that the circumstances of our generation which gives young people a lot of time and limited training is responsible for adolescent misbehavior, not the changes in the brain cell. Works Cited Wallis Claudia. “What Makes Teens Tick?” Time (May, 2004), pp. 56-65. Print. Epstein Robert. “The Myth of the Teen Brain.” Scientific American Mind (May, 2007), pp. 57-63. Print. Read More