4 ms·

I don't think it was a constructive response. No, the original post was not literally true. But I don't think many people would deny that one's 20's are a key

I don't think it was a constructive response. No, the original post was not literally true. But I don't think many people would deny that one's 20's are a key decade. In fact, if I had to pick a most important decade, that would be it. In your 20's, you're expected to start a career, and to do something valuable for society. You're going to meet the people who, 20 years later, will be willing to work with you because "I've known him for decades." 20-somethings have more energy than older people, but more direction than younger people. Nobody seriously thinks people "suddenly" can't build cool things at a particular age. But I know very few people who would think that someone's intellectual output or energy keeps growing past their 20's. Of course, very few people expect a 25-year-old to be as wise or well-connected as a 45-year-old; if I were betting on who would start a better law firm or hedge fund, I'd bet on the older guy.

Udo 16y ago
I disagree with everything you said, including the offhanded remark about the constructiveness of my response. As far as being constructive goes, I clearly laid out what I believe without attacking anyone, which is more than I can say about your question "Serious question: do you really think that was the previous comment's claim?" that I perceive as a mock inquiry despite the disclaimer of being serious. Between so many aspects I'd like to focus specifically on what I perceive to be the core issue where you state: > "But I know very few people who would think that someone's intellectual output or energy keeps growing past their 20's." Let's not even try to discuss how many people we think are on either side of this. Let's instead talk about what we personally believe. And in this context I assert that it's very sad and indicative of a huge waste if a person's output doesn't increase meaningfully with increasing age, after all of the experience that should have gone along with it. It also sounds like there is a pseudo-biological assumption here that the brain basically goes into standby mode after you a person goes through their twenties; I don't believe that's true. I don't think we're going to come to a consensus about this.

Udo 16y ago

I disagree with everything you said, including the offhanded remark about the constructiveness of my response. As far as being constructive goes, I clearly laid out what I believe without attacking anyone, which is more than I can say about your question "Serious question: do you really think that was the previous comment's claim?" that I perceive as a mock inquiry despite the disclaimer of being serious. Between so many aspects I'd like to focus specifically on what I perceive to be the core issue where you state: > "But I know very few people who would think that someone's intellectual output or energy keeps growing past their 20's." Let's not even try to discuss how many people we think are on either side of this. Let's instead talk about what we personally believe. And in this context I assert that it's very sad and indicative of a huge waste if a person's output doesn't increase meaningfully with increasing age, after all of the experience that should have gone along with it. It also sounds like there is a pseudo-biological assumption here that the brain basically goes into standby mode after you a person goes through their twenties; I don't believe that's true. I don't think we're going to come to a consensus about this.