Who knows, maybe they even heard these arguments from people in mainstream society, coworkers and friends, who they thought were otherwise reasonable; perhaps they were shocked to hear such things from people they previously, but no longer, considered thoughtful, reasonable, and kind.
And while we're at it, maybe they would be just as surprised to hear that it's their own conclusions that make them take offense. "You disagree, so it must be true." Hearing this from someone they previously, but no longer, considered insightful might be understandably unpleasant, and I wouldn't be surprised if they were to delete their comments when the reality of the matter sets in: that the human social hierarchy, in all of its stark animal glory, doesn't care about those who are born and live in a state of poverty and powerlessness; time is once again entering an era where it is increasingly socially acceptable to judge (and profit from) people based on their birth circumstances, a sad situation which has been the story of human history to date and which humanity as a species shows no signs of overcoming.
High school wasn't all that bad, and hell, I learned some things - a lot my own, but a lot from good teachers, too. Something I noted when I hit a rough spot a few months ago was that there is no teenage angst when you're working from six AM till eight PM doing hard labor. Not that I was asking for it!
I think it's simply a matter of human nature; given too much leisure, or too high a quality of life, our brains will still be physiologically unable to feel a proportional level of happiness. At the chemical level, there are only so many neurotransmitters to go around.
Anyway, the point of all this is that I would have been thrilled to get a "real" job at that age, but I'm not sure that was right. I was always very much in a hurry to finish school, and now that I have a job and am in college early, I keep wondering if, and feeling like, I've made a terrible mistake.
And a separate point about the article: The cost of college is almost entirely the fact that it uses up the four most productive years of your life. That most people choose college almost on instinct surprises me. Forget buying a house or a car - this decision is orders of magnitude more expensive. If you want to have an extraordinary life, you're going to be on that path by the time you're 22, or you're not. It's worth noting that Einstein made his contributions to physics at the age of 25, and even that was somewhat old to develop something so innovative. At the same time, while he stayed influential and productive in physics, he never published anything as revolutionary. At a certain age - I'm inclined to think it's usually in the early to mid twenties, based on anecdotal evidence only - you just lose that ability. If you go to college, you're basically saying "I'll trade my ability to change the world for a predictable life." And honestly, right now that's a trade I would like to make, but I'm just not doing it, and I don't know why.
And besides, every time I put this in writing I am struck by the incredible level of arrogance and hubris in my words (I'm no freaking Einstein!) and I really don't feel like writing again for a long time.
I'm surprised no one caught the rather bad statistics mistake:
"Today's human population is descended from twice as many women as men... To get that kind of difference, you had to have something like, throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced. "
If you really had only half as many men reproducing as women, you'd get the twice-as-many-women-descendants after a single generation. For the ratio to be 2:1 over the whole of human history implies that it was a much milder, but still systemic, bias. It may or may not be anything evolutionary, though.
I've never been Libertarian nor a believer in the Free Market. I don't think I really grasp the core concepts, though, because as I'm reading through Wealth of Nations (among other things) I find the laissez-faire attitude is incredibly naive.
Real markets are filled with things like marketing, fraud (two points, I would argue, along the same continuum) and consumers who are not going to do what's best for themselves.
My own view is that the government should provide a decent life - including paying for meals and shelter if need be - for every single person. I'm at a school where I'd rather not be, taking classes I'd prefer not to, because I will need a degree to get a job. If I knew that the government (or rich relatives, for that matter, although unfortunately I have none) would support me if I were to fail at entrepreneurship, I'd drop out tomorrow.
Basically, the government should guarantee that it'll keep all people at a basic level of human decency. This would allow all citizens to take risks, which is essential in innovation.
Oh, and the government should handle most things that private insurance companies do nowadays. The way I see it, people shouldn't have the choice to not pay for some things. If we were to give people the option of not buying health insurance, it would make us a very cruel and cold society to stand by as the unfortunate souls who chose not to get insurance die of an expensive, treatable diseases. The cultural cost to society is far too high.
So Time thinks that not letting an already arrogant kid skip two grades is "failing" her.
The most important thing for a school age kid is to become well-socialized.
The correlation between skipping grades and turning out well is just a correlation - it may be that those who were not allowed to skip were so messed up socially already that they were less likely to convince their schools to let them skip grades. In contrast, if you're well-adjusted and smart, it's more likely that you'd be able to convince school administrators to allow you to skip a grade. And, of course, Time misses that distinction, making it into a clear case of "the more grades skipped the better."