Is basically the main driving force behind the vast majority of political and institutional decisions these days. Popular resentment and the stirring force of mass-appeal, combined with bureaucratic inertia and IQ dysgenics.
If we set the bar at 70 IQ, age 18, as is effectively the legal minimum mentation to be an adult now, that's about the same as an average 9.5 year-old, 115 IQ 7.7 year old, 130 IQ 6.3 year old, or 145 IQ 5.2 year old. If we set the bar at the level of an 85 IQ 16 year old, that's about the same mental performance and raw test scores as 12 , 9.3, 7.5, and 6 year olds at 100, 115, 130, and 145 IQ.
*
Repost from a recent comment on your 2023 article:
Here's a more accurate grade-skip calculation based on Riverside Publishing's Woodcock-Johnson IV IQ test technical manual data (their Stanford-Binet uses a similar absolute measure of intelligence), with correction for different s.d. spreads at different ages and giving grade skips for different percentile students in different percentile schools: https://substack.com/@enonh/p-151439641
If anything, social media should be banned for people OVER a certain age. Especially women. For young people it is probably the least harmful I’d imagine
It is not the youth's participation in social media that the state is supposed to ban here, but rather curb stomp that evil industrial culture that is responsible for actual societal degradation, and that means OnlyFans, Pornographic Industry, and much more... But how can a civilization even imagine undertaking such a drastic step, when its very religious dogma is the worship of the self? It goes without saying: that a Religion of Narcissism had replaced the Religion of Jesus Christ long ago... And a narcissist can only bring ruin upon itself, therefore, all these puny governmental policies are a waste of time, because true medicine requires proper diagnosis, and the west will never be able to diagnose itself properly, because its current religion-of-the-self will never allow it to do so.
Freedom is neither callous nor self-serving. You're one of the violent retard totalitarians who need to be dealt with because he can't keep his hands to himself. It would be callous and self serving if I implemented a law banning YOU from the internet. But it would be less so than your law because it would be more just & natural
I'm not a full lolbert, for example I would like to ban you and other stupids from the internet while allowing 130 IQ teens. In most cases though, the peasant state should have humility and not engage in coercion, because it is stupid and low and evil, so the less it does the better
Until your work on people reaching their full mental capacity and decision making skills by mid/late adolescence rather than the traditional wisdom of early 20's (at least), you are a crank in this area.
As Schopenhauer observed: "Man reaches the maturity of his reasoning and mental faculties scarcely before he is eight-and-twenty."
I was smart and mature as a precious adolescent male and would have been hurt by this policy but I lacked moral development and virtue. It might have done me some good to avoid seeing unfiltered reality on social media until I could at least legally drink a beer. Raw intelligence is no substitute for character development when it comes to avoiding evil.
"it's OBVIOUS that the vast majority of young people would benefit from a lack of social media"
Then "the vast majority" should be banned. Banning gifted young leaders and scientists in the making from one of the greatest technological inventions of the 20th century, something which can -in the right hands- be used to propel their intellect to the stars is hardly a decision to be implemented for "the benefit of all". What benefits the intelligent and the industrious and the moral usually benefits society, what hinders them hinder society.
Are we at that time of the cycle? Instead of alcohol women will ban social media?
“how dare that family do that faster than us!”
Is basically the main driving force behind the vast majority of political and institutional decisions these days. Popular resentment and the stirring force of mass-appeal, combined with bureaucratic inertia and IQ dysgenics.
If we set the bar at 70 IQ, age 18, as is effectively the legal minimum mentation to be an adult now, that's about the same as an average 9.5 year-old, 115 IQ 7.7 year old, 130 IQ 6.3 year old, or 145 IQ 5.2 year old. If we set the bar at the level of an 85 IQ 16 year old, that's about the same mental performance and raw test scores as 12 , 9.3, 7.5, and 6 year olds at 100, 115, 130, and 145 IQ.
*
Repost from a recent comment on your 2023 article:
Here's a more accurate grade-skip calculation based on Riverside Publishing's Woodcock-Johnson IV IQ test technical manual data (their Stanford-Binet uses a similar absolute measure of intelligence), with correction for different s.d. spreads at different ages and giving grade skips for different percentile students in different percentile schools: https://substack.com/@enonh/p-151439641
Theory and spreadsheet functions for your own calculations: https://substack.com/@enonh/p-149185059
“Some”
If anything, social media should be banned for people OVER a certain age. Especially women. For young people it is probably the least harmful I’d imagine
That anime girl has the facial layout of some sort of fly or bee or even a butterfly
It is not the youth's participation in social media that the state is supposed to ban here, but rather curb stomp that evil industrial culture that is responsible for actual societal degradation, and that means OnlyFans, Pornographic Industry, and much more... But how can a civilization even imagine undertaking such a drastic step, when its very religious dogma is the worship of the self? It goes without saying: that a Religion of Narcissism had replaced the Religion of Jesus Christ long ago... And a narcissist can only bring ruin upon itself, therefore, all these puny governmental policies are a waste of time, because true medicine requires proper diagnosis, and the west will never be able to diagnose itself properly, because its current religion-of-the-self will never allow it to do so.
A few is like the top 10%, which is who makes civilization. You're callous and self serving. Makes me dislike pöbel
Freedom is neither callous nor self-serving. You're one of the violent retard totalitarians who need to be dealt with because he can't keep his hands to himself. It would be callous and self serving if I implemented a law banning YOU from the internet. But it would be less so than your law because it would be more just & natural
I'm not a full lolbert, for example I would like to ban you and other stupids from the internet while allowing 130 IQ teens. In most cases though, the peasant state should have humility and not engage in coercion, because it is stupid and low and evil, so the less it does the better
Until your work on people reaching their full mental capacity and decision making skills by mid/late adolescence rather than the traditional wisdom of early 20's (at least), you are a crank in this area.
As Schopenhauer observed: "Man reaches the maturity of his reasoning and mental faculties scarcely before he is eight-and-twenty."
I was smart and mature as a precious adolescent male and would have been hurt by this policy but I lacked moral development and virtue. It might have done me some good to avoid seeing unfiltered reality on social media until I could at least legally drink a beer. Raw intelligence is no substitute for character development when it comes to avoiding evil.
"it's OBVIOUS that the vast majority of young people would benefit from a lack of social media"
Then "the vast majority" should be banned. Banning gifted young leaders and scientists in the making from one of the greatest technological inventions of the 20th century, something which can -in the right hands- be used to propel their intellect to the stars is hardly a decision to be implemented for "the benefit of all". What benefits the intelligent and the industrious and the moral usually benefits society, what hinders them hinder society.