Education system should be overhauled

[Himself]

Guys start caring more about how they look, many such as myself were afraid to speak-up in discussions for fear of how you'd be percieved because no matter the school your at there will allways be stigmas attached. Not to mention the constant note passing, showing off, blatant hittin-on that we did, et al.

And I would say that is more about the transition than the destination. If you felt awkward and unsure of yourself in the classroom it was because you weren't used to the girls being there, which is exactly my point. Stilted behaviour like that is the result of keeping kids isolated from each other.

I went the opposite way, I was in mixed classes for the first 3 grades then got put into an all guy school in a new town. It was like going from something natural to some prison where the rule was who was the strongest or toughest, who was the best at sports, who could drink the most, who was the most popular with girls, etc, lots of macho bullshit going on, how to be a pig 101. In other words it's not the presence of females causing that. Politics and popularity crap is going to happen regardless, ditto with note passing and all the other things that go along with being teenagers. I got pretty much disgusted with my own sex and tended to idealise females. There were maybe 3 or 4 girls my age in my new neighborhood and I didn't know them, I spend a lot of time hanging out with other guys who lived across town, drinking and getting into trouble. There were all female school nearby and there were regular expeditions at lunch hour to go see the girls, and in high school there were dances, which lead to girlfriends, which is pretty much the extent of my association with females growing up outside of random family associations.

And that's in a school that had and still has a stict and conservative dress code. Going by my friends whose children attend public schools and seeing the things kids wear to school (lets not forget, this is school) is just unbelievable. Especially the girls of today, I'm sometimes amazed that the girls are going to school and not a strip-club. But, that's another story.

From what I see of US schools on TV, I would agree, kids seem a bit more sane here in Canada. Then again, people here seem a lot more sane in general. The US seems to be about permissiveness under the label of freedom, if you get kids picking up on that, that's just your society. Of couse the only alternative to that seems to be some red neck fundamentalist christian RIAA member so you got some pulling and pushing going on.

Last time I checked, you attended to school to gain knowledge and refinement - not get a lesson in social aspect with the opposite sex that shouldn't even be entered into the classroom... stupid liberals.

You go to schools to learn, learning is learning whether it's in classroom or not, fact is, the number one asset for employment is developed social skills. Refinement where you think of all women as potential mates and nothing else is not so refined.

The usual BS artsy fartsy topics in schools like religion, French/Spanish, sex education, culture, drama, art class, family values, etc, are just substitutes for parents doing their job and are a waste of public money, IMO. It should be about practical stuff, not what hobbies you might want to have to become a well rounded person. I'd like to see proper job search skills taught, public speaking, accounting and tax preparation, general law, basic crap you will actually need. This elective thing where you choose what you want to learn, aka avoid anything you think is hard has got to go as well. Elective studies should be on your own dime.

You can call me a stupid liberal if you want, but I'm not even an American, and I don't share many of the same views as your liberals anyway. Closest would probably be libertarian, if you are anal about having a label for everybody like a proper redneck.

I think the ideal compromise would be same sex classrooms but coed schools.

 

[Vince]

And I would say that is more about the transition than the destination. If you felt awkward and unsure of yourself in the classroom it was because you weren't used to the girls being there, which is exactly my point. Stilted behaviour like that is the result of keeping kids isolated from each other.

What the hell are you talking about? I spent my first 12 years of primary education with girls. My younger brother who attended an all boy school (and loved it) saw girls every day - but it's after school when he's not trying to saturate himself with what the teacher is proposing for the day.

This comment is so baseless. I felt awkward because being in a classroom of 25 kids with half of them being girls who gossip, who your raging hormones are telling you that you want them, but don't want to appear like you're too smart, but not too dumb; not too jocky, but definatly not too nerdy; popular, but not too untouchable; not too friendly, but not too mysterious. Want me to continue? The point is, girls in the class at the High-School level especially adds an entire sexual angle to the classroom that just wouldn't exist without them for the vast majority of highschool aged kids.

There were maybe 3 or 4 girls my age in my new neighborhood and I didn't know them, I spend a lot of time hanging out with other guys who lived across town, drinking and getting into trouble. There were all female school nearby and there were regular expeditions at lunch hour to go see the girls, and in high school there were dances, which lead to girlfriends, which is pretty much the extent of my association with females growing up outside of random family associations.

Ok, and this history of your teenage sexual frustration impacts how mixed classrooms hinder the learning process how? The school system's function is to educate it's student's and prepare them educationally for the world so that America can continue to prosper. AFAIK bud, it's not tasked with giving HSers girlfriends/boyfriends/other and active sexual or otherwise relationships.

This is very simple. You go to school to learn, not socialize. The social aspects come out of the classroom.

Of couse the only alternative to that seems to be some red neck fundamentalist christian RIAA member so you got some pulling and pushing going on.

No, it's called strictness and bounderies. It's called restoring some sence of dicipline and enforcement from elders. It's killing trial-lawyers.

You go to schools to learn, learning is learning whether it's in classroom or not, fact is, the number one asset for employment is developed social skills.

Employment based on only social skills? Where are you talking about, McDonald's drive threw? Please show me the place that will hire a high-school drop-out that has mastered the art of socializing with the opposite sex and we'll see how far that job will get them in life. That is, afterall, why you go to school... to become educated and suceed.

You can call me a stupid liberal if you want, but I'm not even an American, and I don't share many of the same views as your liberals anyway. Closest would probably be libertarian, if you are anal about having a label for everybody like a proper redneck.

I didn't intend for that liberal comment to refer to you. Rather the American educational system... so, if you'll excuse me I'm going to go fill up my rusted pick-up truck with my home distilled grain alcohol, get the dog in the passander seat and run down to the local Guns & Ammo store with my brother's girlfriend to buy somemore 12gauge rounds.

 

[Sabastian]

People whom would suggest that social development of mixed gendered schools is superior in some way are fooling themselves imo. The process of becoming mature is the best way to become socially adept. High school in a mixed gendered arena may stifle social development I believe, particularly in males whom are so nervous around females that they can barely speak to them. More exposure causes a situation where they have negative experiences with females resulting in lasting immature insufficient social disparities. Sure there are the few cliquish groups of mixed students were some are able to overcome their anxiousness with regards to the female gender and these few are likely more mature but only in a sense. Being grown up is more then simply being comfortable enough around the opposite sex. I remember at 17 and the surge of blood and testosterone through my jugular when a female excited me. This hardly was conducive to being mindful of my studies and further it didn’t help with my social interactions with females. In fact I was very geeky (like I am now .) as a preteen but as I hit puberty (bla, I hate that word still.) I was looking for ways in which I could hang out with girls so that they would think I was cool and even maybe get laid. I don’t want to get into detail, but I would say this lead to some very bad choices in whom my friends were and what we did. Males BTW take so much longer to mature then females it hardly seems like equal footing in high school or junior high for that matter. Before I hit my teenage years I read books though mostly fiction, played chess had intense interest in science(even won 1st place in the science far with a project on optical illusions in grade 6.) and over achieved in school. After I hit my teenage years though I became more and more interested in females. This is by no means a bad thing but if I am supposed to be focusing on comparatively boring math or the female anatomy …. Guess which takes precedent? (heh, even today I struggle with that one.)

Today however I look back and with a lot of regret I wish that I had made other more studious choices in my teen years. I find myself more socially inclined with women then I ever was in high school and I can tell you this it isn’t because I shared the classroom with them that I am so. Maturity is highly under rated these days it seems. I consider myself fully matured @ or around age 24 personally. Before that time I consciously made bad and immature choices.(indeed even afterward often enough) Maturity is not solely a physical matter, IMO the mental portion is far more important and I don’t see the completion of HS as the place where one ought to consider themselves mature by any stretch of the imagination. Even in University I found extreme amounts of immaturity in retrospect. Ironically University taught me ways to rationalize that same immature behavior by differing responsibility for my actions to my environment. It wasn’t until I consciously made efforts to debunk that thinking that I actually became fully mature and accept responsibility for my choices. (I no it is a bit OT but relevant, kind of.) At any rate my point is mixed social interaction is not a determining factor in an individuals social skills, my own life is case in point. To suggest that mixed social interaction helps social development is speculative at best.

 

[Fred]

I dunno, I was pretty much the same person I am today, when I was 16. Granted I was several grades ahead, but I always hated adults telling me I was a 'kid', when in fact I could already out argue some of them, outperform them and had a pretty solid life view at that age.

I spent much of my time in France, and I was already frequenting nightclubs, doing the alcohol/girl thing. The catch was, I knew what I wanted to do in life.. Being a scientist. Hell I made that choice when I was 10.

I definitely caught flack for being a nerd, but by the time I was in high school, I didn't care anymore. Being in an all guy environment one year when I was 14 was actually counterproductive emotionally, as you tend to get even more of the 'nerd'/macho crap.

Then again, it did kinda harden me to life, ergo the crucial element of not caring anymore (which actually gets the girls much more so than any perceived attitude). -shrug- girls opinions of men seem to change when they hit college anyway. And I don't know if hormones are any less active in college as opposed to highschool, yet no one makes a coed argument for that!

I think the coed/single sex schooling thing is like trying to throw a pebble at an incoming truck of adolescence angst.

 

[Sabastian]

I dunno, I was pretty much the same person I am today, when I was 16. Granted I was several grades ahead, but I always hated adults telling me I was a 'kid', when in fact I could already out argue some of them, outperform them and had a pretty solid life view at that age.

Hi Fred, interestingly enough I recently (well over the past couple of years.) ran into a couple of old friends that I went to school with. Oddly enough they too had not changed much either, but it wasn’t a positive characteristic for them. I was disappointed that they were still immature about so many things. They basically were still 16. What I would like to know Fred is that do you think that your peers were as mature as you were? As typical 16 year olds are fairly immature as a rule in my books.

I spent much of my time in France, and I was already frequenting nightclubs, doing the alcohol/girl thing. The catch was, I knew what I wanted to do in life.. Being a scientist. Hell I made that choice when I was 10.

Oh I can’t remember how old I was when I decided to go on that parade float as a scientist with my microscope that I so cleverly used to attempt to connect the heads of beetles to the bodies of giant ants. So I too knew what I wanted to do in life at a young age but the speed bump of the female gender and the prospects of getting laid trumped it quiet effortlessly come grade 8.

I definitely caught flack for being a nerd, but by the time I was in high school, I didn't care anymore. Being in an all guy environment one year when I was 14 was actually counterproductive emotionally, as you tend to get even more of the 'nerd'/macho crap.

Yeah I saw the nerd flack coming at me pretty clearly by grade 7 and made choices to avoid that label. All the wrong ones mind you but they lined me up with the girls a lot more so then the chess club or debating team would have. I would suggest that given the wide range of evidence that supports single sex schooling and its advantages for the academic advancement of both genders that your experience given your advanced intellect is somewhat extraneous but interesting none the less I suppose.

Then again, it did kinda harden me to life, ergo the crucial element of not caring anymore (which actually gets the girls much more so than any perceived attitude). -shrug- girls opinions of men seem to change when they hit college anyway. And I don't know if hormones are any less active in college as opposed to highschool, yet no one makes a coed argument for that!

Hey, didn’t I mention in my last posting on how immature I found University students to be? Anyhow after adolescents become legal adults and responsible for their own well being I don’t think the state should have much to say about their educations.

I think the coed/single sex schooling thing is like trying to throw a pebble at an incoming truck of adolescence angst.

I think that youth ought to have a better education and that their adolescence angst as you put it ought to be put in it’s place. BTW when you were 16 regardless of your intellect, you’re still a kid.

 

[epicstruggle]

many people above my post have said (better in many cases) what id like to say would improve schools:

-Separate boys and girls, either totally or in certain classes such as math and science (and gym )

-dress codes (maybe even having a uniform)- this will limit (eliminate) competition to dress provocatively and also poor kids and rich kids would have an even playing field in one area.

-year round school. I remember wasting the first few weeks (almost 2 months) of the school year recaping what we learned at the end of the last school year. What a waste of time.

-starting school later in the day. There is no good reason to start school so early. Most of the time I was too tired to care about the first hour or two of school. Also this gives the added bonus of having kids going home when their parents also go home. Less latchkey kids.

-Giving all kids a good breakfast and lunch. And healthy while we are at it.

What do you think? I think this could improve school tremendously.

later,

 

[Saem]

Hey, didn’t I mention in my last posting on how immature I found University students to be? Anyhow after adolescents become legal adults and responsible for their own well being I don’t think the state should have much to say about their educations.

Speaking of which, there is some moron who went to some of the campus computer labs at my school and cut the cords of 12 mice before a lab exam. A few days later the room in which the lecture of the class would take place had it's overhead projector power cord cut.

WTF? Then there are complaints about tuition fees going up, gee with retrards causing property damage, what do you expect?

I suppose I should expect this, most people can't even go to the washroom without properly washing their hands.

 

[Fred]

Ok, im going to bite the bait

Please explain to me precisely what maturity is, I want specific information that seperates person a (in a dark room), from person b (also in a dark room). This room is dark (ding) ergo you cannot tell there age.

In fact, lets make it even more formal. We'll run a turing test, I want to know precisely which set of questions are going to seperate a mature person from an immature person.

You see, the idea of maturity is largely a preconceived notion, and an environmental rather than individual trait. You take a kid, put him in a room with adults, and his behavior adapts to match the majority. You put an adult, stick him in a room with children playing games and watch that person (amusingly) adapt to childish behaviour.

In psychology 101, one learns that people have actually rigourously done the scenario that I have proposed. Around the age of 15, the data takes a nose dive and any differences between 15 to say 60 are imperceivable statistically.

I mantain that if there is no set of questions that you can ask persons a and persons b, that will distinguish your age correlation (statistically of course) then the word 'maturity' is bunk.

 

[Sabastian]

I mantain that if there is no set of questions that you can ask persons a and persons b, that will distinguish your age correlation (statistically of course) then the word 'maturity' is bunk.

lol, maturity has to do with life experience and appreciate these experiences as much as possible. Heh, I know a few pretty immature 30 year olds too. It is realizing that you don't know everything, admitting you are wrong, to know what 'hitting the bottom' so to speak is about, realizing your are a mortal, taking responsibility for your own well being and not blaming others, it is about not lying to make yourself look better then another, showing humility, it is about getting up after your been kicked while you were down and still having self respect on and on....

At the core of real maturity is experience and regardless of how intelligent you are at 16 you could only have limited experiences at best. But that is what growing up is all about. Maturity is not about answering trivia questions, intelligence and knowledge are two different things you know. Sure in HS there are a few that are more mature to some degree but for the most part they are just kids. There are lots of adults whom never acquire maturity as well. Response ability.

 

[Fred]

You should know that the Turing test is the fundamental notion of AI. If you let all questions tend to infinity, and the two people answer identically, they are mathematically equivalent.

Think about it, no matter what situation, if you can't make a test to distinguish between a persons actions then there is no difference.

The rest of the qualities are pretty much ad hoc. Take for instance responsibility. Some would say, its good to let earthly matters like that fade away (eg Zen budhists). Others would say, if you take things too seriously, you run the risk of boxing yourself in.

At 16, I was very responsible (probably more so than I should have been, certainly moreso than I am now). I had traveled all over the world, already had experienced more than most people ever do.

Hell I knew many kids that were my age that were probably even more so. I would to this day, elect them for public office or place them in jobs of great responsibility. I don't care if someone labels them with an unprovable hypothesis of inferiority, some mystical yet non descript notion of wisdom. -shrug- Frankly its just namecalling!

 

[Vince]

Maturity is akin to Wisdom in that both are hard to perfectly define within a short-term test. Yet, there are few people I know that would dispute the notions of Wisdom, Maturity, Love and the other long-term characteristsics that are distinctly human in origion.

 

[Fred]

Really, so not only are they undefinable, but they also are untestable.

I'll give you a definition for love. Love is a certain very particular set of chemical reactions induced from your brain. Neurobiologically, one can identify these things, and eventually you could probably make it rigorous (eg say when the dopamine to seratonin ratio is such and such, and this area of the brain is active... then thats love.. A theory that would of course have to match with evidence, which I assume it would!

But wisdom and maturity, don't know what they are. Any definition of maturity you give me, I can produce a kid who has done precisely that. Sabastian for instance, cited 2 adults that were 30 yet who were immature. Fine, did they not have enough experiences in their lives to be mature. Isnt that precisely what his definition of maturity hinges on? How about a kid who lives on the West bank, or maybe one who was a king or emperor (there were many children who were great kings for instance).

Precisely what type of experiences seperates a person from being mature or being immature?

See my point? Its arbitrary and adhoc, and likely if you do a poll around the world of all adults and ask them to define wisdom and maturity, you will get vastly different answers. So much so, that there would be no consensus.

So yea, I don't know what you two are talking about. You better give me something that satisfies the rigors of logic (ie science).. Eg something that is both logically definable AND testable.

 

[Sabastian]

Fred answering a question the same as another because you were told that was the right answer rather then understanding the answer are two different ways of achieving the same answer. The difference being is that the one whom answers it because they were told (or cheated.) to answer that way doesn't fully understand why. It isn't necessarily a bad thing that if a child knows to answer a question for example like "Should you hang out with a person whom steals and lies allot?" that they answer NO. You can explain to them one hundred times that indeed it is a bad choice and even tell them why, but they don't fully understand until the next day when they are at the store and little Jimmy steals a chocolate bar and when the store owner catches the boys behind the store eating that chocolate bar Jimmy says it wasn't him who stole it and the store owner accuses your boy of doing it. Then maybe something might stick in his head that people who lie and steal allot are indeed bad to hang around but even that is no guarantee.

Just because you cannot quantify the difference in how the answer is derived does not mean that they are the same. Indeed in order to fully realize the difference you need to quantify some things that are pretty intangible and the case in point are experiences. There is a big difference between reaching a conclusion because your mom told you and actually living through something. I have always thought that people were as a rule fairly dense, consider all the things we do because we have never done them before but were always told that it was wrong.

Fred both of your examples are rationalizations to seemingly avoid doing what one must do for whatever reason. Oh surely I could have just said the hell with shit and run off tonight, got drunk and laid with some strange women rather then save my money to pay the bills and come home to my family. Not all choices are equal and there are good and bad repercussions to all decisions. Zenning my way down the highway will most likely end up with me in jail. Thus to say that I may be taking things too seriously with regards to what I feel is responsible decision making is irresponsible! To my family, work and people that know me, including myself.

Sure at 16 you were relatively responsible compared to the drug hounds I would grant you that. You’re sure to have garnered experiences beyond the typical 16 year old, that doesn't travel the globe. But your time up till then is still finite and you are still only 16. Now I am not proclaiming (and never have.) that 16 year olds cannot be mature only that the vast majority are childish in their choices and actions on a wide variety of matters, but that is normal and expected to a degree but many take that expectation a bit too far. The old adage if you give em an inch they will take you a mile fits in nicely there. Sorry Fred, at 16 you are still someone’s kid.

It’s terribly egotistical of you to dismiss a term universally used to refer to children’s and adolescents choices and actions for thousands of years simply because you don’t like the label. Being immature is ok (argh to a degree.) and it takes a certain amount of modesty to admit it to your self but for the most part I don’t think that people fully realize that they were until they are not. Amusingly enough far more clever and scholarly people then your self have no problem with the labeling. Your ability to respond in a humble manner is an indication of maturity otherwise a label of juvenile distinction is qualified.

 

[Sabastian]

So much so, that there would be no consensus.

Ask them if they think the typical 16 year old is a mature adult and see what your responses are.

 

[epicstruggle]

IMNSHO, I think that 16 year olds are not mature enough to deal with all the issues that come with sex. I wish they would concentrate on growing up and/or studying. There are exceptions to the above.

later,

 

[Vince]

Really, so not only are they undefinable, but they also are untestable.

As are most of the underlying ideological beliefs of humans. As I'll get to in a second, you seem to have this problem seperating a biological responce to a percieved stimulus and the human defined stimulus which is infact intangible and arbitrary.

I'll give you a definition for love. Love is a certain very particular set of chemical reactions induced from your brain. Neurobiologically, one can identify these things, and eventually you could probably make it rigorous (eg say when the dopamine to seratonin ratio is such and such, and this area of the brain is active... then thats love.. A theory that would of course have to match with evidence, which I assume it would!

With all due respect, this is so very inconsistent and calls into question your knowledge on the topic. Perhaps we can start by having you highlight the section of recent evolutionary development in the human brain that's shown to consistently become excited by the very same factors of love between all people AND are exclusivly or retained for the sole function of "Love."

There has historically been little research in the cognitive sciences relating to so-called higher functions such as universal compassion and love to the best of my knowledge. What you'll find is that while there is significant evidence to show, say elevated norepinphrine levels, you can't distinguish these from other neurologically manifested external stimuli such as drug use, near death experiences, et al.

For example, the orbito-frontal cortex is often named (atleast back from my studies) as a prime example of where love, bonding and attachment arise from thanks to the biological 'hotwiring' between somatic and visceral pathways.

Yet, what you'll find is that the same patterns as seen on the EEG arise in conditions of "love" and "drug indulgence" (good example to stick with as it's consistent and easily provable, unlike others).


Thus, we return to were I first commented and are posed with the question concerning how we define what "love" (eg. Universal Love) really is. Similarly, what is "Wisdom" or "Maturity" - both human manifesations as I origionally stated. They are merely human perceptions and/or thresholds, if you will, of a human's growth and state of life - and as such are arbitrary (as many such human manifestations [eg. Universal true love] are) and can't be found using a short-term test os scientific measurment. Wisdom and Maturity were never intended to share the same plateu with other human conditions, say menopause, were you can play objective scientist and go verify it according to a standard test.

Rather, just as what composes 'true love' is different to all people - what composes wisdom and maturity are different to many people and cultures. Yet, there are several overriding features that are almost universal; and for maturity (as this was the toipic) it's generally centered around finally entering the peak of normal human life, having surmounted the childish ways of previous years and finally opening your eyes to the world and putting others before yourself, showing dignity, compassion, love. Perhaps it's akin to finally making the transition from being mentored son to mentoring father.

Precisely what type of experiences seperates a person from being mature or being immature?

See my point? Its arbitrary and adhoc, and likely if you do a poll around the world of all adults and ask them to define wisdom and maturity, you will get vastly different answers. So much so, that there would be no consensus.

I discussed this above, but I can't help but find your opinion on this topic so very obtuse and almost hardheaded in your fallicious quest for universal constants that satisfy the human condition. You, being somone I hold in high regard for his knowledge in the areas of theoretical/high-energy physics, should know better than most that we as a civilization have yet to even find this objectivity and universal truth that's obscured in our own physical world that we inhabit every day, let alone the human consciousness. Don't ask for perfection if you, yourself, can't achieve it.

So yea, I don't know what you two are talking about. You better give me something that satisfies the rigors of logic (ie science).. Eg something that is both logically definable AND testable.

Well, there goes all the perks of being human....

PS. As you were very kind in providing background reading, if you're interested there are several books on fundimental neurobiology and neurophilosophy by Patricia Churchland (usually out of MIT Press) that are great to start in.

 

[Fred]

Good.

There is a great book called the handbook of emotions

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...576-2524711?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

I read parts of it several years ago, and my knowledge of the matter has of course faded w.r.t to love. You are correct, there is no (at this time) accepted deterministic definition.

However, there is a great deal of work in this area.. Particularily in cognitive psychology and neuro science, and I expect there to be an answer in the next 20 years or so.

Whether a drug can simulate the same effect is of course obvious, drugs can create emotions just as easily as the real thing (which afterall are biological in nature.. Anger, fear, etc etc)

Part of the premise is you can find universal responses that are inherently human. For instance, a great deal of work has centered on 'smiling'. This seems to be a universal across cultures, the exact facial pattern for joy is decidedly similar.

As for wisdom, maturity etc. Great philosophers have debated and put various definitions across throughout the ages. I do not like these things, as they are not rigorous and subject to reinterpretation at will.

As far as children being mature, I point you to the middle ages. The second a child hits puberty, they were considered a sort of mini adult. So yes, I consider current ideas of maturity a social convention, not a universal.

As far as physics go. You better believe we are far away from 'the truth', that doesn't mean we don't expect there to be an objective reality at some point.

 

[Sabastian]

lol, you use science and hypothesis found in physics to suggest that there is no truth. Science is the act of trial and error to find the truth. Here we see the relativist bullshit rear its head again. Ironically it in itself becomes the objective truth, what a pile of crap.

To suggest that there is no objective truth dismisses all scientific study, what a ridiculous suggestion in light of what we have learned in science and are able to implement it in our technologies.

EDIT: What sort of science is it if it dismisses itself?

 

[Fred]

Umm, on the contrary I believe in objective truth, perhaps you misread my post. Love for instance is something that will eventually be seen as such for instance, as it is a 'physical' process that can have a physical answer that is testable and rigid.

Wisdom and maturity are neither afaics, they denote a subjective man made slant. Wisdom can have an ethical point of view for instance, and there I am silent b/c its arbitrary, untestable and completely philosophical. I don;t have a very high view of philosophy, as people can redefine things endlessly, argue around each others points, and contradict each other for eternity. As such I do not believe there is an objective ethical standard, but then again im not an ethical relativist either.

Maturity also IMO is something that is the product of a cultural point of view, as my example of the middle ages shows. Now, if I am wrong here, and that example (as well as plenty of others) are flukes, and indeed there are distinct neurobiological differences that we can identify as lack of responsibility or other (insert long list of maturity labels) between a person who is 15 and one who is 30 one would expect some sort of testable consequence. Prelimary albeit simplistic tests indicate there is none (see my first post) and that differences by and large are products of environment rather than anything fundamental.

 

[Sabastian]

Well, as far as your distain for philosophy goes I believe that you have got some things mixed up. Philosophy is science or Science is philosophic trial and error. Sophistry is what I believe you have a larger problem with as there really is nothing wrong with finding the truth, sophistry is simply a misleading argument veiled as a truthful one.

Amusing, your age for claiming some sort of adulthood is dropping lower and lower. If you cannot see that life experience is something that a 15 year old is lacking in comparison with a 30 year old then you are really missing the point. I hate to be so frankly sincere but only a moron would opt for a 15 year old to run their country and make important decisions without any real life experience outside of mom and dads sheltered world.

A 15 or for that matter a 16 year old is not in the vast majority of cases even done physically growing. Again your argument skips the whole matter of real life experience. Your insistence that indeed a 15 year old is every bit as mature as a 30 year old indicates that you are not looking at the situation objectively, go talk to some parents about their kids and see if they think that all 15 year olds are mature or even remotely an adult. Yes children can behave maturely but often they choose not and this is a widely observed phenomena. Your case in point with regards to the middle ages does not take into consideration that life was much less complex in terms of education, laws, a complex and advanced democracy, careers, families, making your way in life. Did you ever have to try anything for the first time or was it all that natural to you that you didn't even notice. Experience is what maturity is about in my humble opinion in this day and age. To dismiss experience in any sort of test between a 15 and a 30 year old is foolhardy. It is the difference between theory and getting your hands dirty.

You plainly seem to not be able to make up your mind on ethical matters at all. The simple fact of the matter is that indeed objectively speaking humanity does undeniably use words that are subjective, contextually sensitive and lots of em, there is nothing that is relative about that fact. You don't like them because they appear to you demeaning in some way, well that is too bad. Because you know if you get rid of the word somehow magically a new word would reappear to describe the condition of whatever it is. Guess what, you would find the new word for immaturity demeaning as well because it is a delimiter of sorts differentiating someone whom is immature from someone whom is mature.

Oh, I give up Fred you are absolutely right about 15 year olds, what the difference between a 14 and a 15 year old, oh maybe a few pubic hairs and a half inch right? But hey with such a small discrepancy between 14 and 15 year olds what is the difference between 13 and 14 year olds… oh a few pubic hairs and another half inch or so. So with such bias going on in adults minds over something as trivial as adolescents we ought to simply rid ourselves of the notion of adolescents and go back to the middle ages. Yeah lower the age of consent to 13 let children become legal adults with voting rights, driving privileges and all the other privileges that come with adulthood. Heh, that’s a brilliant idea and while you didn't say as much that is what it implies.

I understand you are really using the maturity debate to purely argue that boys and girls can share the same schooling environment. The simple fact of the matter is that yes they can but their sexual attractions create a situation where they are distracted from their studies and they suffer academically when in that environment. When they are separated they achieve better statistically speaking then when they are in a mixed environment. A mature human would not let sexual proclivities affect their academic studies. Therefore since adolescents are not considered legal adults (for a wide variety of good and justifiable reasons I have explained) and the vast majority are in the care of their parents. Parents should be in this day and age concerned for their childrens academic achievement (particularly in this day and age.) they ought to do what ever they can to maximize their childs rate of success. If that means that children of different genders should not share the same classrooms because they are too immature to realize the importance of academic achievement over getting down little Suzies pants then so be it.