I think that justice should be what benefits society the most in the long run, but that's not how it seems to work in practice.

It's the paraphilia I'm talking about, not what normal adults may or may not be attracted to. The latter is typically exclusive (think, as child hits mid to late teens, child discovers an inability to be attracted to his peers. However, child is unable to seek counselling for obvious reasons of social stigma). It is at least from what I have read manageable with therapy and coaching, even if, similar to other and far less harmful paraphilia, it is not -curable-.

Yes. I think two researchers summarized the problem well.. the 'Dunning-Kruger' effect.

This shouldn't even be the least bit surprising if you've spent any time at all looking at the current research in the field, suggesting a combination of both environmental and neurological factors. It's like any other 'variation' in human sexuality, statistically you will find it anywhere given a large enough sample. Yet our solutions are entirely reactive rather than preventative. The solutions the experts propose repeatedly are simply never going to happen. This is a field where people assume getting really angry is the only way to fix things, and stopping to understand the problem and break it down into its components is somehow condoning it. Understanding criminal behavior with prevention in mind is 'hugging a thug' instead of getting tough on crime and we must operate under that false dichotomy.

If we fixed electronics like we treated society's ills, we'd take a sledgehammer to them accompanied by 'die MOFO die!' (a la office space) every time there was a problem. And we'd have a pile of wasted and broken things, and even more problems to deal with as a result... And well, that's what we are seeing, and will continue to see, until we get smart about this problem and start listening to what experts are saying.

A very small start, just the tip of the iceberg:

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/15/our_approach_to_pedophilia_isn%C2%B4t_working/

I'm not entirely sure the human equation has changed even if the tech has. I've met my fair share of quiet, introverted thinkers over the years and quite frankly this is a human nature thing. Some people are more outgoing than others, some are social butterflies who are busy networking, some like to stay at home and tinker. Some function well in groups, some do not. It's got nothing to do with smarts. People just think differently. It's a shame the thread has to turn smarts into an accusatory contest. Also, that the person you're responding to reacted in such an irate way seems to indicate to me that a nerve was poked: there is still a negative stigma attached to being a nerd that the person wants to overcome. That at least clearly has not changed.

And of course I do agree that the technology situation has changed, computers are ubiquitous now whereas in the 80's my ability to use a computer set me apart from my peers.

(Note, I'm not responding to the criticism of the not-peer-reviewed study in the article which I agree is a useless study, but rather its later assertion).

Which seems to indicate that there is some basis for comparability between the two, even if they are different, and further research is needed.

"the articles from this symposium provide evidence that neurological similarities exist in the response of humans (6) and rats (7,9) to foods and to drugs. Two of the reports (6,7), as well as our own work (14–16), suggest that even highly palatable food is not addictive in and of itself. Rather, it is the manner in which the food is presented (i.e., intermittently) and consumed (i.e., repeated, intermittent “gorging”) that appears to entrain the addiction-like process. Such consummatory patterns are associated with increased risk for comorbid complications as well as relapse and make treatment particularly challenging. The topic of food addiction bears study, therefore, to develop fresh approaches to clinical intervention and to advance our understanding of basic mechanisms involved in loss of control."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2714380/

All I can think of is the size of exoskeleton life that used to exist on this planet (some of which when the oxygen levels were higher).

http://listverse.com/2013/01/14/10-prehistoric-bugs-that-could-seriously-mess-you-up/

A perfectly valid analogy, in my objective opinion.

Go look up the 'adventure' section on Steam for tons of examples! If you're looking for major titles, then you might only find passing nods to it here and there (aside from something like Portal 2).. but there are countless independent games that focus on rich atmospherics combined with puzzles. On iOS The Room is a short but fantastic example of this that anyone who loves Myst should really check out. Kairo (multiplatform) is kinda interesting too, how about Braid, shall we go on and on?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_brain_development_timeline#Current_Research

In line with what you are saying, most teenagers do not have fully developed frontal lobes until around the time of legal adulthood. More contemporary research I've seen suggests the brain continues to develop until around age 25.

I do indeed remember what it was like to be a youngster. I had a lot of fun. I was also a bit of a dick. I knew Star Wars was fake. I got way more into simple pixelated video games than I'm capable of doing now. When I played Venture on ColecoVision, my heart burst out of my chest when the pixelated monster came into the room to eat me.

I might not have known that cops weren't supposed to needlessly abuse people they arrested though, since the media portrayed that as the way things are done. Of course there's adults who still don't get that, either.

The RIAA was silent on the standard industry practice of directly ripping off the hard work and experimentation of underground alternative rock and electronic artists without so much an iota of credit.

(one of countless examples: http://flavorwire.com/newswire/is-kehas-stage-show-ripping-off-the-residents)

What I have discovered is that when you are anxious, your body is wired to self-destruct.
I find as one grows older, the physical side effects get worse. When you are young and anxious/depressed, you might be catatonic, you might not sleep well, but you bounce back. When you get older, now you've got things like constant IBS, nevermind the lack of sleep catches up with you. In short, a vicious circle. As we know now too, such illnesses can fuck up everything from how the body processes fat, releases insulin, to even changes in brain structure (increased amygdala, shrunken hippocampus.. fortunately what I was taught is that this can heal with time).

I too try to approach it from the technical standpoint. The science is pretty clear these days, it takes away the ability of people to point fingers and blame once you really know what's going on. I think both that and the subjective are needed though, not everyone thinks the same.

Despite volumes of information on how things like depression and anxiety are both physical and mental, sometimes inheritable, linked to genes that regulate serotonin, linked to biological (hormonal eg glucocorticoid) markers, and have drastic physical consequences on the body in terms of elevated stress responses that affect a manifold of parasympathetic CNS responses, and with that increased risk of major illnesses, despite all the information in the world detailing how it is real, you'll still find lots of people who claim it isn't, or that people are just making it up to be victims. They don't get that the brain is a physical thing, and what happens to it affects YOU, everything you do, your decisions, emotions, etc. It's almost like they are naive dualists who don't know they are espousing dualism.
I mean the top rated posts in this thread are great, but you know the types, the ones who give out terrible and useless advice. It's ironic how mental health issues turn ordinary people who claim to like science into much the same as creationists: utilizing straw men, attacking caricatures of real science, doing anything but addressing the real issues the science brings up.
And yes, as others have hinted, one can be incredibly intelligent, productive, one can be anything really, and still fall victim to it. /end rant