zlacker

>>delich+(OP)
I think there's a non-malicious explanation for a percentage of this.

As I grew up in the 80s, there were two kinds of gifted kids in school: The kind that would ace everything anyway, and the kind that, for a variety of reasons, lacked the regulation abilities to manage the school setting well, with the slow classes and such. A lot of very smart people just failed academically, because the system didn't work for them. Some of those improved their executive function enough as they went past their teenage years, and are now making a lot of money in difficult fields.

So what happens when we do make accomodations to them? That their peaky, gifted performance comes out, they don't get ejected by the school systems anywhere near as often as they were before, and now end up in top institutions. Because they really are both very smart and disabled at the same time.

you can even see this in tech workplaces: The percentages of workers that are neurodivergent is much higher than usual, but it's not as if tech hires them out of compassion, but because there's a big cadre or neurodivergent people that are just in the line where they are very productive workers anyway. So it should be no surprise that in instutitutions searching for performance, the number of people that qualify for affordances for certain mental disabilities just goes way up.

That's not to say that there cannot be people that are just cheating, but it doesn't take much time in a class with gifted kids to realize that no, it's not just cheating. You can find someone, say, suffering in a dialectic-centric english class, where just following the conversation is a problem, while they are outright bored with the highest difficulty technical AP classes available, because they find them very easy.

>>hibiki+W9
Have you tried Adderall? It gives extreme competitive edge. Just to get legal and easy access to performance-enhancing drugs in elite educational (aka competitive) setting it makes sense to get "disability".

And given how loosely these conditions are defined, it's not even cheating in the true sense of the word.

>>vl+Sj
Steriods will give you a massive physical advantage too. If you're not doing something with a governing body and get them prescribed you're golden.

>>skeete+ZL
If you have enough your own testosterone then doing TRT is more harm than good. But once you get older and don’t anymore - TRT is golden.

>>vl+C41
The issue of course is "medical science" has continually lowered what is normal. Men 50 years ago had significantly higher testosterone than today. The blood work normal CI reflects this decrease. In reality, any man lower than 600 should probably be supplementing TRT. However, you're not likely to get it prescribed before you are below 300, and even then, it'll be just enough to get you back over the curve. There's basically no risk to it as long as you keep your total test <= 1000 ng/dL (and probably <= 800 ng/dL tbh).

The median total testosterone for the cohort born after 2000 is 391 ng/dL. 20 years before it was ~550 ng/dL. 20 years before that we were above 600 ng/dL. Men are falling ill with more chronic illness, having more sexual dysfunction, and have more feminized features. We should probably be asking ourselves why this is happening rather than adjusting blood work CI's down.

>>stuffn+zf1
> median total testosterone for the cohort born after 2000 is 391 ng/dL.

Really interesting. I wonder what is age range. This is beyond low. At this level you naturally feel tired all the time.