Wikipedia talk:Ageism/archive01

Nicely done

Seems fair and accurate to me. Of course this could easily lead to angry foot-stomping among the younger editors, but I suppose this is unavoidable when being frank on this issue. Friday (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

thanks Friday, coming from you, that really does mean a lot to me on this subject. I tried to write the article with you and Malleus in mind and with the under 18 crowd in mind. I tried to write it in such a way as to explain to those under 18 why the reason is valid, why their arguments don't work, and what they can do about it... and the only thing they can really do is show that they are the exception through their words/actions. Getting into mindless debates over the subject won't work.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

In general I agree with the above; it is a well researched and seemingly accurate essay. Needless to say I disagree with some of it, however. That quote in section #2 looks familiar... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I honestly, don't remember which admin it was, but I won't lie, I think there is a reason it should be familiar---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Very nicely done indeed. I had two thoughts.

1. "Regardless of how one looks at it, people under the age of 18, are (as a population) more immature than those who are older." might sound less bitey as: Regardless of how one looks at it, people under the age of 18, are (as a population) less mature than those who are older. Perhaps that's just a concept or nuance that I hold, but it was just something that jumped out at me.
2. I wouldn't mind seeing some thoughts that go the other way too. I've run across instances where a person who was older was seen as not being up-to-date enough to keep up with the 20-30 something groups. Just because one might not be up to speed on the D'oh, zomg, O' rly, type of comments, doesn't mean they aren't able to make good judgments on the many aspects of a 'pedia. Just a thought. Again, great piece of work! ;) — Ched :  ?  19:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see this as a problem at all. Editors should be expected to contribute in reasonably comprehensible English. This is the English Wikipedia, after all. Lolspeak is down the hall. Friday (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

See counter-argument. I know that initially I said this essay is reasonable, but upon further review, I have found some inaccuracies. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This essay, while it has its merits, is far too biased, opinionated and inaccurate for the project space. I think it should be moved back to userspace, until a more unbiased essay is written. This one is clearly in favour of ageism. Majorly talk 21:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree. Ageism is a fact and the arguments for it are too strong to counter... but the problem is not to debate the issue on a meta level, but to bring it to the individual level. On a Meta level, the debate will be lost. On an individual level, there the under age crowd can achieve results---which is the point of the essay... I've tried reworking some sections based upon the feedback provided by JC.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

My 2c (also crossposted at User talk:Juliancolton/Counter-argument to WP:Ageism)
As one of the two people at whom the "Under-18,don't give a damn about it" page was aimed, as well as being a chronic opposer, I suppose I have the battle scars to comment here; both you and Balloonman are focussing way too much on the idea of "all", whereas it's a case of shades of grey. The reason there are arbitrary age limits for any activity – be it driving, to marriage, to voting – isn't that all those above the bar are competent, or that all those below it are incompetent; it's that development follows a sigmoid curve (this one, if you want chapter and verse), and when dealing with large quantities of people, it is easier to assume that the probability of competence in any one individual who falls into the "long tail" where the probability of competence is low, is so low that the potential benefits of them actually being worthwhile aren't outweighed by the potential costs of time spent looking further. (The counter argument to this is that Wikipedia is small enough that it is possible to assess every candidate individually – but that doesn't wash. This is a volunteer project, and few people would choose to spend their spare time dredging through 10,000+ edits in a case that's likely to fail.)

There's also the inconvenient fact – which everyone seems to have spent the last three years skirting round – that Wikipedia doesn't operate in a vacuum, and under the Florida law under which en-wiki operates there is a legal definition of "child" in the internet context. As has been said many times before, the best way to avoid "ageism" is not to tell people your age if you think it's going to be a problem. Act like an adult and don't tell people you aren't, and you'll be treated like one; act like a kid (whether or not you say you're an adult) and you'll be treated like a kid. We operate in the real world, not an Ayn Rand fantasy-land, and sometimes the real world makes unfair judgements. – iridescent 22:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• I appreciate the essay, and I particularly like the section mentioning that ageism is not in itself a standalone reason to oppose: rather an oppose should take the format of "oppose because he's 16 and does not show the maturity I would like, as evidenced in [diff1] [diff2] [diff3]". I (think) I'm interpreting that correctly, give me a poke if I'm not. Ironholds (talk) 22:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Basically yes... but primarily because like any argument, it is better with difs. "Oppose he's incivil." Well, incivility is a rationale to oppose, but lacking refs it is meaningless. "Oppose he's underage." Well, yeah, being under age is a sign of immaturity, but the case is stronger with difs.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, I don't think mentioning age gives more weight to that argument than just saying "oppose because he does not show the maturity I would like, as evidenced in [diff1] [diff2] [diff3]". Age makes no difference there, and the argument would have the same strength if the user was fifty. hmwitht 14:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

alzheimers

OK at the moment our ageism focus is on youth, but over the next few decades that will change as our volunteer community ages. I'm not sure what would happen today if an eighty year old were to run at RFA. At some point we need to decide what we do about people getting old, and whilst those who are rejected for being too young have the consolation that they can come back later with a better chance of passing the reverse is true of the old. ϢereSpielChequers 07:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I propose an interim mandatory retirement age for all functionaries, effective the year in which, were they a citizen of the United States, they would be eligible to receive full OASDI benefits for the twentieth year (not applicable to recipients of survivor and disability payments). In the case of a worker who delays benefits beyond the standard retirement age, and provides documentation of this to the WMF, the 20-year period begins upon the day at which benefit payments begin in full. For workers in other countries who can appropriately document delayed retirement, the period begins upon expiry of the delay. Editors who can provide an actuarially-audited estimate that they are low risk for Alzheimer's (ie in a population with incidence rate per thousand-person years ≤ 3 with 95% CI) notarized by the State of Florida Office of Insurance Regulation, or a comparable supervisory entity in their jurisdiction may also receive a waiver. --JayHenry (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) WSC, you do know that possibly the single most active demographic actually writing on Wikipedia are retirees, right? – iridescent 18:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Really? Where is your evidence for this? Majorly talk 23:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

WSC, you do know that the single most active demographic in political circles is retirees, right? The reason why it is illegal to discriminate against the elderly (despite the evidence that they can have just as many issues as minors) is because they are the most politically active groups around. What does this have to do with WP? It's the same with WP, such a proposal would never fly... and nobody would ever take such a proposal seriously.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know that they were already so important as writers, but it doesn't greatly surprise me; My experience of the voluntary sector is that the recently or early retired are the main recruits for many charities. I suspect that our older editors will be the main drivers behind coming up with ways to spot and appropriately handle those who slip into senility. ϢereSpielChequers 22:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the first sign is when they start citing the recent 1954 study on race relations...---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

1954? It's 1932 you silly boy! I fought in 'nam to let you keep the Gregorian calendar, use it properly! Ironholds (talk) 00:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

JA! Ich vergesse... the study performed under the direct guidance of the SS right!---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The Germans were in 'Nam? <* Ched thinks he may need that alzheimers test sooner than he planed, cause he is totally lost *> — Ched :  ?  00:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

OK I sense we aren't ready to discuss this yet and probably won't be until after its become a problem. But my prediction is that it will become a problem, and my hope is that when it does we can compassionately but appropriately deal with editors who develop Alzheimers and any other disorder which compromises the quality of their contributions. Part of that IMHO is that we should focus on contributions not age, editors in their 80s are more likely to lose their marbles but that doesn't mean that all have lost them. We also need to be aware that with senility comes reversion to what worked in the past, in my grandmothers case that meant feeding an electric fire with twigs. When editors who grew up with computers start going senile perhaps one of the signs will be DOS commands and comments in BASIC. ϢereSpielChequers 08:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Huh? The war of independence was fought in Nam?---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 13:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Useful illustration

Here's a useful primer on the topic: The differences between adults and children are many. --JayHenry (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:Ageism in a nutshell

If you are not 18 years old or above, you belong to a different social status and assumed to be immature. Because in the real world, you are socially and legally treated differently, we shall do the same in Wikipedia. Even I also think so, how stupid I was before 18, therefore this argument is valid. Because everyone else thinks the same, this argument stands and is irrefutable. If you silly enough to admit you are underage, you are probably not sophisticated enough to qualify for the mop. Instead, you should learn how to win friends and influence people in order to pass RfA.

Comments? - Mailer Diablo 17:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Err, no, we don't want to encourage gaming the system just to pass RfA. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be saying "I think this too, that means it's right". While it is valid as your own take on the matter, it doesn't seem to be a very good summary of this essay. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I was wondering how long we were actually going to be able to continue the discussion without trying to drag this into an emotional debate. Still 3 days is probably a record! Basically, if you want to put a snide look on it, yes except for the last sentence. I would, however, phrase the nutshell as, "The debate concerning youth and maturity is a perrenial debate with those under a certainsome crying foul that teenagers are viewed differently, while adults others point to the reams of sceintific, historical, cultural, and personal experiences which consistently show that as one grows up one garners more responsibilty and maturity. Right or wrong, trying to prove that teenagers as a whole are as responsible and mature as 40 year olds (as a whole) is an excercise in futility and a waste of time. The key thus is not to try to prove that all teenagers possess the maturity commonly associated with age, but rather demonstrate that individual teenagers can possess such wisdom/maturity."---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that is, it's not just "those under a certain age" who argue against age-related discrimination. Similarly, but to a lesser extent, it's not just adults who argue that teenagers are immature. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

reworded.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC) PS My main point in this essay is that the whole debate over ageism is a waste of time. (Notice that I've nominated several people whom I knew to be under age for admin.)---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

"age for admin"? I wasn't aware that there was one. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain he meant "I've nominated several people for admin whom I knew to be underage". –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain too.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ha, I thought it might have been a typo or sumat, but couldn't see an obvious one. I see that it was just me reading it different :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I was actually looking at the essay more from a logical view. What I did was that I stretched the logic that is asserted in the essay. - Mailer Diablo 18:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You stretched it to the point of breaking. The problem with this whole debate is that people tend to argue at the extremes and making vast generalizations such as your comments above without really hearing what the other side has to say. Your argument above is the emotional appeal that cries foul, but doesn't get results, except to pour fuel on the fire. Trying to prove that teens are as grown up as adults is a waste of time---there simply is no evidence socially/culturally/historically/etc to make that case. Trying to win it is an excercise in futility. Showing that soecific individuals are as grown up as adults is not. Knowing which debate to fight is a key issue in any setting. If you (generic) let the debate focus on teenagers as a whole, you (generic) cannot win. If you (generic) can focus the debate on the individual, then you can win. This is basic rhetoric---the group that defines the parameters of the debate has the upper hand. Unfortunately, I see too many people trying to argue this debate on the wrong grounds.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The first and second heading of the essay is essentially argumentum ad antiquitatem, because age is essentially a form of social status that is culturally passed down. Then it asserts along the lines of "God exist because I have my personal experience with God, and because there is a lack of evidence to there is no God therefore any such statement must be false". Finally, the assumption that anyone giving out personal information is always out of ignorance (rather than preference, or even deception) and it is always taken at face value. And then asking the reader to swallow the argument and its assumptions, abandoning (and concede) the debate. It doesn't work that way. I don't mind the essay being an advocacy, but at its present state it could have actually be much better substantiated (such citing actual examples) and do a lot better job in driving home the message, but hasn't done so and the result is that it is full of holes. I see this as a rather squandered chance. - Mailer Diablo 19:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

OK how about this instead

If you are young, or behave as if you are young, some editors will consider you too young to be an admin. A few editors oppose all RFAs by editors below a particular age, many others look carefully at youthful candidates to see whether their maturity level is sufficiently advanced for their age to earn their support. If someone opposes you because of your age then time alone will solve the problem. If they oppose you for immaturity perhaps you should reconsider some of the things you do that others find immature.

ϢereSpielChequers 18:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That I like more, it seems less bias, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

While I like the sentament, it doesn't address the perenial debate and I feel like the summary is actually the foundation for a different essay.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This does seem to be very centred around RfA. Although (when I read it) WP:Ageism seemed to be also *shrug* - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I've tried tweakign WSC's words, and can't really come up with a better way to say it.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

"Mature"

There's a problem I think with terms like "maturity". To say that teenagers tend to be less mature than adults is something no reasonable person could argue with, but it's pretty much a tautology. Young people are less mature by definition. It's not very useful or illuminating to say that. Perhaps the level of discourse could be raised by people avoiding this term, and instead talking about specific problematic behaviors, like tendencies to be dramatic, emotional, and lacking in sound judgment. Friday (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Touché! - Mailer Diablo 19:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly...---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Historical reality?

The "historical reality" in this essay is extremely POV and does not provide fair room for the other side of "Historical reality," which is that there are many examples of younger people who showed tremendous maturity and made terrific accomplishments.

• Alexander the Great, at 16, was left in charge as regent of Macedon, during which time he thwarted an attempted revolt by the Thracian Maedi.
• Balamurali Ambati graduated from New York University at the age of 13 and Mount Sinai School of Medicine at age 17.
• Jeremy Bentham, at 16, got his Bachelor's degree at Queen's College, Oxford.
• Mikaela Fudolig, at 16, graduated summa cum laude from the University of the Philippines.
• Michael Kearney, at 10, got his Bachelor's degree in anthropology from the University of South Alabama, then at age 14 got his Master's degree in biochemistry. He taught at Vanderbilt University at 16, and received a second Master's degree (in Computer Science) from Vanderbilt at 17.
• Saul Kripke, while still at high-school, was invited to teach at Harvard.
• Alia Sabur, at 14, graduated summa cum laude from SUNY Stony Brook.
• Terence Tao, at 17, received his bachelor's and master's degrees from Flinders University.
• Tathagat Avatar Tulsi, at 17, began work at Bell Labs with Lov Grover.
• Kim Ung-yong, at 14, got his Ph.D. in physics at Colorado State University.
• Sho Yano, at 12, graduated summa cum laude from Loyola University Chicago, and shortly thereafter entered the Pritzker School of Medicine at the University of Chicago.

These are but a few examples. Please make some sort of alteration to this essay's "Historical reality" section. Kingturtle (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I already stated above that this essay is biased in favour of ageism, but the author disagreed. There's also Mozart, a pretty famous composer who was writing music when he was a toddler. There are probably many more. Majorly talk 19:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I chose not to include Mozart because his early accomplishments did not need the same sort of interpersonal and administrative skills necessary to get a BA or PhD. Kingturtle (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

All of those people who graduated from college at a young age still had to deal with the various laws/prejudices of the land. Could they drive a car at 10? Drink alcohol? Vote? Yes, there are exceptional people who have achieved exceptional results, but those exceptions do not disprove the fact or the premise. In fact, they support the premise. The premise is to look at the individual in question and show how the individual in question is exceptional. The fact that one child in how many million graduated college at 10 is not going to cause child psychologist to rewrite the science of child psychology.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC) I expanded the piece on the individual to account for the above, but like I said, the above examples are extra ordinary. They are about individuals, which is what the point of this essay is. If you want to show that an individual is worthy, do so. The fact that somebody started medical school at the age of 12 does not mean that he found a job or was even exempted from legal requirements affecting child labor laws---let alone used as the foundation for reversing them.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Right now I'm watching an episode of Stargate SG1 called "Fragile Balance." In the episode Colonel Jack O'Niel goes to bed aged 45 and wakes up the next day aged 15. Despite mentally having decades of experience, O'Niel is not judged upon his personal experience/expertise, but rather upon his individual age. He has to fight to be treated like the adult that he is mentally.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The point of that episode is not to say that 15 year olds are incapable. It is to show how age prejudice is wrong. Kingturtle (talk) 20:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Or that individuals should be judged for their own merit but that the historical reality is that even if you look underage, you will be judged upon that perception. The historical reality is that in every age and every culture, there have been age expectations. The only reason why shows like this and Dougie Howser, work is because of the cultural expectations and norms. They don't try to show that those expectations are wrong by arguing against them, doing so won't work, but rather by showing that exceptions exist and that the individual should be judged for what they bring. Which again, is the point of this essay.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

"historical reality is that even if you look underage, you will be judged upon that perception." ?? On what historic evidence do you base this claim? According to Jewish law, Jewish children reach the age of majority at 12 or 13. For a few thousand years, Bar Mitzvah have occurred at the age of 13. In historic Japan, children entered adult life at about 12 years old through the Genpuku and Mogi ceremonies. Native American traditions also saw adulthood as beginning around 12 or 13. In fact, in most of human history, you will find no instances of "teenagers" or "adolescence." People went from childhood to adulthood. The age really only morphed from 12 to 18 during the industrial revolution and the subsequent child labor laws. (Read Centuries of Childhood: A Social History of Family Life by Philippe Aries for more on this.) So I have no idea where you are getting your notion that "historical reality is that even if you look underage, you will be judged upon that perception." Kingturtle (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed; For a great deal of European history boys were apprenticed whilst in their single digits and would be going to war as squires and pages from around 12-13. Girls (especially daughters of noblemen) would find them selves married by 12 and mothers by 13 with the responsibility of running households. It is really only with the advent of so-called Victorian society that such attitudes began to change and only with Edwardian times that they changed completely. fr33kman ^-simpleWP- 22:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

So 13 was the age of maturity... that is still an arbitary definition of age. You cited Alexander the Great above, but he had to wait until he was 16 to begin his reign. These are both examples of how historically there have been definitions as to what maturity was defined as. In no place did I assert that the age was consistently 18 or 21. At different times and different cultures, this age may be higher or lower, but the fact that it might be higher or lower, does not discount the fact that there were expectations of maturity based upon age. I, am about to, revise the historical reality section based upon some of your comments, but this the fact that Judaism has used 13 as a defining age does not discount the fact that every age and every culture has had different criteria for defining what maturity is.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Balloonman (talk · contribs) asked me if I would like to give some suggestions and comments on the page; so here goes. I think that the thesis should be altered away from something that people can't do anything about (ie: their age) and to one that people can do something about (ie: maturity). If I were to write this essay, I would focus simply on the maturity of an RFA candidate and make no mention whatsoever of terms like "youth" "teenager" or anything similar. Any person can be immature; be them in their teens, their 20s, 30s, 40s or beyond. The aim of the essay has real merit, but drawing attention to a person's age seems a contentious idea; especially when it is not age that is an issue, but rather maturity. I feel it would be better to move away from using the term ageism because it does to many people carry some of the same connotations that the terms sexism or racism have (rightly or wrongly). The essay itself actually seems to be centered on an editors maturity so perhaps it would be better and less contentious if this essay was simply WP:Maturity rather than WP:Ageism. To remove the focus away from an editors age and move it towards their qualities as a person (ie: maturity) gets rid of the negative and objectionable aspects of the essay and provides a much stronger argument for people to use at RFA; one that is practically unassailable because it is based on how they act. In this fashion, it is possible to completely remove all reference to youth, teenagers, age or even us old farts. It would also be appropriate to have sources and citations for facts asserted; we are an encyclopaedia after all. Thanks! Take care :-) fr33kman ^-simpleWP- 21:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The reality is that age is often the reason for an !vote. Maturity is a clearly defined issue and nobody contests the notion of opposing based upon maturity---whether it is a person 15 or 25. The problem is, that at RFA a candidate's AGE (not maturity) is the objection. The purpose of this essay is to state that while every culture has expectations based upon age, that there might be a few exceptional candidates who defy the stereotypes.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

"Any person can be immature; be them in their teens, their 20s, 30s, 40s or beyond." I concur, although I think there should be an essay on ageism, as it's commonly a reason to oppose on RfAs, and a new person coming to Wikipedia and first seeing it mentioned somewhere around RfA may be curious what it's all about. However, I feel that this essay is biased, and I don't entirely agree with the way it's presented or everything it suggests, but it's an essay. It's going to be POV. hmwitht 14:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Move proposal...

This essay does not reflect the general will of the Wikipedia community, nor is it written in a consice, well-founded manner. I suggest it be moved to User:Balloonman/Ageism. Kingturtle (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggested this above, but the author disagreed. I do tend to agree that biased essays do not belong in project space. Majorly talk 15:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors. They do not speak for the entire community and may be created and written without approval. And if you read this as biased, then you are not reading---the essay is very pro-exception to the rule. In fact, that is the purpose of the essay, the debate about Ageism is a complete waste of time. Don't get bogged down on it, you can't win it. Right or wrong, it will be one of the perenial issues that pops up all the time---and everytime it pops up you'll be dragged into the same debate. All that we can do is show why, individuals are exceptions and should be viewed for their own merits.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The article does not successfully get your point across. It needs considerable copy-editing and re-writing. If it stays in WP-space, then you will have to be willing to let others re-write parts of it. If it goes onto your User-space, then it is yours alone. Kingturtle (talk) 12:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I put it in the main space knowing that it would be edited by others... as long as the main theme is retained, I have zero problem with others editing it. If I wanted it to be mine and mine alone, then I would have left it in the user space. I've invited others to help with it and to improve it. But the basic points are:

1. This is a perenial issue that has come up and will continue to come up. Debating it the issue is waste of time.
2. The reason why it is a waste of time is because the perponderance of evidence (scientific, cultural, personal, etc) ties youthfulness with immaturity.
3. You can't convince those who see age as an issue that it isn't, because the evidence says otherwise.
4. Trying to win the argument using reason or to apply it to large populations won't work. You have to show how exceptions to the rules exist and let people start to realize that the exceptions are more normative than one would expect.
5. The evidence is about populations, not individuals. With individuals, there are exceptions.

Plus, despite what you and Majorly may think, I think it is a pretty good essay as is... as was supported by the people who reviewed it above---including Julian who is one of the arguable the most vocal voices against Ageism.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I am very curious what scientific evidence there is that supports the claim that youthfulness is tied to immaturity. Kingturtle (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if you are being serious or not... I'll assume the former, but am a little shocked that you are unaware of the issue. The subject of immaturity and child/developmental psychology is well documented and studied. It is a particularly hot subject in the legal fields as issues surrounding how teens should be treated by the courts is of paramount interest. In fact, it went to the Supreme Court a few years ago. My Brain Made Me Do It: Immature Brains Linked to Teen Risk-Taking Behavior "As any parent knows," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the 5-4 majority, youths are more likely to show "a lack of maturity and an underdeveloped sense of responsibility" than adults. "These qualities often result in impetuous and ill-considered actions and decisions." He also noted that "juveniles are more vulnerable or susceptible to negative influences and outside pressures, including peer pressure." The fox report goes on to state: Experts say that even at ages 16 and 17, when compared to adults, juveniles on average are more:

— impulsive.

— aggressive.

— emotionally volatile.

— likely to take risks.

— reactive to stress.

— vulnerable to peer pressure.

— prone to focus on and overestimate short-term payoffs and underplay longer-term consequences of what they do.

— likely to overlook alternative courses of action.

Violence toward others also tends to peak in adolescent years

Then there is the book, Why Youth is Not Wasted on the Young: Immaturity in Human Development is all about why immaturity in youth is a good thing and a natural part of development. Research on Developmental Immaturity and Youths’ Capacities is a power point presentation from the University of Mass that summarizes some of the physical changes/differences that lead to immaturity among the young. Less Guilty by Reason of Adolescence Developmental Immaturity, Diminished Responsibility, and the Juvenile Death Penalty has the summary, The authors argue that juveniles should not be held to the same standards of criminal responsibility as adults, because adolescents’ decision-making capacity is diminished, they are less able to resist coercive influence, and their character is still undergoing change. The uniqueness of immaturity as a mitigating condition argues for a commitment to a legal environment under which most youths are dealt with in a separate justice system and none are eligible for capital punishment. Or YOUTH ON TRIAL: A DEVELOPMENTAL PERSPECTIVE ON JUVENILE JUSTICE "Emotional and cognitive immaturity, susceptibility to peer pressure, and perceptions and attitudes concerning risk all affect the choices that adolescents make — with the result that many of those choices are less responsible than those that adults in similar situations would make." Or this gem, Juveniles’ Competence to Stand Trial: A Comparison of Adolescents’ and Adults’ Capacities as Trial Defendants where the summary states, Youths aged 15 and younger performed more poorly than young adults, with a greater proportion manifesting a level of impairment consistent with that of persons found incompetent to stand trial. The article itself basically argues that youth should be considered, because basic research on cognitive and psychosocial development suggests that some youths will manifest deficits in legally relevant abilities similar to deficits seen in adults with mental disabilities, but for reasons of immaturity rather than mental disorder NOTE how it uses basic research...

I could go on, but I have to work... but the evidence/documentation tying age and immaturity are so ingrained that I am surprised that you would even question its existence. Hell, look up the definition of immature in Websters, and it reads emotionally undeveloped; juvenile; childish. We could also pull up actuarial tables and reports---the increase in number of car wrecks amongst teens has been tied to brain development![1] Employment figures---teens and young adults are the hardest hit during economic recessions/downturns. Arguing that teens (hell even young adults) are as mature as somebody in the 30/40's is contrary to the evidence. (Most research indicates that the brain starts to change during puberty and reaches full maturity in the mid 20's.) Again, that does NOT mean that I am opposed to people becoming admins or even crat's. I've voted for both and nomed some Admin candidates knowing their age. But the problem is that most people want to argue the wrong point---don't argue that age isn't an indicator of immaturity, argue why specific individuals are exceptional and don't fit the mould. There is too much evidence, personal, cultural, and scientific, that people who are opposed to teenage admins will never be pursuaded on the meta level. Plus, it is generally harder to say, "I oppose X because X is immature" without proving it. By allowing the debate to be on the meta level, those who oppose young admins win... they never have say "X is immature." They can instead say, "X is a teenager and teenagers are immature."---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC) NOTE: While there is a ton of research tying youth and immaturity, there is also a fair amount that adults can also be immature. The difference is that with youth it is more normative, with adults it often deemed a developmental problem!---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of the issue, and yes, I am being serious. I was not questioning the existence of such science; I should have worded my sentence better. What I was asking for was what evidence you were referring to.

You stated earlier that your position is that "the debate about Ageism is a complete waste of time" - yet you've just given amble scientific evidence that age should be a factor in determining RfAs. I'm having a difficult time figuring out where you stand on this issue. Kingturtle (talk) 02:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The debate is a waste of time, because if you are trying to prove that minors are, as a whole, just as capable as adults, then you do not going to be able to win that debate. It is the wrong debate to be having. The key is to point to the indivudual, because within just about every study I've seen, the door is open to the exception... which is and has been the point of this essay from day one. People who cry "Ageism" are fighting a fight they cannot win.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Reworked it.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)