If the brain doesn't mature till 25 why do we consider people adults at 18?

[DaVinci]

The difference between a non-fully developed brain and a fully developed brain seems like a clear distinction with scientific proof to back this up. So why do we consider people adults at 18? Is this an outdated relic of an earlier age before science could prove things about the brain? Should laws be re-written to accommodate for this? What would happen to family dynamics? 

[shirgall]

The difference between a non-fully developed brain and a fully developed brain seems like a clear distinction with scientific proof to back this up. So why do we consider people adults at 18? Is this an outdated relic of an earlier age before science could prove things about the brain? Should laws be re-written to accommodate for this? What would happen to family dynamics? 

 

A lot of "stages of maturity" are written into law in a pretty arbitrary way. Signing contracts, joining the armed services, buying cigarettes and alcohol, getting a learner's permit and driver's license, buying a long gun or a handgun are all at numeric age and not some other assessment. As a father I was laughed at for saying that ear piercings and makeup should not be allowed until some numeric age.

 

The biggest head scratcher for me is why do people allow (if not encourage) children to go through gender reassignment therapy and surgery before the age of consent?

[RamynKing]

The biggest head scratcher for me is why do people allow 9if not encourage) children to go through gender reassignment therapy and surgery before the age of consent?

because they want them to be the optimal gender to maximize sexual encounters in the hedonistic marketplace.

 

sounds funny but i believe it to a degree. it's the same mentality of parents like Carrie Fisher's mom who made her smoke pot at age 13 or whatever.  they want their kids to be cool. or rather, they wanna feel like hip parents.

 

they are using their children to virtue signal.

but the virtues are that of.... satan?

[Spenc]

If you're building a house, you don't need the whole house to be finished before you can reasonably move in.  If you haven't gotten around to putting in all the drywall and floors, it may not be the best house to live in but it is a livable home nonetheless.

 

A girl could conceivably have a baby at around 12-13 years old, but we can see that as she matures into a woman through her teens, her hips will widen and her breasts will grow, etc.   The body doesn't require full maturation in order to become pregnant.

 

If you're rehabbing a broken bone or muscle/ligament tear, do you wait until it is fully healed to begin walking on it again?  Probably not.  You integrate your rehab with the final stages of the healing, and the two functions work together to strengthen your muscle

[DaVinci]

If you're building a house, you don't need the whole house to be finished before you can reasonably move in.  If you haven't gotten around to putting in all the drywall and floors, it may not be the best house to live in but it is a livable home nonetheless.

 

A girl could conceivably have a baby at around 12-13 years old, but we can see that as she matures into a woman through her teens, her hips will widen and her breasts will grow, etc.   The body doesn't require full maturation in order to become pregnant.

 

If you're rehabbing a broken bone or muscle/ligament tear, do you wait until it is fully healed to begin walking on it again?  Probably not.  You integrate your rehab with the final stages of the healing, and the two functions work together to strengthen your muscle

 

What about a house with no roof? Most people wouldn't consider it a house and wouldn't move in. Isn't the difference there that you can see with your eyes, "Oh, there's no roof. ... can't move in" There is a clear distinction between a "house" and a vaguely house shaped weave of lumber. Same with a car. A car with no tires isn't exactly able to be driven as a car. At least not in the way most people would expect. These are clear distinctions. So why then make arbitrary points on a conceptual calendar for something as complex and real as a human? Why not give those people under 25 brain scans until they have matured? Instead of kids bugging mom and dad to get their learners permit they will be bugging mom and dad for a brain scan.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

Historically speaking, you didn't have time to wait until 25. Getting married off at 14 to start popping out kids was important if you wanted to get enough out before dying of cholera or black plague.

[Boss]

In the United States, a person must be at least 35 to be President or Vice President, 30 to be a Senator, or 25 to be a Representative. I also believe to be able to rent a car at most rental car businesses; you have to be 25. Due to insurance restrictions. It seems like to be in power either in politics or renting someone's else's car you need to be 25 or above. I understand things like drinking is lower like 21.

I dont think it makes much of a difference to be a few years off. Like I think if you're a few years off full eye development I dont think it would make much of a difference in vision. Its not like there is a giant leap of incredible reasoning skills when you hit your 25th birthday lol 

I have always considered an 18 y/o a teenager. Around 25 is probably the right age to be considered an adult. I am certainly not going to go against the research. However, I would love to see the difference in 18/21 to 25 tho. I doubt it would be much of a leap.

As far as laws being rewritten. Did you have one in specific? I would love to see why you think so.

[S1988]

I don't agree with treating 18-25-year-olds like kids. I didn't like being treated like a child then, and I don't now. Besides, age isn't always linked to maturity since they are immature older people.

Historically speaking, you didn't have time to wait until 25. Getting married off at 14 to start popping out kids was important if you wanted to get enough out before dying of cholera or black plague.

 

Correct. Plus, today, we don't see anything odd about being unmarried and childless during one's 20s and 30s, but years ago, that was weird and considered old.

[DaVinci]

In the United States, a person must be at least 35 to be President or Vice President, 30 to be a Senator, or 25 to be a Representative. I also believe to be able to rent a car at most rental car businesses; you have to be 25. Due to insurance restrictions. It seems like to be in power either in politics or renting someone's else's car you need to be 25 or above. I understand things like drinking is lower like 21.

 

I dont think it makes much of a difference to be a few years off. Like I think if you're a few years off full eye development I dont think it would make much of a difference in vision. Its not like there is a giant leap of incredible reasoning skills when you hit your 25th birthday lol 

 

I have always considered an 18 y/o a teenager. Around 25 is probably the right age to be considered an adult. I am certainly not going to go against the research. However, I would love to see the difference in 18/21 to 25 tho. I doubt it would be much of a leap.

 

As far as laws being rewritten. Did you have one in specific? I would love to see why you think so.

 

I wasn't thinking of one law specifically as there are many laws that revolve around the 15-21 age range. Driver's license. Drinking alcohol. Voting. If you made adulthood start at 25 then it would make sense that some of those things might get pushed back. 

 

I'm also interested in what would happen to the family structure. Right now, a parent would get in huge trouble if they kicked a 16 year old out of their house. But fast forward two years and it is acceptable and in some cases encouraged to do the same thing. What would happen if you weren't an adult till 25? Why is kicking out someone with a brain in development a crime only when it falls on an arbitrary point on a calendar and isn't based on evidence of brain maturity, when evidence is available?

[Boss]

I wasn't thinking of one law specifically as there are many laws that revolve around the 15-21 age range. Driver's license. Drinking alcohol. Voting. If you made adulthood start at 25 then it would make sense that some of those things might get pushed back. 

 

I'm also interested in what would happen to the family structure. Right now, a parent would get in huge trouble if they kicked a 16 year old out of their house. But fast forward two years and it is acceptable and in some cases encouraged to do the same thing. What would happen if you weren't an adult till 25? Why is kicking out someone with a brain in development a crime only when it falls on an arbitrary point on a calendar and isn't based on evidence of brain maturity, when evidence is available?

Yea, I am not sure on how much of an impact or difference a few years would make. I would need to see more research on this. I have only done a quick google search and havent found anything comparing an 18 y.o to 25 y.o in terms of decision making capability relating to the laws. I find it hard to imagine much differences in just a few years. IQ for example, doesnt change much over time and if it does, it doesnt seem by much. 

 

Its definitely an interesting topic, maybe Stefan can get an expert on the show to discuss it  

[Maorio]

Historically speaking, you didn't have time to wait until 25. Getting married off at 14 to start popping out kids was important if you wanted to get enough out before dying of cholera or black plague.

 

Modern healthcare took care of that as you say, what's the infant mortality rate down to these days? and also the likelyhood of a mother dying during birth? not very high. this is reflected in the low number of births needed per couple to insure that the population doesn't shrink.

 

In the United States, a person must be at least 35 to be President or Vice President, 30 to be a Senator, or 25 to be a Representative. I also believe to be able to rent a car at most rental car businesses; you have to be 25. Due to insurance restrictions. It seems like to be in power either in politics or renting someone's else's car you need to be 25 or above. I understand things like drinking is lower like 21.

 

I dont think it makes much of a difference to be a few years off. Like I think if you're a few years off full eye development I dont think it would make much of a difference in vision. Its not like there is a giant leap of incredible reasoning skills when you hit your 25th birthday lol 

 

I have always considered an 18 y/o a teenager. Around 25 is probably the right age to be considered an adult. I am certainly not going to go against the research. However, I would love to see the difference in 18/21 to 25 tho. I doubt it would be much of a leap.

 

As far as laws being rewritten. Did you have one in specific? I would love to see why you think so.

 

Regarding insuarance companies, they rely solely on statistics, have you tried getting a car insurance when you were under 25? crazy expensive, just being able to untick the box saying you have a driver under 25 driving your car will cut your insurance in half (at least in my experience).

 

Giving the younger people a chance to try and fail to live on thier own before they are 25 shouldn't really be a problem. you will still be there but it could be an important part of thier development.

 

Yea, I am not sure on how much of an impact or difference a few years would make. I would need to see more research on this. I have only done a quick google search and havent found anything comparing an 18 y.o to 25 y.o in terms of decision making capability relating to the laws. I find it hard to imagine much differences in just a few years. IQ for example, doesnt change much over time and if it does, it doesnt seem by much. 

 

Its definitely an interesting topic, maybe Stefan can get an expert on the show to discuss it

 

I think that 18 years of development would be enough and give the kid a chance the last few years to live in their own. the point of raising them is to make the kids into something that is able to live in it's own.

[saspatz]

Here is a helpful link http://psych.colorado.edu/~mbanich/p/Cauffman2010_age_differences.pdf

[Jsbrads]

It is all arbitrary.

With the exception of onset puberty 12+ the human matures and continues to mature for many years, but all too often at different rates to each individual.

During the forming of the country, people expected an 18 yr old to be fairly self sufficient and if pressed, capable of surviving without assistance.

[DaVinci]

Here is a helpful link http://psych.colorado.edu/~mbanich/p/Cauffman2010_age_differences.pdf

That's a long read, but thanks for posting it. I'll have to give it a look. 

[Snafui]

While shirgall touched on it I think a critical word is missing, finish maturing. The brain may finish maturing around 25 but chronological age is not a bedrock to base individual development.

 

Experience helps people mature but many are sheltered from experiences that foster any sense of responsibility which is the very thing that aids maturity. This more than likely includes having children. While waiting to have children shows benefit I have serious doubts that waiting until after 25 as a standard is in the best interest. We are constantly fed stories of poor parenting due to young age but you don't hear about all the people that matured due to having a child. Negative news sells better than positive, right?

 

So, consider this thought experiment on our current society:

 

• If birth control did not exist would this change maturation rates?
• Would the change to views on reproduction steer society in a different direction?
• Whom do you think would be most affected by this?

[mbalrog6]

From what I know about brains. There are never more neural connections in human brain then at an age of around 2 or 3. The brain maps itself through synaptic strengthening and atrophy. In fact it continually changes through-out ones life. However, since at birth we have had very few interactions and all our neurons have just been formed they have not had time to atrophy. This means that while it is not the most knowledge filled as the brain has very few patterns formed it is by all mean physiologically at its height in raw potential.  

 

The point at which we aim for calling mature is a moving target. It is based on how much knowledge is necessary to function adequately in the society that is the current environment balanced with how quickly the rest of the persons body develops to handle the situations that free choice can thrust upon it. This would mean that at different times in history, maturity would be gauged differently. I however doubt it ever had anything to do with the physiological development of the brain which I think actually happens by age 6 or 7. It would be more precise to say has the brain had enough experiences and time to form the mappings necessary to cope with the current society's pressures, and has their physical body been given enough time to have potentially grown able to enforce those choices the brain has made. 

 

The unfortunate problem is that not everyone is exposed to the same stimulus as every one else. Therefore there is not a way to ensure that everyone will have been exposed to a sufficient amount of situations to ensure maturity at a given age. The physical body part is easier to measure at least. This I think leads to generalities as averages of experiences have to be aggregated among a society to form a potential age of mental maturity. Then that has to be weighed against the society those individuals are living in. (example: In a society were people die by age 18, then maturity will be reached earlier as the pressure is much greater in that society to have a low age of maturity)

[saspatz]

 

While shirgall touched on it I think a critical word is missing, finish maturing. The brain may finish maturing around 25 but chronological age is not a bedrock to base individual development.

 

Experience helps people mature but many are sheltered from experiences that foster any sense of responsibility which is the very thing that aids maturity. This more than likely includes having children. While waiting to have children shows benefit I have serious doubts that waiting until after 25 as a standard is in the best interest. We are constantly fed stories of poor parenting due to young age but you don't hear about all the people that matured due to having a child. Negative news sells better than positive, right?

 

So, consider this thought experiment on our current society:

 

• If birth control did not exist would this change maturation rates?
• Would the change to views on reproduction steer society in a different direction?
• Whom do you think would be most affected by this?

 

1.) Various methods of birth control have been in use since the early Egyptian Empire at least. Technically, refraining from intercourse is a birth control method. So, theorizing about the impact no birth control makes no sense. For the purpose of dialog I will assume you mean Hormonal Birth Control which is the most popular method in our society. In this case, I believe that we would have continued the methods of birth control that were in place before Hormonal Birth Control became readily available. Perhaps we might have focused  our attention on various barrier methods and most likely have developed methods at least as effective as Hormonal Therapy. A scenario that might have the impact you are looking for could be - If our society started valuing fertility and child bearing far more that it currently does in most Western Cultures. If earlier child bearing was encouraged instead of actively discouraged. Would younger marriages and parents mature more quickly? I believe they would. I support this with studies of teens and even children being thrust into adult responsibilities due to any number of circumstances. Please see  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3172314/

2.) As I stated in my previous answer I think it would more likely a societal change that would result in younger parents. I think the next most likely effect  would be a lot more protection of women, young women in particular. Some would find this new state of affairs very uncomfortable as it would limit the freedoms of women. It's always a trade off between freedom and safety. Women of child bearing age would be more valued  but at what cost? This I can't answer.

3.) I think women would be most affected by this for the reasons I already explained in my previous answer.

[Rventurelli]

A lot of it, as with labour laws have to do with the increased life expectancy -- if there was a big tragedy and life expectancy dropped to 40, the legal age to start working would go down to 12 easily.

What astonished me most, however, other than the sex reassignment surgery before the age of consent being legal, is the voting age being 18. The average 18 year old now is completely useless. We are pretty much kids until we leave college nowadays. An 18 year old in the 1940s probably started working at 12, was possibly married and a father and fighting the war. I am 23 years of age and will tell this... Of the Millennials I know (ages 18 to 33.), I can count on the fingers of one hand how many live by themselves and are financially independent. The enormous majority are living with their parents, the few that are not still receive financial help from their parents.

[Jsbrads]

"The corrected mean number of neurons reaches a maximum at 28 weeks of gestation and then declines by approximately 70% to achieve a stable number of neurons around birth."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8786390/

I believe number of connections go up... number neurons go down.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

The difference between a non-fully developed brain and a fully developed brain seems like a clear distinction with scientific proof to back this up. So why do we consider people adults at 18? Is this an outdated relic of an earlier age before science could prove things about the brain? Should laws be re-written to accommodate for this? What would happen to family dynamics? 

 

An interesting question I really want to jump into since I've got the time and energy for it... 

 

Firstly I suspect the reason we consider people my age (18) adults is fairly simple; because we have done so for centuries beforehand. 

 

If I had to guess why, I'd start off with the fact that the most visible signs of physical maturity peak around 16-18 depending on how r-or-K-selected the environment was, and since it was pretty much the desire of the societal leaders of old to both maximize the productivity of young men and the fertility of young women without letting men beat each other into an early grave or let women's sexuality destroy the incentive for young men to conform, 16-18 was the "sweet-spot" to get the horny boys and girls married and committed to family building.

 

Practically speaking it wasn't nearly as easy as it would be now (assuming the hypothetical 18 year old newly weds had the mental maturity of 18th century pioneers and not broken children) due to the high risk of disease, famine, and death by foreign invader or local tyrant. Therefore I imagine the average family's desire to procreate and expand, especially in a relatively-short time frame, drove the "legal age of adulthood" to be young (but not pre-puberty young, as the Catholic and later Protestant churches weren't keen on massive r-selected breeding patterns).

 

More recently I imagine the maintaining of the legal adulthood age as 18 is politically motivated (indoctrinated young voting block and fodder for foreign cannon).

 

I think the legal age for most things should be pushed up to 25 based on biological reality, however I don't think we should continue letting 18-25 remain an extended the childhood but with functional and active sex organs. Adult-aged parents with child minds are the last thing we Millennials need to be reduced to, not to mention how horribly the next generation is most likely to be raised as a result of the extended childhood mentality backed by penis/vagina cravings. 

 

Voting however, I'd support the abolition of. As an AnCap I don't think there should be a state, however if there must be one than at least let only those with land and substantial property vote as they're most likely to be the best at deciding collectively the interests of the nation.

 

Or better yet only an aristocracy of IQ 130+ people voting. If we must vote at all...

[Jsbrads]

The inteligencia of today would have voted for Bernie

[themortalgod]

A lot of it, as with labour laws have to do with the increased life expectancy -- if there was a big tragedy and life expectancy dropped to 40, the legal age to start working would go down to 12 easily.

 

What astonished me most, however, other than the sex reassignment surgery before the age of consent being legal, is the voting age being 18. The average 18 year old now is completely useless. We are pretty much kids until we leave college nowadays. An 18 year old in the 1940s probably started working at 12, was possibly married and a father and fighting the war. I am 23 years of age and will tell this... Of the Millennials I know (ages 18 to 33.), I can count on the fingers of one hand how many live by themselves and are financially independent. The enormous majority are living with their parents, the few that are not still receive financial help from their parents.

 

To be fair a big part of this is also the massive devaluation of labor brought on by technological advancement. Not to argue against the point that many millennials are a bit on the immature side but back in the 1940s a 40-60 hour of general labour per week job required no education, very little intelligence, and only a willingness to consistently work and often was enough to support a large family with a stay at home mother and own a home. Not the case anymore.

 

The way I see it is kids today sort of break down into 4 groups:

 

1. Useless education -> Most of the immature live at home graduates fall into this category. They made a foolish "follow your heart" choice in college and now have a Poli Sci, Gender Studies, Fine Art, Humanities, Psych, etc etc degree that has no value whatsoever so are stuck at home because the value of their labour is minimum wage (or less) but they have 5-6 digits of debt. Moving away from home is effectively impossible for these kids.

 

2. Useful education -> This represents the more mature graduates who have studied some sort of economically useful vocation (most likely STEM) and who are working their way through unpaid or low paid internships before being able to secure a reasonable paying job. (Remember, in the 40s, unpaid and low paid internships weren't really a thing, companies invested a livable income in new hires as they expected most of them to stay at the company for life so it was worth the investment) They also have 5-6 digits of debt. They are stuck at home temporarily but have a trajectory of self sustenance assuming they prove to be competent and employable in their field.

3. Useless no education -> This represents mostly low IQ individuals who also have virtually no work ethic and are not willing to do what it takes to succeed in higher paying labour jobs. These are the full time burger flippers who fortunately have no educational debt but often have credit card debt, they are stuck at home because their labour is worth less than cost of living and they really are taking no initiative to change that.

 

4. Useful no education -> This represents either low IQ individuals with amazing work ethic or higher IQ individuals who avoid post secondary. They tend to be the people who choose careers in higher paying trades. They don't live at home because they were earning a livable income by 18 or 19 and were well on their way to a comfortable income in their early 20s. 

 

In the 40s, there were very few 2s relative to 1s and most of the 3s could find a decent living on assembly lines or other similar labour jobs. But millennials who place themselves on track 2 or 3 now are facing only a future of low income so they often end up staying at home far longer than one would expect. 

 

Or better yet only an aristocracy of IQ 130+ people voting. If we must vote at all...

 

The problem with something like this is that it would ultimately lead to those in power manipulating IQ test methodology in order to increase their support in the voting pool. 

[Jsbrads]

Labor has increased in value. Used to be everyone lived on $1 a day. Now light janitorial work pays $40k/yr, you never go hungry, you are never cold, great medical care.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

4. Useful no education -> This represents either low IQ individuals with amazing work ethic or higher IQ individuals who avoid post secondary. They tend to be the people who choose careers in higher paying trades. They don't live at home because they were earning a livable income by 18 or 19 and were well on their way to a comfortable income in their early 20s. 

 

 

 

At this point I am fairly certain the leaders of the next generation will be comprised largely of this group.

 

In the 40s, there were very few 2s relative to 1s and most of the 3s could find a decent living on assembly lines or other similar labour jobs. But millennials who place themselves on track 2 or 3 now are facing only a future of low income so they often end up staying at home far longer than one would expect. 

 

 

 

Whether the devaluation of currency via minimum wage laws or devaluation of labor based on lessening of demand is the case, a simple solution is the natural eugenics of the Free Market in which the hard working and intelligent will accumulate the most resources (and by extension have the most children) while the idiots and deadbeats have few to no resources and die off either by having few kids or gene death. A peaceful and more or less permanent solution.

 

The problem with something like this is that it would ultimately lead to those in power manipulating IQ test methodology in order to increase their support in the voting pool. 

 

 

I used the word "aristocracy" in the literal sense, not metaphorically. I am vehemently anti-voting and anti-democracy and therefore support either full AnCap as the ideal and a dictatorship of the competent as a far second.

 

Of course I realize eventually, should a society be founded on  a competent revolutionary party, it would skew the methodologies for in-group membership over time to the point where in a few centuries the ruling class is essentially not much greater than the general populace, however I consider that a preferable end-of-empire state than our current trajectory.

 

However since I have a great IQ, I would certainly benefit from such a system in its early days and therefore have no sympathy for  anyone who might oppose it unless their plan has a better future in store for my progeny.

[Rventurelli]

To be fair a big part of this is also the massive devaluation of labor brought on by technological advancement. Not to argue against the point that many millennials are a bit on the immature side but back in the 1940s a 40-60 hour of general labour per week job required no education, very little intelligence, and only a willingness to consistently work and often was enough to support a large family with a stay at home mother and own a home. Not the case anymore.

 

The way I see it is kids today sort of break down into 4 groups:

 

1. Useless education -> Most of the immature live at home graduates fall into this category. They made a foolish "follow your heart" choice in college and now have a Poli Sci, Gender Studies, Fine Art, Humanities, Psych, etc etc degree that has no value whatsoever so are stuck at home because the value of their labour is minimum wage (or less) but they have 5-6 digits of debt. Moving away from home is effectively impossible for these kids.

 

2. Useful education -> This represents the more mature graduates who have studied some sort of economically useful vocation (most likely STEM) and who are working their way through unpaid or low paid internships before being able to secure a reasonable paying job. (Remember, in the 40s, unpaid and low paid internships weren't really a thing, companies invested a livable income in new hires as they expected most of them to stay at the company for life so it was worth the investment) They also have 5-6 digits of debt. They are stuck at home temporarily but have a trajectory of self sustenance assuming they prove to be competent and employable in their field.

3. Useless no education -> This represents mostly low IQ individuals who also have virtually no work ethic and are not willing to do what it takes to succeed in higher paying labour jobs. These are the full time burger flippers who fortunately have no educational debt but often have credit card debt, they are stuck at home because their labour is worth less than cost of living and they really are taking no initiative to change that.

 

4. Useful no education -> This represents either low IQ individuals with amazing work ethic or higher IQ individuals who avoid post secondary. They tend to be the people who choose careers in higher paying trades. They don't live at home because they were earning a livable income by 18 or 19 and were well on their way to a comfortable income in their early 20s. 

 

In the 40s, there were very few 2s relative to 1s and most of the 3s could find a decent living on assembly lines or other similar labour jobs. But millennials who place themselves on track 2 or 3 now are facing only a future of low income so they often end up staying at home far longer than one would expect. 

 

 

The problem with something like this is that it would ultimately lead to those in power manipulating IQ test methodology in order to increase their support in the voting pool. 

 

I mostly agree with everything you said, although there are those rare cases where people actually diced in humanities and actuality, do to H1B visas there are over 30 percent of Americans with STEM degrees that are unemployed.

 

As for me, I dropped out of college in my country of origin with no debt to marry my now ex-wife. I was doing economics. After I divorced, I had an 11 dollars an hour job and a roommate, later I moved to a small town in Pennsylvania where the cost of living was low and found a warehouse job that pays $13.25 an hour. It is a decent Form of living without any education needed.

 

Then I got hired for a government job that pays 16.46 am hour. Living alone in a small town... That is excellent. There are plenty of opportunities for people to leave their parents' home and sustain themselves. In my opinion they are just too scared of giving away the comfort they have.

 

If I as an immigrant who has no degree, no family here and only very recently made friends here is able to do it, anyone with above average IQ and decent work ethic can do it.

[Jsbrads]

It doesn't take exceptional IQ to become Stalin, one just has to be one or two standard deviations above the population to grab power, murder anyone smarter to take out the competition.