Sorry HORN but there is no simple answer - you are dealing with a teenager. So you know, like, whatever.

As therapy try typing "teenager song" into YouTube as that is good for a hysterical type laugh.

If overall he is a good kid then don't stress too much.

Our eldest was (is) exactly the same and yet has worked hard all through Uni. Our second one has just turned 16 and I am intrigued to see how he goes through it. He is a different personality and loves playing music (guitar, keyboard, banjo etc) so he may handle things differently. That doesn't mean he isn't hard to drag out of his pit or takes the rubbish our or empties the dishwasher without some nagging.

At 16 your son is just working out what really interests him - as a opposed to what you think you should interest him. Once he finds those things he will motivate himself.

In the meantime perhaps be supportive of him and show an interest in whart he does like - such as the ATC. Don't fall into the trap of harassing him every day or you will just become white noise to him.

AS far as youself, Sam, and HORN's son is concerned, the descriptions seem fairly normal for both your ages.

People have fallen into this trap of feeling that they need to have pensions and mortgages by the time they are 25 and I am not sure that is anything more than just marketing.

I stepped off the property market (after, admittedly doing quite well out of it) and, despite people's protestations that I should get straight back on, found myself in a better position a couple of years ago for not having a mortgage or indeed a pension.

My endowment that was supposed to pay off my mortgage and is now just a savings account would not have paid half of it off.

Similarly, my Dad regularly has pensions paying off in his retirement which I assumed that he had started when he was at sea in his teens. He told me recently that he didn't start any of them until he was 40.

After having an, erm, interesting professional history especially since I was 30, I have decided finally what I want to be when I grow up and, as a result, have come back to education with a much more focussed idea of what I want to do in Uni and a better work ethic because of it.

Indeed, if my son was to come to me and say that he wanted to go into A-levels, I would be tempted to say to him to go and do some work for a couple of years and come back and do an Access course and a degree when he really knows what he wants to do.

Another thing with my son is that, despite some academic issues relative to his peers, he is eloquent, bright and creative. There are many children who are academically gifted but who I genuinely worry about their social skills.

I am sure that I will worry about him at 16 in the same way as HORN is but the one thing that I am a living example of is that you never stop learning and it is never too late to go back to education.

Indeed, there is definitely an argument that your mid-teens, when you are discovering sex, drugs, booze, playing music etc, is the worst time to try and plan your future life.

Don't let your son see this, HORN, it is hardly likely to motivate him

Amor de Cosmos wrote:
Intelligence, smarts — whatever you want call them are quite a different issue from motivation. My kid's 26, articulate, intelligent, great communication skills, a good long-term relationship with a great girl, and so on but he hasn't had a job that's lasted more than a few months, or that required more brains cells than your average chimpanzee possesses, in his life.

Do I worry, yes I do. Not because of the things he hasn't done — I didn't have a decent career type job until I was almost 30 either. I worry because it causes him a lot of stress and occasionally full on depression, more particularly he seems totally unable to generate the desire to change this pattern. And, among men of his age, he's not alone.

Hey, it's Amor. Go say more smart things on the classical music thread, Amor.

But to answer your post, I agree that intelligence stifles motivation about as often as it stimulates it. But it's the good kind of stifling, at least from the intentional standpoint. It often bespeaks not wanting to commit fully to unedifying pursuits.

There's three questions being posed here: "are boys bright" and "are they motivated" and "are they career-oriented"? I think HORN's right to focus on the middle one, for the reasons Bruno just pointed out.

To argue from an N of one (my boy). He's very bright, much too young to be career-oriented (13), but not to young to be motivated by something. All I really want from him is to *want* to be good at something. Anything, really. An activity that makes him want to be excellent at something, to put effort into it, to push his own boundaries. I figure that any kid who can do that at one activity will do fine eventually, because knowing how to put effort into something is probably the hardest lesson to learn. Once you've got that, you can transfer it to other activities, which is good once you get round to having a career.

For a long time, I thought it would be football with Benito, but it's not. About a year ago something changed. He still enjoys it but it's clearly not a passion the way it used to be, and it hasn't been replaced by something else. So I have the typical teenage boy hanging around the house, moping on facebook, etc. I'm at a bit of a loss about how to get him motivated to do anything, to be honest.

So much for a zero thread, HORN.

You're a fucking pessimistic old wanker.

And I love you like a brother.

Hey, it's Amor. Go say more smart things on the classical music thread, Amor.

That should read "Dat's Amooooore!" you sarcastic bugger.

But seriously, glib phrases such as Peter Pan Syndrome, Failure to Launch and The New Drones trivialise the phenomenon but no question it's real, complex and very difficult to resolve. In adolescence lack of motivation is understandable, perhaps even desirable, you're trying on different versions of who you want to be, but when someone's still doing this in their mid-30s, and many are, then there's a problem.

Antonio Gramsci wrote:
There's three questions being posed here: "are boys bright" and "are they motivated" and "are they career-oriented"? I think HORN's right to focus on the middle one, for the reasons Bruno just pointed out.
Why only "boys", without trying to make too much of it?

Maybe because boys are what you have, but there's a great myth that girls are dutiful overachieving plodders whilst boys are creative but lazy geniuses. I'm female and the laziest fucker going, and would argue that it's a rational choice; little effort expended, lots of fun had. But not for everyone, of either sex.

To add: I spose the point I'd like to make (but am not sufficiently motivated to make properly) is that if you have both boy and girl children, don't assume the girls are alright or aren't underachieving just because they are less ... trouble. I'm not saying that anyone here is doing that, but seeing "boys" addressed separately makes me bristle a bit.

Amor de Cosmos wrote:
Hey, it's Amor. Go say more smart things on the classical music thread, Amor.

That should read "Dat's Amooooore!" you sarcastic bugger.

No seriously. Your Schubert reactions are eagerly anticipated.

MsD - in my case, at least, it's b/c I have a boy (well, a girl, too, but at 8 months it's a bit early to be ascribing traits yet, apart from her being prodigiously cute.)

I don't think there's much evidence about gender and motivation generally, but there's significant evidence that girls on average both work harder and work smarter (i.e. for a given quantum of effort they get better grades) than boys do at school - which is motivation in a particular direction, anyways. Obviously there's other ways to be motivated, but I think those kinds of data pieces predispose people to assume that this is less of a problem for girls than boys.

Fair enough, and yes, I'm aware of data that suggests girls do tend to prefer coursework to exams etc.; I'm one of those who don't and never did.

But also, girls' underachievement has never been seen as a problem, but boys' underachievement has; perhaps because the latter leads to (more acute and obvious) social problems.

Maybe part of the general way of the world and gender roles - do girl babies cry less because they get fussed over less, or are they naturally more docile?