Comment on [deleted]
memfree@lemmy.ml 15 hours ago
Do not do this. His brain is not fully developed and does not process risk/reward as it will. This is a dangerous age that highly benefits from immediate adult feedback to help mitigate… let’s just say ‘bad ideas’ before they fester or are acted upon.
The brain finishes developing and maturing in the mid-to-late 20s. The part of the brain behind the forehead, called the prefrontal cortex, is one of the last parts to mature. This area is responsible for skills like planning, prioritizing, and making good decisions. source
Risk-taking declines between adolescence and adulthood because of changes in the brain’s cognitive control system – changes which improve individuals’ capacity for self-regulation. These changes occur across adolescence and young adulthood and are seen in structural and functional changes within the prefrontal cortex and its connections to other brain regions. The differing timetables of these changes make mid-adolescence a time of heightened vulnerability to risky and reckless behavior. source | more | more
birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 hours ago
That is strange reasoning. Not living on your own doesn’t help you mature or grow independent at all.
People here move out earlier all the time. I think it’s a great way to foster independence and selfcare.
memfree@lemmy.ml 15 hours ago
Would you let a 4 year old live alone or would you call that abuse? At 16 we might survive, but are more likely to flourish and less likely to die when under the care of a guardian. At 16, we want independence, but make bad choices. We can not help it. A guardian can structure increasing independence by first assigning life-tasks under supervision: check the adolescent’s study habits and school work, allow the teen to cook, clean, shop, and budget – but be there to help and advise if/when needed.
There are cases where the parent or guardian is so selfish, awful, or abusive that a teen is better off without the damage caused by their home situation, but in general, these are dangerous years to be unsupervised and countless studies prove it.
birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 hours ago
Where did I talk about a 4-year-old? I’m not exactly appealed with you putting those words in my mouth.
That said, obviously there is a big difference. I already mentioned the gentle guidance, for that sixteen year old; eg. that if they ever have questions concerning the house maintenance and all that, they should always feel free to come ask you.
And… these aren’t really dangerous years to be unsupervised. In fact, I think it’s more dangerous to live supervised by a deeply controlling helicopter parent, evangelist family.
As I said: gentle guidance. I ask you to read before commenting.
datavoid@lemmy.ml 14 hours ago
Just want to point it out the 4 year old thing was hypothetical, and no one was putting words in your mouth.
memfree@lemmy.ml 14 hours ago
The point about a 4 year old is a rhetorical device. No answer is expected. I constructed it to illustrate on the biological reality that you are not grown at 4, just as you are not grown at 16.
We agree that helicopter parents are bad, and we agree that parents should prepare their offspring for life, then let them fly free. Our only disagreement is on how much freedom should occur at what age. I ask you to do some research and cite some sources before opining as if your random thoughts should get the same weight as documentation from people who devoted years of study to the subject.