11 ms·

It's experience that matters. An elder person with less exposure to different situations may not be able to offer good advice in general, but ask them about the

It's experience that matters. An elder person with less exposure to different situations may not be able to offer good advice in general, but ask them about their own specific niche on which they've spent a lot of time, and you'll be amazed at the wisdom there.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
They may be getting extra data, but it's what they DO with that data that matters. Climate change and politics is enough to prove that experience alone counts for squat. :)
- Skunkleton 8y ago
  The older generations have been seriously exposed to climate change for about the same amount of time that millennials have. If you are going to pick on them, why not pick on fiscal policies :)
  - BookmarkSaver 8y ago
    Well they were adults during the whole process. Climate change was starting to get some attention back in the 80's at least, and there were definitely warnings in the 90's. Not nearly as severe or conclusive ones, but still. Millennials were children at the time.
    - T-A 8y ago
      Yes, but the adults were busy rejoicing that the previous climate scare had been debunked: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
      - Skunkleton 8y ago
        1988 is the beginning of the "modern" era. However, I would like to make the baseless claim that climate change didn't become a hot-button issue until the 2000s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science#Modern_period:_1988_to_present https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_scie...
- Consultant32452 8y ago
  It's worth noting that old people have seen many popular scientific truths come and go. The food pyramid, for example, has killed literally millions of people with terrible nutrition advice. Trusting the scientific community is a good basic model to go by, but it's understandable why people with more life experience may be more skeptical.
  - kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
    The food pyramid is/was an economic model to satiate lobbyists, not a scientific one.
    - Consultant32452 8y ago
      That is not what people were told, and that is kind of the point.
  - jacobolus 8y ago
    Food pyramid: > The first chart suggested to the USDA by nutritional experts in 1992 featured fruits and vegetables as the biggest group, not breads. This chart was overturned at the hand of special interests in the grain, meat, and dairy industries, all of which are heavily subsidized by the USDA. Calling this the recommendation of the “scientific community” is ridiculous.
    - Consultant32452 8y ago
      Yes, I'm well aware of the history of the food pyramid. It was in my science books in school. It was taught and talked about in the public sphere as if every expert on the planet agreed that the grain based food pyramid was undisputed among the scientific community. If that example is too far away for you, how about WMDs in Iraq. Do you remember how "every expert" said they existed and how if you were skeptical you were a national heretic?
      - BookmarkSaver 8y ago
- TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
  It's not about experience. A significant proportion of the population is always going to parrot stock talking points with no independent thought. Which is why there are entire industries dedicated to making sure that the talking points they parroting don't inconvenience the political and financial interests of the stockholder class. The myth that democracy and policy appear by magic out of a nation of proud independent thinkers who rationally weigh evidence on the basis of information, logic, and a solid liberal education is absolute nonsense. That's simply not how it works - and the media (and ad) industries know this. So does the political class. They also know that it's important to maintain the illusion, because people are far more likely to argue - and vote - passionately from a position of pliably expedient ignorance if they believe they're sovereign sages, than if they understand that they've been conned and lied to. The same applies to corporate culture. Every culture has its convenient mythologies and its hard reality. In some cultures the two are observably close, in others they might as well be on different planets. But it's important to create and propagate a mythology so that everyone at least knows what they're supposed to be believe. These narratives are usually unconscious, but they reliably shape actual behaviour far more than any rational assessment of reality does.
- collyw 8y ago
  The markets would say otherwise, when more experienced workers are generally paid more.
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    It's also quite common to interview someone for a role and find the five years experience they claim is the first year's junior experience repeated five times. Less common, but still happens, is companies having a role that delivers that ground hog day of the first year. Possibly more common in support than dev, but still exists and not exactly rare. So experience alone counts for little. It's what was gained from that experience that matters. :)
craftyguy 8y ago
I've definitely seen older folks who are so convinced that their specific experiences are the only valid ones that they are unwilling to entertain alternative (and sometimes better) experiences. I think experience is important, but knowing when/where to apply it, and being willing to admit that your experience may not be the best, is required.
- bobthepanda 8y ago
  Agreed. This also cuts both ways; usually if something exists or is believed, it came about to be that way for a reason that is not always 'just because' or malicious. Which is why I get a little skeptical when some startups promise a world of disruption and end up, say, reinventing the bus: https://www.pedestrian.tv/tech/very-innovative-silicon-valley-tech-company-accidentally-invents-the-bus/ https://www.pedestrian.tv/tech/very-innovative-silicon-valle...
  - betenoire 8y ago
    Reminds me of Chesterton's Fence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton%27s_fence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton%27s_fence
- beefsack 8y ago
  And I've definitely seen young people so convinced older people have it wrong without understanding the nuance of situations. It's easy to give a simple solution when you over-simplify the problem. People need to be open minded to other people's experience and ideas. People need to be mindful that the best course of action rarely lies at extremes and having a broad understanding of a problem helps you arrive at a balanced solution.
  - heavenlyblue 8y ago
    The problem is that the majority of elderly are as average as the majority of youngsters. So finding ways to know which old people to listen to and which ones have just had their 50 years of horseshit training and confidence conditioning is hard. It’s a lesson in itself imo.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago

They may be getting extra data, but it's what they DO with that data that matters. Climate change and politics is enough to prove that experience alone counts for squat. :)

Skunkleton 8y ago
The older generations have been seriously exposed to climate change for about the same amount of time that millennials have. If you are going to pick on them, why not pick on fiscal policies :)
- BookmarkSaver 8y ago
  Well they were adults during the whole process. Climate change was starting to get some attention back in the 80's at least, and there were definitely warnings in the 90's. Not nearly as severe or conclusive ones, but still. Millennials were children at the time.
  - T-A 8y ago
    Yes, but the adults were busy rejoicing that the previous climate scare had been debunked: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
    - Skunkleton 8y ago
      1988 is the beginning of the "modern" era. However, I would like to make the baseless claim that climate change didn't become a hot-button issue until the 2000s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science#Modern_period:_1988_to_present https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_scie...
Consultant32452 8y ago
It's worth noting that old people have seen many popular scientific truths come and go. The food pyramid, for example, has killed literally millions of people with terrible nutrition advice. Trusting the scientific community is a good basic model to go by, but it's understandable why people with more life experience may be more skeptical.
- kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
  The food pyramid is/was an economic model to satiate lobbyists, not a scientific one.
  - Consultant32452 8y ago
    That is not what people were told, and that is kind of the point.
- jacobolus 8y ago
  Food pyramid: > The first chart suggested to the USDA by nutritional experts in 1992 featured fruits and vegetables as the biggest group, not breads. This chart was overturned at the hand of special interests in the grain, meat, and dairy industries, all of which are heavily subsidized by the USDA. Calling this the recommendation of the “scientific community” is ridiculous.
  - Consultant32452 8y ago
    Yes, I'm well aware of the history of the food pyramid. It was in my science books in school. It was taught and talked about in the public sphere as if every expert on the planet agreed that the grain based food pyramid was undisputed among the scientific community. If that example is too far away for you, how about WMDs in Iraq. Do you remember how "every expert" said they existed and how if you were skeptical you were a national heretic?
    - BookmarkSaver 8y ago
TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
It's not about experience. A significant proportion of the population is always going to parrot stock talking points with no independent thought. Which is why there are entire industries dedicated to making sure that the talking points they parroting don't inconvenience the political and financial interests of the stockholder class. The myth that democracy and policy appear by magic out of a nation of proud independent thinkers who rationally weigh evidence on the basis of information, logic, and a solid liberal education is absolute nonsense. That's simply not how it works - and the media (and ad) industries know this. So does the political class. They also know that it's important to maintain the illusion, because people are far more likely to argue - and vote - passionately from a position of pliably expedient ignorance if they believe they're sovereign sages, than if they understand that they've been conned and lied to. The same applies to corporate culture. Every culture has its convenient mythologies and its hard reality. In some cultures the two are observably close, in others they might as well be on different planets. But it's important to create and propagate a mythology so that everyone at least knows what they're supposed to be believe. These narratives are usually unconscious, but they reliably shape actual behaviour far more than any rational assessment of reality does.
collyw 8y ago
The markets would say otherwise, when more experienced workers are generally paid more.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  It's also quite common to interview someone for a role and find the five years experience they claim is the first year's junior experience repeated five times. Less common, but still happens, is companies having a role that delivers that ground hog day of the first year. Possibly more common in support than dev, but still exists and not exactly rare. So experience alone counts for little. It's what was gained from that experience that matters. :)

craftyguy 8y ago

I've definitely seen older folks who are so convinced that their specific experiences are the only valid ones that they are unwilling to entertain alternative (and sometimes better) experiences. I think experience is important, but knowing when/where to apply it, and being willing to admit that your experience may not be the best, is required.

bobthepanda 8y ago
Agreed. This also cuts both ways; usually if something exists or is believed, it came about to be that way for a reason that is not always 'just because' or malicious. Which is why I get a little skeptical when some startups promise a world of disruption and end up, say, reinventing the bus: https://www.pedestrian.tv/tech/very-innovative-silicon-valley-tech-company-accidentally-invents-the-bus/ https://www.pedestrian.tv/tech/very-innovative-silicon-valle...
- betenoire 8y ago
  Reminds me of Chesterton's Fence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton%27s_fence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton%27s_fence
beefsack 8y ago
And I've definitely seen young people so convinced older people have it wrong without understanding the nuance of situations. It's easy to give a simple solution when you over-simplify the problem. People need to be open minded to other people's experience and ideas. People need to be mindful that the best course of action rarely lies at extremes and having a broad understanding of a problem helps you arrive at a balanced solution.
- heavenlyblue 8y ago
  The problem is that the majority of elderly are as average as the majority of youngsters. So finding ways to know which old people to listen to and which ones have just had their 50 years of horseshit training and confidence conditioning is hard. It’s a lesson in itself imo.