So, I came across this book called Yes, Your Teen is Crazy. I didn't want to pass judgment right away, so I read some excerpts. And early on, I run into some problems.
First off: The main statement- "Your teen can't be reasoned with because they are not a properly functioning person"- is the main issue here. What the hell kind of message does this guy expect teens who come across this to take from that? "You can't possibly function well, so don't bother?" I call shenanigans.
And then there's another bit that bothers me. It's in the first chapter, where he talks about how you can't parent the same way (Or the exact opposite thereof) your parents did. I'm willing to accept this- attitudes and understandings of parenting shift over time- but then he pushes it off the cliff into BS-ville. That happens when he completely glosses over the fact that by his own very logic, this book will be completely irrelevant 20 years or so from now. At first I figured that he just didn't get it, that it's just a case of someone not thinking forward, just dismissing the issue with a "Well, we had it wrong then, but we have it right now" and not realizing that people have been saying that for centuries. But then it seems that he is aware of this and says that 'What your parents did worked then, but you have to do it differently now.' However, he doesn't go anywhere with this. Look, you can't just do that, okay? Teens are still teens, the only thing that's changed is people's understanding of how to deal with us. Unless you can back up that statement, don't make it, please. Oh, and then he goes off on a tangent about his son's sloppiness and 'questionable' taste in music [music?]. He then actually goes on to explain the joke. Yes, we get it, you think that you're opinion in music is the ultimate, and any deviancy is wrong, hahahahahaha. Once again, people have been saying that for centuries and the joke just isn't funny. I'm 100% for flippancy and humor, but do it well. And then he tells a joke about a psychologist reaching a conclusion about a 13-year-old without looking at him and saying that he's right "because he's 13." The author then says that this is 100% correct. If you can see the issue with this, you have common sense. If you can't... what the hell is wrong with you? You can't just generalize like that. I'm going to respond to his next section (because I made this an in-depth recap of the first chapter a while ago without really meaning to) with this: 'Did you hear? Slavery is okay because black people's brains don't work right! Science said so!' The issue is that science can and has been proven wrong, but I suppose that, unless I can find an issue with the studies themselves, I can't argue against that and my complaints basically fall apart. I only hope that I can find an issue, because I'm not willing to accept that I'm mentally handicapped by virtue of being in a certain age range.
So, let's see... Jay Giedd, from NIMH (Ha! We can't listen to them, they're mean to rats.) took pictures of children's brains over 9 years. They find that the corupus callosum has great growth over that time, and this is important to intelligence, consciousness, etc. Okay... so I don't have a complaint there. I'm not going to argue that changes don't happen to the brain during puberty, but I doubt they make such a big difference as they say. I think I have reason, at least, on my side: What is the evolutionary function of a brain that is gimped for several years during puberty, and beforehand? I mean, think about it- 18 years to maturity can't be beneficial when you're a nomadic hunter-gatherer, can it?
Oh, and now it's the old stuff about the prefrontal cortex. No argument I make here will be effective, because most people seem to have decided that the cortext grows, and that's why teens aren't as good as real people. I don't feel that it's worth it.Oh, a quote I can pull out. Let's do it.
AIDS-HIV link deniers. Holocaust deniers. 9/11 conspiracy theorists. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The people who believed the Swift Boat campaign. Alien abductees. The KKK. Young Earth Creationists. Anyone who has ever been on the Jerry Springer show. All of these people have several things in common- first off, they are not rational. They are as far from rational as you can get. These are people who deny the facts that they don't like. These are the people who don't believe what they can see. These are nutjobs. Oh, but they're not representative of all adults, right? You can't just name a bunch of nuts and say they represent the whole. Well, of course not. Do you really think that I would try and pull that off? But, here's the thing- the reason this is a good argument is that there are enough people in each of the aforementioned categories that it's almost scary. These aren't just one or two or three or a dozen people, they've got a good number of followers. Oh, sure, it's not enough to say that all people are that way, we've gone over that. But, you see, it's all about how it gets that way. It only takes one nutjob who just so happens to be charismatic enough or selling an idea that people like enough to get followers, and then... well, then Hitler happens. People will believe anything if you sell it to them right. And it's not just the nutjobs, either. Ever hear of the Asch conformity experements? And the Holocaust itself, it's all got to do with this. Hitler was an insane bastard, let there be no doubt to anyone about that. But, here's the thing- he was charismatic. He could play people. He promised salvation, and people believed him. He told them that he needed total power, and people gave it to him. And then... well, then it all went to hell. Children weren't the ones putting Hitler into power. I know it sounds like I'm making a morality play here, appealing to the (well-deserved) dislike everyone has of Hitler and what he did. But it just demonstrates my point- adults don't make good decisions, either.
Well, that was a satisfying rant. But back on topic. The book then talks about Dr. Deborah Yugelun-Todd, who ran a study that verified the previous one. Well, good to see that we're sticking to the principle of peer review. Some adults are shown a picture of a scared person, limbic system and prefrontal cortex work together, they can tell they're scared. Teens didn't. You know, I'd like to see these pictures. I'd need more to go on to make an argument against this. Now he says that positive things can be 'hard-wired' into adolescents, including sports, music, etc. I'm actually kind of scared that he's suggesting we hardwire music into people- music, at least in schools, always seems to imply the stupid orchestral stuff. I mean, I know people like it, and more power to them, they're allowed to, but I don't. I'm just concerned that we create an issue here where teens aren't allowed to express themselves musically in the form that they like because of parents. If you're parents don't like you listening to, say, death metal, they're not going to be happy with you writing and performing death metal, regardless of your personal right to express yourself in any form you like.
He then talks about how things can become set in the teen years. Yeah, sure, fine. He goes on to talk about depression, rage, alienation... Well, I don't know about you, but I think we need more of that stuff. It makes some damn good grunge.
Then he talks more about how teens don't think right. Look, shut up, okay? Oh, nevermind, you wouldn't care, anyway. Why should my view count? I'm just a brain-damaged adolescent. Carry on. Let's see... teens can't interpret visual cues on other people... it's only temporary... children make bad decisions (no crap, it's called 'learning' and it happens, it doesn't prove anything- once you screw up the paint job with a pressure washer, you'll have learned to not use the pressure washer, it's not indicative of any neurological dysfunction). Oh, and teens are like angry toddlers that can't think right. I feel so very good about myself now. Thanks, book!
Talking about god- oh, sorry 'mother nature,' I guess we're trying to avoid favoring any religion (except, evidently, Wicca). And now he says that teens think they're capable human beings. That's... that's actually bad for my argument, because if he can back up that statement, it means that anything I say can be written off as "you only think you're good enough." Except he doesn't actually back it up, so... yeah, not a problem.
And now, anecdotes and bad jokes. Huzzah!
Okay, some idiot ruined landscaping, can't really be called indicative of the whole, some kid ruptured a gas can with a lawnmower, and then he goes and compares their reactions when asked why to that of a dog. Yeah, real classy, there. I mean, that's not an insult at all.
Now he talks about there being no 'why,' they're just insane. Sigh. I'm certain adults never do stupid, impulsive things, isn't that right? Yeah.
The next one's about not answering questions. Boring.
An actually funny story involving a teenager playing with a Tinky Winky doll. Still stupid and not necessarily indicative of the whole, though.
Mood swings. Look, we !*#%ing know this. It's the oldest teen cliche in the book. Yes, teens have mood swings. It's for the exact same reason pregnant women do- it's the hormones. Unless you're going to write a book about how pregnant women are crazy, don't bother with this.
Oh, oh, oh, this is farking great. Direct quote:
Yes, this is just great. I mean, it's not like a book about how they're insane just by being a teenager being advertised on the morning news does that, right? Nope, not in the slightest. And then he tells people to be understanding. Hypocrite.
And then he gives a story about a girl he worked with. He "uses the "we're both adults, so you choose" tack." I mean, seriously? It's kind of like he never thought anyone would pick this apart, it's just all so easy.
Reading the story, I think I've found the issue, the reason he doesn't seem aware that non-crazy teens exist- he's a psychologist whose job it is to work with these people. It's all so obvious now. He interacts with problem teens, and then he applies the same tactics he uses to his teens, which frames them in the same light. He only sees the ones with issues. I might be wrong there, but that would make sense, wouldn't it?
Okay, once again I call BS. He says that you can't talk to your teen like you would another adult because they're nuts. This just doesn't work. I like to think that I can hold my own in conversations with adults; and that's the thing- if you're telling your child to, say, clean up their room, it's entirely different from talking to your cow-orkers or friends. When you talk to them, you're not commanding them or telling them off, and that makes all the difference. Adults would probably react to you in the same way if you were telling them to do things, but you don't do that to them, you do it to your children. That's the real issue.
He talks about how admitting that you have child problems is 'disheartening and infuriating.' Well, here's a newsflash- reading a book about how being a child automatically means that you have problems is, too. Now, I understand that I'm not the target audience, and that I'm not supposed to read it, but that's exactly why I am. I know better what it's like to be a teen than any adult because I am a teen, and I'm reading it to counter claims that wouldn't otherwise be countered. It's a self-perpetuating myth- a man who works with problem teens writes a book about problem teens to be read by parents of problem teens, which means that we've got a bunch of people all agreeing with each other. I'm breaking that perpetuation by reading it. You see how that works? Now, once again, I may not be correct, but it makes perfect sense and I can't think of a reason why I wouldn't be.
Oh, thanks a lot, book. I don't qualify as sane. Great. Now, okay, maybe that would be a true statement if we're talking only about the teens that have issues, the ones whose parents would be reading the book, but the statements here are broad. They're applied to all teens instead of just troubled teens, and that makes all the difference in the world.
Then there's an actually kind of funny joke about 'Uncle Louie' telling your child that these are the best years of their life when they're actually pretty bad.
And, wow, he makes an actually valid point about how people think they were better as teens when they weren't. I've held that viewpoint for a long time, it's all part of my larger "Certain things are always true of society; wide social movements happen in different times; basically, all the broad, defining social events repeat themselves with slight variation" philosophy. He then says that there's a problem in that parents are starting to view teens more and more as adults. I think that's a step backwards. He says that his clients are scared in non-sturctured, adlutless environments. I'd say the same is true if you let a bunch of adults run loose without any structure or a more responsible person to guide them. I mean, you can't really try to claim that adults never go to parties, get drunk, and have sex with random people they don't really know.
He then says that you give them control, the screw it up. Okay, look, there is a reason for society's power structure, and that is exactly it. You make some random Joe from off the street president, and he is going to screw up. Look, you're going to make the argument, where's the proof? I'd like to see it, because right now, all I see is bare assertions. He continues on that note a bit and then the chapter ends. Maybe I'll do chapter 2 sometime, but that has to be the end because that's all the samples he has.
First off: The main statement- "Your teen can't be reasoned with because they are not a properly functioning person"- is the main issue here. What the hell kind of message does this guy expect teens who come across this to take from that? "You can't possibly function well, so don't bother?" I call shenanigans.
And then there's another bit that bothers me. It's in the first chapter, where he talks about how you can't parent the same way (Or the exact opposite thereof) your parents did. I'm willing to accept this- attitudes and understandings of parenting shift over time- but then he pushes it off the cliff into BS-ville. That happens when he completely glosses over the fact that by his own very logic, this book will be completely irrelevant 20 years or so from now. At first I figured that he just didn't get it, that it's just a case of someone not thinking forward, just dismissing the issue with a "Well, we had it wrong then, but we have it right now" and not realizing that people have been saying that for centuries. But then it seems that he is aware of this and says that 'What your parents did worked then, but you have to do it differently now.' However, he doesn't go anywhere with this. Look, you can't just do that, okay? Teens are still teens, the only thing that's changed is people's understanding of how to deal with us. Unless you can back up that statement, don't make it, please. Oh, and then he goes off on a tangent about his son's sloppiness and 'questionable' taste in music [music?]. He then actually goes on to explain the joke. Yes, we get it, you think that you're opinion in music is the ultimate, and any deviancy is wrong, hahahahahaha. Once again, people have been saying that for centuries and the joke just isn't funny. I'm 100% for flippancy and humor, but do it well. And then he tells a joke about a psychologist reaching a conclusion about a 13-year-old without looking at him and saying that he's right "because he's 13." The author then says that this is 100% correct. If you can see the issue with this, you have common sense. If you can't... what the hell is wrong with you? You can't just generalize like that. I'm going to respond to his next section (because I made this an in-depth recap of the first chapter a while ago without really meaning to) with this: 'Did you hear? Slavery is okay because black people's brains don't work right! Science said so!' The issue is that science can and has been proven wrong, but I suppose that, unless I can find an issue with the studies themselves, I can't argue against that and my complaints basically fall apart. I only hope that I can find an issue, because I'm not willing to accept that I'm mentally handicapped by virtue of being in a certain age range.
So, let's see... Jay Giedd, from NIMH (Ha! We can't listen to them, they're mean to rats.) took pictures of children's brains over 9 years. They find that the corupus callosum has great growth over that time, and this is important to intelligence, consciousness, etc. Okay... so I don't have a complaint there. I'm not going to argue that changes don't happen to the brain during puberty, but I doubt they make such a big difference as they say. I think I have reason, at least, on my side: What is the evolutionary function of a brain that is gimped for several years during puberty, and beforehand? I mean, think about it- 18 years to maturity can't be beneficial when you're a nomadic hunter-gatherer, can it?
Oh, and now it's the old stuff about the prefrontal cortex. No argument I make here will be effective, because most people seem to have decided that the cortext grows, and that's why teens aren't as good as real people. I don't feel that it's worth it.Oh, a quote I can pull out. Let's do it.
"Emotional control, impulse restraint, and rational decision-making are all gifts to us from our prefrontal cortex, gifts your kid hasn't yet received."I call shenanigans. I could argue that myself and other I know who are the same age don't exhibit this more often than your average adult, but that's not solid enough an argument, if only because people will say that I'm making claims about myself that can't be backed up. So, okay, how about this: Many adults don't exhibit this. The argument here is "Your teen doesn't have these things, but after puberty, adults do." I can't argue that the first part is incorrect, but I've got plenty of ammo for the second one.
AIDS-HIV link deniers. Holocaust deniers. 9/11 conspiracy theorists. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The people who believed the Swift Boat campaign. Alien abductees. The KKK. Young Earth Creationists. Anyone who has ever been on the Jerry Springer show. All of these people have several things in common- first off, they are not rational. They are as far from rational as you can get. These are people who deny the facts that they don't like. These are the people who don't believe what they can see. These are nutjobs. Oh, but they're not representative of all adults, right? You can't just name a bunch of nuts and say they represent the whole. Well, of course not. Do you really think that I would try and pull that off? But, here's the thing- the reason this is a good argument is that there are enough people in each of the aforementioned categories that it's almost scary. These aren't just one or two or three or a dozen people, they've got a good number of followers. Oh, sure, it's not enough to say that all people are that way, we've gone over that. But, you see, it's all about how it gets that way. It only takes one nutjob who just so happens to be charismatic enough or selling an idea that people like enough to get followers, and then... well, then Hitler happens. People will believe anything if you sell it to them right. And it's not just the nutjobs, either. Ever hear of the Asch conformity experements? And the Holocaust itself, it's all got to do with this. Hitler was an insane bastard, let there be no doubt to anyone about that. But, here's the thing- he was charismatic. He could play people. He promised salvation, and people believed him. He told them that he needed total power, and people gave it to him. And then... well, then it all went to hell. Children weren't the ones putting Hitler into power. I know it sounds like I'm making a morality play here, appealing to the (well-deserved) dislike everyone has of Hitler and what he did. But it just demonstrates my point- adults don't make good decisions, either.
Well, that was a satisfying rant. But back on topic. The book then talks about Dr. Deborah Yugelun-Todd, who ran a study that verified the previous one. Well, good to see that we're sticking to the principle of peer review. Some adults are shown a picture of a scared person, limbic system and prefrontal cortex work together, they can tell they're scared. Teens didn't. You know, I'd like to see these pictures. I'd need more to go on to make an argument against this. Now he says that positive things can be 'hard-wired' into adolescents, including sports, music, etc. I'm actually kind of scared that he's suggesting we hardwire music into people- music, at least in schools, always seems to imply the stupid orchestral stuff. I mean, I know people like it, and more power to them, they're allowed to, but I don't. I'm just concerned that we create an issue here where teens aren't allowed to express themselves musically in the form that they like because of parents. If you're parents don't like you listening to, say, death metal, they're not going to be happy with you writing and performing death metal, regardless of your personal right to express yourself in any form you like.
He then talks about how things can become set in the teen years. Yeah, sure, fine. He goes on to talk about depression, rage, alienation... Well, I don't know about you, but I think we need more of that stuff. It makes some damn good grunge.
Then he talks more about how teens don't think right. Look, shut up, okay? Oh, nevermind, you wouldn't care, anyway. Why should my view count? I'm just a brain-damaged adolescent. Carry on. Let's see... teens can't interpret visual cues on other people... it's only temporary... children make bad decisions (no crap, it's called 'learning' and it happens, it doesn't prove anything- once you screw up the paint job with a pressure washer, you'll have learned to not use the pressure washer, it's not indicative of any neurological dysfunction). Oh, and teens are like angry toddlers that can't think right. I feel so very good about myself now. Thanks, book!
Talking about god- oh, sorry 'mother nature,' I guess we're trying to avoid favoring any religion (except, evidently, Wicca). And now he says that teens think they're capable human beings. That's... that's actually bad for my argument, because if he can back up that statement, it means that anything I say can be written off as "you only think you're good enough." Except he doesn't actually back it up, so... yeah, not a problem.
And now, anecdotes and bad jokes. Huzzah!
Okay, some idiot ruined landscaping, can't really be called indicative of the whole, some kid ruptured a gas can with a lawnmower, and then he goes and compares their reactions when asked why to that of a dog. Yeah, real classy, there. I mean, that's not an insult at all.
Now he talks about there being no 'why,' they're just insane. Sigh. I'm certain adults never do stupid, impulsive things, isn't that right? Yeah.
The next one's about not answering questions. Boring.
An actually funny story involving a teenager playing with a Tinky Winky doll. Still stupid and not necessarily indicative of the whole, though.
Mood swings. Look, we !*#%ing know this. It's the oldest teen cliche in the book. Yes, teens have mood swings. It's for the exact same reason pregnant women do- it's the hormones. Unless you're going to write a book about how pregnant women are crazy, don't bother with this.
Oh, oh, oh, this is farking great. Direct quote:
"Their days are typically saturated with messages that loudly and publicly delineate their failures and worthlessness."
Yes, this is just great. I mean, it's not like a book about how they're insane just by being a teenager being advertised on the morning news does that, right? Nope, not in the slightest. And then he tells people to be understanding. Hypocrite.
And then he gives a story about a girl he worked with. He "uses the "we're both adults, so you choose" tack." I mean, seriously? It's kind of like he never thought anyone would pick this apart, it's just all so easy.
Reading the story, I think I've found the issue, the reason he doesn't seem aware that non-crazy teens exist- he's a psychologist whose job it is to work with these people. It's all so obvious now. He interacts with problem teens, and then he applies the same tactics he uses to his teens, which frames them in the same light. He only sees the ones with issues. I might be wrong there, but that would make sense, wouldn't it?
Okay, once again I call BS. He says that you can't talk to your teen like you would another adult because they're nuts. This just doesn't work. I like to think that I can hold my own in conversations with adults; and that's the thing- if you're telling your child to, say, clean up their room, it's entirely different from talking to your cow-orkers or friends. When you talk to them, you're not commanding them or telling them off, and that makes all the difference. Adults would probably react to you in the same way if you were telling them to do things, but you don't do that to them, you do it to your children. That's the real issue.
He talks about how admitting that you have child problems is 'disheartening and infuriating.' Well, here's a newsflash- reading a book about how being a child automatically means that you have problems is, too. Now, I understand that I'm not the target audience, and that I'm not supposed to read it, but that's exactly why I am. I know better what it's like to be a teen than any adult because I am a teen, and I'm reading it to counter claims that wouldn't otherwise be countered. It's a self-perpetuating myth- a man who works with problem teens writes a book about problem teens to be read by parents of problem teens, which means that we've got a bunch of people all agreeing with each other. I'm breaking that perpetuation by reading it. You see how that works? Now, once again, I may not be correct, but it makes perfect sense and I can't think of a reason why I wouldn't be.
Oh, thanks a lot, book. I don't qualify as sane. Great. Now, okay, maybe that would be a true statement if we're talking only about the teens that have issues, the ones whose parents would be reading the book, but the statements here are broad. They're applied to all teens instead of just troubled teens, and that makes all the difference in the world.
Then there's an actually kind of funny joke about 'Uncle Louie' telling your child that these are the best years of their life when they're actually pretty bad.
And, wow, he makes an actually valid point about how people think they were better as teens when they weren't. I've held that viewpoint for a long time, it's all part of my larger "Certain things are always true of society; wide social movements happen in different times; basically, all the broad, defining social events repeat themselves with slight variation" philosophy. He then says that there's a problem in that parents are starting to view teens more and more as adults. I think that's a step backwards. He says that his clients are scared in non-sturctured, adlutless environments. I'd say the same is true if you let a bunch of adults run loose without any structure or a more responsible person to guide them. I mean, you can't really try to claim that adults never go to parties, get drunk, and have sex with random people they don't really know.
He then says that you give them control, the screw it up. Okay, look, there is a reason for society's power structure, and that is exactly it. You make some random Joe from off the street president, and he is going to screw up. Look, you're going to make the argument, where's the proof? I'd like to see it, because right now, all I see is bare assertions. He continues on that note a bit and then the chapter ends. Maybe I'll do chapter 2 sometime, but that has to be the end because that's all the samples he has.
No comments:
Post a Comment