Ah,the good old "people are smarter because they can look up anything on Google". This attempt to conflate intelligence (smarts) with knowledge (trivia picked up from Youtube e-celeb channels) is deliberate. E-celebs like "Smarter Every Day" make no attempt to hide what they're doing. Implying that memorization of given "facts" makes one "smart" = increases one's IQ. In fact if that were true, it could be argued that many mainstream "facts" make one less smart. Is someone who has memorized every aspect of the official version of WW2 and the "Holocaust" really "smarter" than someone who, after taking 15 minutes to learn the basic "facts", numbers alleged to have died, method of killing etc., then concludes via a process of deductive reasoning, that the holocaust could not have happened?
That's the great thing about actual science, that's to say, not the stuff you necessarily read in books, but an experiential understanding of the processes of the universe. The truer to reality your internal model, the quicker you can filter the chaff from the wheat, without need for so-called "facts", without reliance on so-called "experts."
Don't get me wrong, books are fucking great, especially pre-politically correct books. Just don't let an authority figure interpret the contents for you. Skip as many intermediate stages as possible and where possible, if the subject is not new (like computers or electronics) then choose the old book before the new. The dialect of English in older books really isn't hard to get to grips with, although the heavy interjection of Latin and Greek (which every educated man was familiar with at the time), can break up the flow to a taxing degree if you're not fluent. It is worth the effort, and the quality of writing tends to be very much higher, more stimulating, more rewarding, a better use of your time. It had to be, in a day when printing a book was a seriously expensive undertaking there was no room for dross. Nowadays anything can get published.
Another feature of old books (1900s and earlier) is that talking about "feels", "I feel", "I felt", "it felt so…", "I cried", "I wanted to cry", "she made me sad", was considered the mark of a uncouth woman or effeminate and emotionally unstable man.
In Confessions of an English Opium Eater" (1821), Thomas de Quincey even apologizes for mentioning his feelings, but considered his internal state so relevant to the story, that he had no choice but to include some references. In a time where everything'' is about feelings, to such a degree that Millennials are being lauded for "improving" English to better express feelings and body language, the writing style of old provides a welcome respite, From. This. Kind. Of. Shit… like a cool woody hollow on a scorching summer's day.
This is feminization of the teaching environment, largely demanded by feminist and single mother parents.
Liquidation of competitiveness, awards for winning means someone is a loser, which makes someone feel bad, which makes women feel uncomfortable.
Boys raised by single mothers have difficulty competing with masculinized boys. So an environment which does away with competition, winners and losers, eases the job of being single mother to a boy.
>If a kid is a little dumbass it's now classed as a mental disorder and the (((proper))) drugs are prescribed.
Boys are naturally full of energy and difficult to handle. It isn't being "a little dumbass" which is the problem, it's being a boy and behaving like a boy. Being forced to sit still like the girls. Be content to talk. Don't go outside if it's raining, you might get wet, mommy will be angry because she doesn't have time for demeaning housework like laundry. Sit still. Ignore the energy building in your body. Ignore the need for your legs to move and your heart to race. What's that, he keeps moving? He's restless? He has ADHD Ms Jones, feed him these pills to fix the "problem".