Risk Taking in Adolescence

After analyzing three articles related with risk taking in adolescence, I realized that there are no exact answer whether adolescent take risks more than adults or not. According to the one’s point of view, the preference of two conflicting views can change. If we look at the latest statistics, it is clear that adults have more risky behavior than adolescents. However, if we focus on the neuroscience, it explains that the temporal gap between puberty and the slow maturation of the cognitive-control system makes adolescence heightened vulnerability for risky behavior. Both views seem reasonable to me but I think that there should be studies controlling some variables such as socioeconomic and neurological and the structure of brain should be learned in a much more detailed way.
Although I don’t ignore biological results stating that adolescents are more prone to risk taking than adults because of their structure of brain, I think that these results are exaggerated by biodeterminists. There must be other factors influencing risk taking such as socioeconomic status and without knowing contributions of each factor to risk taking, we should not judge adolescents publicly. the reason for two conflicting views’ being logical within its own context is due to lack of controlling factors in a study. For example, adolescents were found as having less risky behavior than adults with respect to the statistical results. Nevertheless, we don’t know the socioeconomic status of these adults and adolescents. If these adults have low socioeconomic status than the adolescents, then the claim that adolescents have less risky behavior will be wrong. Since these adults had low income, they might show risk taking behavior. As parallel to Delisi (2010), I suggest to conduct studies including socioeconomic and neurological variables in the same models so that exact decision about risk taking in adolescence can be given easily.
Another hot debate in solving the conflict is related with brain. How much do we know about the brain? The answer to this question also will affect our decision of risk taking in adolescence. While some argue that we know very much about the brain, some argue that we know too little to have a decision. Fischer, as cited in Males (2009), assert that “We do not know very much!...Most of the recent advances in brain science have involved knowledge of the biology of single neurons and synapses, not knowledge of patterns of connection and other aspects of the brain as a system.”
Furthermore, neuroscience claims that there are two networks in brain; socioemotional and cognitive-control networks. Steinberg (2004) cites that while socioemotional network is sensitive to social and emotional stimuli and is remodeled in early adolescence by the hormonal changes of puberty, cognitive-control network subserves executive functions such as planning, thinking ahead, and self-regulation and matures gradually over the course of adolescence and young adulthood largely independently of puberty. Then, risk taking in adolescence occurs with the result of interaction between two networks. In adolescence, first network is dominant over second network since emotional stimuli are activated frequently and generally risk taking occurs due to lack of thinking logically.
In conclusion, there is lack of clarity between two conflicting views. It can unequivocally be said that there is no correct answer to the question of “Do adolescents have more risky behavior than adults or not? In order to arrive at exact decision in these views, we should know more about the biology of brain, specifically the impacts of brain networks and their contributions to the behavior of people. Moreover, in a study, researchers should control socioeconomic and neurological variables. I believe that if we control these variables in studies, two conflicting views will vanish since these views overlap. Even in the future if it is found that adolescents show more risky behavior than adults, we should not label adolescents as limited in a biodeterministic way. Rather, we should investigate new ways for adolescents in order to make them show less risky behavior.

Falsifiability

Before child development theories, I want to deal with falsifiability standard of a theory to be able to decide a good or bad theory.
The idea of falsificationism belongs to Popper believing that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability and scientific theories are falsifiable. According to him, after applying tests, if theories fail to stand up, then they are replaced by other theories standing up to these tests. If they stand up, then they continue to survive until another test’s application to them. He (2003) claims that every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation; than others; they take, as it were, greater risks. That is, science progresses by trial and error, conjectures and refutations and only the fittest theories survive.
To me, falsificationism is the possibility of a theory’s being false. If there is a possibility of its being wrong, then it is falsifiable and scientific. There is a widely known example about human behaviors, as Popper (2003) cited: “that of a man who pushes a child into the water with the intention of drowning it; and that of a man who sacrifices his life in an attempt to save the child. According to Freud, the first man suffered from repression, while the second man had achieved sublimation. According to Adler, the first man suffered from feelings of inferiority and so did the second man. I could not think of any human behavior which could not be interpreted in terms of either theory.” In this example, there is no other possibilities except saving the child or not saving him. Therefore, theories of Adler and Freud are not falsifiable and so they are not scientific theories, according to Popper. On the contrary, we can say that Einstein’s theory of gravitation was falsifiable because there was clearly a possibility of refuting the theory.Chalmers (1999) states that the more falsifiable a theory, it is the better. For example, Newton’s theory about solar system is superior to Kepler’s theory because there are more opportunities to be able to falsify Newton’s theory than Kepler’s theory. Moreover, according to Chalmers, theories should be clearly stated and precise. If a theory is so vaguely stated that it is not clear exactly what it is claiming, then it can always be evaluated as consistent with the results of experiments and observations. This situation causes theory to be non-scientific because of lack of falsifiability condition.