There appears, to me, to be an ongoing narrative that pits the older against the younger. Memorably it came to a head in the UK with "analysis" of the Brexit vo

There appears, to me, to be an ongoing narrative that pits the older against the younger. Memorably it came to a head in the UK with "analysis" of the Brexit vote and correlation with age [0]. Needs and desires change as we age, of course they do. But there's little value in placing a binary filter over this picture. The devil is in the details. Removing the nuance leads to polarised perspectives, and these turn into battle-lines. From the comments here, it's clear that some people feel more creative in their youth, some with age. There's no right or wrong. It varies by individual, circumstance, and a ton of other correlations. Articles such as this may purport or intend to uncover interesting data and conduct useful analysis. Unfortunately (probably due editorial direction and pressure to shift units) they ultimately simply encourage ongoing polemic. Perpetuating simplified, harmful world-views does little to improve things. This article in particular simply cherry-picks a bunch of "studies" to support a tenuous conjecture that is not closely examined. Any valid point is weakened by a lack of analysis, lack of robust questioning, and lack of constructive "what do we do with this information?" angle. Why was this piece commissioned and written? What is its value? Is there a problem here, and if so is a solution indicated? I don't doubt that "startup culture" overly values and exploits the young. But this piece does nothing except fan the flames. TLDR; click-bait. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2016/jun/23/eu-referendum-live-results-and-analysis https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2016/jun...