Earlier this Summer, Discover
reported on a study by Dr.
Bruce Charlton which indicated that "immaturity levels" were rising. (webpage)
A “child-like flexibility of attitudes, behaviors and knowledge” is probably adaptive to the increased instability of the modern world, Charlton believes. Formal education now extends well past physical maturity, leaving students with minds that are, he said, “unfinished.”
“The psychological neoteny effect of formal education is an accidental by-product — the main role of education is to increase general, abstract intelligence and prepare for
economic activity,” he explained.
“But formal education requires a child-like stance of receptivity to new learning, and cognitive flexibility."
"When formal education continues into the early twenties," he continued, "it probably, to an extent, counteracts the attainment of psychological maturity, which would otherwise occur at about this age.”
Charlton pointed out that past cultures often marked the advent of adulthood with initiation ceremonies.
While the human mind responds to new information over the course of any individual’s lifetime, Charlton argues that past physical environments were more stable and allowed for a state of psychological maturity. In hunter-gatherer societies, that maturity was probably achieved during a person’s late teens or early twenties, he said.
“By contrast, many modern adults fail to attain this maturity, and such failure is common and indeed characteristic of highly educated and, on the whole, effective and socially valuable people," he said.
"People such as academics, teachers, scientists and many other professionals are often strikingly immature outside of their strictly specialist competence in the sense of being unpredictable, unbalanced in priorities, and tending to overreact.”
Charlton added that since modern cultures now favor cognitive flexibility, “immature” people tend to thrive and succeed, and have set the tone not only for contemporary life, but also for the future, when it is possible our genes may even change as a result of the psychological shift.
The faults of youth are retained along with the virtues, he believes. These include short attention span, sensation and novelty-seeking, short cycles of arbitrary fashion and a sense of cultural shallowness.
Let it not go unsaid that acacdemics can be some of the most useless people. Memorizing enough info to enable to write an encyclopedia entry does not qualify them to speak on matters beyond that, though one would be amazed how many subjects they believe themselves to be qualified to speak
authoritatively upon just because they have credentials in one area, especially practical or normative concerns. Now they may have some participation in civic prudence, in so far as they exercise some form of prudence in their own lives and with respect to whatever associations of which they may be a part, but... just because one knows much about the Middle East, for example, does not mean their understanding is 100% true or that their foreign policy advice should be heeded. (Especially if they analyze the current situation according to a Marxist perspective, for example.)
Ethics, politics, and prudence do not come automatically, nor is their acquisition linked to the acquisition of the speculative moral virtues (much less the memorization of facts and an organized body of opinion); however something resembling the above can come with experience, but how many academics have that sort of leadership experience?
Immaturity is not the cause of "academic" achievement, but rather prolonged education (not just graduate education, but undergraduate education in itself) leads to immaturity. We can see how this would be applicable on a wider scale, and not just limited to academics--the current educational system is infantalizing for all, delaying the assumption of true adult responsibility for most for another 4 years (without a good reason).
Hence, I agree with this: "'When formal education continues into the early twenties," he continued, "it probably, to an extent, counteracts the attainment of psychological maturity, which would otherwise occur at about this age.'"
But I would not give such a positive assessment of academics as this:
“By contrast, many modern adults fail to attain this maturity, and such failure is common and indeed characteristic of highly educated and, on the whole, effective and socially valuable people," he said.
"People such as academics, teachers, scientists and many other professionals are often strikingly immature outside of their strictly specialist competence in the sense of being unpredictable, unbalanced in priorities, and tending to overreact.”
Which brings me to my second point: those who do not know what to do with their lives will often choose to prolong making a decision or commitment through further schooling. Effective and socially valuable people? I wonder what sort of criteria he is using to make this judgment.
“But formal education requires a child-like stance of receptivity to new learning, and cognitive flexibility."
As for his comments on
cognitive flexibility, what is he talking about? This certainly needs a definition. Child-like stance of receptivity is not exactly flattering--especially if it implies rote memorization. Surely he can't be talking about facility with languages and such. Receptivity without active reasoning... just means more uninformed opinion being indoctrinated. (Great.)
I posted a brief reflection on intelligence at
Diligite Iustitiam. It seems to me that Dr. Charlton needs more precision in his research and analysis. No doubt his operating assumptions about human nature should be scrutinized.
I believe it is in Aristophanes'
The Clouds where Socrates is caricatured as someone who is lost in his thoughts and rather useless when it comes to practical affairs. But it seems very unlikely; after all, only those who had leisure could spend their time talking about philosophy, and Socrates must have done well for himself to be able to have leisure (managing and maintaining the
oikos). Perhaps this caricature was more of an inside joke among the Athenian elites--after all, how many of them actually used their leisure time well? Perhaps it just seemed to the coarse or the sensual that Socrates could have been doing something else to have a "good time" rather than thinking so much.
How, then, would I define immaturity? First of all, I am defining immaturity as a fault of character, and not merely undeveloped character (since such is not really possible, especially after 18-24 years of living). We're not talking about real children, just adults who act and think like children in
certain ways.
(1) I would characterize immaturity first of all by a failure to commit to a life plan, which is not primarily long-term goals (which can be difficult to determine beyond a certain specificity) but a vocation (which explains one's place in the universe), and the consequent failure to direct one's life in accordance with this. Naturally, the vocation to marriage can be an important constitutent of this; thus the necessity of preparing one's self for marriage and family (a mature handling of courtship as opposed to following contemporary mores based on a rather poor and unrealistic "Romantic" ideal; determining what is necessary for the household, including financial resources; and so on) .
Many duties and responsibilities cannot be chosen (or "consented to")--especially towards one's family, neighbors, political community. In contemporary America, how many are raised to acknowledge and take up these duties? How many understand these duties as being constitutent parts of their role in life? Failure to acquire the habits that are needed does not result merely in an unfulfilled potential, a blank slate--rather, without these duties to draw us out of ourselves, we come to view life as the pursuit of our own private good. Self-centeredness is the result, even if we do not commit injustices towards others (especially to avoid punishment).
Others duties are undertaken voluntarily, such as those associated with marriage and raising children. Hence one of social problems of our times--the failure of young people to properly sublimate
eros and subordinate it to marriage and family, which fulfills
eros but transcends it in accordance with our rational nature. Many would rather avoid commitment as long as possible, so they can live the good life withotu being burdened by others. How often have I heard women criticize themselves for being "selfish" in wanting to postpone marriage and having children. Is this a sign of a conscience at work? Or merely ingrained guilt?
Those who have no higher goals pursue a rather hedonistic lifestyle. (As Aristotle points out, this is true especially of the young.) It may be the case that they consciously reject the higher goods in favor of the lower. On the other hand, they may have not grown up knowing any different sort of life. (While the resulting state and behaviors may be the same, the fault may differ.)
As those appetites cannot be satisfied; one either grows weary of life and seeks to avoid growing sadness by other means, or one looks to new pleasures. Hence, the craving of novelty.
One can understand why Aristotle identifies immaturity with the lack of proper moral education resulting in a deformed character (and a corrupt reason). Unfortunately, many parents are ignorant of his valuable insights.
(Can something be said about the kind of diversions the immature are likely to pursue? Those that immediately gratify the senses? There are plenty of examples one can draw from the stereotypical bachelor, as depicted in the mass media but also confirmed in our everyday experience and by the people we know.)
(2) There is also the perception that there are a lot of choices which is really an overestimation of possibilities. This is also related to character, though mediately; an overestimation of possibilities is usually linked to an overestimation of one's own abilities [which are needed to make those possibilities come to be]. Pride, in other words, is at work. If I think I can be good at everything, then it would appear that I have many paths to choose from. [So what then are the criteria by which I choose? How do I know one path is better than another? Because it leads to more money? More free time?] The perception that there are too many choices can then lead to the difficulty of being unable to decide. (How do I know if this path is the "right" one? What if this other path is more satisfying?)
A related problem is the overextension of desire, also linked to pride. One is unable to be satisfied with one's choices and one's station in life, because one wants more than one has, more material goods, more status, and so on.
"The Lovely Dragon of Choice"