You are misunderstanding the sentiment. No one is saying 30 year olds know everything, they are saying 30 year olds _realize_ they don't know everything.

Or as Socrates put it, "the only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing"

(probably one of the more Buddhist-ish gems from Western philosophy)

Why does it need to stop if you agree that its a fact of life. No one is saying 30 y/o's are enlighted, just that they have a bit more perspective. The same can be said for twenties vs. teens. It's not that teens are idiots - they are just teens with the life-experiences & perspective of a teen

This:

> A person in their 20's knows nothing, but thinks they've outsmarted the world...

Is a dangerous and gross generalization. I totally agree with the changing of perspectives point, but feel that this community has a very clear bias from the older gen (30s and up) against the younger gen (teens and twenties). That's all I'm saying. It's divisive. Instead of saying they "know nothing", it should be phrased, "still have a lot to learn."

That is just a semantics argument.

The semantics are relevant though as it highlights the sentiment I'm trying trying to shed light on in my original comment.

I dont believe that's accurate though, saying people in their 20's know nothing, or people in their 20's still have a lot to learn is just a way of restating the same fact. But that statement doesn't mean that people in their 30's are enlightened or smarter, only that they now understand how much they don't know.

> This whole: "Twenty year olds don't know shit but 30 year olds are so enlightened" sentiment

Age is shorthand for "I've spent X years making a lot of mistakes and learning from them."