Readings
Dodgy frontal lobes, y'dig?
The proposal to lower the voting age to 16 is not obviously
silly. No sillier than a counter-proposal to restore it to
21, the traditional age for receiving the key of the door.
There may be an optimum age for the voting limit, but Tom's
friend Tony is unlikely to have any interest in discovering
it. It is a simple axiom of the New Labour mindset that The
Good is synonymous with ... Young! Modern! New! Cool! No argument
is necessary. But then, why stop at 16? Why not 15 or 14?
Youth is not an open-ended virtue. We need to offer some sort
of rationale for whatever age limit we choose: something to
say why it is neither too old nor too young.
Where might such a rationale come from? We could note that
voting ages in other countries range from 15 in Iran and 17
in North Korea, to 20 in Japan, with the majority agreeing
on 18. We could look at thresholds that already exist for
other purposes. The law considers us old enough to drive at
18, although insurance companies significantly - and very
expensively - dissent from this opinion. Where else might
we get our rationale from?
Well, when all other angles have been examined, why not take
just a little peek at the scientific data? As it happens,
there's rather a lot of it.
Neuroscientists such as Jay Geidd, of the US National Institutes
of Health, have shown that the brain undergoes major reconstruction
from the onset of puberty which continues until 20 or beyond:especially
the frontal lobes or prefrontal cortex, the very bit that
enables us to think in the abstract, weigh moral dilemmas
and control our impulses. It's been called the part of the
brain that makes us human. Frontal lobe damage causes severe
personality changes.and sudden emotional outbursts. Patients
often can't control inappropriate or antisocial behaviour,
can't plan for the future, or see the consequences of their
behaviour. Do these symptoms sound familiar?
In The Primal Teen, Barbara Straught makes the strong case
that adolescent brains are far from adult brains. Teenagers
may look like adults, but the MRI scanner sees profound differences.
The psychologist Peter Jensen notes that teenagers frequently
make poor decisions that seem completely obvious to adults.
Parents might be relieved that this is all part of normal
development, but it doesn't buttress the case for lowering
the voting age.
As Geidd says, "[It's] not that the teens are stupid
or incapable... It's sort of unfair to expect them to have
adult levels of organisational skills or decision-making before
their brain is finished being built." In Jensen's words,
"[Parents] have to function like a surrogate set of frontal
lobes." The child psychologist Charles Nelson of the
University of Minnesota says much the same thing, after explaining
the erratic and moody teenage behaviour which bedevils even
the most adoring parents: "[Adolescents] are capable
of very strong emotions and very strong passions, but their
prefrontal cortex hasn't caught up with them yet. It's as
though they don't have the brakes that allow them to slow
those emotions down." Never mind the vote.
Should people whose brains are still unfinished and in turmoil
be making life-changing decisions for themselves:
Which A-levels to take?
Which university to apply to?
Sixteen-year-old brains might be scarcely better equipped
to make a sensible judgment about their own or the country's
future - than six-year old brains are equipped to read War
and Peace,
Excerpted from the Guardian
Copyright Richard Dawkins, Oxford University's Simonyi professor
of the public understanding of science and Elisabeth Cornwell
School of psychology, University of St Andrews
|
