This is just a bit of fluff and rambling. I'll split this into two parts
TLDR - it's always Jews
First part:
So I was talking to a friend (who thinks i'm a retard, and conversely I think he's a retard - so there's a great start) about learning. He "knows" that learning is easier when we're younger because of brain plasticity. I "know" that no one is ever too old to learn. What I think the confusion here is is that he conflates all activities of the brain to perform with age (i.e. cognitive decline is uniform with age). I think (and now I know for sure after doing a deep dive to prove him wrong) that brain plasticity is a function of the brain independent of age.
Anyway the point was he thinks that if I was 20 years younger i'd be better at doing something better than now. I told him I don't think so, and the only difference is that I'd simply be exposed earlier, but my ability to learn wouldn't differ much. (I think here we both confused each other, and not on the same page about natural aptitude with "being good" after learning)
Well after that, I've been on a deep dive all week this week in my free time researching everything about brain plasticity - from new to old studies. And I've found that as research to the current day is finding, getting older/age is becoming less of a factor in how well someone can learn anything. It's more heavily influenced by Environment, Attitude/Motivation, and physical health. A few research papers say age factors in but it's a minor factor as I read the newer studies.
So I present these studies and their conclusions to my friend. He cherry picks only 1 section from the first thing I shared to "conclusively prove" that age is all that matters. Then he links a bunch of useless information on the brain, neurogensis, and white matter - he thinks showing how the brain works biologically is a mic drop moment. I read it all and I notice, and then tell him - nothing in any of that has to do with age, and any parts that did give it a nod are vague and that the researchers themselves say "more research needs to be done". white matter, myelination of the neural pathways, etc. have no impact on plasticity. Then he tells me to look up the Genie Wiley case about how it's harder to learn language if you miss out in childood.
I look into it and know for sure my friend has completely confused himself. Genie is a classic case of psychological trauma, and evidence that her brain is plastic enough to adapt to her shitty circumstances. It's actually a miracle the progress she made in her teens and twenties despite constant abuse throughout her life.
Part two:
That was a few days ago. Since then I've been on a deep dive to learn about this language acquisition and young age vs old age thing to really understand it. My view now is - formative childhood years are there for building structure. But learning potential is constant throughout life. Found a research paper to support this that described RNT (relational network theory) and it satisfies all my arguments with my friend. While i never knew the term I was aware of the Critical Period Hypothesis Theory - which i also now know was what my retard friend was parroting without a coherent way to back up anything he said. He would just always attack my "reading comprehension" because he was able to cherry pick the few words that say "old age = brain decay".
Moving on - because I want to be as air tight as possible when I go and stir the pot with my retard friend again over this, I focus on the Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) and started to do a deep dive into that. Found a lot really is incompatible with modern research, my personal experience and that of others.
And to the main point - I found out (((who))) introduced this theory. And it is no wonder why it's so highly regarded as fact even though it is still just a theory, and that better theories and better evidence have been proving it wrong in the decades since.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Lenneberg
It's always Jews.
This actually disgusts me because I've always thought that people who can't learn or do anything due to their age. or they blame their age, or any kind of ageism... It's all a cope. That this was the prevailing idea and it's the default belief in the psyche of modern society (my retard friend is a typical mid-placer on the bell curve of dumb-midwit-smart) really has and is crippling generations of young people. (outside of him, a lot of people younger than him I know keep blaming age, keep making derogatory jokes about age, and then keep asking for sympathy for the shit in their lives).
again it's ALWAYS Jews. i fully internalise this now... thank you Eric Lenneberg
TLDR - it's always Jews
First part:
So I was talking to a friend (who thinks i'm a retard, and conversely I think he's a retard - so there's a great start) about learning. He "knows" that learning is easier when we're younger because of brain plasticity. I "know" that no one is ever too old to learn. What I think the confusion here is is that he conflates all activities of the brain to perform with age (i.e. cognitive decline is uniform with age). I think (and now I know for sure after doing a deep dive to prove him wrong) that brain plasticity is a function of the brain independent of age.
Anyway the point was he thinks that if I was 20 years younger i'd be better at doing something better than now. I told him I don't think so, and the only difference is that I'd simply be exposed earlier, but my ability to learn wouldn't differ much. (I think here we both confused each other, and not on the same page about natural aptitude with "being good" after learning)
Well after that, I've been on a deep dive all week this week in my free time researching everything about brain plasticity - from new to old studies. And I've found that as research to the current day is finding, getting older/age is becoming less of a factor in how well someone can learn anything. It's more heavily influenced by Environment, Attitude/Motivation, and physical health. A few research papers say age factors in but it's a minor factor as I read the newer studies.
So I present these studies and their conclusions to my friend. He cherry picks only 1 section from the first thing I shared to "conclusively prove" that age is all that matters. Then he links a bunch of useless information on the brain, neurogensis, and white matter - he thinks showing how the brain works biologically is a mic drop moment. I read it all and I notice, and then tell him - nothing in any of that has to do with age, and any parts that did give it a nod are vague and that the researchers themselves say "more research needs to be done". white matter, myelination of the neural pathways, etc. have no impact on plasticity. Then he tells me to look up the Genie Wiley case about how it's harder to learn language if you miss out in childood.
I look into it and know for sure my friend has completely confused himself. Genie is a classic case of psychological trauma, and evidence that her brain is plastic enough to adapt to her shitty circumstances. It's actually a miracle the progress she made in her teens and twenties despite constant abuse throughout her life.
Part two:
That was a few days ago. Since then I've been on a deep dive to learn about this language acquisition and young age vs old age thing to really understand it. My view now is - formative childhood years are there for building structure. But learning potential is constant throughout life. Found a research paper to support this that described RNT (relational network theory) and it satisfies all my arguments with my friend. While i never knew the term I was aware of the Critical Period Hypothesis Theory - which i also now know was what my retard friend was parroting without a coherent way to back up anything he said. He would just always attack my "reading comprehension" because he was able to cherry pick the few words that say "old age = brain decay".
Moving on - because I want to be as air tight as possible when I go and stir the pot with my retard friend again over this, I focus on the Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) and started to do a deep dive into that. Found a lot really is incompatible with modern research, my personal experience and that of others.
And to the main point - I found out (((who))) introduced this theory. And it is no wonder why it's so highly regarded as fact even though it is still just a theory, and that better theories and better evidence have been proving it wrong in the decades since.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Lenneberg
It's always Jews.
This actually disgusts me because I've always thought that people who can't learn or do anything due to their age. or they blame their age, or any kind of ageism... It's all a cope. That this was the prevailing idea and it's the default belief in the psyche of modern society (my retard friend is a typical mid-placer on the bell curve of dumb-midwit-smart) really has and is crippling generations of young people. (outside of him, a lot of people younger than him I know keep blaming age, keep making derogatory jokes about age, and then keep asking for sympathy for the shit in their lives).
again it's ALWAYS Jews. i fully internalise this now... thank you Eric Lenneberg