4 ms·

Your brain doesn't last forever. A PhD will make it harder to succeed because your brain will have deteriorated somewhat by the time you finish it. Try compar

Your brain doesn't last forever. A PhD will make it harder to succeed because your brain will have deteriorated somewhat by the time you finish it. Try comparing programmers at ages 20 vs 30.

scott_s 16y ago
I'm 6 months from 30, and I'm a much better programmer now than when I was 20. (Which was my junior year of college.) Not sure what your point is.
- amichail 16y ago
  Some things get better with age. Others such as analytic ability, thinking speed, and energy level get worse.
  - aristus 16y ago
    On the plus side, the urge to troll attenuates with age as well.
  - keefe 16y ago
    http://books.google.com/books?id=OXS8XBwP0coC&lpg=PA85&ots=syZTCKEPGt&dq=analytical%20thinking%20ability%20age%20decline&lr&pg=PA85#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=OXS8XBwP0coC&lpg=PA85&#... one source amongst many, note the # of achievements peaks around 40 not 20 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6X08-46P4PSB-1K&_user=10&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F1997&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1583264144&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=fb9fa6a7c29afda6bd2aac0352d624ae&searchtype=a http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi... ". In some cases (e.g., bisection), performance differences between the older participants and students nearly 50 years younger used in other studies were negligible." and so on and so forth, this is by no means a well solved problem that says, young people are smarter derp
    - say_ 16y ago
      Achievement is definitely way more than just natural ability. Experience counts for a lot, and older people will have a large knowledge advantage. However, he has a legitimate point about natural analytic ability and speed. See:http://www18.homepage.villanova.edu/diego.fernandezduque/Teaching/CognitivePsychology/Lectures_and_Labs/ssssAging/CurrDirAgingSalthouse.pdf http://www18.homepage.villanova.edu/diego.fernandezduque/Tea... Seriously, if you need a kick in the ass to get moving every now and then (like me), then google Timothy Salthouse's research on cognitive aging. It's a depressing reminder that time waits for no one.
  - Confusion 16y ago
    Sure, but those are not usually the decisive abilities. I would say that now, at 31, I may not be able to think as fast as when I was 20, but I also don't need to, because my thought processes converge on useful/correct solutions much faster. I may not be able to quickly analytically evaluate five different solutions like I used to, but I don't need to, because I know from wisdom/experience what the best solution is.
- keefe 16y ago
  I'm two months after 30 and the same is true for me, I'm much more effective now than I was then. You reach your peak in your 20s sometime but you don't really have any serious decline until much later. There basically was no point.
- orangecat 16y ago
  A few years past 30, and ditto. I write much fewer lines of code per hour, and am much more productive. (The two are not unrelated).
jfischoff 16y ago
Nope. Some of the best programmers I have worked with were in their 40's.
preek 16y ago
Are you implying that a programmer of age 20 is better than one of age 30? Well, I'm just a BSc and only 28, but I can certainly say that I'm a better programmer now than I have been at 20. I would account the same to any programmer I have known over the years. I'm not implying there are no good 20yo programmers. I'm saying if they keep studying, they will be better when they reach 30. Plus, HN just recently featured an article stating the human brain does not deteriorate at all if you keep using it.
maxawaytoolong 16y ago
The real problem if you're still programming at age 30 isn't that your brain has deteriorated. It's overcoming the daily ennui that comes with the realization that you could have been a multi millionaire by now if you would have picked better projects to work on. All those old programmers aren't slow because they are dumb, they are slow because they are depressed.
- nvarsj 16y ago
  That's quite a generalization. Not everyone needs money to be happy. Some of us just like to code.
  - nostrademons 16y ago
    The depressing part is that many of the people who ended up multi-millionaires also had a ton of fun coding & running the business. It's not an either/or: you can have fun coding and get rich doing it. It's just that the getting rich part requires a lot of luck in addition to the coding. Most people, when given the choice between "fun" and "fun and money", will take the fun and money. After all, I know very few people who will turn down a chance at free money.
  - maxawaytoolong 16y ago
    It's not that you don't like to code, or need money to be happy. It's just the weird economic structure of startups and the software industry kinda lends itself to "missed opportunity" depression. Look at it like professional athletes. Many guys just like to play basketball. But, I'm going to bet guys who were close to playing in the NBA and just didn't make it, are probably at least kinda depressed about it, whether or not they still like playing pickup games.
    - _delirium 16y ago
      I wasn't around back then, but from what I've read, it feels this used to be somewhat different: the people at Bell Labs, or the old MIT AI lab, and similar places, genuinely thought they had the best jobs in the world, at least for them. I'm sure occasionally some of them wondered about what it would've been like to found Intel or AMD or Apple, but for the most part they seem to have been happy to have a job where the business side was someone else's job, and they got paid to just work on interesting technical problems all day. I don't get the feeling that someone like Ken Thompson ever was particularly regretful that he spent his career at Bell Labs rather than founding a startup, because he was doing exactly what he wanted to do. Perhaps the technical freedom some of those research labs offered is part of it? I can imagine there being more regret if you missed money-making opportunities and didn't have a great deal of freedom to choose your own technical problems.
maxklein 16y ago
You don't learn new things quite as fast, but you hone your skill. The best statues are not done by fresh, inexperienced people.
_delirium 16y ago
I can't think of many (any?) programmers who were better at 20 than 30, even among people famed for their youth prodigy. Torvalds wrote the initial version of the Linux kernel when he was 21, but the by the late 90s he had become a much better programmer and software engineer than the 1991 version. Or, say, Ritchie & Thompson: famously young, but they didn't do anything of note younger than 25, and their big burst of output was around age 30 (when they wrote the first "real" version of Unix in C).
- TomOfTTB 16y ago
  I agree but I do know a lot of 20 year old programmers who THINK they are better than their 30 year old counterparts
  - _delirium 16y ago
    Hah, true. A kernel of truth in it might be that 20-year-old programmers sometimes pick very interesting problems to work on. It's interesting that the 21-year-old Torvalds is the one who wrote a Unix kernel from scratch, even if the 30-year-old Torvalds was a better programmer. And folks like Zuckerberg did interesting stuff quite young. But that's not quite the same as programmer skill; it requires being a good programmer and then having some other kind of opportunity-spotting skill (and some audacity+luck).
yzhengyu 16y ago
The reason for this observation has nothing to do with age and more to do with the nature of their jobs when they actually reach 30. The bulk of the jobs out there are neither exciting nor challenging after the first hump and most people out there get disillusioned after they realize the Pareto principle seems universal when applied to themselves since they become so efficient now that they can generally do the most worthwile things at their jobs in 20% of the time. The trick is to start applying that big brain of yours to other things rather than the problems that your pointy-haired boss tells you to. Like learning a new skill, or picking up a new hobby to keep your brain going.
cromulent 16y ago
You may be able to measure deterioration in the brain between 20 and 30, although I am skeptical. I would love to see some supporting links if you have them. What does "somewhat" mean? 1%? However, there are many other advantages that come with years of experience and learning that I suggest would outweigh such deterioration. Startup success may perhaps correlate inversely with age increase from 20 to 30 (although I doubt it), but I would be surprised if "brain deterioration" was the cause. I often compare programmers. I haven't seen the evidence you see.

Your brain doesn't last forever. A PhD will make it harder to succeed because your brain will have deteriorated somewhat by the time you finish it. Try comparing programmers at ages 20 vs 30.

scott_s 16y ago

I'm 6 months from 30, and I'm a much better programmer now than when I was 20. (Which was my junior year of college.) Not sure what your point is.

amichail 16y ago
Some things get better with age. Others such as analytic ability, thinking speed, and energy level get worse.
- aristus 16y ago
  On the plus side, the urge to troll attenuates with age as well.
- keefe 16y ago
  http://books.google.com/books?id=OXS8XBwP0coC&lpg=PA85&ots=syZTCKEPGt&dq=analytical%20thinking%20ability%20age%20decline&lr&pg=PA85#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=OXS8XBwP0coC&lpg=PA85&#... one source amongst many, note the # of achievements peaks around 40 not 20 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6X08-46P4PSB-1K&_user=10&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F1997&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1583264144&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=fb9fa6a7c29afda6bd2aac0352d624ae&searchtype=a http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi... ". In some cases (e.g., bisection), performance differences between the older participants and students nearly 50 years younger used in other studies were negligible." and so on and so forth, this is by no means a well solved problem that says, young people are smarter derp
  - say_ 16y ago
    Achievement is definitely way more than just natural ability. Experience counts for a lot, and older people will have a large knowledge advantage. However, he has a legitimate point about natural analytic ability and speed. See:http://www18.homepage.villanova.edu/diego.fernandezduque/Teaching/CognitivePsychology/Lectures_and_Labs/ssssAging/CurrDirAgingSalthouse.pdf http://www18.homepage.villanova.edu/diego.fernandezduque/Tea... Seriously, if you need a kick in the ass to get moving every now and then (like me), then google Timothy Salthouse's research on cognitive aging. It's a depressing reminder that time waits for no one.
- Confusion 16y ago
  Sure, but those are not usually the decisive abilities. I would say that now, at 31, I may not be able to think as fast as when I was 20, but I also don't need to, because my thought processes converge on useful/correct solutions much faster. I may not be able to quickly analytically evaluate five different solutions like I used to, but I don't need to, because I know from wisdom/experience what the best solution is.
keefe 16y ago
I'm two months after 30 and the same is true for me, I'm much more effective now than I was then. You reach your peak in your 20s sometime but you don't really have any serious decline until much later. There basically was no point.
orangecat 16y ago
A few years past 30, and ditto. I write much fewer lines of code per hour, and am much more productive. (The two are not unrelated).

jfischoff 16y ago

Nope. Some of the best programmers I have worked with were in their 40's.

preek 16y ago

Are you implying that a programmer of age 20 is better than one of age 30? Well, I'm just a BSc and only 28, but I can certainly say that I'm a better programmer now than I have been at 20. I would account the same to any programmer I have known over the years. I'm not implying there are no good 20yo programmers. I'm saying if they keep studying, they will be better when they reach 30. Plus, HN just recently featured an article stating the human brain does not deteriorate at all if you keep using it.

maxawaytoolong 16y ago

The real problem if you're still programming at age 30 isn't that your brain has deteriorated. It's overcoming the daily ennui that comes with the realization that you could have been a multi millionaire by now if you would have picked better projects to work on. All those old programmers aren't slow because they are dumb, they are slow because they are depressed.

nvarsj 16y ago
That's quite a generalization. Not everyone needs money to be happy. Some of us just like to code.
- nostrademons 16y ago
  The depressing part is that many of the people who ended up multi-millionaires also had a ton of fun coding & running the business. It's not an either/or: you can have fun coding and get rich doing it. It's just that the getting rich part requires a lot of luck in addition to the coding. Most people, when given the choice between "fun" and "fun and money", will take the fun and money. After all, I know very few people who will turn down a chance at free money.
- maxawaytoolong 16y ago
  It's not that you don't like to code, or need money to be happy. It's just the weird economic structure of startups and the software industry kinda lends itself to "missed opportunity" depression. Look at it like professional athletes. Many guys just like to play basketball. But, I'm going to bet guys who were close to playing in the NBA and just didn't make it, are probably at least kinda depressed about it, whether or not they still like playing pickup games.
  - _delirium 16y ago
    I wasn't around back then, but from what I've read, it feels this used to be somewhat different: the people at Bell Labs, or the old MIT AI lab, and similar places, genuinely thought they had the best jobs in the world, at least for them. I'm sure occasionally some of them wondered about what it would've been like to found Intel or AMD or Apple, but for the most part they seem to have been happy to have a job where the business side was someone else's job, and they got paid to just work on interesting technical problems all day. I don't get the feeling that someone like Ken Thompson ever was particularly regretful that he spent his career at Bell Labs rather than founding a startup, because he was doing exactly what he wanted to do. Perhaps the technical freedom some of those research labs offered is part of it? I can imagine there being more regret if you missed money-making opportunities and didn't have a great deal of freedom to choose your own technical problems.

maxklein 16y ago

You don't learn new things quite as fast, but you hone your skill. The best statues are not done by fresh, inexperienced people.

_delirium 16y ago

I can't think of many (any?) programmers who were better at 20 than 30, even among people famed for their youth prodigy. Torvalds wrote the initial version of the Linux kernel when he was 21, but the by the late 90s he had become a much better programmer and software engineer than the 1991 version. Or, say, Ritchie & Thompson: famously young, but they didn't do anything of note younger than 25, and their big burst of output was around age 30 (when they wrote the first "real" version of Unix in C).

TomOfTTB 16y ago
I agree but I do know a lot of 20 year old programmers who THINK they are better than their 30 year old counterparts
- _delirium 16y ago
  Hah, true. A kernel of truth in it might be that 20-year-old programmers sometimes pick very interesting problems to work on. It's interesting that the 21-year-old Torvalds is the one who wrote a Unix kernel from scratch, even if the 30-year-old Torvalds was a better programmer. And folks like Zuckerberg did interesting stuff quite young. But that's not quite the same as programmer skill; it requires being a good programmer and then having some other kind of opportunity-spotting skill (and some audacity+luck).

yzhengyu 16y ago

The reason for this observation has nothing to do with age and more to do with the nature of their jobs when they actually reach 30. The bulk of the jobs out there are neither exciting nor challenging after the first hump and most people out there get disillusioned after they realize the Pareto principle seems universal when applied to themselves since they become so efficient now that they can generally do the most worthwile things at their jobs in 20% of the time. The trick is to start applying that big brain of yours to other things rather than the problems that your pointy-haired boss tells you to. Like learning a new skill, or picking up a new hobby to keep your brain going.

cromulent 16y ago

You may be able to measure deterioration in the brain between 20 and 30, although I am skeptical. I would love to see some supporting links if you have them. What does "somewhat" mean? 1%? However, there are many other advantages that come with years of experience and learning that I suggest would outweigh such deterioration. Startup success may perhaps correlate inversely with age increase from 20 to 30 (although I doubt it), but I would be surprised if "brain deterioration" was the cause. I often compare programmers. I haven't seen the evidence you see.