Sofia on Nostr: To whoever hasn't gotten the memo yet: 1. There is no evidence that child-adult ...
To whoever hasn't gotten the memo yet:
1. There is no evidence that child-adult relationships inherently have a higher risk of being harmful than adult-adult relationships, let alone being "always harmful" like some claim. There *is* evidence that social issues regarding children (and other minors) do increase that risk, but that just means those issues should be addressed.
2. Children are naturally far more psychologically capable than adults give them credit for, and that is even more true for teens. Those facts mean there is no inherently higher risk of manipulation in child-adult relationships compared to adult-adult ones (though as with 1, social issues exist that artificially increase that risk and they should be addressed).
2.1. After around the start (not the end!) of puberty, there is no known causal link between age and improved psychological abilities at all (an important thing to note is the difference between neurological and psychological development, specifically how the former doesn't necessarily imply the latter), *all* changes after that are a result of changing social environments (which may be artificially tied to age), not age.
2.2. Even a few years before puberty (specifically, a few years *after* the start of the middle childhood developmental period), the impact of age on psychological development is small enough to be massively overshadowed by other factors, and as such is not worthy of consideration. More technically, it represents the transition between neuropsychological and sociopsychological development.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-023-02631-5
https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.52.3.319
https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12084
https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558408326913
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203835111
https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2011.590065
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-000-1028-2 is also interesting, as it comments on the level of dogmatism and outright science denial that was showcased by the public outrage against a study similar to the above
1. There is no evidence that child-adult relationships inherently have a higher risk of being harmful than adult-adult relationships, let alone being "always harmful" like some claim. There *is* evidence that social issues regarding children (and other minors) do increase that risk, but that just means those issues should be addressed.
2. Children are naturally far more psychologically capable than adults give them credit for, and that is even more true for teens. Those facts mean there is no inherently higher risk of manipulation in child-adult relationships compared to adult-adult ones (though as with 1, social issues exist that artificially increase that risk and they should be addressed).
2.1. After around the start (not the end!) of puberty, there is no known causal link between age and improved psychological abilities at all (an important thing to note is the difference between neurological and psychological development, specifically how the former doesn't necessarily imply the latter), *all* changes after that are a result of changing social environments (which may be artificially tied to age), not age.
2.2. Even a few years before puberty (specifically, a few years *after* the start of the middle childhood developmental period), the impact of age on psychological development is small enough to be massively overshadowed by other factors, and as such is not worthy of consideration. More technically, it represents the transition between neuropsychological and sociopsychological development.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-023-02631-5
https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.52.3.319
https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12084
https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558408326913
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203835111
https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2011.590065
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-000-1028-2 is also interesting, as it comments on the level of dogmatism and outright science denial that was showcased by the public outrage against a study similar to the above