On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 9:12 AM, Tony via Digitalmars-d-announce < firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> [snip] > One thing that comes to mind to refute the contention that senescence > would be insignificant at the age of 50 is notable technical achievement. > > If we were to list the mathematical and scientific discoveries of the past > - like calculus and theory of relativity, etc. - how many would have been > done by someone at the age of 50 or older? How many milestones in computing > history were achieved by someone 50 or older? How many were done by someone > over 40? And I think most of the aging process isn't even quality (what > would most impact notable discovery) - it's quantity (that is, slower clock > cycle). And companies probably have more concerns about quantity of thought > than quality. > > Lol not sure where you getting all this, but the average 25 year old is a dumb ass compared to the average 50 year old. However that being said the average 50 year old is a lot less likely to get excited about their work and to do something super creative / learning new things. These things are not based on their brain activity though, it has a lot more to do with social conditioning and disillusionment. There are a lot less 50 year olds that are motivated to something disruptive in their fields of experience. The number of scarily intelligent people aged over 60 is most likely a lot higher than the number of 25 year olds that are so. Its just the way our brains work, your brain optimises its thought processes continually, and experience is where you get that.