>>13369902That last post on the "banter I dont like"
>>13369861This guy is actually good. he asks a good question, with a quote, and that's how you're supposed to do it. I think It got double quoted and ended up in the pile.
>>13369861>Can one develop past that? Just to elaborate, very much so yes, it just requires work. I'm one of those people with a higher, level 4 or 5 literary skills, because I practice reading and writing every day because I enjoy it. As for math skills, I would probably be closer to a 3, maybe a 4. I don't have any math skills beyond high school, and even those are pretty rusty.
Could I work hard, study math, and improve my score? I probably could, but the reason I don't have those scores is because despite having a "mental frame" for math that is bigger than a 14 year old, I never spent any time at the "math gym" to put "muscles" on the frame.
I have pretty good mathematical reasoning skills, but i can't calculate very well.
I would argue that I probably have a natural mental capacity and mental age of about 14 years old judging from the denfinitive behavior in my life, but growing up, suffering do to ignorance and folly, this allowed me to grow as a person and develop work ethic and character that helped me become an old person with a mind of a "functional, humble 14 year old", rather than the typical "edgy rebellious 14 year old".
Am I still a bit childish, conflict, hard headed, and aggressively self-righteous? Sure, but I worked hard enough to develop strong written skills, and life experience allowed me to become a responsible, humble person. The same is true for people with the mental age of an 8 year old. They can still learn to be functional, reasonable adults , much like an 8 year old can be a "good kid" instead of a "bad kid". It's just that 8 year olds are typically more naturally "good kids" than a 13 year old will be a "good 13 year old", just due to the nature of psychological development.
