4 ms·

I have to disagree with the age fetishization in this article. You hear the same thing about math and the creative arts, especially in popular depictions: that

I have to disagree with the age fetishization in this article. You hear the same thing about math and the creative arts, especially in popular depictions: that a mathematician or artist is "dead" by age 30. It's not true. Creatives of all stripes (mathematicians, painters, poets, entrepreneurs) peak between 45 and 55. The ones who peak at 25 are extreme outliers.

bitwize 17y ago
There was a study that indicated the average age for peak scientific productivity in Nobel Prize winners was 27. So while not dead at 30, if you haven't completed your magnum opus by then you are doomed to also-ran status, at least in the hard-intellectual fields.
- ShabbyDoo 17y ago
  Nobel winners must be alive at the time of the prize being awarded. Given the lag between profound discovery/invention and the widespread recognition of that profoundness, isn't it likely that those who did their best work at age 55 would be dead by the time their work is recognized? So, are we observing anything other than selection bias?
  - pw0ncakes 17y ago
    Those sorts of awards, in general, are designed to encourage rising greatness rather than recognize it posthumously. This was the rationale behind giving Obama the Peace Prize so early in his presidency. I believe it's a requirement for the Fields Medal that the recipient be under 40.
- pw0ncakes 17y ago
  Interesting, and surprising, because most scientists in modern times are still just implementing their advisors' ideas at 27. I'd believe that they peak in "freshness" in their late 20s and early 30s, but I think the peak of competence is later. This is how art works, as well. For example, Shakespeare presumably developed his fame shortly after Richard III, which he wrote at 28; but he did his best work (the "five tragedies", and his better comedies) in his late 30s and early 40s.

4 ms·

I have to disagree with the age fetishization in this article. You hear the same thing about math and the creative arts, especially in popular depictions: that

by pw0ncakes 17y ago

bitwize 17y ago
There was a study that indicated the average age for peak scientific productivity in Nobel Prize winners was 27. So while not dead at 30, if you haven't completed your magnum opus by then you are doomed to also-ran status, at least in the hard-intellectual fields.
- ShabbyDoo 17y ago
  Nobel winners must be alive at the time of the prize being awarded. Given the lag between profound discovery/invention and the widespread recognition of that profoundness, isn't it likely that those who did their best work at age 55 would be dead by the time their work is recognized? So, are we observing anything other than selection bias?
  - pw0ncakes 17y ago
    Those sorts of awards, in general, are designed to encourage rising greatness rather than recognize it posthumously. This was the rationale behind giving Obama the Peace Prize so early in his presidency. I believe it's a requirement for the Fields Medal that the recipient be under 40.
- pw0ncakes 17y ago
  Interesting, and surprising, because most scientists in modern times are still just implementing their advisors' ideas at 27. I'd believe that they peak in "freshness" in their late 20s and early 30s, but I think the peak of competence is later. This is how art works, as well. For example, Shakespeare presumably developed his fame shortly after Richard III, which he wrote at 28; but he did his best work (the "five tragedies", and his better comedies) in his late 30s and early 40s.