On Wednesday, 9 December 2015 at 07:49:58 UTC, Rory McGuire wrote:
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 9:12 AM, Tony via Digitalmars-d-announce < digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:

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.

I'd be swayed if you could link to interviews with older scientists, mathematicians or computer scientists who said their work declined with age because they became disillusioned or they ran into social conditioning issues.

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.

Rather than the two of us expressing opposing opinions and you loling, we should probably look at research on the matter. Unfortunately, there is some disagreement with regard to cognitive decline. Some see it as a gradual decline from early adulthood and others seeing the decline postponed until later in life.

This paper titled "The myth of cognitive decline"


actually appears to acknowledge and accept that speed of reasoning declines with age:

"Findings from a range of psychometric tests suggest that the rates at which the mind processes information increase from infancy to young adulthood, and decline steadily thereafter (Salthouse, 2011). Increasing reaction times are a primary marker for age related cognitive decline (Deary et al, 2010), and are even considered its cause (Salthouse, 1996), yet they are puzzling."

but then attributes it to the brain having to deal with more information rather than having a slower processing speed - a bloated registry, if you will.

"However, age increases the rage of knowledge and skills individuals possess, which increase the overall amount of information processed in their cognitive systems. This extra processing has a cost."

But an employer wouldn't care if an older worker was thinking slower because of physical decline or because they had to sift through more information.

Reply via email to