18 Feb 2008 at 11:32 - 115
I don't believe both age and maturity has anything to do with the interactions between humans. It is more or less the personality of the person that matters in these interactions. However, it is possible to label people by their age or their level of maturity in search for superior companions, but the truth is, these labels are not absolute, which we cannot solely use it to make our decisions to who we want to keep on our buddylist or who to be in our guilds.
Let us first consider the age factor. Age is no more than a number that represents the time a person has spent in this world. Relevantly, it is possible to believe whether this individual has a good amount of experience or not by knowing the time factor, which in this case is age. We can see that by assuming the experience factor, it is easy to believe the target will behave accordingly to fit our standards. Nevertheless, the amount of experience one has does not guarantee the assumed output, since there's really no insurance that this person is able to learn from his or her experience. Consequently, the age factor is really an ignorant way to filter out certain unwanted groups, but it is not guaranteed to satisfy one's needs in search of a companion.
Now let us consider the maturity factor. As we know, it is impossible to determine people's maturity level as there's no clear indication to describe such subject; age doesn't reveal one's maturity. More importantly, despite the fact that both parties in an interaction may have a high degree of maturity, it is still possible for them to reach the point of conflict as they may have different objectives or different belief. My point is, human conflicts are common, and maturity, in this case, does not guarantee these conflicts can be prevented. In other words, I believe that maturity is not enough to suffice a standout relationship between humans, but instead, it is really the features each of us has that determines whether these companionships will succeed.
Both age and maturity can be interpreted as mere labels like the ones we have in the game: professions. There's no guarantee that a fire Elementalist will perform better than a fast cast Mesmer who uses fire spells, but people will most likely pick the Elementalist, because it is believed that Elementalist is better. That is a profession discrimination, and in this case, we have age and maturity discriminations. Truth is, these discriminations were never able to determine what's really suitable for the party in the game or one's buddylist and even the guilds we are in, but they are more or less just an easy idea to follow, so people can save time. In simple terms, these discriminated objects may have not caused these conflicts, but instead, we have people discriminate against these objects just because it is believed to be the ideal act. One person discriminates another, and another person will discriminate back to the person who started this, which will result in a neverending cycle. The ultimate question can be asked at this point: if humans knew that by creating conflicts, the conflicts will eventually reach back to humans themselves, why do humans still act in such manner?