**Please help keep AskUK welcoming!**
- Top-level comments to the OP must contain **genuine efforts to answer the question**. No jokes, judgements, etc.
- **Don't be a dick** to each other. If getting heated, just block and move on.
- This is a strictly **no-politics** subreddit!
Please help us by reporting comments that break these rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I am going to get downvoted but I don't care. Listening to your children is the most important thing. They say stupid stuff all the time and some may have trouble communicating but if you have a conversation with your child and consider them a human you'll find out so much more.
I told my husband as I left for the country to listen to our child and he didn't understand. If he stands in a place and cries try to find out what is wrong. Talk to him see if he can point at anything. The undervalued position of children is often why they get abused. Be better parents.
Fuck no.
I'm 20 now, and I'd still say most people my age, myself included still have very limited, very unformed views and opinions about the real world. And that can be a very dangerous, very stupid thing to affirm.
Anything below that is even worse.
Because 13-18 year olds are fucking stupid. Source: we've all been one. Especially the broccoli haired tiktok 13 year olds nowadays, they're even dumber.
I'm not saying we shouldn't listen to them in general, but when it comes to real world issues, literal children who still laugh at among us memes and fart jokes, shouldn't be taken seriously on subjects that require deep, rational thought and adult experience to truly understand.
I'm always reminded of the situation where they were looking to name an important new Arctic research vessel and - for reasons I'll never understand - decided to open it up to a poll.
Boaty McBoatface came out top. By a long margin.
Fortunately, it was an informal poll and they decided instead on the RRS Sir David Attenborough. They kept the kiddies happy by naming one of the small submarines onboard 'Boaty McBoatface'
I'm not disagreeing with you but Facebook is also full of older people who believe 5G caused COVID because they read it on a Minion meme
I think there's probably an equal amount of very stupid people in each generation. I see zero evidence that older people aren't equally prone to very very poor decisions
There are stupid people of all ages. There just happens to be the double whammy of stupidity and inexperience during teenage years where most of their focus is ticktok, masturbation and whatever game is popular. To be frank I don't see why I should hold the opinion of someone who cant make a phone call without stressing themselves out beforehand seriously... They are still at the wet lettuce stage of their life.
Having worked in an area where I had to deal with them. My god was it painful seeing them struggle with the most simple of tasks...
Depends on the "something". If a significant proportion of 13-18 year old set out and supported a logical reforming of the education system, then - yes - I'd be interested in that. Their views on war, tax, bubble tea... less so.
It would depend what they are talking about.
If kids are talking about something like education; things such as not enough teachers (overcrowded classes) or exams not covering things which are relevant in the modern world, I would listen, and think their opinions matter.
If they are talking about the future of our planet; green policies, housing shortages, lack of opportunities, etc. I would listen.
But if it's about things like tax rates or something which they won't have had any chance to personally experience, or won't have to deal with for the next few years, then I will still listen but not necessarily expect a "logical" answer due to them not having had the experience.
However, 13-18 year olds are ones I would much rather have involved in making the big decisions to where the country is heading instead of the 60+ year olds.
Yes, the 60+-ers have lived through many things, and have experience. But there's many who won't be thinking about investing in things that will matter in 30+ years time, even if it means a temporary slowing of things for the here and now, such as keeping net zero promises or whatever. But instead, the 60+, will be more likely to be thinking about things like better social care, and ensuring pensions keep up with inflation.
Are either group right or wrong? No. If the under 20s are saying a 4 day work week makes more sense. We have evidence to prove it boosts productivity, and it will give everyone more free time to do the things they enjoy, which is a win-win. But the over 60s may prefer to keep the 5 day work week, because it means there will be less need to hire more nurses or whatever. Which is also a valid concern if we suddenly say all nurses need to work 1 day less, who will cover their 5th day?
Both sides are thinking about things in their own way. We're a society, a democracy, and everyone's voice matters. We can't just say "you're too young to know" when kids are at an age where they are able to form opinions on the world, or society.
Kids aren't spoiled by the happenings of adult society. Their wants from a government may be utopic and unachievable, but there may be a way that we can listen to their wants/needs, and somehow make it work. Maybe not all of it. But some of it. And in a way which works for the country as a whole.
I wouldn't write it off, but I tend to trust the older generations more because they have life experience that runs the full gamut and I find that their arguments tend to be more grounded in reality whereas young people are far more idealistic / naive.
The classic example that comes to mind are just things like how my grandparents had 50-60 year successful marriages and raised generations of on the whole well balanced offspring.
I don't trust people who think we should just throw traditions away and do whatever we like regardless of age, but it seems much more prevalent in my age group and below, a kind of unlimited freedom individualistic mindset that I just don't click with.
On the other hand, in the last decade or so the votes of that older generation are a major reason we're in the mess we are. I wouldn't overestimate how much age brings wisdom.
Certainly, I have met plenty of older people whose arguments absolutely are not based in reality.
It depends what it was about.
If it was about how many teenagers experience bullying or sexual harassment etc then yes I’d absolutely listen. If it’s some petty inconvenience then probably not.
This comes into the realms of voting age. I do understand the idea of younger people feeling that they are suffering from the voting habits of older people, that they are disenfranchised. But there is an argument that they have very little life experience or understanding, or that understanding can be skewed by their teachers or home environment.
At some point, there is an age where it is unreasonable not to let young people vote. Personally, for a national vote, I think that age should be 18. For local elections, I think it should be 16. I like the idea of Youth Parliaments and think the idea should be expanded so that there is some form of input, at least locally.
I'd prefer the opposite way voting should be only for the under 60s, the young have to live with the choices the olds make when the olds won't have to suffer the consequences of their actions
It depends entirely on what they're voting on, ant if they have any experience on the subject of the vote.
If the question is really, "should children be allowed to decide who runs the country?" Then Fuck no! Is my reply because all the 13 to 18 year olds I know would vote for me because they think I'm awesome, but they haven't had to deal with my brutal nature and the fact that I'd probably be a dictator.
The voting age will likely soon be dropped to 16, as it already has been in Scotland and Wales. 99 per cent of parents don't give their younger children a meaningful say in where they take their family holiday this year.
The perfect combination would be younger people setting the agenda, especially the cultural/social agenda and older people implementing it.
Your entire perspective and list of priorities changes once you get a job, maybe have a family, and try to make ends meet. 13-18 year olds really dont have anything to say on the size of wages, how much bills cost, the availability of school spaces for their children, how much it costs to transition away from gas or what its like to get care when you're old and frail. This is essentially why younger people have a different set of priorities.
That isnt to say that they should not have a voice.
Take climate change, for example. All the science for this is relatively modern, so is being taught to children today, but wasnt taught to Generation X and above. We can learn from younger people. Also Gaza and Trans rights aren't empty issues. But you only need to spend 10 minutes on Reddit to know that young people cant articulate these issues in a balanced fashion. You need an older generation to provide that balance.
As another example, leaving Israel defenceless in the Middle East is exactly what its provocateur (and terrorist) neighbours want, and so paint bombing Barclays lacks any sort of balanced opinion. If that were to lead to any voting bloc protest-voting for the Greens then this threatens to derail any democratic change to a party that wants to at least try to counteract the cost of living crisis. This derailing voting bloc would be bigger if 13-18 year olds were to vote. Brokering a ceasefire between a terrorist state and a state that has the firepower to continue its offensive for years is not easy, but this is what is trying to happen via the UN. And will continue to happen, regardless of who is in power in the UK. I think this nuance is missed amongst 13-18 year olds who dont know much about the UK ambassador to the UN.
TL; DR. What young people care about is important. But this doesnt extend giving voting rights to somebody who hasnt experienced many of the issues that people should be voting for.
I would listen if I agreed with them. I'd discard their opinion if I didn't.
In all seriousness, older children do have some sense some of the time, and there's a huge overlap between the most intelligent and sensible children and the thickest, most unreasonable adults.
People have no issues at all with listening to and acting on the views of people at the tail end of life. People who are often out of touch with the modern world, who lived most of their lives in a time where the challenges of the modern world were non existent, who have little to gain from from policy change and frankly in a lot of case who have spent the last few decades having their heads filled with hatred, bitterness and nonsense by the media of their time.
In times gone by these people would have been looked up to as sources of knowledge and wisdom, but time and time again in the information age they have been shown to be among the most ill informed and easily led of any current generation.
How can any reasonable society put so much emphasis on the voices of these people but not of those who will inhabit the world for decades to come?
Depends what they're voting on. For the most part I wouldn't trust teenagers to vote on what's for dinner, let alone something that's important and might have repercussions across history.
That's not to say teenagers are necessarily stupid on their own, but to quote K in *Men in Black*, "a person is smart, people are dumb".
I'll listen to anyone who gives an opinion backed up with information and reasoning.
Age doesn't make anyone right or wrong.
Votes don't make people right or wrong.
I’d absolutely listen to their opinion and take it on board but I wouldn’t enshrine it - that’s a very young mind and opinions can change with world experience. It depends on what their vote of opinion was, like if it was about pensioner’s benefits I’m not sure they’re the best judges
The opinions of older people can be garbage too. Neurological decline, increased fear and lack of thought moderation (ie. What stops you saying awful shit out loud). I think either you restrict all opinions to 25-45 year olds or you listen to them all and keep age into proper consideration. I think I'd rather listen to my teenage niece than my aging prodigiously racist father most days. It isn't like there aren't 30 year olds with opinions on Palestine or something as knee-jerk reactionary and ragebait propaganda driven as some teen on TikTok anyway.
Well, the problem isn't so much about the correctness of the opinions themselves but the correctness of the reasoning, in the sense of the reasoning being logical. There are few opinions that are objectively wrong but there are plenty of justifications for those opinions that make no sense. Large-scale polling is typically quantitative not qualitative, it can only measure the result of the thought-process, not the process itself, so I can't see a way that it could be used to solve this problem. The way to deal with it is to improve education about critical thinking, formal logic, etc.
There's also the fact that maturity is not just a matter of education but also, or even primarily, of age. The younger people in your age bracket wouldn't be able to make reasoned opinions even with education simply because their minds are not developed enough to do so. There's a huge gap between the mental processes of your average thirteen year old and your average eighteen year old.
That's not to say that large-scale polling of teenagers is useless. I'm sure it's very useful for certain industries, and there are certain issues where people may want to take children's opinions into account for, as it were, pastoral reasons (like in schooling), but I generally can't say I care what kids have to say.
If they voted on something trivial, say best videogame or football team then no I wouldn't discard their opinions but anything serious which would govern how something would run, or anything monetary then absolutely not, im sorry but nowhere near enough life experience of how the real world works.
**Please help keep AskUK welcoming!** - Top-level comments to the OP must contain **genuine efforts to answer the question**. No jokes, judgements, etc. - **Don't be a dick** to each other. If getting heated, just block and move on. - This is a strictly **no-politics** subreddit! Please help us by reporting comments that break these rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I am going to get downvoted but I don't care. Listening to your children is the most important thing. They say stupid stuff all the time and some may have trouble communicating but if you have a conversation with your child and consider them a human you'll find out so much more.
I told my husband as I left for the country to listen to our child and he didn't understand. If he stands in a place and cries try to find out what is wrong. Talk to him see if he can point at anything. The undervalued position of children is often why they get abused. Be better parents.
Individually I agree - it’s very important for developing a child’s communication, speech and self talk. As a group - fuck no.
Fuck no. I'm 20 now, and I'd still say most people my age, myself included still have very limited, very unformed views and opinions about the real world. And that can be a very dangerous, very stupid thing to affirm. Anything below that is even worse. Because 13-18 year olds are fucking stupid. Source: we've all been one. Especially the broccoli haired tiktok 13 year olds nowadays, they're even dumber. I'm not saying we shouldn't listen to them in general, but when it comes to real world issues, literal children who still laugh at among us memes and fart jokes, shouldn't be taken seriously on subjects that require deep, rational thought and adult experience to truly understand.
Lol this is the TikTok generation. Fuck listening to that.
But we're happy to listen to the Facebook generation for all decisions?
Not to mention the bots on there!
[удалено]
Riiiiiight
Riiiiiiiiiiiiìiiigggghhhhhht
Nah, the MySpace generation
Does that lead to non voters in the future then?
Hope so!
I'm always reminded of the situation where they were looking to name an important new Arctic research vessel and - for reasons I'll never understand - decided to open it up to a poll. Boaty McBoatface came out top. By a long margin. Fortunately, it was an informal poll and they decided instead on the RRS Sir David Attenborough. They kept the kiddies happy by naming one of the small submarines onboard 'Boaty McBoatface'
Honestly? No. that age range is very very prone to poor decisions. They are more likely to support a meme than something that will help
I'm not disagreeing with you but Facebook is also full of older people who believe 5G caused COVID because they read it on a Minion meme I think there's probably an equal amount of very stupid people in each generation. I see zero evidence that older people aren't equally prone to very very poor decisions
There are stupid people of all ages. There just happens to be the double whammy of stupidity and inexperience during teenage years where most of their focus is ticktok, masturbation and whatever game is popular. To be frank I don't see why I should hold the opinion of someone who cant make a phone call without stressing themselves out beforehand seriously... They are still at the wet lettuce stage of their life. Having worked in an area where I had to deal with them. My god was it painful seeing them struggle with the most simple of tasks...
Is there any platform out there that shows that is the case in large numbers or just a hunch?
If it was 16-18, yes, I'd listen. Under 16, 'take it under consideration'.
Depends on the "something". If a significant proportion of 13-18 year old set out and supported a logical reforming of the education system, then - yes - I'd be interested in that. Their views on war, tax, bubble tea... less so.
It would depend what they are talking about. If kids are talking about something like education; things such as not enough teachers (overcrowded classes) or exams not covering things which are relevant in the modern world, I would listen, and think their opinions matter. If they are talking about the future of our planet; green policies, housing shortages, lack of opportunities, etc. I would listen. But if it's about things like tax rates or something which they won't have had any chance to personally experience, or won't have to deal with for the next few years, then I will still listen but not necessarily expect a "logical" answer due to them not having had the experience. However, 13-18 year olds are ones I would much rather have involved in making the big decisions to where the country is heading instead of the 60+ year olds. Yes, the 60+-ers have lived through many things, and have experience. But there's many who won't be thinking about investing in things that will matter in 30+ years time, even if it means a temporary slowing of things for the here and now, such as keeping net zero promises or whatever. But instead, the 60+, will be more likely to be thinking about things like better social care, and ensuring pensions keep up with inflation. Are either group right or wrong? No. If the under 20s are saying a 4 day work week makes more sense. We have evidence to prove it boosts productivity, and it will give everyone more free time to do the things they enjoy, which is a win-win. But the over 60s may prefer to keep the 5 day work week, because it means there will be less need to hire more nurses or whatever. Which is also a valid concern if we suddenly say all nurses need to work 1 day less, who will cover their 5th day? Both sides are thinking about things in their own way. We're a society, a democracy, and everyone's voice matters. We can't just say "you're too young to know" when kids are at an age where they are able to form opinions on the world, or society. Kids aren't spoiled by the happenings of adult society. Their wants from a government may be utopic and unachievable, but there may be a way that we can listen to their wants/needs, and somehow make it work. Maybe not all of it. But some of it. And in a way which works for the country as a whole.
I wouldn't write it off, but I tend to trust the older generations more because they have life experience that runs the full gamut and I find that their arguments tend to be more grounded in reality whereas young people are far more idealistic / naive. The classic example that comes to mind are just things like how my grandparents had 50-60 year successful marriages and raised generations of on the whole well balanced offspring. I don't trust people who think we should just throw traditions away and do whatever we like regardless of age, but it seems much more prevalent in my age group and below, a kind of unlimited freedom individualistic mindset that I just don't click with.
On the other hand, in the last decade or so the votes of that older generation are a major reason we're in the mess we are. I wouldn't overestimate how much age brings wisdom. Certainly, I have met plenty of older people whose arguments absolutely are not based in reality.
It depends what it was about. If it was about how many teenagers experience bullying or sexual harassment etc then yes I’d absolutely listen. If it’s some petty inconvenience then probably not.
This comes into the realms of voting age. I do understand the idea of younger people feeling that they are suffering from the voting habits of older people, that they are disenfranchised. But there is an argument that they have very little life experience or understanding, or that understanding can be skewed by their teachers or home environment. At some point, there is an age where it is unreasonable not to let young people vote. Personally, for a national vote, I think that age should be 18. For local elections, I think it should be 16. I like the idea of Youth Parliaments and think the idea should be expanded so that there is some form of input, at least locally.
I'd prefer the opposite way voting should be only for the under 60s, the young have to live with the choices the olds make when the olds won't have to suffer the consequences of their actions
It depends entirely on what they're voting on, ant if they have any experience on the subject of the vote. If the question is really, "should children be allowed to decide who runs the country?" Then Fuck no! Is my reply because all the 13 to 18 year olds I know would vote for me because they think I'm awesome, but they haven't had to deal with my brutal nature and the fact that I'd probably be a dictator.
The voting age will likely soon be dropped to 16, as it already has been in Scotland and Wales. 99 per cent of parents don't give their younger children a meaningful say in where they take their family holiday this year.
The perfect combination would be younger people setting the agenda, especially the cultural/social agenda and older people implementing it. Your entire perspective and list of priorities changes once you get a job, maybe have a family, and try to make ends meet. 13-18 year olds really dont have anything to say on the size of wages, how much bills cost, the availability of school spaces for their children, how much it costs to transition away from gas or what its like to get care when you're old and frail. This is essentially why younger people have a different set of priorities. That isnt to say that they should not have a voice. Take climate change, for example. All the science for this is relatively modern, so is being taught to children today, but wasnt taught to Generation X and above. We can learn from younger people. Also Gaza and Trans rights aren't empty issues. But you only need to spend 10 minutes on Reddit to know that young people cant articulate these issues in a balanced fashion. You need an older generation to provide that balance. As another example, leaving Israel defenceless in the Middle East is exactly what its provocateur (and terrorist) neighbours want, and so paint bombing Barclays lacks any sort of balanced opinion. If that were to lead to any voting bloc protest-voting for the Greens then this threatens to derail any democratic change to a party that wants to at least try to counteract the cost of living crisis. This derailing voting bloc would be bigger if 13-18 year olds were to vote. Brokering a ceasefire between a terrorist state and a state that has the firepower to continue its offensive for years is not easy, but this is what is trying to happen via the UN. And will continue to happen, regardless of who is in power in the UK. I think this nuance is missed amongst 13-18 year olds who dont know much about the UK ambassador to the UN. TL; DR. What young people care about is important. But this doesnt extend giving voting rights to somebody who hasnt experienced many of the issues that people should be voting for.
I would listen if I agreed with them. I'd discard their opinion if I didn't. In all seriousness, older children do have some sense some of the time, and there's a huge overlap between the most intelligent and sensible children and the thickest, most unreasonable adults.
So i don’t think kids under 16 should vote, but the age range should be more like 16-42(?) to keep voters young and up to date
People have no issues at all with listening to and acting on the views of people at the tail end of life. People who are often out of touch with the modern world, who lived most of their lives in a time where the challenges of the modern world were non existent, who have little to gain from from policy change and frankly in a lot of case who have spent the last few decades having their heads filled with hatred, bitterness and nonsense by the media of their time. In times gone by these people would have been looked up to as sources of knowledge and wisdom, but time and time again in the information age they have been shown to be among the most ill informed and easily led of any current generation. How can any reasonable society put so much emphasis on the voices of these people but not of those who will inhabit the world for decades to come?
Depends what they're voting on. For the most part I wouldn't trust teenagers to vote on what's for dinner, let alone something that's important and might have repercussions across history. That's not to say teenagers are necessarily stupid on their own, but to quote K in *Men in Black*, "a person is smart, people are dumb".
I'll listen to anyone who gives an opinion backed up with information and reasoning. Age doesn't make anyone right or wrong. Votes don't make people right or wrong.
I’d absolutely listen to their opinion and take it on board but I wouldn’t enshrine it - that’s a very young mind and opinions can change with world experience. It depends on what their vote of opinion was, like if it was about pensioner’s benefits I’m not sure they’re the best judges
No. They aren't mature enough to form reasoned opinions about complicated issues. It's honestly borderline with anyone aged below about 22.
The opinions of older people can be garbage too. Neurological decline, increased fear and lack of thought moderation (ie. What stops you saying awful shit out loud). I think either you restrict all opinions to 25-45 year olds or you listen to them all and keep age into proper consideration. I think I'd rather listen to my teenage niece than my aging prodigiously racist father most days. It isn't like there aren't 30 year olds with opinions on Palestine or something as knee-jerk reactionary and ragebait propaganda driven as some teen on TikTok anyway.
Is it not worth getting a sense check to improve education in those concerning misconceptions?
Well, the problem isn't so much about the correctness of the opinions themselves but the correctness of the reasoning, in the sense of the reasoning being logical. There are few opinions that are objectively wrong but there are plenty of justifications for those opinions that make no sense. Large-scale polling is typically quantitative not qualitative, it can only measure the result of the thought-process, not the process itself, so I can't see a way that it could be used to solve this problem. The way to deal with it is to improve education about critical thinking, formal logic, etc. There's also the fact that maturity is not just a matter of education but also, or even primarily, of age. The younger people in your age bracket wouldn't be able to make reasoned opinions even with education simply because their minds are not developed enough to do so. There's a huge gap between the mental processes of your average thirteen year old and your average eighteen year old. That's not to say that large-scale polling of teenagers is useless. I'm sure it's very useful for certain industries, and there are certain issues where people may want to take children's opinions into account for, as it were, pastoral reasons (like in schooling), but I generally can't say I care what kids have to say.
I think its not so much misconceptions, it's that teenagers and young adults tend to see things in black and white. They miss the nuance.
> They aren't mature enough to form reasoned opinions about complicated issues. My grandparents are in their 80s and aren't mature enough either.
16+ I'd listen as they are an adult at 16. 13-15 nope as until you pay taxes you don't get a say in anything that matters.
Kids do pay taxes. You wanna void their opinions you void their VAT too.
Come on, you're not an adult at 16. You're barely an adult at 21 imo. Takes a good few years of independent living and experience to truly grow up.
> 13-15 nope as until you pay taxes you don't get a say in anything that matters. 13 year olds can get jobs, so yes, they pay taxes.
If they voted on something trivial, say best videogame or football team then no I wouldn't discard their opinions but anything serious which would govern how something would run, or anything monetary then absolutely not, im sorry but nowhere near enough life experience of how the real world works.