How long are children innocent?

[Bakiryu]

How long does innocence lasts?
Is there a set age or something you gradually lose?

I don't remember myself being innocent as a child, just a bit naive and altruistiv and this quickly went.

And anyway, are children innocent?

What do you think?

[applepie]

I think they start to lose their innocence when they turn four. There is a huge jump around the age of four when they learn to do things like lie on purpose. They don't totally lose it at this age, but it is where it seems to start for me. I didn't totally lose mine, my naivety, until I started to work at 15. After that it stripped away pretty quick. I think little children are totally innocent, but they don't normally stay that way.

[motherhubbard]

good post meg! I still love four though

[applepie]

I'm loving it most days. I've been trying hard to focus on the good parts of the age, like inquisitivness (Sp?) and how great he is with his baby sister:). It makes the bits you miss easier to handle.

[Bakiryu]

I think they do when they start to purposely hurt others. Around four is very true. Kindergarten kids are just....:sick:

I still love them.

[NikolaiI]

I might say four but for me I can't even remember so much of my childhood..I think my innocence lasted longer, but I also lost it very early thanks to my parents. I think if there is some kind of angry drama playing out, that can destroy innocence quickly.. as far as kids being innocent, I don't think they really are. I mean some are really great, but others lie, and I think it is sort of a tendency for young kids to lie.

[Bakiryu]

I wonder, if you grew up isolated from all. Let's say, no people. how would you turn out? (There would be books and such thought but no tv or internet)

[NikolaiI]

I wonder, if you grew up isolated from all. Let's say, no people. how would you turn out? (There would be books and such thought but no tv or internet)

Well without nurturing I think children (and other animals, especially our ape-relatives) do very poorly. I know I remember a story of a king who wanted to know what the universal language was, so he had two kids raised by servants who never spoke to them. Unfortunately, they never learned to speak any language. I think they were very...stupid, as we would say. They never developed the same skills others did. But that's mostly about language...I think if you wanted someone to develop well or mediocre, then they'll need to have a person to teach them. But then again who knows.

[Bakiryu]

Yeah, if my father hadn't taught me to read I wouldn't know how. I only wish he had taught me math as well. People always need some kind of example :idea:

[Nightshade]

Well without nurturing I think children (and other animals, especially our ape-relatives) do very poorly. I know I remember a story of a king who wanted to know what the universal language was, so he had two kids raised by servants who never spoke to them. Unfortunately, they never learned to speak any language. I think they were very...stupid, as we would say. They never developed the same skills others did. But that's mostly about language...I think if you wanted someone to develop well or mediocre, then they'll need to have a person to teach them. But then again who knows.


I wonder, if you grew up isolated from all. Let's say, no people. how would you turn out? (There would be books and such thought but no tv or internet)

I think though its been a couple of years so dont quote me what you are talking about relates to Vygotsky's (sp?) ZPD; zone of proximal development. According to this theory a child can only develop to a certain point if isolated from wider society and that it is the social interation that spurs on development. Further studies and add ons ( youd be suprised at the shocking number of 'feral' children that scientist keep discovering as well as the ones who are locked away ( cant tink what its called) ) lead people to think that if the ZPD does not occur before a certain age and stage then the child will always be at least socially retarded. They arent stupid but merely locked in the earliest stages of development.

[TheFifthElement]

How long does innocence lasts?
Is there a set age or something you gradually lose?

I don't remember myself being innocent as a child, just a bit naive and altruistiv and this quickly went.

And anyway, are children innocent?

What do you think?

Baki, I think you need to define what you class as innocence. I think people can be innocent until they're 80 or 90 or older still, if they want to be.

Many of the posts here refer to lying as an indicator of loss of innocence. I don't necessarily agree with that. I think lying is a social skill that we all need to learn as part of natural development (imagine what it would really be like if you didn't), and an indicator of the development of self-consciousness (i.e. the knowledge that you exist and that your mind is only known to yourself) and individuality which is probably why it surfaces at around the age of 3-4. I don't think that the ability to lie means that you can no longer be innocent.

What do you mean by innocence? What would someone have to be like to be considered innocent?

[Granny5]

Loss of innocence can mean so many different things. I guess you could consider telling lies to cover your butt a loss of innocence and that does start when a child realizes that every action has a reaction. But, when a child/person realizes that the world isn't all good and that not everyone has your best interest at heart is what I would consider loss of innocence. Also, when the realization of war and the reasons for war comes, or knowing the hate that different people can feel for other people or lifestyle or religions or skin color is a true loss of innocence. It's a painful lesson for a child or a grown up. Still, I sure hope that I haven't lost all of my innocence, even at my advanced age.

[Nossa]

I think though its been a couple of years so dont quote me what you are talking about relates to Vygotsky's (sp?) ZPD; zone of proximal development. According to this theory a child can only develop to a certain point if isolated from wider society and that it is the social interation that spurs on development. Further studies and add ons ( youd be suprised at the shocking number of 'feral' children that scientist keep discovering as well as the ones who are locked away ( cant tink what its called) ) lead people to think that if the ZPD does not occur before a certain age and stage then the child will always be at least socially retarded. They arent stupid but merely locked in the earliest stages of development.

I agree. I think that being in a society and dealing with peoepl is what leads to character and personality growth and development. I also believe that even when a child lies, it doesn't mean that he's not innocent, it simply means that he's human, he was scared and he thought the only way out was by doing the reverse and telling what didn't happen. I don't know a specific age for when a child loses his innocence, but I think it differs. Some kids are more exposed to people and problem at an early age more than others, and some kids grow up in a place, and a society that doesn't provide them with any life experience that leads to the development needed.
Lastly, I'm not exactly sure if kids nowadays are innocent at all actually. Being living in a world like the one we're living in, it's hard to think that anyone, even children, is naive or stupid. If you don't learn things at home, you're obliged to learn them in society, in the news, in the movies and even songs. They're encountered by new language and new concepts all the time...so it's kinda hard NOW to think that children have to wait till four to lose thier innocence!

[Pensive]

I agree. I think that being in a society and dealing with peoepl is what leads to character and personality growth and development. I also believe that even when a child lies, it doesn't mean that he's not innocent, it simply means that he's human, he was scared and he thought the only way out was by doing the reverse and telling what didn't happen. I don't know a specific age for when a child loses his innocence, but I think it differs. Some kids are more exposed to people and problem at an early age more than others, and some kids grow up in a place, and a society that doesn't provide them with any life experience that leads to the development needed.
Lastly, I'm not exactly sure if kids nowadays are innocent at all actually. Being living in a world like the one we're living in, it's hard to think that anyone, even children, is naive or stupid. If you don't learn things at home, you're obliged to learn them in society, in the news, in the movies and even songs. They're encountered by new language and new concepts all the time...so it's kinda hard NOW to think that children have to wait till four to lose thier innocence!

Heh but the way they use that information (and the way they interpret it) can be really innocent you know. I have some cousins who live in joint-family system and they mostly watch telivision (Indian movies mostly). One of them is very quick and I saw him giving a flower to his sister (on a festival) and asking her to give it to another cousin. She asked innocently, "Why?" and he was like, "Don't you love him romantically? Express your love for him before it gets too late."

He really left me dumb at that moment. I felt a bit sick (man we are talking about cousins) but at that moment it sounded a kind of funny too. The way he said it and his expressions. And mind me he wouldn't be more than six at that time.

[miss tenderness]

I know for sure that children now aren't as innocent as we were! Now they are exposed more to the media and can see things better.
Is this for thier benefit or not?

[Bakiryu]

Baki, I think you need to define what you class as innocence. I think people can be innocent until they're 80 or 90 or older still, if they want to be.

Many of the posts here refer to lying as an indicator of loss of innocence. I don't necessarily agree with that. I think lying is a social skill that we all need to learn as part of natural development (imagine what it would really be like if you didn't), and an indicator of the development of self-consciousness (i.e. the knowledge that you exist and that your mind is only known to yourself) and individuality which is probably why it surfaces at around the age of 3-4. I don't think that the ability to lie means that you can no longer be innocent.

What do you mean by innocence? What would someone have to be like to be considered innocent?

I define innocence as purity, as kindness. As being honest, sincere and giving. Being uncorrupted and acting for what you feel is right.

Onle loses his/her innocence as one begins to conform, to lie, to go with the flow, to stop trusting, to think only for yourself.

[Lote-Tree]

I define innocence as purity, as kindness. As being honest, sincere and giving. Being uncorrupted and acting for what you feel is right.

Onle loses his/her innocence as one begins to conform, to lie, to go with the flow, to stop trusting, to think only for yourself.

Innonce= lack of experience?

It is experiene that takes away the innocence?

[Bakiryu]

probably lote.

[Lote-Tree]

probably lote.

And therefore as soon as child experiences things...the child begins to lose the innocence....

But innoncence needs to be lost for true maturity to be attained.

[NikolaiI]

And therefore as soon as child experiences things...the child begins to lose the innocence....

But innoncence needs to be lost for true maturity to be attained.

True maturity also means innocence. Innocence and purity can be regained, and after we have lost our innocence it is our duty to find our inner child, happiness, creativity, spontenaeity, love of life, dreams, all of that. So after maturity, one might say, comes bliss and and the beginning again... so to speak. Another thing which pertains to innocence is an open mind. An open mind is absolutely necessary at some times in our life.

[TheFifthElement]

I define innocence as purity, as kindness. As being honest, sincere and giving. Being uncorrupted and acting for what you feel is right.

Onle loses his/her innocence as one begins to conform, to lie, to go with the flow, to stop trusting, to think only for yourself.

Then not even children are innocent by this definition. Children are not inherently kind (at any age), honest, sincere or giving. Perhaps uncorrupted, but define corruption? Acting for what you think is right, children don't do this either, again at any age. Children think only for themselves. It is as adults that we learn to think of others, and in fact having a child can be the impetus that makes a lot of people make true sacrifice.

If this is your definition of innocence, then innocence can only be learned. Perhaps this is where 'original sin' comes into play?


Innonce= lack of experience?

It is experiene that takes away the innocence?

I think this is more to the point, but then I think it goes further and it's what you do with the experience that defines loss of innocence. If you use an experience and allow it to define you then you have lost your innocence. If you accept it as experience but don't let it sway the core of you, then innocence can be retained.

I think NikolaiI cracked it with this :


True maturity also means innocence. Innocence and purity can be regained, and after we have lost our innocence it is our duty to find our inner child, happiness, creativity, spontenaeity, love of life, dreams, all of that. So after maturity, one might say, comes bliss and and the beginning again... so to speak. Another thing which pertains to innocence is an open mind. An open mind is absolutely necessary at some times in our life.

NikolaiI - I'm not sure I've ever mentioned it, but you strike me as a very perceptive person. A true innocent, perhaps :)

[Nossa]

Innonce= lack of experience?

It is experiene that takes away the innocence?

I don't think that experience per se is what leads to the loss of innocence. The 'kind' of experience is the judge of that. I mean, if a child who's raised in a place where people do everything by the book and do all virtues and good things, he experienced certain things with these people, but they're good things, I mean, how the heck is he supposed to know about bad if he's only encoutered good..and vice versa. I think that the idea of experience is to a certain extent misunderstood...you experience many things every single day, but it depends on the nature of the experience and how you were affected by it.