How come?

> “Involuntary collections will not occur before 2025," a White House spokesperson said in a statement. "Defaulted borrowers won’t see collections until 2025.”

https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2024/10/biden-adm...

Seems like most reasonable first step to take.

This is a myth. The prefrontal cortex doesn't appear to ever stop developing.

Early brain development studies involving MRIs simply only looked at people up to the age of 25 and the findings that they "develop until at least 25" turned into this myth that they stop developing and are "fully mature" at 25.

The age of majority was a conservative choice based on society's view of when the vast majority of people were capable of the level of self-sufficiency required to do things like enter into contracts. If most are incapable of self-sufficiency without a parental guardian, then the age of majority should be increased.

That said, we also ignored our own rationale and started allowing minors to apply for student loans. This is a travesty.

https://www.sciencefocus.com/comment/brain-myth-25-developme...

And the obvious answer is that the COVID era loans being discussed were designed from the beginning to be forgiven if certain conditions were met. Those that accepted the loans did so with that understanding. Student loans are also issued under specific terms which those that accept the loans agree to. In both cases the government is living up to the terms of the loans when issued and expecting the borrowers to do the same.

The deal was “if a business spends a percentage this money on payroll, it will be forgive”. It was designed to keep businesses afloat for a set amount of time as we locked down for COVID.

https://www.npr.org/2020/03/26/821457551/whats-inside-the-se...

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/26/business/coronavirus-stim...

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/small-businesses-face-nightm...

As the authority figure deviates further and further from reality, it makes them increasingly hostile to those who reason, but it also creates a cost to acknowledging reality. The cultists would have to acknowledge they were suckered or otherwise deficient. All those contradictions that were ignored protect their alternative reality because they represent pain that must be overcome. Without being willing to face the pain of being wrong and all those you have harmed through being wrong, you must stay in your alternative reality.

I don't agree with this, since people who hold this belief generally ignore second order effects and are immune to hypocrisy/contradiction based arguments. Without respect of contradictions, there is no basis for truth only for feelings and actions, which I think I would call "genetic truth."

Clearly this group is evolutionary conserved, and there must be some truth to that ideology for that to be true.

The first group has to deal with the Karl Popper's paradox of tolerance, which is the rigorous description of what you just said. It requires constant maintenance and adjustment against selfishness and decay, it requires enforcement of universalized principles (assimilation of specific ideas).

The second group must deal with having beliefs that directly contradict reality and freedom and reality asserting itself.

Both groups have different fundamental strategies for the prisoner's dilemma and different failure modes for their strategy.

The first group says there is one theoretically correct strategy, to always trust/cooperate because from a mathematical perspective, under conditions of abundance and an assumption of universality, that is provably the correct strategy.

The second says that if you can win by defecting, you should.

The first group fails when they fail to defect in response to people defecting against them. The paradox of intolerance can be restated in prisoner's dilemma terms: if you think cooperation is always right, then how do you justify defection?

The second group fails by failing to get out of zero sum thinking. They can never be greater than the sum of their parts, they also generally create a ruggedly darwinistic society you wouldn't want to be a part of.