More evidence that young men are stupid

I have written before that men under the age of around 25 tend to do really stupid things.

Further evidence in support of this comes from a recent story in a Cleveland suburb where three students sent in phony email bomb threats to their high school seventeen times in November of last year, resulting in the school being shut down for three days, buildings repeatedly searched, and strict security being enforced on everyone entering the building.

As anyone with the remotest sense could have predicted, the FBI was called in and the suspects were quickly identified. How could anyone have possibly thought that in these terror-obsessed days a bomb threat would not result in a massive police investigation resulting in almost certain capture? The answer: Because young men are stupid. As the assistant county prosecutor said “They wanted to see if they could do it…if they could get away with it.”

An ugly feature of the emails is that they purportedly mentioned Jews and blacks and the KKK. Whether this was out of bigotry or further stupidity in attempt to add verisimilitude to their threats is unclear.

The three students now face at least 17 felony counts of inducing panic and will likely be tried as juveniles but if they are tried as adults could face fairly long prison terms.


  1. Pierce R. Butler says

    One could (though I doubt the attorneys in this case will) make a strong argument that nobody, regardless of age, who phones in bomb threats just for laughs deserves to be tried treated as an adult.

  2. 'Tis Himself, OM says

    More evidence that young men are stupid

    I could have told you that years ago when I was a young man.

  3. cathyw says

    Based on my experience and observations, it seems like not only are young men stupid, but there’s some multiplicative effect when you put them in groups.

    I hope for their sake they’re tried as juveniles – there was an incident at my high school in the late ’80s where someone actually set off a military issue smoke grenade in the hallway, the school got evacuated, the fire department was called, an assistant principal burned her hand badly because she found the thing and tried to throw it out the window, not realizing it would be hot. That’s pretty much “the whole works” as far as teenage pranks go – but it was recognized as a teenage prank, and the perpetrator was tried and sentenced accordingly. I don’t think I’m wrong to say these three boys could be facing terrorism charges, and I don’t think that represents justice in this case.

  4. lordshipmayhem says

    If they’re 16, they may act juvenile but unless they’re criminally insane (incapable of reasoning that what they did was wrong), then they’re long since old enough to know better, should be expected to act better and should be subject to a higher standard than a child. This is not an error of youthful enthusiasm, as driving one’s own automobile well in excess of the posted speed limit would be. It isn’t an “error in judgement”, as getting into one’s friend’s car when you should be suspicious as to its legal status would be. It’s a clear attempt to terrorize.

    Although we haven’t been told their ages, I doubt if they’re “children”.

  5. Jared A says

    “Long since old enough to know better.” Vague enough to hide behind, but do you have evidence to back this up? Everything I have learned from physical psychology has demonstrated that sixteen your old brains are NOT adult brains.

  6. Astro Nj says

    Is it possible that you are instead the uninformed one to make these stupid generalizations, whilst pretending not to? From your linked blogpost..

    But there is one generalization of which I am getting more and more convinced and that is the following: All men between the ages of 15 and 25 are idiots.

    Take a look at this ‘Edge’ piece from Darwinist philosopher Helena Cronin, and that might help understand the behaviour.

    Talents, tastes and temperaments play fundamental roles. But they alone don’t fully explain the differences. It is a fourth T that most decisively shapes the distinctive structure of male — female differences. That T is Tails — the tails of these statistical distributions. Females are much of a muchness, clustering round the mean. But, among males, the variance — the difference between the most and the least, the best and the worst — can be vast. So males are almost bound to be over-represented both at the bottom and at the top. I think of this as ‘more dumbbells but more Nobels’

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *