Talk:Adolescence/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Confusion

There is a general confusion in the term "adolescent" which is evident also in the opening paragraph of this article: "occurring between puberty and legal adulthood". The start point in this development stage is defined as a biological event whereas the end point is defined by a legal event and cultural psychology.

Besides the obvious flaw, in defining an event by reference to points on entirely distinct scales (I may as well define the aurorar borealis as an event beginning when the lights are visible until the end of winter), there is a substantial impact of this confusion on the way we envision psychological development and maturation more generally.

I suggest that the end point of adolescence should also be defined by reference to a point in biological maturation. The alternative would be to define the start point legally which would result in beginning either at birth or at the last point that abortion is legal as there is no other legal milestone.

I propose that the biological endpoint of adolescence should be taken as the average age at which the brain's synapses(frontal lobe/etc have been "fully" developed - approx. 25 yrs old. This article http://www.fcs.uga.edu/ext/bbb/brainTimeAdolescence.php suggests: "Myelination of the frontal lobes is not complete until very late in adolescence. Some researchers estimate that frontal-lobe development continues until age 25 to 30." LookingGlass (talk) 10:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem in defining adolescence is the same problem in defining preadolescence. Some sources state that preadolescence ends with puberty and that this is when adolescence begins; other sources refer to young pubescents as "preadolescent" and preadolescence is generally stretched all the way up to the teenage years (13 and 14), while plenty of sources state that adolescence begins at the teenage stage. This is why the current lead says "generally occurring between puberty and legal adulthood (age of majority), but largely characterized as beginning and ending with the teenage stage." As for your other statements, there isn't a such thing as a legal definition of adolescence. And I definitely wouldn't say that we should categorize adolescence as ending at age 25 or 25 - 30 when reliable sources do not define adolescence as lasting that long (not generally anyway). Yes, people do not finish developing cognitively until age 24 or 25, but I wouldn't say that people that old are adolescents. Further, adolescence is a social construct. The fact that we have a bit of difficulty defining it proves that. Flyer22 (talk) 01:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

One of the defining characteristics of the field of adolescent development is that there are differences in its definition. It can be defined biologically (then it starts with the rise in hormones and ends with sexual reproduction), cognitively (beginning with the development of abstract, hypothetical thinking, ending when it is stabilized), or socially (much more culturally variable - as discussed in the article). It can also be defined as development occurring during the second decade of life. In many cases that's the cleanest definition.

In my opinion, adolescence is a 'fuzzy set' and can only be defined and studied as a conjunction of multiple aspects of the transition. That was a major point in this piece, however the discussion of conflicting definitions could be made explicit. It is where many textbooks and courses begin and I struggled with that sentence when I wrote it.

I edit the Journal of Adolescence and we accept articles beginning in pre-adolescence (10-12) if they transition into issues more typical of the second decade of life and only go up to 25 if they focus specifically on the acquisition of social roles that mark the transition from schooling into the workforce. With regards to myelination - it's important but not the key marker. (It is a key marker for brain development, not a key marker for adolescence.) You're talking early adulthood when you're talking 25-30 years olds - most people in the world have taken on all adult roles at that point. Nxd10 (talk) 04:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Sexuality

When exactly did pregnancy become a "risk"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.101.203 (talk) 14:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

How is pregnancy not a risk of teen sex? It is a risky consequence of teen sex. This is because most teenagers are not trying to get pregnant. Yes, it can be a risky consequence of sex between any two heterosexuals who are capable of reproduction and don't want children at that point in their lives. But that doesn't negate it also being a risk with regard to teenage sexual activity (vaginal sex, although other types of sex can be risky in the same vein if semen makes its way to the vagina). Flyer22 (talk) 18:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Other kinds of sex can get you pregnant? Never heard that one before. The reproductive organs are not connected to the digestive system. Serously, where do you get these facts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwediePie (talk • contribs) 15:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Did you even read what I stated? Or are you giving attitude just to give it? Anal sex can get a woman pregnant if semen leaks from the anus to the vagina. Do you not think this is possible? I assure you that it is. During oral sex, there is still a risk of semen being transferred to the vagina, due to semen being on the fingers and those fingers then touching or entering the woman's vagina. Forms of non-penetrative sex, such as intercrural sex, can also of course result in pregnancy. Flyer22 (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

And how often does this occur? - SwediePie (talk) 18:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I would definitely put it in the very rare category, but they are listed as a risk in some sources. Usually when it's assumed that anal, oral or intercrural sex are perfectly protected from pregnancy. Flyer22 (talk) 00:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge Adolescent development here

As I stated in my edit summary: The Adolescent development article is a much better article on this topic and should be merged here. It covers everything this article should cover, and more.

With the two articles existing at once, it's like "Why have an Adolescence article when there is an Adolescent development article that covers this time period in much better detail?" I'm not seeing how the two topics can be distinguished, seeing as (like I said) this article should cover exactly what the Adolescent development article covers.

It was turned away from a redirect on October 22, 2011,[1] and the article building started on November 3, 2011.[2] Like Talk:Adolescent development says, "The original version of this page was written by students in the Adolescent Development seminar at Oberlin College."

They did an excellent job. When merging, we can/should cut away the unsourced material in this article and stick the sourced material in the relevant parts presented to us by the Adolescent development article's structure. And of course it makes more sense to have that article merged here than to have this one merged there. Because of the name. It's simply "adolescence," and articles should typically be at their common name titles, per WP:COMMONNAME. Flyer22 (talk) 05:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

My class would be happy to do the merge if others think it should occur - Adolescence or Adolescent Development title - it doesn't matter to me. The difference is - as we wrote - the difference between the study of change or not. We thought about a merge when we did the revision, but didn't want to do something that radical without thought (and we didn't know if someone would cut our article). There is also good material in the Adolescence piece we didn't want lost. Nxd10 (talk) 04:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• Agree The 'development' article is more substantive. Should probably be done under the broader page title 'adolescence' with a specific section on 'adolescent development'. Meclee (talk) 09:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and merged the articles,[3][4] since the class is okay with it and there doesn't seem to be any controversy in doing so. We can't really have an Adolescent development heading, though, since all of this is adolescent development; as stated, that's the reason I suggested the merge. I left all the unsourced stuff in this article alone because I was concentrating on merging the material from the other article into already existing sections (with a slightly different heading in some cases) or giving them their own sections, and because I want to see what the class will do with the unsourced material. Some if it may already be covered by other sources/material in the article. Any unneeded redundancy should be cut of course. The lead, right now with the merge, has a bit of redundancy in it. Flyer22 (talk) 03:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Flyer22: Thanks for doing the hard work on the merge. I just printed it out and will be working on editing for redundancies/unsourced material. My class (the authors of the original adolescent development article) are adding sections and also editing some of the important related pages that are not as well developed as they should be. Their due date for their drafts is Dec 1 and that work and other edits done by the class have to be completed by Dec 14.Nancydarling (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Nancydarling. I did some more cleanup of the lead and other parts of the article.[5][6] I of course welcome any improvements from you and the rest of the class. Flyer22 (talk) 04:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Further changes after merge

Several statements, such as statements that adolescence is a new invention and not culturally universal and that adolescence is fraught with conflict are not widely accepted and have not been since at least 1980. The latter is a common myth not supported in the literature. The cultural universal issue is something that needs discussion and was going to be treated in the new section on culture. Arnett's work on 'emerging adulthood' was going to be discussed at the same time, with a link to that page. Historically, Aries argues that there was only an infancy/adulthood distinction in European culture. However, many other sources talk about 'youth' as a period and that is certainly true in Japanese and Chinese culture. Crosscultural work says that there is a recognized period of adolescence, although this may be very time limited (e.g., during the initiation ritual).

I also find the structure less clear than it was in the Adolescent Development article. We had thought to keep the developmental change part the same and then add the discussion of cultural differences and media portrayals - both of which were strengths of the old Adolescence entry - at the end as special topics that transcended the issue of change. Two students are currently working on those topics. Nancydarling (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

For the "new invention" part of your comment, I take it you mean the Adolescence#History section? It's backed to this The New York Times source (although we prefer scholarly/journal/science sources for this topic), and says:

In many societies throughout history, adolescence was not recognized as a phase of life. Most societies simply distinguished between childhood and adulthood. Stanley Hall is generally credited with "discovering" adolescence with his 1904 study "Adolescence" in which he describes the developmental phase now recognized as adolescence. Hall attributed the new stage to social changes at the turn of the 20th century. Child labor laws kept individuals under 16 out of the work force, and universal education laws kept them in secondary school, thus prolonging the period of dependence—a dependence that allowed them to address psychological tasks they might have ignored when they took on adult roles straight out of childhood.

You are saying that adolescence existed before then, but under a different name in different cultures, correct? If so, I still wouldn't say that adolescence has always been recognized. As you stated, Aries argues that there was only an infancy/adulthood distinction in European culture. I would say that adolescence is certainly a social construct, considering that it may be defined differently in different cultures and may not even exist in some. I say this despite the physical changes that come along with it. Puberty and adolescence are usually intertwined, but are two different things, as you know.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "adolescence is fraught with conflict" is a myth. Care to clarify?

As for the structure, are you referring to not having an Adolescent development heading? Because, like I stated in the section above, "We can't really have an Adolescent development heading... ...since all of this is adolescent development." If we included such a heading, it would be one very long section because everything in this article is a subsection of it. We also typically aren't supposed to have headings that refer to the subject of the article, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section headings, because it is redundant. This is why I removed "adolescent" and one instance of "adolescents" from the headings including the terms when I merged the article here. If you are talking about something else with regard to keeping "the developmental change part the same and then add the discussion of cultural differences and media portrayals," please clarify. I may agree with you. But, again, I point out that I only made slight changes to the headings; Excluding the redundancy of "adolescent" or "adolescents," I kept most of the headings the same. This is what the article looked like before I merged it here. Flyer22 (talk) 04:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I have been trying to find a very good chapter on cross-cultural consideration of adolescence that draws from a database of 160+ cultures in which almost all have a recognized period of adolescence. I think this also should be discussed directly. First, very few cultures were age graded (as we are now) until recently, and thus the infancy/adult or child/adult distinction Aries talks about is salient. There is a great deal of evidence that suggests in the US and Europe that 'youth' was recognized as a separate period from full adulthood and was seen to be characterized by the kind of liminal state now associated with adolescence. Youth were seen as more autonomous, allowed to 'sow wild oats', had yet to commit to adult roles (work and marriage), etc. Parents were still giving advice that was expected to be followed. Then you have more of an institutionalization of 'adolescence' and the invention of the 'teenager'.

On top of that, there is the idea of the pubertal transition, which is, of course, universal.

IMO, the NYTimes article is focusing on age grading, but there is more to it than that. This may also reflect the difference between sociological and psychological perspectives on development (e.g., Cote). Whereas a sociological perspective may focus on roles and societal expectations (school, work, family relations), a psychological focuses on cognitive and normative psychological as well. These may be more universal.

Again, this suggests a more explicit discussion of what adolescence is. Which is where most textbooks and courses on adolescence start.

Current research (and since the early 80's) suggests that adolescence is not a more 'emotional fraught' time than other life periods and that parent:child relationships are not more conflictual during this period. There had been research (Smetana, etc.) that suggested there was a spike in early adolescence, but research is mixed. Most adolescents and parents get along well, although relations become less close over time and they spend less time together. The 'fraught with conflict' idea is repeated in every popular press article but is not backed up in the literature. Perhaps this should be addressed specifically in the piece.

Actually, what I would like to see removed is the adolescent development header. As you say, it is all adolescent development.Nxd10 (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The chapter you have been trying to find would definitely be a good addition to this article, I agree. It goes without saying that the History section needs clarification and expansion.

Thanks for clarifying what Nancydarling meant about "adolescence is fraught with conflict" being a myth. I agree that it should be addressed specifically in the article.

What adolescent development header are you referring to, Nxd10? I haven't included it for the reasons I stated above. Are you referring to the wording "adolescent development" in the lead?

On a side note... I hope you don't mind me asking you to not split up my comments when you reply to specific parts of them. I prefer the responses not be that way, which is why I aligned your comment the way it is now. Flyer22 (talk) 04:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey all. I'm one of the students that aided in creating the original Adolescent Development article, and I'm beginning to work on some of the post-merge cleanup. The main things that I plan to change are: the definition at the very beginning of the article, the history section and the psychology section.

I'm going to cut the sentence that describes adolescence using a biological start time and a legal end time, and instead say that it is generally considered to take place during the second decade of the life span. I'll then speak to the difficulty of finding an all-encompassing definition, and point to the benefits of taking a multidisciplinary approach to thinking about adolescence (ie biological, emotional, cognitive, interpersonal, social, legal perspectives).

As for the History section, it may be better to claim that adolescence as a developmental period has varied considerably throughout history than to deny its existence completely prior to 1904. I also have some material about it being a social invention, and can talk about its cross-cultural variation using the chapter mentioned by Nxd10.

Organizationally, I liked that the original adolescent development article was split into biological, cognitive, and social development sections. What do you think about going back to that format? I was thinking of re-adding the 'biological development' header above where the article begins to talk about Growth Spurt. It also seems strange to have something as broad as 'psychology' as one of the principle headings, and there is a lot of redundancy between other sections and the psychology section. I'd like to cut that header, put 'cognitive development' in its place, and redistribute much of what is written in the psychology section to the topics' relevant places within cognitive and social development.

Many of the claims that adolescence is 'fraught with conflict' are made in the psychology section. I agree that this is not a fair statement, and in fact have found multiple sources that claim the opposite. The conflict of adolescence is way overemphasized in the media, and although it is commonly believed that adolescence is an inherently difficult time, there is little scientific support for this idea. Yes, the changes that take place in adolescence can be potential stressors, but the ways in which adolescents react to the changes and the amount of stress caused depends on the broader environmental context. Do you think I should simply cut the statements that refer to the conflict of adolescence as I rework the psychology section, or add in a section that addresses some of these arguments?

It is my impression that another student in my class is going to work on a separate article addressing some of the cultural differences mentioned in the final section, so I'm going to leave that alone for now, and wait to talk to them about what exactly their piece will cover.

Finally, none of the pictures have sources and I'm not sure about the extent to which they add to our article. Can I cut them?

Let me know what you think of all this! I don't want to step on any toes, and am open to suggestions. Adueweke (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

@Flyer22 I apologize for breaking up your comments. I was trying to find the best way to deal with each issue raised. BTW, nxd10 and nancydarling are the same person (me). I'm not sure why I get logged in as two different people as I thought I only had one login. Nxd10 (talk) 03:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

@Aubrey - I like that plan. I think that the 'cultural variation' revision is actually going to be added as an expansion with stronger citations within this article.

I don't care for the pictures, but I do think some breakout text/tables with 'fast facts' about adolescence would be helpful (e.g., percentage of population by region, age of majority, %working/school/both, etc.) It helps put things in context. Jeff Arnett's international encyclopedia of adolescence might be a helpful source. Perhaps we can brainstorm critical topics to be covered.

The Psychololgy heading makes no sense to me. I think your idea for reorganizing and moving material from that section around would improve the organization and make the article more concise and less repetitive.Nxd10 (talk) 03:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Adueweke. With regard to changing the beginning of the lead, I would prefer that something at the beginning still mention that adolescence generally occurs between puberty and legal adulthood, or rather that it is generally thought to begin at puberty and is largely characterized as the beginning and ending of the teenage stage. Those are the ways in which adolescence is usually defined, and is more specific than simply saying "the second decade of the life span." I take it that by "the second decade of the life span," we mean from "10 to 20," which is saying the same thing, but I just want it a little more specific. I mean, when people think of "adolescence," they generally think "teenagers"...which is why Teens and Teenagers redirects here and that association is mentioned in the lead; it's just not a distinct topic. I'm open to you changing the first sentence however you like; I just want it clear about how adolescence is typically defined. Also keep in mind that the lead is already three paragraphs long and should not exceed four paragraphs, per WP:LEAD.

Regarding the biological, cognitive, and social development sections, I put the biological information under "Puberty" because it is mostly about the biological changes that happen during puberty. It didn't make sense to me to have a Puberty section and then a Biological development section as separate issues when puberty is also biological and when they are primarily discussing the same thing. I added it under Puberty, but I kept all of its headings...minus the "biological" heading because it was no longer needed. As for the Cognitive development section, I added that material under the Psychology heading (keeping its subsections intact) because it's about psychological development; the Psychology section was already addressing that (cognitive, emotional, physical and attitudinal changes), and...just like having the Puberty section separated from the Biological section didn't make sense to me...neither did having the Psychology section separated from the Cognitive development section. I did, however, forget to make the "Cognitive development" subsections the actual subsections that they were in the previous article, and I will do that now. But if you and Nxd10 want to do away with the Psychology heading altogether, because you don't feel that it is needed, I can go for that. We'll just have to remove some redundancy, like you stated. And I can agree to have the Biological heading returned as well, but I do feel that it should have a Puberty subsection heading...and then have anything mostly relating to puberty as a subsection under that.

As for the pictures, I don't know what you mean about them not having sources...unless you mean their captions. Because, other than that, the source information of these images can be found by clicking on them and scrolling down. I don't mind you cutting them except for four:

1. The picture that demonstrates how the upper body of a teenage boy resembles an adult form more than it does a child's significantly enhances the Puberty section, in my opinion.

2. The mugshot image adds to the Psychology section's text about adolescents being prone to recklessness and risk-taking behaviors...speaking of drunk-driving, etc.

3. The "Teenage couples at a fair in the American West" image adds to the Sexuality section.

4. The "A sign outside a sex shop reads 'Must Be 18 To Enter' in Chapel Hill, North Carolina" image adds to the Legal issues, rights and privileges section.

Generally, Wikipedia's take on images is to use them when they add some relevance to the articles or significantly enhance the reader's understanding of a topic, especially if the images are WP:Free images...as they are in this case. Nxd10's suggestion about images is also good.

About the "adolescence is fraught with conflict" material, I don't mind you cutting the statements that refer to the conflict of adolescence as you rework the Psychology section, or if you add in a section that addresses some of those arguments.

And, Nxd10, thanks for letting me know that you and Nancydarling are one in the same. It's no problem, as long as you stick with one account. See WP:Sock puppetry. Flyer22 (talk) 06:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with aduweke that biological change is the superordinate heading over puberty, not the other way around. The change in height and weight is more striking than the change of sexual maturity, which is the defining characteristics of puberty.

Both cognition and social/emotional are psychological, and biology, culture, etc. all have psychological and sociological elements. Emotional reactions to puberty are discussed under puberty. Thus, as a psychologist, the header 'Psychology' simply does not make sense to me as a major organizing category. Biology, Cognitive, Social, Cultural, and Media Portrayals, which I believe is being proposed, strike me as a fairly clear organizing structure for people trying to find specific information.

I just pulled a group of textbooks on Adolescent Development and Child Development off my shelf. Steinberg organizes major changes as biology, cognitive, and social, as does Lerner, Cobb, Arnett (Arnett does biology, cognitive, cultural, to be fair, then does social), Butake, and Cole & Cole. For books organized by age (the other major organizational structure for the treatment of developmental psych overviews), they usually have a biology/cognitive/social organization within each age group. We could organize the article that way (early, middle, late adolescence, emerging adulthood), but I've never seen a textbook organized that way and I don't see the poing for this article.

flyer22 - Perhaps keeping the pictures you mention with a caption explaining it as you did would be helpful. I also think the age range of kids in those photos seems small, and the big thing that strikes me about adolescence is that 12 year olds and 20 year olds are just really different. If we keep photos, I'd like that reflected in them.

I agree with flyer22 about the definition of adolescence and would like to add a bit of discussion about differences in defintion (which I think was in the original Adolescent Development article, although I'm not sure if it's currently in this one). Given all the discussion around this point, another sentence or two on the topic might be helpful.Nancydarling (talk/nxd10) 22:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I think I have just figured out that I am nxd10 on my home computer and Nancydarling on my work one. I'll change the default login. Sorry. It is not intentional. I only want to log in as Nancydarling. Nancydarling (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

New question: In class, we have been trying to figure out whether Media Portrayals of Adolescence should be a section in here or whether it should be its own article. In a broad encyclopedia like this, it seems like a very specialized page. But the material being written for it is quite long - I think the author has 8 or 9 single space pages at this point. And it seems quite different than the other major topics being discussed, which are quite broad. In an encyclopia of adolescence, it would get it's own chapter/article. But I'm not sure about wikipedia. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nancydarling (talk • contribs) 22:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I added the Biological development heading taken from the original article and left Puberty under it,[7] as I'd suggested above. As stated, most of the information is about puberty. The only section that somewhat veers from puberty is the Changes in the brain section; if it's felt that this section is best left unchained to the Puberty section, we can have it as a subsection of the Biological development header only (instead of linked to both the Biological development and the Puberty headings as it is now).

I agree with not having the Psychology heading. I hadn't thought about how the Puberty section is also dealing with psychological issues and therefore having a Psychology header is ignoring that. I didn't remove the heading yet because I'm leaving that to you or your class; once removing Psychology, I'd have to find a way to blend the content that was there with the Cognitive development section, and Adueweke has already proposed to rework that section.

It goes without saying that I agree with organizing the article as Biological development, Cognitive development, Social development, Culture, and Media portrayals. We just have to take care of the Psychology section and add a Media portrayals section, and that organization will be done.

I'm not sure what you mean about the caption of the images; they already (or pretty much already) say what I explained. I'm only proposing that we keep those four images. So if you and your class want to remove the rest and add pictures that you feel would be more relevant (such as pictures that show wider age ranges), I have no problem with that. Just make sure that the images are free images (linked above). However, I'm wondering about whether or not to include images of 20-year-olds because I'm not sure adolescence typically extends that high (which I'll address in the next paragraph).

Yes, I'm content with the current definition of adolescence in the lead because it clearly notes that adolescence generally starts at puberty, ends with adulthood (which, by all means, is social adulthood), but is largely characterized as the teenage stage. One of the sources backing this is this...MedlinePlus source. It doesn't say "legal adulthood" (though the first source apparently does), but...if it does not mean that...does it mean biological adulthood? Biological adulthood can be defined as the beginning or completion of puberty, and society generally doesn't term an individual an adult until legal adulthood. Basically, just like defining the start of adolescence can be tricky due to its overlap with preadolescence, defining the end of adolescence can be tricky. This is because adolescence can be considered to extend beyond legal adulthood...if taking into account psychological/social development. The lead addresses all of this right in the first paragraph, which is what I like. The "second decade of life" proposal and what you say about 20-year-olds, though, has me pondering how often adolescence is considered to extend to 20. For example, as the lead notes, Erik Erikson's stages of human development defines a young adult as a person between the ages of 20 and 40, whereas an adolescent is a person between the ages of 13 and 19. And that MedlinePlus source also cuts adolescence off at 19 (mainly because adolescence is typically considered to be 13-19). Not that I feel that there is a significant difference between 18 to 20-year-olds. I don't mind you going into the different definitions in the lead at all. That is what the first and second paragraphs are trying to do. What mainly messes up the concept of adolescence these days, as I stated at Talk:Adult#"Social Construct", is whether or not to mark adolescence as the start of puberty or the start of the teenage stage. Puberty and the teenage stage used to occur at about the same time, but they typically do not any longer (at least...especially in the case of girls). And both aspects can be considered "the start of adolescence."

Yes, since the "Media portrayals of adolescence" material that is being worked on will be quite long, it may deserve its own article. It depends on how long it is. In my opinion, you and your class should go ahead and make it its own article. If it is small enough to fit into this article, and is not likely to be expanded much beyond what it is, we can always merge it here later. That said, we can and should still have a section on it in this article. We can include a bit of it here, while pointing people to the main article for the in-depth material. Flyer22 (talk) 19:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Awesome - sounds like a plan. Most of the major revisions from our end (Oberlin Adolescence Seminar course) should be complete within two weeks. I found some historical images that might also be helpful.Nancydarling (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice. I look forward to it (text and new images). Flyer22 (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I just completed all the major changes I was planning on making. I'm going to leave the Culture section to Jbrancaz. In the end I didn't add a disclaimer about the overemphasis of conflict in the media, because I figure this may have a good home in the Media section, which also falls under another of my classmates' domain. Thoughts on the most recent edition? Adueweke (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I like your changes, but added back a more precise definition of adolescence,[8] per my statements about that above, which Nancydarling also agreed on. Other than taking out that specificity, which I feel is needed because these are the two main ways adolescence is defined, I more than like your changes. They're great, even keeping three of the four pictures I suggested we keep (the only one of those you removed is the mugshot image, which is possibly the least needed of the four; either that or the couples image). Flyer22 (talk) 06:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Right, apologies for cutting the mugshot image... it didn't seem relevant any more after cutting the Psychology section that mentioned conflict in adolescence. Thanks for all your help and input! Adueweke (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Science News resource

Teen brains' growing pains. Striking changes are possible in IQ and neuroanatomy, study finds. By Laura Sanders November 19th, 2011; Vol.180 #11 (p. 12), excerpt ...

The roller-coaster teenage years can take IQs along for the ride. A person’s IQ can nosedive and climb sky-high during adolescence, while corresponding brain regions wax and wane in bulk, researchers report online October 19 in Nature.

99.181.140.213 (talk) 05:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Cultural differences during adolescence

I am working on editing the cultural differences section. The first thing that I want to do is take out the pictures and change the Legal issues, rights and privileges into some form of visual representation in order to make it a little clearer as well as give citations as to where I get my information. Then I am planning on elaborating on the other sections, adding more details and citations. Does anyone have any other suggestions as to what could be added/ elaborated on in the cultural section? Jbrancaz (talk) 19:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Something that might be important to add in this section would be roles of adolescents cross-culturally. For example, % in school, % unemployed, % working, % married. Another important factor that influences the experience of adolescence is % of the population in that age group. That makes a big difference in labor market experience, for example. Nxd10 (talk) 04:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

As I stated above, the only image I'd keep in that section is the "A sign outside a sex shop reads 'Must Be 18 To Enter' in Chapel Hill, North Carolina" image. But what do you mean by "visual representation," Jbrancaz? Flyer22 (talk) 06:29, 2 December 2011‎ (UTC)

Flyer22 - Jbrancaz and I were talking about putting a table together that summarized age of majority, voting, marriage, and other major transitions to adulthood by country - I believe that is what was meant by visual representation. I think that would be easier to grasp than text. The information is available, it just needs to be pulled together.Nancydarling (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, okay, That sounds good. Although I feel that there should still be text in that section outside of that. Flyer22 (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Why don't I just link to the wikipedia pages that already have fairly reliable and organized information about the legal age of drinking, voting, consent, and driving. Then I just summarize what it says, which is what is there now but it is a little wordy. Jbrancaz (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

No objections from me, Jbrancaz. Although I'd prefer that you don't cut too much. While the main articles are there to cover the in-depth material, we should still have adequate summaries of them here...since those things are also a significant part of adolescence. Flyer22 (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. And definitely need both text and table. I thought what was originally in the cultural section from the old Adolescence article was their strongest section and should be organized and supplemented, rather than eliminated.Nancydarling (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The Culture section was the strongest? Hmm. I can't really agree there...since it was relatively small and was (and still is) unsourced (what was there before, not the subsections created by you and your class of course).[9] Flyer22 (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Media section

I started this section specifically for discussion of the Media section. It's not exactly a summary, which is what I thought it would be per the #Further changes after merge discussion above, while directing people to an article on it, but I like it. I made tiny tweaks to the headings.[10][11] Flyer22 (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Other tweaks to the headings.[12][13][14] Flyer22 (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Where did the information in this section come from? Is this from our class, Nancydarling? I think it's also important to talk about media representations of adolescence in this section, rather than simply the effects of adolescents' increased interactions with media in the modern age. Maybe this would be a good place to put our "The notion that adolescence is fraught with conflict is often way overemphasized in the media" section... Adueweke (talk) 02:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey Adueweke, this is Emma from Nancy's class - I am doing this media section for my 2nd paper. I think your changes to the headings were good, mine were too long. This information is mostly from the Steinberg text. I am working on a section right now about adolescent stereotypes in the media, which will go first in the media section as a precursor to the other information. It should be posted later tonight - let me know if it's what you had in mind. Eerobertson04 (talk) 03:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Eerobertson04. I was the one who made the changes to the headings. Thank you for your work. You and the rest of your class are doing an excellent job. But I am interested in seeing what Nancydarling has to say about your changes, since Adueweke is a bit worried about the section. Flyer22 (talk) 06:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Your addition of the Stereotypes section may be enough to calm Adueweke's concern. I personally like it and feel that it covers the bases nicely. Flyer22 (talk) 06:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey Emma! Not concerned...just a suggestion. Looks great so far! Adueweke (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys this is Emma. Could anyone tell me how to make the Adolescence and Media section a new article? I've been trying to figure it out for a few weeks now, but it seems to be pretty complicated as I'd have to pick out all of the citations again. If anyone knows of any shortcuts and could let me know that'd be great! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.161.150 (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought you all agreed to leave the Media section here if it wasn't too big. Looking at it, it's not too big. It just has more subsections than needed, as do other parts of the article. But I'll further tweak headings later. Are you planning to remove the entire Media section from this article? Or is it that you just have a lot more text/sources gathered and feel that it's enough to warrant its own article? If the first option, I want to point out that all of Media section shouldn't be removed. A good summary should be left here, while pointing people to the main article on it.

But to answer your question: All you have to do is push the "edit" button, then use the "copy and paste" features of your browser to transport that material from here to elsewhere. Flyer22 (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to note, there are already media articles in existence, probably not much need for a whole new "adolescents and the media" article, although I like the section here. Might need a bit of balance in parts (which I tried to add) as there tends to be a lot of rhetoric on media that exceeds the data, but overall I think you've done a nice job here. 69.91.76.238 (talk)MVGuy —Preceding undated comment added 04:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC).

I agree. But I reverted you on a few things. Other than a study being discredited or WP:Fringe, there is no good reason to remove past studies in favor of more recent studies. Just because studies are more recent does not mean they are more accurate. Further, when the studies are presenting two sides of an issue, they should both be represented, per WP:Neutral, unless one of them is WP:Fringe. So I reverted you here and here because of that. The side you presented is still there, but so is the other side. You also shouldn't change what sources report. Look at this alteration. You changed the words "However, it is highly debated" to "Most recent research indicates" without even changing the source. You should have changed the source unless the current source supports your wording. I say the same for this edit. The sources say "Much more" and "more," not "slightly more." And so I had to revert you on that too (just those word changes, not the other stuff). I don't object to this section removal. It is redundant, like you said. 23.20.59.196 (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Understood. I hear what you saying. I made a few tweaks. I did revert the comment on effect size, because meta-analytic reviews (which could be added, and I will if I have time) all...and I mean universally...agree the effects are small according to standards for interpreting effect sizes in the social sciences. I'll grant you it's a matter of including those cites, which should be done, but there's no point in misleading the public in the meantime even if a source chose to do so (as if often the case with media effects, a pretty polemicized field). Hope that's ok, but yeah some of this needs balancing. As for the articles I removed, they specifically got criticized during the recent Brown v EMA case for shoddy methods, which was my motivation. I think it would be better to replace them with some newer citations, perhaps Sarah Coyne's work, which is of better quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.76.238 (talk) 03:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying too, but the reason I reverted again, here, is because Wikipedia follows reliable sources. I've only recently learned most of its rules and guidelines, but see what WP:Verifiability says: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think [it] is true." (Note: I'm not sure why WP:Verifiability was changed from "it" to "unsourced material,"[15] but it throws off the whole meaning, and I'll be bringing that up there in a few minutes). I'd have no problem with your changing the words to "slightly more" if that's what the sources stated. You should add sources for "slightly more," not back those words to sources that don't say/imply that. But the oppositional information you added that comes right after those lines should be sufficient enough to get across "slightly more." 23.20.59.196 (talk) 05:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, hopefully tonight I can add some more sources to that section, so the "truth" can be verifiably so!  :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.76.238 (talk) 13:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, added in two metas with effect sizes. However, I'm looking at your refs for "much more"...one of them is Levine, and I'm surprised to hear him using that language. For instance in his later paper in JCSP, he uses language like "small to moderate." The use if "much more" may *still* not be defensible if one of the sources you cite for it doesn't actually use that language...or, the author of that cite, later decided to correct his language in a later peer-reviewed publication. Point being...I think we can acknowledge that it's probably possible to find a citation that says almost anything, but I do think we have some responsibility that WP articles reflect up-to-date science and I think we can see "much more" does not reflect the data or perhaps the updated opinion even of at least one of the authors cited there. I await your reply, but still lean toward toning down that language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.76.238 (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You two have made good edits. So I thank you for that. Of course, I agree about not changing text to something that is not stated or implied in the source. If we look at one of your recent edits, IP 69.91.76.238, you also revised "almost all" to "many." I'd say that you should have revised it to "the majority of," if anything. But about being accurate: Even if a study is wrong, we have to report exactly what that study stated. If the author made a mistake, we still report that mistake if it is a part of the study's conclusion. We should not alter the study to report something that it does not report. What we do in cases of inaccurate or slightly flawed studies is report the more accurate and/or un-flawed study or studies right alongside them, to combat them. That is what you have done, and that's good. I have no issue with you revising "much more" to "more"; that was also an okay edit, especially since "much more" is WP:Weasel wording-ish. In my opinion, "significantly more" should have been used instead. That said, I'm fine with just "more" in this case. Also, if a study concludes with "it does cause this," I don't always agree with using "may" in place of "it does cause this," but it's not too big of an issue in this case. Most studies are challenged by newer studies anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 07:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Side note: IP 69.91.76.238, remember to sign your comments. At the end of your comments, simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. Your initial comment is signed with "MVGuy," which made me think you are a registered user. But when I searched for the name, I saw that it doesn't exist here. I take it you won't be signing up? Flyer22 (talk) 07:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Flyer22, please be careful with reverts as you are sometimes reverting edits that are corrections of errors. Don't get me wrong, I am highly appreciative of your contributions, and acting as a moderator of sorts, as well as your encouragement for the class working on this. It's great they have been involved. But (as one might expect perhaps for an undergrad? class) there have been errors. The Gentile study is a continuous correlational data study, it does not break participants into those who do or do not play violent games, but considers the matter as a continuum (and uses wording to reflect that). The Strasburger report references data from earlier in the 1990s. The authors of that section got some of the numbers wrong, but more importantly, imply that those numbers are current, which they are not. It would be great to get an updated citation more recent and replace that in here. I do agree those sentences belong, however and I own the error of eliminating them and appreciate your vigilance in restoring them. I am dubious that the quote on "obedient sex objects" is direct from the cited source, rather than a well-meaning embellishment from the student editor in question. It's hard to get at a book chapter easily, but I will of course remove my objection, if the editor can provide a direct quotation from the source. Lastly, you just need to cite someone saying that the data is in line with other folks' concerns about smoking and media (which you could easily find) or make it clearer that sentence is referring to an already cited source. As worded it sounded like unsourced editorializing. thanx! Avalongod (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

As a side not, that section needs balance too. There are articles that find little link between media and smoking behaviors, I'm sure. I'll see if I can find some, perhaps later today. Otherwise it gets a little POV through selective citation. Avalongod (talk) 16:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

My bad, looking again, I see one article was cited finding no media/substance abuse links. Might be worth looking around for others still. I do think the section needs balance. As current it has a bit of an "advocacy" tone, and thus leans toward POV. I did add a ref from the Parents Television Council (who, as advocates themselves are no friends of media companies), suggesting smoking rates have been going down in all media since the 1990s. Thus I raise the concern more strenously that a 1999 reference (which itself is merely a review of older data, not an empirical study) is outdated and should be replaced with newer, more accurate figures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avalongod (talk • contribs) 17:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Avalongod, the only time I reverted your edits that were corrections of errors was two days ago, on the 25th. But one was justifiable because it retrurned text that shouldn't have been removed, like you stated, even though two of the percentages were wrong. For another, you just stated that it turns out that "one article was cited finding no media/substance abuse links," and I'm not sure if that relates to one of my two reverts on the 25th. Finally, I added back "obediant sex objects" because we should generally trust what our editors have added. See WP:Assume good faith. You keep questioning the class's additions when you don't have access to the sources' text or full text, and that's not how we are supposed to function on Wikipedia. We shouldn't remove text because we don't trust that it's in the sources, unless it's blatantly obvious or otherwise highly likely that the source does not state that. Instead, we should try to gain access to the source or trust the editor's addition.

I thank you for your knowledge on this topic, and you will be of great help to this article and others. I'm only asking you to be more careful with your editing, just as you have asked me to do with mine. I'll definitely do my best to be more careful not to remove any of your corrections. Nice to see that you signed up for an acciunt. Flyer22 (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough Flyer22! I appreciate your diplomacy skills! Oh and I wasn't questioning the class' good faith at all...but even acting in good faith serious errors can be made, and I've found plenty on wikipedia. Mostly then come when editors try to "paraphrase" an article and in doing so distort the article's original message. I suspect that is the case with the "obedient sex objects" as that doesn't sound like the kind of language scholars use (it sounds like the kind of language undergraduates use!) Then again, I will certainly concede that some scholars use unscholarly language, particularly on "hot" or politicized topics as media effects certainly is. Let me do this...it takes a bit of work to get book chapters but I can do it (interlibrary loan)...I'll get ahold of that chapter and if, indeed, it uses "obedient sex objects" language (or anything approaching it), I'll cheerfully return that language myself. I have certainly seen editors revert another's work while stating that a faulty edit was made in good faith. And if there is doubt about the actual message of a citation, I don't think there's anything unreasonable in reverting to more conservative language until a specific quote from a citation can be provided. Also, it helps when editors start by identifying their citation "According to Smith and Jones..." rather than stating things as a declarative fact which I fully acknowledge sets off alarm bells for me. But I appreciate you challenging me in such a cordial fashion. I think this is how this process is supposed to go. Avalongod (talk) 01:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to follow up, I finally got that book chapter we've been arguing about with the language of "obedient sex object." Although the chapter does cover media effects of all sorts, I could not find that language in the section related to sex in the media. Thus it appears to have been an embellishment on the part of the editor who added it in and taking out that language is appropriate. Avalongod (talk) 21:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you mean about making errors in good faith, Avalongod. I've certainly done that. Everyone has, I'd wager. And WP:Assume good faith speaks of it as well. Thanks for explaining your position. I can't fault you for wanting accuracy; that's what most of us want here at Wikipedia. I just wanted to be clear about my concerns with regard to some of your edits. And I whole-heartedly agree about putting "According to [so and so]" for some parts; I've had to tell that to one or two editors at the Physical attractiveness article (check it out), and have had to add exactly that there and on others. There isn't always a need for it, especially when stating something that is general consensus among scholars and/or scientists, but, yeah, it is definitely needed sometimes. As for "obedient sex objects," thanks for challenging me on that and correcting me. Is there nothing in that chapter that comes close to using that language, though? I know that the media has often portrayed women that way, and I don't just mean in pornography of course. Flyer22 (talk) 22:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

My read is that that chapter supports the "gist" of that section...that men are portrayed as dominant and women as submissive, but they don't use such loaded language "obedient sex object." So it's a valid citation for more or less what the editor was trying to say, just not quite the way they said it. So no need to strike the sentence altogether by any means, just bring down the embellishment. And feel free to challenge me! I respect someone who can do so and do so respectfully. I certain don't claim to be without fault. Avalongod (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, looked at the physical attractiveness, real quick at least. From what I saw it looked to be pretty good. Any issues with it? Avalongod (talk) 00:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Not many. There's an image war going on there now, and I may have to address that later. I may also name any specific issues I have with that article on your talk page at a later date and see if there is anything you can do to help out. Flyer22 (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good Flyer22. Let me know if I can help. Best, Avalongod (talk) 05:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Headings

I cut back on some unneeded headings,[16][17] and I may do the same to the Sexuality subsection of the Culture section...and the Transitions into adulthood section. The reasons I made the cuts: Well, sections typically shouldn't be divided into subsections unless they need to be, such as when a particular topic of the section becomes too long. That wasn't the case here. The information could be covered under the main heading without any need for division. If/when there needs to be division, the headings can always be added back. The other reason I made the cuts is that unneeded headings make articles look longer than they actually are and can make an article harder and/or difficult to navigate through. Watch out for unneeded headings in your future editing. Flyer22 (talk) 01:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense, thanks for looking at it. Jbrancaz (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

And thank you for making these heading cuts. Flyer22 (talk) 01:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

bias

this article is totally bias and discriminatory. it needs a complete reform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jake1993811 (talk • contribs) 07:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC) sorry i keep forgetting to sing. Jake1993811 (talk) 07:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Biased in what way? Given this comment of yours and your other ones and edits to Wikipedia, I have to state that I don't take you seriously.

As for "a complete reform," this article just recently got a complete overhaul, as seen from the above discussions, and that aspect is still being worked out. Flyer22 (talk) 11:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

wiki

wikipedia is evil. Jake1993811 (talk) 09:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

If you continue to post comments like this to a talk page, which are not constructive in any way, you will not last long here. Flyer22 (talk) 11:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

sorry for my edit. im new, and missed the source. merry Christmas. 70.114.254.43 (talk) 10:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

You didn't edit this article, Jake. You edited the Adolescent sexuality article. But apology accepted. Flyer22 (talk) 01:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Definitiom of Childhood

To Flyer22, I think you already know this, but childhood is defined as the stage of life between birth and adolesence, ususally untill age 12 or 13. Adolescence can be a part of older childhood, but as you know 13 is not the same as 16 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwediePie (talk • contribs) 15:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

As I stated on your talk page, I've already explained thoroughly why "childhood" should not be used for the initial definition. I also pointed to you that it is redundant because it's already in the lead. You say that childhood usually ends at 12 or 13 and that this is when adolescence begins. Not only is saying "childhood" not telling us "12 or 13," and there is no age criteria for when adolescence begins, that is not how most reliable sources define adolescence. They don't usually say "a stage of life that begins at 12 or 13." That's outdated anyway, mainly due to the fact that puberty used to start around those ages for the majority of children. What the sources, like this Merriam-Webster source, usually say is "the period of life from puberty to maturity terminating legally at the age of majority." Puberty is the biggest factor in determining the onset of adolescence. You will find the majority of reliable references define adolescence that way. We even have a good medical source, the Medline Plus source, backing this in the lead. Read both of those.

For others, this is what I stated to SwediePie before the discussion was brought here: But take note that you are not supposed to change reliably sourced text to something that is not supported by a reliable source to go along with it. See WP:Verifiability (the first paragraph of that policy should suffice). Yes, there is a reliable source in the lead for your text, but it's backed to a line further down. This is what I meant when I stated that the information you want included is already in the lead. See the end of the first paragraph, where it says "Within all of these perspectives, adolescence is viewed as a transitional period between childhood and adulthood whose cultural purpose is the preparation of children for adult roles."

However, one reason we don't say "generally occurring between childhood and legal adulthood (age of majority)" for the initial definition is because "childhood" and "adolescence" can mean more than one thing. For example, I've mentioned before that adolescence is often considered a part of childhood. But the point I'm really getting at is this: When we say that adolescence is placed between childhood and adulthood, how then is adolescence distinguished from childhood? When does one move away from childhood and into adolescence? Most sources distinguish the two by puberty first and foremost. Adolescence is generally defined by the onset of puberty. Although puberty now occurs earlier than previous generations, especially in girls, and there is a such thing as pubertal preadolescents because adolescence is not only defined by puberty, it is puberty that is generally used to mark the beginning of adolescence. It's defined that way in dictionary and medical sources, and in most scholarly sources. Saying "generally occurring between puberty and legal adulthood" is more precise than saying "generally occurring between childhood and legal adulthood" because "childhood" is not telling us exactly when adolescence is generally considered to begin. It's the same reason we say "legal adulthood" instead of just "adulthood." Adulthood can be considered biological adulthood (starting or ending with puberty) or social adulthood (culturally defined adulthood, such as age of majority). We mean social adulthood, so we say "legal adulthood." All of this was worked out on the talk page and there is WP:Consensus for initially specifying adolescence with "puberty." See #Further changes after merge. Flyer22 (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You stated that adulthood can be considered "biological" adulthood, starting at puberty. However, that is incorrect. Adulthood does not begin at the age of 12 or 13, as you do not have the mental and emotional capabilities that you do as an adult. The age of majoritiy in most countries is 18. You should really get your facts straight — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwediePie (talk • contribs) 15:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Stating that adulthood can be considered to begin at puberty (aka biological adulthood) is not incorrect. If you look around, you'll see that dictionary sources define a child as an individual "between birth and puberty." There are medical sources that do the same. This is obviously because a pubescent individual is capable of reproduction. Puberty is all about a child's body turning into an adult body, meaning that the child is no longer a child in the biological sense (they have adult biology now), unless you consider biological adulthood to mean "end of puberty." See the Adult article, look around Wikipedia at Age of consent topics, go to Google Books and Google Scholar and read up on this. There's a reason that some countries determine adulthood and age of consent by whether or not the person has reached puberty. Even for this country, it used to be that girls were married off to men not long after the girls had their first menstrual cycle (menarche). But, quite frankly, I'm not sure how you wouldn't know at least some of this. Biological adulthood is true for all of nature. The only difference is that humans have a socially-constructed adulthood. This is known as age of majority, as I stated before. And since adulthood is not 18 for every country, that should tell you that it is a social construct. A 16-year-old girl can be an adult, as in a biological adult, because she has attained a fully adult body (is post-pubescent)...but still not be considered an adult until she reaches legal adulthood. 18 being the legally set age does not make the 16-year-old any less of a biological adult. Similarly, if the age of majority is 19, that doesn't make an 18-year-old any less of a biological adult; it simply means that the 18-year-old is not a legal adult yet. What you are taking about when you speak of "mental and emotional capabilities" and "18" is social/legal adulthood. I did not state adulthood begins at the age of 12 or 13. Again, that is you assuming that adolescence usually begins at those ages. I stated "Adulthood can be considered biological adulthood (starting or ending with puberty) or social adulthood (culturally defined adulthood, such as age of majority)." And that is correct. It is you who needs to get the facts straight. Flyer22 (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

You are incorrect. The definiton of adulthood is "the period in the human life span in which full physical and intellectual maturity have been attained". A child is not intellectually and emotionally developed at the start of puberty. SwediePie (talk) 15:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not incorrect about anything I've stated above; I've provided valid rationale and reliable sources for why I'm correct, while you have only provided personal opinion and have misused definitions. You can keep debating this all you want, but my rationale and reliable sources trump your personal opinion argument every time. Using "not intellectually and emotionally developed" can also be applied to some 18-year-olds or even some people as late as age 25, since research shows that the human mind is not finished developing cognitively until about age 25. Not to mention, adults are defined by biology and culture. If culture says that a 13-year-old is an adult, as some cultures do, then that 13-year-old is an adult. This article explicitly goes over social/legal adulthood (maybe you should read it). Social/legal adulthood is how most of society defines adulthood, no matter if the individual is already a biological adult (and I reiterate that if a person hits puberty, they are a biological adult, as supported by various reliable sources). What aren't you getting about all this? Stop wasting my and your time. The main point of this discussion is how adolescence is defined, how is it distinguished from childhood, and, as I've made abundantly clear, it is usually distinguished by the onset of puberty. Adolescence is usually defined as beginning with the onset of puberty. Most of the reliable sources back me up on that. There's nothing else to debate. Flyer22 (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Just because some cultures don't value the importance of childhood and adolescence does not mean a 13 year old should be considered an "adult". What culture are you from? - SwediePie (talk) 21:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I never stated that a 13-year-old should be considered an adult. I'm from American culture. But none of that -- what I personally believe or what culture I'm from -- matters. What reliable sources say do. And, as is made clear, I've already proved my point on this topic with reliable sources. Why you are continuing to debate this, coming back two months later, I do not know. But it is fruitless. Flyer22 (talk) 23:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)