#digitaldiscourse

Oh wow — you actually read the whole thing and checked the sources. That alone already puts you above 90% of Tumblr discourse. Respect for the effort.

That said — you’ve accidentally demonstrated exactly why the “under-25” boundary exists in the first place.

My post never mentioned “dumb people”. It never targeted you personally. It was about well-documented neurodevelopment facts used in medicine, education and behavioural research for decades.

If someone reads:

“executive functions mature around 25”

as:

“you are stupid”

…that’s not on me. That is the very pattern the research describes: heightened emotional interpretation + reduced inhibition = misreading neutral statements as personal attacks.

And this is precisely why the age guideline exists.

Now, the second part.

To have meaningful debate, I prefer speaking to people who have actually lived independently. Not theoretically, not in essays, but in real life.

Because “life experience” isn’t a poetic concept — it’s:

separating from parents,

making your own decisions,

carrying the real-world consequences,

paying your own bills,

failing, rebuilding, adapting.

Without that, conversations tend to drift into idealistic fantasy worlds — beautiful, but completely detached from how grown-up life actually works.

It’s the same energy as people preaching “pure art ethics” while never having worked as a freelance artist or dealt with clients, deadlines, bills, revisions, or handling productivity tools that literally allow creators to earn more and stress less.

The purity arguments sound nice — until they meet reality. Reality wins every time.

So no — the “under 25” rule isn’t an insult. It’s a boundary. A filter. A way to keep conversations constructive rather than reactive.

And sure — maybe some of the sources I referenced are now considered “dated”. Science evolves, and so do interpretations of data.

But there’s also a far less charitable possibility: certain institutions have a strong incentive to lower the developmental threshold and declare people “fully mature” earlier than they actually are — for policy convenience, for industries that profit from early medical decisions, governments that promote early marriage and reproduction, labour arguments, or educational frameworks.

Because if we look at real behaviour rather than laboratory timelines, the ability to see the world clearly — to regulate emotions, think long-term and respond without spiralling — tends to stabilise far closer to 30 than to 18-20.

Brain development doesn’t end in your teens

Research shows that the prefrontal cortex — responsible for

impulse control,

long-term planning,

logical reasoning

— continues maturing well into the mid-twenties. Studies using neuroimaging and behavioral tests consistently note that full executive function (e.g., inhibiting impulsive behavior, organizing tasks, and controlling emotions) isn’t reliably established until around age 25.

Why does that matter for meaningful conversations?

Before this final stage of prefrontal development, people are naturally more susceptible to

strong emotional reactions,

less able to process complex, nuanced arguments.

That can lead to fiery, less constructive debates — rather than balanced, thoughtful discourse.

Bottom Line

The “Under 25” guideline is rooted in well-documented brain science — it’s a checkpoint for cognitive maturity, not a judgment on anyone’s value. The research is clear:

Executive functions (planning, inhibition, organization) climb well into the twenties.

Prefrontal control over emotions also matures later, meaning younger brains are wired for less regulated responses.

A practical demonstration of exactly what I mean.

References

Luna et al., “Maturation of cognitive processes from late childhood to adulthood.” Child Development — charts executive function development across ages (1, 2, 3).

Keywords: public sphere, platform vernacular, Instagram, hashtag

The idea of a single, unified public sphere feels almost outdated in the digital age. Instead of one big conversation, we have countless micro-publics scattered across platforms, each with its own slang, rules, and rhythms - its own platform vernacular (Gibbs et al. 2015). These aren't just quirks of communication; they're shaping, filtering, and sometimes straight-up warping how we interact online.

Every platform has its own linguistic DNA. Twitter (or X, if you insist) forces brevity, encouraging sharp takes and shorthand. TikTok, on the other hand, thrives on visual storytelling and performative speech (Manic 2024). Instagram? A mix of aesthetic curation and hashtag-fueled visibility. These platform vernaculars create new ways to connect, but they also gatekeep. If you don’t speak the language, you’re on the outside looking in - what Gillespie (2018) calls vernacular gatekeeping.

And let’s talk about how these codes get tangled up with the platforms themselves. McVeigh-Schultz & Baym (2015) argue that while these vernaculars give users new ways to participate in public discourse, they also create new barriers. You might think you’re just learning the ropes, but you're also playing by the platform’s rules—rules shaped by algorithms that care more about engagement than meaningful discussion (van Dijck & Poell 2013).

Take Instagram’s use of #funeral, for example. It’s not just a tag - it’s a mash-up of mourning, self-expression, and visibility tactics. People use it to share their grief, but also to ensure their posts surface in wider networks. The hashtag becomes a meeting point for personal loss, cultural rituals, and social media logic (Gibbs et al. 2015). What should be a deeply personal moment gets reframed through the lens of a platform designed for reach and validation.

As digital spaces continue to evolve, these shifting codes determine who gets heard, who gets ignored, and how meaning is constructed online. Understanding platform vernaculars isn’t just about keeping up - it’s about recognizing the hidden forces shaping the way we communicate.

Reference list

Bruns, A, Gunn Enli, Skogerbo, E, Anders Olof Larsson & Christensen, C 2015, The Routledge Companion to Social Media and Politics, Routledge.

Gibbs, M, Meese, J, Arnold, M, Nansen, B & Carter, M 2015, ‘#Funeral and Instagram: death, social media, and platform vernacular’, Information, Communication & Society, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 255–268.

Gillespie, T 2018, Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions That Shape Social Media, Yale University Press.

Manic, M 2024, ‘Short-Form Video Content and Consumer Engagement in Digital Landscapes’, Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Brasov Series V Economic Sciences, vol. 17, no. 66, Transilvania University Press, pp. 45–52.

McVeigh-Schultz, J & Baym, NK 2015, ‘Thinking of You: Vernacular Affordance in the Context of the Microsocial Relationship App, Couple’, Social Media + Society, vol. 1, no. 2, p. 205630511560464.