> The reason being is they were nearly a year older than other kids they were paired with. I’m amused that the kids who did worse are absolutely necessary for

> The reason being is they were nearly a year older than other kids they were paired with. I’m amused that the kids who did worse are absolutely necessary for the kids who do better. They end up getting wasted by the process, demotivated, but they are a necessary brick to step upon. It’s the same consideration when talking about male suicide. Are they necessary for others to feel good? We could solve a good part of it as a society, but at the expense of providing an environment where males fail less, have a better social net, receive more love, and are less pushed to succeed in their career to be recognized. So we could solve it, but it may cost our economic growth. Is that why male suicide isn’t getting solved? It’s getting less funding than even dog shelters, and less attention than much smaller problems.