People group the world around them into categories. Who knows why we do it? It’s been going on for ages. By race, religion, social statuses (starting with wealth and followed by clothing, etc.), theoretical sides, political parties….the list goes on and on.
No to add to a never-ending list of categorization, but each division makes some sense. Not necessarily meaning they are explained correctly, but that is a whole other issue.
Digression aside, another division could be made because of children and adults. So there are a lot, but have you thought of the difference between those who are good with children and those who aren’t?
Here is another place you could explain the division but not correctly. Some believe that if a person isn’t good with children it makes them useless, perhaps even cold hearted. That is not necessarily the case.
I remember reading novels in classes, “To Kill A Mockingbird” for example, where adults made important lessons for the character’s growth of mind. Perhaps that is what we need. Just because a person doesn’t have a “correct” way (or any desire) to be around children doesn’t mean that they don’t play an important role in society (nor do they play a bad role).
That being said, let me explain further. When a child has not reached adolescence they do not understand the world around them. They don’t have much reasoning and they have limited amount of logic due to a simpler thought process.
There are adults who work well with children without a problem. Though they usually have a simpler though process as well. Try having an in depth, open minded, out of the norm conversation with them. A lot of times they don’t have the ability to open their minds. Maybe as children, we need the structure around us. In a world without so many options and theoretical questions it feels so much safer. Children need protection to grow. With such a thought process, they can’t handle the world. Mammals (and other species) all over the globe protect their young for them world. They just aren’t prepared yet.
Now this leaves you wondering where the categorization is. Is it between child and adult? Not quite. It is between the people who have different interactions with children as well as places where they are important in the development of the next generation.
- Group 1 – Those who are simple-minded and prefer to spend their time with children. Birthing them, raising them, providing them with structured lifestyles, teaching them simple things. this is where, as children, we get a start on our views of love and values (as well as a basic education). People that fall into this category would include traditional housewives, elementary teachers, daycare providers, Sunday school teachers, etc. You get the idea.
- Group 2 – Those who don’t enjoy having to explain simple things as much. They’re a bit of a step up on the open-minded scale (assuming there is such a form of measurement). These people come in as children get a little bit older. They gain a little more of a mental capacity. Room to open doors. These people still have a pretty structured view of the world but give it a bit more thought. They include teachers for adolescents as well as mentors of the same age group, etc.
- Group3 – Those who have a point to prove that can’t be discussed with those who haven’t the space for doors to open. Such people might include college professors, etc.
- Group 4 – These are the individuals who have lessons for the already-open minds. They may not have the patience for children and others with limited views. They can include those who have had many experiences, a large amount of education, and/or a lot of observation under their belt.
When giving descriptions of each group, there were a few stereotypes/descriptions mentioned ["these people might include.."], though anyone can fit anywhere. Though they will probably remain in the same grouping throughout their lives.
To give an example, say one’s mother did a wonderful job at teaching him the essentials of life (colors, alphabet, numbers..) but the father didn’t do much with the child until he was a little older. Then he enjoyed teaching him about respect and appreciation. After he was a bit older, his librarian introduced him to a particular part of literature that sucked him in. Then one day he finally realizes what has been going on in his uncle’s life after listening to his point of view for a couple hours. The next week his mother (staying in the same grouping) showed him how to do his taxes, but didn’t want to hear about Uncle Joe’s epiphanies.
That is assuming he has grown to be one who understands. Perhaps he is one to play with the toddlers and help them to become functioning human beings. That does not mean that one grouping is lesser than the others. Every group is needed to have a functions community. How would we learn essentials to human life without the first couple groups? And where would the world fall to if there was no mental stimulation or room for personal and/or community advancements?
We’re all different, but are needed just the same.
