Something doesn't have to knowingly target gender to be sexist. There seems to be something off in the algorithm if it's giving such widely disparate results for individuals who you would otherwise expect to get the same or similar result. It is very logical to question that.
Because YOU would expect the results to be the same does not mean that a professional loan officer or an algorithm would. That's the trouble: amateurs are second the professionals.
They should first ask: Why would bank discriminate against a qualified borrower? That would be both illogical and illegal. Banks are in it to make money -- they don't make decisions based on what's between a person's legs.
People and businesses do illogical and illegal things all the time, otherwise racism and sexism wouldn't exist. Sometimes it's consciously, and sometimes subsconsciously. That's why you question when the results don't make apparent sense, to figure out what the problem is.
What evidence do you provide to support the claim that this is one of those instances? None. Just because something is not impossible (the moon is made of green cheese...sounds absurd but before we went there you literally couldn’t prove it wasn’t) doesn’t mean it actually is, as we learned when collected actual evidence (no cheese on the moon, sadly). You need observed evidence to prove claims in the positive. Otherwise you’re just making sounds.
I don't claim this is one of those intances, I just claim that there appears to be an issue. 20x differential in credit limit with no apparent reason is the evidence, now we figure out what the problem is. It may be a blip in Mrs Heinemeier Hansson's financial record, or it might be an issue with the algorithm, or something wrong in between.
Nope, not evidence. As has been explained, even spouses can have different credit histories and ratings. She could even have cards he doesn’t know about.
Evidence would be 1:1 comparisons — that is, women as wealthy as DHH with the same credit history, being turned down. Spouses are not credit-clones of their mates.
Sure it's evidence. It's not case closed evidence, but there's definitely a large discrepancy between the two cases, and from the details we know about the situation it is, thus far, unexplained.
Something doesn't have to knowingly target gender to be sexist. There seems to be something off in the algorithm if it's giving such widely disparate results for individuals who you would otherwise expect to get the same or similar result. It is very logical to question that.
Errrnt. What you expect, as a non-financial expert, has little bearing on reality. I’ve said it a few times in the other thread, but I’m an enterprise software dev and for many years worked for Cap One building credit application processing apps. Gender simply isn’t a variable in credit calculations. Besides being irrelevant, it’s against the law.
Husband & wife isn’t 1:1. To test gender bias, you have to find women in the same credit boat as DHH but being denied or diminished; not his wife who despite what you may think could be in a completely different credit boat.
I'm not claiming that my expectation has a bearing on reality? I'm saying that if something doesn't meet a common expectation then we should investigate why that is.
Even that isn’t true — there is not a common expectation that a spouse shares or inherits their partner’s credit rating. Credit is personal, and there are a million reasons they can diverge. That was some ignorant expectation by DHH, and now a million other people who read the story, but it never was the common expectation before. Credit is personal.
It is a common expectation that people with identical financial and personal circumstances should be able to access the same financial products. It could be that there is an as yet unidentified and important difference between the credit worthiness of Mr Heinemeier Hansson and his wife, and that's why some form of investigation should happen, to work out what it is, and whether the algorithm is reasonable or discriminatory.
I'm retired -- which means that my savings are high and my income is low. As a result GS gave me the lowest credit line of all my cards (about half).
Does that mean that they discriminate against retired people?
So? Age does not matter, it's your history of paying on time and the amount of debt you have that matters the most. They always ask for how much you earn a year and if it's low, you WILL get low credit line regardless of how much assets you have.
I'm retired -- which means that my savings are high and my income is low. As a result GS gave me the lowest credit line of all my cards (about half).
Does that mean that they discriminate against retired people?
So? Age does not matter, it's your history of paying on time and the amount of debt you have that matters the most. They always ask for how much you earn a year and if it's low, you WILL get low credit line regardless of how much assets you have.
That's entirely his point? They may not ask his age, but they ask his income, and a defining thing about older, retired people, is that they don't have much income. Therefore, by not considering savings and assets (a perfectly reasonable means of repayment), they're being discriminatory, which will probably disproportionately affect older people.
I'm retired -- which means that my savings are high and my income is low. As a result GS gave me the lowest credit line of all my cards (about half).
Does that mean that they discriminate against retired people?
So? Age does not matter, it's your history of paying on time and the amount of debt you have that matters the most. They always ask for how much you earn a year and if it's low, you WILL get low credit line regardless of how much assets you have.
That's entirely his point? They may not ask his age, but they ask his income, and a defining thing about older, retired people, is that they don't have much income. Therefore, by not considering savings and assets (a perfectly reasonable means of repayment), they're being discriminatory, which will probably disproportionately affect older people.
“How dare lenders ask me how money I receive when trying to determine whether I can pay them back for the revolving credit I ask from them.” :gasp:
1) Pensions, dividends, sold stock are all monies received.
2) I’ve never seen where they require you to prove your stated income.
3) Saying that it's discriminatory to consider the ability to pay back credit because you can claim that retirees have less income opens up claims against women, the young (opposite end of the agist spectrum), and minorities whom all tend to have a lower aggregate income than other groups.
I'm retired -- which means that my savings are high and my income is low. As a result GS gave me the lowest credit line of all my cards (about half).
Does that mean that they discriminate against retired people?
So? Age does not matter, it's your history of paying on time and the amount of debt you have that matters the most. They always ask for how much you earn a year and if it's low, you WILL get low credit line regardless of how much assets you have.
Edited: See Crowley's response. (and he's right, that was my point. I was just being a little tongue in cheek / snarky)
I see the bullshit is thick and smelly in here once again. Wow, all these experts on how credit is extended or denied just happen to be AI forum members too? Who’d a thunk’it? Meanwhile Lester Holt of NBC nightly news just announced a segment coming up about the new Apple credit card and allegations of gender bias. No mention of Goldman Sachs, just Apple. The lawyers must already be licking their chops at the prospect of gleaning $millions. This too shall pass as yet another mountain is constructed out of a molehill. Of course Woz and his wife are being interviewed by NBC. Of course Apple is guilty until it proves itself innocent.
I'm retired -- which means that my savings are high and my income is low. As a result GS gave me the lowest credit line of all my cards (about half).
Does that mean that they discriminate against retired people?
So? Age does not matter, it's your history of paying on time and the amount of debt you have that matters the most. They always ask for how much you earn a year and if it's low, you WILL get low credit line regardless of how much assets you have.
That's entirely his point? They may not ask his age, but they ask his income, and a defining thing about older, retired people, is that they don't have much income. Therefore, by not considering savings and assets (a perfectly reasonable means of repayment), they're being discriminatory, which will probably disproportionately affect older people.
Creditors are not allowed to sue consumers for assets other than income on those who default on paying debts. It's a federal law. By abiding with law, banks avoid those who don't have enough income, regardless of how much assets they may have.
The fact that a lot of retirees have low income does not give you the right to whine about "age discrimination" - they don't care. They just want your income along with your history of credit. If retires are on low income, they are given low limits. That's a normal routine.
I am just so fed up with people who think they are somehow entitled to having more credit than they deserve and look for patterns such as age discrimination or gender discrimination when in reality, they're just seeing the reality that many women and many elderly people just don't have enough income. It is not age or gender that banks are using to "discriminate" but their individual incomes and their credit history to determine the credit line.
I'm retired -- which means that my savings are high and my income is low. As a result GS gave me the lowest credit line of all my cards (about half).
Does that mean that they discriminate against retired people?
So? Age does not matter, it's your history of paying on time and the amount of debt you have that matters the most. They always ask for how much you earn a year and if it's low, you WILL get low credit line regardless of how much assets you have.
That's entirely his point? They may not ask his age, but they ask his income, and a defining thing about older, retired people, is that they don't have much income. Therefore, by not considering savings and assets (a perfectly reasonable means of repayment), they're being discriminatory, which will probably disproportionately affect older people.
“How dare lenders ask me how money I receive when trying to determine whether I can pay them back for the revolving credit I ask from them.” :gasp:
1) Pensions, dividends, sold stock are all monies received.
2) I’ve never seen where they require you to prove your stated income.
3) Saying that it's discriminatory to consider the ability to pay back credit because you can claim that retirees have less income opens up claims against women, the young (opposite end of the agist spectrum), and minorities whom all tend to have a lower aggregate income than other groups.
2) they do ask you for your income. You're not required but more likely, they will decline. I mean, why the hell should I lend someone some money if they don't have evidence of income or willing to pay back?
I'm retired -- which means that my savings are high and my income is low. As a result GS gave me the lowest credit line of all my cards (about half).
Does that mean that they discriminate against retired people?
So? Age does not matter, it's your history of paying on time and the amount of debt you have that matters the most. They always ask for how much you earn a year and if it's low, you WILL get low credit line regardless of how much assets you have.
That's entirely his point? They may not ask his age, but they ask his income, and a defining thing about older, retired people, is that they don't have much income. Therefore, by not considering savings and assets (a perfectly reasonable means of repayment), they're being discriminatory, which will probably disproportionately affect older people.
Creditors are not allowed to sue consumers for assets other than income on those who default on paying debts. It's a federal law. By abiding with law, banks avoid those who don't have enough income, regardless of how much assets they may have.
The fact that a lot of retirees have low income does not give you the right to whine about "age discrimination" - they don't care. They just want your income along with your history of credit. If retires are on low income, they are given low limits. That's a normal routine.
I am just so fed up with people who think they are somehow entitled to having more credit than they deserve and look for patterns such as age discrimination or gender discrimination when in reality, they're just seeing the reality that many women and many elderly people just don't have enough income. It is not age or gender that banks are using to "discriminate" but their individual incomes and their credit history to determine the credit line.
What does give you the right to whine about age discrimination, when your retiree status is what is effectively cutting you off from credit, even when you have assets aplenty to cover your debts? What difference does it make to an individual whether the source of their inconvenience is bank policy or federal law? Why are you bringing up entitlement when this is really just a consumer complaint that companies aren't providing a good enough service?
I get pretty fed up with people who have no significant problems whining about those who have it worse and dare to speak out about their difficulties.
can't wait to see what formulation were used by GS - the rating of importance of income? user history? (my AMEX credit limit got cut after stop use it for a while - the other card provide better incentive). total TAX paid? etc. etc. of course, look like credit rating is not major factor as most of us thought (likely cause the complain). I would love to see the better justification of credit limit setting that minimize the risk for GS compare to the other companies... since GS is the only "bank" took on Apple card, the "individually calculated" credit limit might just be their "silver bullett". It definitely worthy of detail investigation.
Something doesn't have to knowingly target gender to be sexist. There seems to be something off in the algorithm if it's giving such widely disparate results for individuals who you would otherwise expect to get the same or similar result. It is very logical to question that.
What facts lead you to believe both this guy and his wife deserve the exact same credit. Other than they occupy the same living space, are married, he files their taxes jointly and they live in a community property state. what other information leads you to believe they both deserve the same credit limits.
Hint: When you last filled out application for a credit card, did it ask you joint income you put on your tax return or provide a copy. Did they ask if you were married, or if you lived in a community property state? BTW not all states have community property laws.
Lesson here. Register everything under your wife’s name. Problem solved
I'm retired -- which means that my savings are high and my income is low. As a result GS gave me the lowest credit line of all my cards (about half).
Does that mean that they discriminate against retired people?
So? Age does not matter, it's your history of paying on time and the amount of debt you have that matters the most. They always ask for how much you earn a year and if it's low, you WILL get low credit line regardless of how much assets you have.
That's entirely his point? They may not ask his age, but they ask his income, and a defining thing about older, retired people, is that they don't have much income. Therefore, by not considering savings and assets (a perfectly reasonable means of repayment), they're being discriminatory, which will probably disproportionately affect older people.
Creditors are not allowed to sue consumers for assets other than income on those who default on paying debts. It's a federal law. By abiding with law, banks avoid those who don't have enough income, regardless of how much assets they may have.
The fact that a lot of retirees have low income does not give you the right to whine about "age discrimination" - they don't care. They just want your income along with your history of credit. If retires are on low income, they are given low limits. That's a normal routine.
I am just so fed up with people who think they are somehow entitled to having more credit than they deserve and look for patterns such as age discrimination or gender discrimination when in reality, they're just seeing the reality that many women and many elderly people just don't have enough income. It is not age or gender that banks are using to "discriminate" but their individual incomes and their credit history to determine the credit line.
What does give you the right to whine about age discrimination, when your retiree status is what is effectively cutting you off from credit, even when you have assets aplenty to cover your debts? What difference does it make to an individual whether the source of their inconvenience is bank policy or federal law? Why are you bringing up entitlement when this is really just a consumer complaint that companies aren't providing a good enough service?
I get pretty fed up with people who have no significant problems whining about those who have it worse and dare to speak out about their difficulties.
Your agenda betrays you. Your inability to articulate validates why no-one should listen.
The poster never said anything bad about age discrimination. They described it in facts, you turned into whining emotional drivel.
In the end the ability to sustain income is the issue that they measure. Will you pay me back in the future.
Sure, having assets has never been a good measure of ability to repay. Assets are the most difficult item to measure as an item to "pay". Sure, some is in cash, but lots of it are in retirement accounts, business assets, trusts etc. But, going out on a limb that you are a Warren supporter, you just want to assume it is easy to reach into the piggy bank and grab what you want out of someone else's pocket who has earned it.
I'm retired -- which means that my savings are high and my income is low. As a result GS gave me the lowest credit line of all my cards (about half).
Does that mean that they discriminate against retired people?
So? Age does not matter, it's your history of paying on time and the amount of debt you have that matters the most. They always ask for how much you earn a year and if it's low, you WILL get low credit line regardless of how much assets you have.
That's entirely his point? They may not ask his age, but they ask his income, and a defining thing about older, retired people, is that they don't have much income. Therefore, by not considering savings and assets (a perfectly reasonable means of repayment), they're being discriminatory, which will probably disproportionately affect older people.
Creditors are not allowed to sue consumers for assets other than income on those who default on paying debts. It's a federal law. By abiding with law, banks avoid those who don't have enough income, regardless of how much assets they may have.
The fact that a lot of retirees have low income does not give you the right to whine about "age discrimination" - they don't care. They just want your income along with your history of credit. If retires are on low income, they are given low limits. That's a normal routine.
I am just so fed up with people who think they are somehow entitled to having more credit than they deserve and look for patterns such as age discrimination or gender discrimination when in reality, they're just seeing the reality that many women and many elderly people just don't have enough income. It is not age or gender that banks are using to "discriminate" but their individual incomes and their credit history to determine the credit line.
What does give you the right to whine about age discrimination, when your retiree status is what is effectively cutting you off from credit, even when you have assets aplenty to cover your debts? What difference does it make to an individual whether the source of their inconvenience is bank policy or federal law? Why are you bringing up entitlement when this is really just a consumer complaint that companies aren't providing a good enough service?
I get pretty fed up with people who have no significant problems whining about those who have it worse and dare to speak out about their difficulties.
Your agenda betrays you. Your inability to articulate validates why no-one should listen.
The poster never said anything bad about age discrimination. They described it in facts, you turned into whining emotional drivel.
In the end the ability to sustain income is the issue that they measure. Will you pay me back in the future.
Sure, having assets has never been a good measure of ability to repay. Assets are the most difficult item to measure as an item to "pay". Sure, some is in cash, but lots of it are in retirement accounts, business assets, trusts etc. But, going out on a limb that you are a Warren supporter, you just want to assume it is easy to reach into the piggy bank and grab what you want out of someone else's pocket who has earned it.
Your rush to categorise my political leaning betrays your agenda, and I wasn't the one who injected the emotional "so fed up" drivel. This isn't a political argument at all, there just happens to be the usual chorus of pond dwellers getting het up about SJWs.
I'm retired -- which means that my savings are high and my income is low. As a result GS gave me the lowest credit line of all my cards (about half).
Does that mean that they discriminate against retired people?
So? Age does not matter, it's your history of paying on time and the amount of debt you have that matters the most. They always ask for how much you earn a year and if it's low, you WILL get low credit line regardless of how much assets you have.
That's entirely his point? They may not ask his age, but they ask his income, and a defining thing about older, retired people, is that they don't have much income. Therefore, by not considering savings and assets (a perfectly reasonable means of repayment), they're being discriminatory, which will probably disproportionately affect older people.
Creditors are not allowed to sue consumers for assets other than income on those who default on paying debts. It's a federal law. By abiding with law, banks avoid those who don't have enough income, regardless of how much assets they may have.
The fact that a lot of retirees have low income does not give you the right to whine about "age discrimination" - they don't care. They just want your income along with your history of credit. If retires are on low income, they are given low limits. That's a normal routine.
I am just so fed up with people who think they are somehow entitled to having more credit than they deserve and look for patterns such as age discrimination or gender discrimination when in reality, they're just seeing the reality that many women and many elderly people just don't have enough income. It is not age or gender that banks are using to "discriminate" but their individual incomes and their credit history to determine the credit line.
You're still missing the point -- or at least my point. Nobody is whining about age discrimination. It was simply a tongue in cheek, snarky example of how many demographics could claim discrimination. I suspect that young people could claim discrimination too -- as well as many others.
In the end, GS is simply using the most efficient screening method they can use in order to assure themselves that they minimize defaults. And, these days it seems that most credit card agencies are using income as part of their algorithm.
Something doesn't have to knowingly target gender to be sexist. There seems to be something off in the algorithm if it's giving such widely disparate results for individuals who you would otherwise expect to get the same or similar result. It is very logical to question that.
What facts lead you to believe both this guy and his wife deserve the exact same credit. Other than they occupy the same living space, are married, he files their taxes jointly and they live in a community property state. what other information leads you to believe they both deserve the same credit limits.
Hint: When you last filled out application for a credit card, did it ask you joint income you put on your tax return or provide a copy. Did they ask if you were married, or if you lived in a community property state? BTW not all states have community property laws.
Lesson here. Register everything under your wife’s name. Problem solved
Until divorce.
Actually, my father did exactly that. No problem. Since he owned a business and she was a stay at home mom, they reasoned it was far more likely that he would be sued than her. Neither ever got sued, but it was a good plan and, when he suddenly passed away at a young age, it simplified settling the estate.
But, in this case, even if they did the same, she still would have ended up with lower credit simply because the bank doesn't look at assets, but it would see that she has no income.
Something doesn't have to knowingly target gender to be sexist. There seems to be something off in the algorithm if it's giving such widely disparate results for individuals who you would otherwise expect to get the same or similar result. It is very logical to question that.
What facts lead you to believe both this guy and his wife deserve the exact same credit. Other than they occupy the same living space, are married, he files their taxes jointly and they live in a community property state. what other information leads you to believe they both deserve the same credit limits.
Hint: When you last filled out application for a credit card, did it ask you joint income you put on your tax return or provide a copy. Did they ask if you were married, or if you lived in a community property state? BTW not all states have community property laws.
Lesson here. Register everything under your wife’s name. Problem solved
Until divorce.
Actually, my father did exactly that. No problem. Since he owned a business and she was a stay at home mom, they reasoned it was far more likely that he would be sued than her. Neither ever got sued, but it was a good plan and, when he suddenly passed away at a young age, it simplified settling the estate.
But, in this case, even if they did the same, she still would have ended up with lower credit simply because the bank doesn't look at assets, but it would see that she has no income.
1) How can you not know that cash is an asset?
2) Financial institutions can and will look at assets (and liabilities), besides current ones (which includes cash) when determining your credit worthiness.
3) Placing assets in a spouse's name is not very good asset protection. Do you even know what a community property state is?
Something doesn't have to knowingly target gender to be sexist. There seems to be something off in the algorithm if it's giving such widely disparate results for individuals who you would otherwise expect to get the same or similar result. It is very logical to question that.
What facts lead you to believe both this guy and his wife deserve the exact same credit. Other than they occupy the same living space, are married, he files their taxes jointly and they live in a community property state. what other information leads you to believe they both deserve the same credit limits.
Hint: When you last filled out application for a credit card, did it ask you joint income you put on your tax return or provide a copy. Did they ask if you were married, or if you lived in a community property state? BTW not all states have community property laws.
Lesson here. Register everything under your wife’s name. Problem solved
Until divorce.
Actually, my father did exactly that. No problem. Since he owned a business and she was a stay at home mom, they reasoned it was far more likely that he would be sued than her. Neither ever got sued, but it was a good plan and, when he suddenly passed away at a young age, it simplified settling the estate.
But, in this case, even if they did the same, she still would have ended up with lower credit simply because the bank doesn't look at assets, but it would see that she has no income.
1) How can you not know that cash is an asset?
2) Financial institutions can and will look at assets (and liabilities), besides current ones (which includes cash) when determining your credit worthiness.
3) Placing assets in a spouse's name is not very good asset protection. Do you even know what a community property state is?
LOL.. Did anybody even mention cash? As for the rest -- it's out in left field just as you seem to be.
Something doesn't have to knowingly target gender to be sexist. There seems to be something off in the algorithm if it's giving such widely disparate results for individuals who you would otherwise expect to get the same or similar result. It is very logical to question that.
What facts lead you to believe both this guy and his wife deserve the exact same credit. Other than they occupy the same living space, are married, he files their taxes jointly and they live in a community property state. what other information leads you to believe they both deserve the same credit limits.
Hint: When you last filled out application for a credit card, did it ask you joint income you put on your tax return or provide a copy. Did they ask if you were married, or if you lived in a community property state? BTW not all states have community property laws.
Lesson here. Register everything under your wife’s name. Problem solved
Until divorce.
Actually, my father did exactly that. No problem. Since he owned a business and she was a stay at home mom, they reasoned it was far more likely that he would be sued than her. Neither ever got sued, but it was a good plan and, when he suddenly passed away at a young age, it simplified settling the estate.
But, in this case, even if they did the same, she still would have ended up with lower credit simply because the bank doesn't look at assets, but it would see that she has no income.
1) How can you not know that cash is an asset?
2) Financial institutions can and will look at assets (and liabilities), besides current ones (which includes cash) when determining your credit worthiness.
3) Placing assets in a spouse's name is not very good asset protection. Do you even know what a community property state is?
LOL.. Did anybody even mention cash? As for the rest -- it's out in left field just as you seem to be.
1) As always… you did. You claimed the banks don’t look at assets, which includes cash.
2) It’s your fault for still choosing to remain this ignorance about the world, but much of your foolish ideas and lack of reasoning skills makes considerably more sense now that you’ve told us about the dumb things your father did. Frankly, I feel sorry for you and I now understand that you probably aren’t capable of being communicated with like someone with at least a 3 digit IQ, so I’ll kindly stop expecting you to write like an “average” adult.
Comments
Again, nope.
2) I’ve never seen where they require you to prove your stated income.
3) Saying that it's discriminatory to consider the ability to pay back credit because you can claim that retirees have less income opens up claims against women, the young (opposite end of the agist spectrum), and minorities whom all tend to have a lower aggregate income than other groups.
Creditors are not allowed to sue consumers for assets other than income on those who default on paying debts. It's a federal law. By abiding with law, banks avoid those who don't have enough income, regardless of how much assets they may have.
The fact that a lot of retirees have low income does not give you the right to whine about "age discrimination" - they don't care. They just want your income along with your history of credit. If retires are on low income, they are given low limits. That's a normal routine.
I am just so fed up with people who think they are somehow entitled to having more credit than they deserve and look for patterns such as age discrimination or gender discrimination when in reality, they're just seeing the reality that many women and many elderly people just don't have enough income. It is not age or gender that banks are using to "discriminate" but their individual incomes and their credit history to determine the credit line.
2) they do ask you for your income. You're not required but more likely, they will decline. I mean, why the hell should I lend someone some money if they don't have evidence of income or willing to pay back?
I get pretty fed up with people who have no significant problems whining about those who have it worse and dare to speak out about their difficulties.
Until divorce.
The poster never said anything bad about age discrimination. They described it in facts, you turned into whining emotional drivel.
In the end the ability to sustain income is the issue that they measure. Will you pay me back in the future.
Sure, having assets has never been a good measure of ability to repay. Assets are the most difficult item to measure as an item to "pay". Sure, some is in cash, but lots of it are in retirement accounts, business assets, trusts etc. But, going out on a limb that you are a Warren supporter, you just want to assume it is easy to reach into the piggy bank and grab what you want out of someone else's pocket who has earned it.
In the end, GS is simply using the most efficient screening method they can use in order to assure themselves that they minimize defaults. And, these days it seems that most credit card agencies are using income as part of their algorithm.
But, in this case, even if they did the same, she still would have ended up with lower credit simply because the bank doesn't look at assets, but it would see that she has no income.
2) Financial institutions can and will look at assets (and liabilities), besides current ones (which includes cash) when determining your credit worthiness.
3) Placing assets in a spouse's name is not very good asset protection. Do you even know what a community property state is?
2) It’s your fault for still choosing to remain this ignorance about the world, but much of your foolish ideas and lack of reasoning skills makes considerably more sense now that you’ve told us about the dumb things your father did. Frankly, I feel sorry for you and I now understand that you probably aren’t capable of being communicated with like someone with at least a 3 digit IQ, so I’ll kindly stop expecting you to write like an “average” adult.