<p>I never said that high schoolers weren't capable of self-studying, or of being intelligent. Again, you have made a hugely fallacious assumption. My entire education is "independent study." I go to a school where we are handed material, we study at home, return the next week, and test. I teach myself everything, and more (as revealed above). That's huge assumption #2.</p>
<p>So, obviously, no I don't think teenagers are incapable of research. No, I do not. That BS that I never implied. I did say that teenagers with no experience are not capable of FULLY understanding the new theories and tiny implied details in a professional-level journal of a specific field like neuroscience, because such requires years of studying, dissertations, and seminars that they have not yet completed (given that they are high school students). Those who created the theory, and who originally introduced the hypothesis and toiled for hours in a lab studying it obsessively do know more than some kid who decided to read the final product. That can't be argued.</p>
<p>Yes, they can understand their own research. By nature. Can they FULLY understand someone else's so as to interpret it and offer more plausible, pertinent insights? Unlikely. This implies that the high schooler is more knowledgeable than the person who has made this their life-long obsession/profession. This is unlikely; the neuroscience professor wrote the book, he did the research, he taught hundreds of college kids and read their papers with their thoughts on the subjects, he colloborated with even more professionals just like him. The high school student has read the synopsis of all of this research, and at best, understands the report. Does he understand it more than the professor? See above.</p>