6 ms·

A major problem in our society is that '72-year-old' is in the headline. If you are not growing, you are declining or dead. Not only does the world change under

A major problem in our society is that '72-year-old' is in the headline. If you are not growing, you are declining or dead. Not only does the world change under your feet, you need that stimulation just to stay healthy. We ruin the talent, economic value, and freedom and opportunity of a very large portion of the population by dimissing the growth of anyone in late middle-age or later. 72 years old shouldn't be remarkable, but the norm.

option 4y ago
nope. we need much younger politicians. And we need 70+ old guys learn new things just like this politician does.
- kenjackson 4y ago
  Curious. Why do we need much younger politicians?
  - option 4y ago
    because people deteriorate mentally and physically with age.
    - puzzledobserver 4y ago
      But isn't this exactly the mindset that the original comment in this thread was criticizing? It might be fair to say, as a sibling comment does, that one needs younger politicians so they can better represent one's constituents. But to dismiss them just because they're old amounts to shutting off an economically productive segment of the population. More importantly, by discriminating against individuals because of their class membership rather than because of their abilities amounts to prejudice, no?
    - rapind 4y ago
      Sure, but you still need to consider the individual and not paint an entire demographic as “less than”. To do otherwise is prejudice. Ageism in this case. It’s also factual that wealth greatly impacts education, but we wouldn’t want to suggest poor people are unfit for office due to this disadvantage right? My parents are into their 70s and I have yet to detect even the slightest mental degradation.
  - rychco 4y ago
    Because aging politicians do not adequately represent the majority of their constituents.
    - wankle 4y ago
      Given that the publicly accepted view of aging is that we are all living longer; the math does not support your view.
      - p00rsplr 4y ago
        Math is generalized logic, not a theory of a specific systems parameters and behavior. Humans memorize the information relative to them. If politicians memorize racism they’ll make racist policy. I don’t want people who think in 100 year old social terms alone deciding my fate. Society that never retires old ideas, demands speech stay on specific rails is hardly free. That type of governance is the basis of a police state.
        wankle 4y ago
        "I don’t want people who think in 100 year old social terms alone deciding my fate." Discriminating against someone on the basis of age is anti-social behavior.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - rychco 4y ago
        The math is on my side. The average age of 117th Congress is 59, while the average US citizen is 38 (at the time of this being noted in 2021).
  - realusername 4y ago
    To at least represent a bit better the modern world, not everybody makes the effort of keeping up to date with society when aging.
  - phone8675309 4y ago
    So those making the decisions will live as long or longer with them than their average constituent.
- wolverine876 4y ago
  > we need 70+ old guys learn new things just like this politician does. ? Does my comment read otherwise?
- poulsbohemian 4y ago
  The way I like to phrase this is, I want politicians at each level to actually represent their constituency. So for example in my area, given that as much as 40% of the population is hispanic / latino, I'd really like to see more people from that demographic get elected. Likewise, about 50% of the population is female, therefore I want to see more women elected. I even want to see fewer lawyers and more laborers, teachers, etc in elected positions. I'm not convinced that politician should be a career and it definitely should not be the sole domain of old, white, rich lawyers the way that it has been historically. And, regardless of who is elected, I want them to be mentally adept and aim to be educated and informed rather than complacent.
ownlife 4y ago
I love this perspective. That it's aberrant for a man at his age to pursue further education reflects our society's out-dated view that education is something to be pursued one time and when young.
- jrumbut 4y ago
  I've seen several 85+ year old individuals active in various science and technology fields. So even someone in their 70s might start an MS and then have a decade or more to make use of it. That's not what's happening here, but it could be. Really puts all those times I thought it was too late for this or that in perspective.
- stevesimmons 4y ago
  My father did a Masters of Mechanical Engineering at age 70, as a full time degree. The only affordance to his age was being given an extra hour in the exams. Following that, he started a Masters of Aeronautical Engineering. Until my mum suggested he spends more time with her at home. Now he does gym circuit training with a group half his age, at 6am three mornings a week. Hope I have that energy when I am his age...
gonzo41 4y ago
I would think that the Elected Representative not doing that job and absconding to study would be the more significant detail.
- dbish 4y ago
  You can do a master’s part time while working with the right schedule. I did that as a full time software engineer working 40-50 hrs/week still. I’d rather this then all our representatives being ex law school or econ degree types trying to make decisions for a world that’s changing fast and not related to their fields.
seanmcdirmid 4y ago
> 72 years old shouldn't be remarkable, but the norm. Having neither of my parents even make it to 72, I’m pessimistic. I hope I will be lucky that my health allows me to keep learning and doing cool stuff at that age (and that I’m actually alive), but the sad reality is that health and genetics can be against us, and being in a healthy thriving state at 72 is more an exception than the norm.
- 2000UltraDeluxe 4y ago
  I consider anything past 70 to be a bonus. If I make it for a few more years than that and I feel like studying, then why not? I mean, I probably won't want to, but if that guy want to study then good on him!
  - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
    I’m really worried about existential depression at and beyond that age. Hopefully there are some (legal) drugs for that, I don’t really trust my own mind to get me through that (and after 70, I’m not really worried about a substance dependency).
    - 2000UltraDeluxe 4y ago
      Which is why, I guess, people decide to do wierd things like getting a degree at 72? :)
    - AussieWog93 4y ago
      How old are you now? Just wondering how worried I need to be when I get to your age. :P
      - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
        47. Right now I’m only worried about being depressed rather than actually there. It’s existential dread about existential dread…so very meta.
donatj 4y ago
I mean I'm nearing 40 and pondering if the investment of going back to school would actually be worth the effort given the say roughly 20 years I'd have to enjoy it, especially given how the last 20 years have completely flown by. I think there's a valid "why?" here. Obviously it comes down to some people being driven to knowledge purely for knowledge sake, and that's wonderful. That's what makes them happy. I think for a lot of us though, knowledge is a more practical commodity. It's just one of a number of tools that allow us to build better.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  Yeah I think that's a summary of parent point. I remember taking multiple classes at my Community College as a 17 year old to knock out College GEs. It was interesting mix. There were people like me, people that were slightly older trying to learn and find a Direction, and there were 60 some odds who are learning for the fun of learning. Now that I'm older, I increasingly value the last category of continuous learning. It's one of the greatest privileges of being in a developed Society with access to information. It is one of the cheapest and most enjoyable forms of entertainment available to human beings, and something that it seems that people the frequently undervalue.
- wolverine876 4y ago
  You have no idea where your path will lead. Don't let society's dismissal of middle-aged people dampen your dreams. And 20 years is a career.
CivBase 4y ago
I generally agree. But it's worth pointing out that continued learning is more important than continued accreditation. There's probably not much economic value in a new formal degree past 70 years of age. I'm a little frustrated with how many people seem to treat learning like an activity exclusive to schools. Self-guided learning is extremely valuable.
- chongli 4y ago
  Self-guided learning is amazing but a lot of people struggle with the discipline involved. Often when you set out to study a topic you’re interested in, you find that it has prerequisites in other areas (such as calculus) that you may not be strong at or even actively avoid studying. For many people this can put an end to their self-guided study. Attending a formal educational institution, on the other hand, has proven very effective at getting people to knuckle down and study calculus (or whatever their “blocker” discipline is) so that they can move on to studying what they’re really interested in.
  - CivBase 4y ago
    Sure. I don't mean to downplay the value of educational institutions. I just want to stress that they aren't the only method of learning. Everyone needs some mix of self-guided and instructor-lead learning to succeed.
cm2187 4y ago
The reality is that most people's mental abilities have started to decline by this age, particularly the capacity to learn new things. That makes this story all the more remarkable. Part of that I think is certainly as you suggest, that the brain is a muscle, you need to use it to keep it fit. But you can't escape nature either. To keep the muscle analogy, you won’t compete as an athlete at 72 no matter how fit you remain.
- mindcrime 4y ago
  To keep the muscle analogy, you won’t compete as an athlete at 72 no matter how fit you remain. I hate to be "pedantic guy", but FWIW there are absolutely 72 year old competitive athletes. They may not be competitive against folks 20+ years younger than themselves, but many people continue to compete in "masters" divisions of various competitive sports until pretty much the day they keel over. Heck, there are folks who are 70+ competing in ultra-marathons.
  - cm2187 4y ago
    > They may not be competitive against folks 20+ years younger than themselves that's kind of my point. Of course they can compete against other 72 year olds.
    - echelon 4y ago
      And average 50 year olds.
    - mindcrime 4y ago
      Sure. And I agree that you "can't defeat nature" in the end, but at the same time, that's no argument against fighting it tooth and nail, right down to the bitter end, staying as fit as possible, both mentally and physically. :-)
    - pleb_nz 4y ago
      Why does it have to be a competition. Shouldn't it be about being able to help and contribute. Too much focus on efficiency and not enough on well being of society as a whole. 80 year olds with a desire can still contribute. It doesn't have to be in competition with 20 years.
lynx23 4y ago
One might even go further and read this headline as "Old fart is pretending to go to school", at least that is the subtext. I kind of hear you, but I also don't quite believe you. For some it is definitely possible, but most people with that age actually dont have enough cognitive abilities left to acquire a degree. Heck, I know 35 year olds which would need a degree to be able to persue their dream job, but I am very doubtful they will even summon up the courage (and intelligence, for that matter).
onion2k 4y ago
If you are not growing, you are declining or dead. What's wrong with retiring and living out your last years peacefully relaxing with your hobbies and family? There's absolutely no reason why people have to continually grow until they're in the ground. You're applying an adage about companies to people, but companies need to fight against inflation, and people don't.
- pleb_nz 4y ago
  I might be reading it wrong, but I don't think that's what they're trying to say. You're right, people should be able to. But people should also be encouraged and helped if it's their desire to continue to grow. To me it feels like society virtually throws seniors away and I don't believe we treat them well at all. Personally I think once you stop learning and growing it's the start of a 'faster' downward spiral. If you don't use it you lose it. I intend to keep active and continually growing as long as I have the desire, not because society says you're old, out of date and couldn't possibly contribute any more.
- XorNot 4y ago
  I'd argue hobbies are growth though. People might not be racing to smash new frontiers, but they do learn at a steady pace with hobbies, even if it's as simple as developing some dexterity for a particular task.
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    > People might not be racing to smash new frontiers, but they do learn at a steady pace with hobbies, even if it's as simple as developing some dexterity for a particular task. The need is to smash, or more gently explore and master, new frontiers for you. (And to the extent you desire it, that's what really leads to new frontiers for society - personal passion and growth, leads to projects, leads to a revelation for everyone.)
- wolverine876 4y ago
  I didn't say anything about retiring, working, etc. You can grow plenty in retirement too. My prediction is that if someone doesn't grow - explore and learn new things - however they do it, they'll deteriorate and lose much of their enjoyment. The brain and soul need the stimulation of new things. > You're applying an adage about companies to people, but companies need to fight against inflation, and people don't. It's interesting that multiple people read 'grow' as economic growth, when we know it means much more. (Also, companies don't grow to overcome inflation, but to provide ROI to their owners.)
acituan 4y ago
> If you are not growing, you are declining or dead. Normativity of growth also gives all sorts of inefficiencies, diseases and economic problems. > Not only does the world change under your feet, you need that stimulation just to stay healthy. I partially agree with this. You need to keep updating your model of the world not only because the world is changing under your feet, but also your priors are always guaranteed to suck due to inherent limitedness of human computation. That gives us the normativity of self-transendence, which is not the same thing as growth. It also includes shedding dead weight, deconstructing the not-so-useful, or mere re-organization of the existing. A mere appetite for acquiring stuff, even knowledge, does not make it. The second problem is limiting the framing of the growth within the unit of an individual. Individuals' betterment doesn't sum to the same amount of betterment of the society, in fact it creates tons of waste. A wiser old person's transfer of their skills and perspectives (not propositions, or knowledge) to a younger person would not register with your notion of "personal growth" but nonetheless is a superior betterment at the group level, and thus has a much scalable adaptive value.
- wolverine876 4y ago
  I think you interpret "growth" in a narrow framework of your perspective. The word means a lot more, and I meant things very different from your interpretation. For example, I wasn't talking about economics at all. Also, that growth (in the sense I mean) is necessary for people to function. They deteriorate without it, like a tree without enough water and sun. > A wiser old person's transfer of their skills and perspectives (not propositions, or knowledge) to a younger person would not register with your notion of "personal growth" but nonetheless is a superior betterment at the group level, and thus has a much scalable adaptive value. I see the claim but don't see support for it, or why it's mutually exclusive with growth (in any sense).
  - acituan 4y ago
    > I think you interpret "growth" in a narrow framework of your perspective. I'd say the same for your premise. Your framework was "growth == better", I tried to demonstrate why that is not adequate, and in certain cases harmful. > They deteriorate without it, like a tree without enough water and sun And anyone with house plants know that too much of any is equally deadly as too little. > why it's mutually exclusive with growth (in any sense). Simple opportunity cost. An elderly doing a cultural transfer of skills, perspectives and knowledge to their grandkids, neighborhood, junior professionals etc vs. doing their own personal growth things. Don't get me wrong, in this case maybe getting a master's in AI and combining all that with their existing competencies and then doing a culture transfer could be the optimal choice here, but the time and energy cost of the activities pursued has to occupy disparate spaces either way. So no, personal growth at all costs is not the most optimal thing at all times.
bmitc 4y ago
I get what you’re saying, but I think it’s a little too much to call it a “major problem”. Getting a master’s degree is a ceremonial task that has basically no meaning other than what certain jobs may require or want, usually jobs at the beginning of one’s career. Getting a master’s at 72 is kind of weird I think, since he could just as easily learn the material without the degree by taking selective courses. Getting a degree often comes with logistical things orthogonal to learning what you’d like to learn. And let’s not mistake, one’s mental faculties are lesser as you age. It’s biological. It is remarkable in that aspect as well. Let’s not pretend like one retains a youthful brain, in terms of processing power, throughout one’s entire life. At 72, he is at the life expectancy for men in the U.S. Implying it’s just beyond late middle age is a little strange. In summary, I think getting a master’s at that age is sort of pointless aside from a certain ceremonial and logistical challenge. It’d be more efficient to take specific classes from good professors. Taking classes from poor professors was a waste of time in my 20s. I can’t imagine doing it in my 70s.
- irrational 4y ago
  I know a guy that started nursing school in his late 60s after retiring. He has now worked as a nurse for more than 10 years and is loving it. It’s never too late to start a second (or third) career. My father is in his mid 70s and has been boarded in pathology and emergency medicine for most of his adult life. Recently he decided to get boarded in genetic medicine and start a new medical career.
  - bmitc 4y ago
    And? That's all great, but it's not common. And the congressman seems to intend to remain a congressman. I don't think it's too late for anything, within reason, but I also don't think it's a massive problem in society that the congressman's late age is mentioned.
- BatFastard 4y ago
  As a 65 year old, I might argue that my mental faculties have changed, not necessarily lessened. I can't juggle 5 mental balls anymore, but I just write down what I need which is probably better. I play poker with some 90 year old's, and they are damn sharp. Some people get dimmer with age, many continue to shine. Getting a degree is a more traditional route, which older people tend to pursue. But he might be doing it for show partly since he is a politician.
treve 4y ago
I'm late 30's and suspect you are also not 70, so I don't know if I'm correct about this, but I suspect that not wanting growth and change at 70 might also be natural and not just social pressure. But regardless I'm very curious how the internet generation will be later in life. I hope I have less anxiety and pressure!
- dx034 4y ago
  It's fine to stop learning at some point. But that's for when you're retired. As long as you still opt to work (and a congressman definitely had the option to retire), you also have to keep up with the world.
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    What do you mean by "fine". Is it legal or your own choice? Yes. Is it healthy? I highly doubt it. Will it cause harm? I'm almost certain. I think I've read plenty of researchers advocating continued learning as essential, but I can't cite it..
- wolverine876 4y ago
  Here's a preview, from one perspective: We are emotional creatures: Emotion, much more than anything else, is our experience of the world, and it is a major input in our perception, decisions, and actions. Many people reject their emotions or are ignorant of them. And life experiences often cause a lot of emotional injury, to the point where older people reach their limits (I suspect you have a good sense of that at your age) and shut down. The effect of that shut down - well see the first paragraph; that all deteriorates significantly. It cripples experience and ability, including good judgment, and it causes people to avoid new experiences - the experiences might be traumatic, and the skill of learning and exploring atrophes. Also, shutting down doesn't actually do away with the emotions; they come out and people become angry and cruel. Instead, we need to learn to be resiliant, to build our emotinonal capacity, and to experience life and use our well-honed emotional insincts as hard-earned wisdom. That includes exploring and learning new things.
Stratoscope 4y ago
> A major problem in our society is that '72-year-old' is in the headline. I turn 71 next month, and I am grateful that the congressman's age is mentioned in the headline. I think it's awesome! As someone who also works in "AI" (the scare quotes are deliberate, as the specific work I do is more about keeping our code easy to maintain and well tested and reliable, and dealing with the outside systems we work with), I am glad that I am not the only "older" person working in the field. I'm not saying this to disagree with you, but to agree. It should be the norm that people the age of Congressman Beyer and myself can contribute, just like anyone else.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

option 4y ago

nope. we need much younger politicians. And we need 70+ old guys learn new things just like this politician does.

kenjackson 4y ago
Curious. Why do we need much younger politicians?
- option 4y ago
  because people deteriorate mentally and physically with age.
  - puzzledobserver 4y ago
    But isn't this exactly the mindset that the original comment in this thread was criticizing? It might be fair to say, as a sibling comment does, that one needs younger politicians so they can better represent one's constituents. But to dismiss them just because they're old amounts to shutting off an economically productive segment of the population. More importantly, by discriminating against individuals because of their class membership rather than because of their abilities amounts to prejudice, no?
  - rapind 4y ago
    Sure, but you still need to consider the individual and not paint an entire demographic as “less than”. To do otherwise is prejudice. Ageism in this case. It’s also factual that wealth greatly impacts education, but we wouldn’t want to suggest poor people are unfit for office due to this disadvantage right? My parents are into their 70s and I have yet to detect even the slightest mental degradation.
- rychco 4y ago
  Because aging politicians do not adequately represent the majority of their constituents.
  - wankle 4y ago
    Given that the publicly accepted view of aging is that we are all living longer; the math does not support your view.
    - p00rsplr 4y ago
      Math is generalized logic, not a theory of a specific systems parameters and behavior. Humans memorize the information relative to them. If politicians memorize racism they’ll make racist policy. I don’t want people who think in 100 year old social terms alone deciding my fate. Society that never retires old ideas, demands speech stay on specific rails is hardly free. That type of governance is the basis of a police state.
      - wankle 4y ago
        "I don’t want people who think in 100 year old social terms alone deciding my fate." Discriminating against someone on the basis of age is anti-social behavior.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - rychco 4y ago
      The math is on my side. The average age of 117th Congress is 59, while the average US citizen is 38 (at the time of this being noted in 2021).
- realusername 4y ago
  To at least represent a bit better the modern world, not everybody makes the effort of keeping up to date with society when aging.
- phone8675309 4y ago
  So those making the decisions will live as long or longer with them than their average constituent.
wolverine876 4y ago
> we need 70+ old guys learn new things just like this politician does. ? Does my comment read otherwise?
poulsbohemian 4y ago
The way I like to phrase this is, I want politicians at each level to actually represent their constituency. So for example in my area, given that as much as 40% of the population is hispanic / latino, I'd really like to see more people from that demographic get elected. Likewise, about 50% of the population is female, therefore I want to see more women elected. I even want to see fewer lawyers and more laborers, teachers, etc in elected positions. I'm not convinced that politician should be a career and it definitely should not be the sole domain of old, white, rich lawyers the way that it has been historically. And, regardless of who is elected, I want them to be mentally adept and aim to be educated and informed rather than complacent.

ownlife 4y ago

I love this perspective. That it's aberrant for a man at his age to pursue further education reflects our society's out-dated view that education is something to be pursued one time and when young.

jrumbut 4y ago
I've seen several 85+ year old individuals active in various science and technology fields. So even someone in their 70s might start an MS and then have a decade or more to make use of it. That's not what's happening here, but it could be. Really puts all those times I thought it was too late for this or that in perspective.
stevesimmons 4y ago
My father did a Masters of Mechanical Engineering at age 70, as a full time degree. The only affordance to his age was being given an extra hour in the exams. Following that, he started a Masters of Aeronautical Engineering. Until my mum suggested he spends more time with her at home. Now he does gym circuit training with a group half his age, at 6am three mornings a week. Hope I have that energy when I am his age...

gonzo41 4y ago

I would think that the Elected Representative not doing that job and absconding to study would be the more significant detail.

dbish 4y ago
You can do a master’s part time while working with the right schedule. I did that as a full time software engineer working 40-50 hrs/week still. I’d rather this then all our representatives being ex law school or econ degree types trying to make decisions for a world that’s changing fast and not related to their fields.

seanmcdirmid 4y ago

> 72 years old shouldn't be remarkable, but the norm. Having neither of my parents even make it to 72, I’m pessimistic. I hope I will be lucky that my health allows me to keep learning and doing cool stuff at that age (and that I’m actually alive), but the sad reality is that health and genetics can be against us, and being in a healthy thriving state at 72 is more an exception than the norm.

2000UltraDeluxe 4y ago
I consider anything past 70 to be a bonus. If I make it for a few more years than that and I feel like studying, then why not? I mean, I probably won't want to, but if that guy want to study then good on him!
- seanmcdirmid 4y ago
  I’m really worried about existential depression at and beyond that age. Hopefully there are some (legal) drugs for that, I don’t really trust my own mind to get me through that (and after 70, I’m not really worried about a substance dependency).
  - 2000UltraDeluxe 4y ago
    Which is why, I guess, people decide to do wierd things like getting a degree at 72? :)
  - AussieWog93 4y ago
    How old are you now? Just wondering how worried I need to be when I get to your age. :P
    - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
      47. Right now I’m only worried about being depressed rather than actually there. It’s existential dread about existential dread…so very meta.

donatj 4y ago

I mean I'm nearing 40 and pondering if the investment of going back to school would actually be worth the effort given the say roughly 20 years I'd have to enjoy it, especially given how the last 20 years have completely flown by. I think there's a valid "why?" here. Obviously it comes down to some people being driven to knowledge purely for knowledge sake, and that's wonderful. That's what makes them happy. I think for a lot of us though, knowledge is a more practical commodity. It's just one of a number of tools that allow us to build better.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
Yeah I think that's a summary of parent point. I remember taking multiple classes at my Community College as a 17 year old to knock out College GEs. It was interesting mix. There were people like me, people that were slightly older trying to learn and find a Direction, and there were 60 some odds who are learning for the fun of learning. Now that I'm older, I increasingly value the last category of continuous learning. It's one of the greatest privileges of being in a developed Society with access to information. It is one of the cheapest and most enjoyable forms of entertainment available to human beings, and something that it seems that people the frequently undervalue.
wolverine876 4y ago
You have no idea where your path will lead. Don't let society's dismissal of middle-aged people dampen your dreams. And 20 years is a career.

CivBase 4y ago

I generally agree. But it's worth pointing out that continued learning is more important than continued accreditation. There's probably not much economic value in a new formal degree past 70 years of age. I'm a little frustrated with how many people seem to treat learning like an activity exclusive to schools. Self-guided learning is extremely valuable.

chongli 4y ago
Self-guided learning is amazing but a lot of people struggle with the discipline involved. Often when you set out to study a topic you’re interested in, you find that it has prerequisites in other areas (such as calculus) that you may not be strong at or even actively avoid studying. For many people this can put an end to their self-guided study. Attending a formal educational institution, on the other hand, has proven very effective at getting people to knuckle down and study calculus (or whatever their “blocker” discipline is) so that they can move on to studying what they’re really interested in.
- CivBase 4y ago
  Sure. I don't mean to downplay the value of educational institutions. I just want to stress that they aren't the only method of learning. Everyone needs some mix of self-guided and instructor-lead learning to succeed.

cm2187 4y ago

The reality is that most people's mental abilities have started to decline by this age, particularly the capacity to learn new things. That makes this story all the more remarkable. Part of that I think is certainly as you suggest, that the brain is a muscle, you need to use it to keep it fit. But you can't escape nature either. To keep the muscle analogy, you won’t compete as an athlete at 72 no matter how fit you remain.

mindcrime 4y ago
To keep the muscle analogy, you won’t compete as an athlete at 72 no matter how fit you remain. I hate to be "pedantic guy", but FWIW there are absolutely 72 year old competitive athletes. They may not be competitive against folks 20+ years younger than themselves, but many people continue to compete in "masters" divisions of various competitive sports until pretty much the day they keel over. Heck, there are folks who are 70+ competing in ultra-marathons.
- cm2187 4y ago
  > They may not be competitive against folks 20+ years younger than themselves that's kind of my point. Of course they can compete against other 72 year olds.
  - echelon 4y ago
    And average 50 year olds.
  - mindcrime 4y ago
    Sure. And I agree that you "can't defeat nature" in the end, but at the same time, that's no argument against fighting it tooth and nail, right down to the bitter end, staying as fit as possible, both mentally and physically. :-)
  - pleb_nz 4y ago
    Why does it have to be a competition. Shouldn't it be about being able to help and contribute. Too much focus on efficiency and not enough on well being of society as a whole. 80 year olds with a desire can still contribute. It doesn't have to be in competition with 20 years.

lynx23 4y ago

One might even go further and read this headline as "Old fart is pretending to go to school", at least that is the subtext. I kind of hear you, but I also don't quite believe you. For some it is definitely possible, but most people with that age actually dont have enough cognitive abilities left to acquire a degree. Heck, I know 35 year olds which would need a degree to be able to persue their dream job, but I am very doubtful they will even summon up the courage (and intelligence, for that matter).

onion2k 4y ago

If you are not growing, you are declining or dead. What's wrong with retiring and living out your last years peacefully relaxing with your hobbies and family? There's absolutely no reason why people have to continually grow until they're in the ground. You're applying an adage about companies to people, but companies need to fight against inflation, and people don't.

pleb_nz 4y ago
I might be reading it wrong, but I don't think that's what they're trying to say. You're right, people should be able to. But people should also be encouraged and helped if it's their desire to continue to grow. To me it feels like society virtually throws seniors away and I don't believe we treat them well at all. Personally I think once you stop learning and growing it's the start of a 'faster' downward spiral. If you don't use it you lose it. I intend to keep active and continually growing as long as I have the desire, not because society says you're old, out of date and couldn't possibly contribute any more.
XorNot 4y ago
I'd argue hobbies are growth though. People might not be racing to smash new frontiers, but they do learn at a steady pace with hobbies, even if it's as simple as developing some dexterity for a particular task.
- wolverine876 4y ago
  > People might not be racing to smash new frontiers, but they do learn at a steady pace with hobbies, even if it's as simple as developing some dexterity for a particular task. The need is to smash, or more gently explore and master, new frontiers for you. (And to the extent you desire it, that's what really leads to new frontiers for society - personal passion and growth, leads to projects, leads to a revelation for everyone.)
wolverine876 4y ago
I didn't say anything about retiring, working, etc. You can grow plenty in retirement too. My prediction is that if someone doesn't grow - explore and learn new things - however they do it, they'll deteriorate and lose much of their enjoyment. The brain and soul need the stimulation of new things. > You're applying an adage about companies to people, but companies need to fight against inflation, and people don't. It's interesting that multiple people read 'grow' as economic growth, when we know it means much more. (Also, companies don't grow to overcome inflation, but to provide ROI to their owners.)

acituan 4y ago

> If you are not growing, you are declining or dead. Normativity of growth also gives all sorts of inefficiencies, diseases and economic problems. > Not only does the world change under your feet, you need that stimulation just to stay healthy. I partially agree with this. You need to keep updating your model of the world not only because the world is changing under your feet, but also your priors are always guaranteed to suck due to inherent limitedness of human computation. That gives us the normativity of self-transendence, which is not the same thing as growth. It also includes shedding dead weight, deconstructing the not-so-useful, or mere re-organization of the existing. A mere appetite for acquiring stuff, even knowledge, does not make it. The second problem is limiting the framing of the growth within the unit of an individual. Individuals' betterment doesn't sum to the same amount of betterment of the society, in fact it creates tons of waste. A wiser old person's transfer of their skills and perspectives (not propositions, or knowledge) to a younger person would not register with your notion of "personal growth" but nonetheless is a superior betterment at the group level, and thus has a much scalable adaptive value.

wolverine876 4y ago
I think you interpret "growth" in a narrow framework of your perspective. The word means a lot more, and I meant things very different from your interpretation. For example, I wasn't talking about economics at all. Also, that growth (in the sense I mean) is necessary for people to function. They deteriorate without it, like a tree without enough water and sun. > A wiser old person's transfer of their skills and perspectives (not propositions, or knowledge) to a younger person would not register with your notion of "personal growth" but nonetheless is a superior betterment at the group level, and thus has a much scalable adaptive value. I see the claim but don't see support for it, or why it's mutually exclusive with growth (in any sense).
- acituan 4y ago
  > I think you interpret "growth" in a narrow framework of your perspective. I'd say the same for your premise. Your framework was "growth == better", I tried to demonstrate why that is not adequate, and in certain cases harmful. > They deteriorate without it, like a tree without enough water and sun And anyone with house plants know that too much of any is equally deadly as too little. > why it's mutually exclusive with growth (in any sense). Simple opportunity cost. An elderly doing a cultural transfer of skills, perspectives and knowledge to their grandkids, neighborhood, junior professionals etc vs. doing their own personal growth things. Don't get me wrong, in this case maybe getting a master's in AI and combining all that with their existing competencies and then doing a culture transfer could be the optimal choice here, but the time and energy cost of the activities pursued has to occupy disparate spaces either way. So no, personal growth at all costs is not the most optimal thing at all times.

bmitc 4y ago

I get what you’re saying, but I think it’s a little too much to call it a “major problem”. Getting a master’s degree is a ceremonial task that has basically no meaning other than what certain jobs may require or want, usually jobs at the beginning of one’s career. Getting a master’s at 72 is kind of weird I think, since he could just as easily learn the material without the degree by taking selective courses. Getting a degree often comes with logistical things orthogonal to learning what you’d like to learn. And let’s not mistake, one’s mental faculties are lesser as you age. It’s biological. It is remarkable in that aspect as well. Let’s not pretend like one retains a youthful brain, in terms of processing power, throughout one’s entire life. At 72, he is at the life expectancy for men in the U.S. Implying it’s just beyond late middle age is a little strange. In summary, I think getting a master’s at that age is sort of pointless aside from a certain ceremonial and logistical challenge. It’d be more efficient to take specific classes from good professors. Taking classes from poor professors was a waste of time in my 20s. I can’t imagine doing it in my 70s.

irrational 4y ago
I know a guy that started nursing school in his late 60s after retiring. He has now worked as a nurse for more than 10 years and is loving it. It’s never too late to start a second (or third) career. My father is in his mid 70s and has been boarded in pathology and emergency medicine for most of his adult life. Recently he decided to get boarded in genetic medicine and start a new medical career.
- bmitc 4y ago
  And? That's all great, but it's not common. And the congressman seems to intend to remain a congressman. I don't think it's too late for anything, within reason, but I also don't think it's a massive problem in society that the congressman's late age is mentioned.
BatFastard 4y ago
As a 65 year old, I might argue that my mental faculties have changed, not necessarily lessened. I can't juggle 5 mental balls anymore, but I just write down what I need which is probably better. I play poker with some 90 year old's, and they are damn sharp. Some people get dimmer with age, many continue to shine. Getting a degree is a more traditional route, which older people tend to pursue. But he might be doing it for show partly since he is a politician.

treve 4y ago

I'm late 30's and suspect you are also not 70, so I don't know if I'm correct about this, but I suspect that not wanting growth and change at 70 might also be natural and not just social pressure. But regardless I'm very curious how the internet generation will be later in life. I hope I have less anxiety and pressure!

dx034 4y ago
It's fine to stop learning at some point. But that's for when you're retired. As long as you still opt to work (and a congressman definitely had the option to retire), you also have to keep up with the world.
- wolverine876 4y ago
  What do you mean by "fine". Is it legal or your own choice? Yes. Is it healthy? I highly doubt it. Will it cause harm? I'm almost certain. I think I've read plenty of researchers advocating continued learning as essential, but I can't cite it..
wolverine876 4y ago
Here's a preview, from one perspective: We are emotional creatures: Emotion, much more than anything else, is our experience of the world, and it is a major input in our perception, decisions, and actions. Many people reject their emotions or are ignorant of them. And life experiences often cause a lot of emotional injury, to the point where older people reach their limits (I suspect you have a good sense of that at your age) and shut down. The effect of that shut down - well see the first paragraph; that all deteriorates significantly. It cripples experience and ability, including good judgment, and it causes people to avoid new experiences - the experiences might be traumatic, and the skill of learning and exploring atrophes. Also, shutting down doesn't actually do away with the emotions; they come out and people become angry and cruel. Instead, we need to learn to be resiliant, to build our emotinonal capacity, and to experience life and use our well-honed emotional insincts as hard-earned wisdom. That includes exploring and learning new things.

Stratoscope 4y ago

> A major problem in our society is that '72-year-old' is in the headline. I turn 71 next month, and I am grateful that the congressman's age is mentioned in the headline. I think it's awesome! As someone who also works in "AI" (the scare quotes are deliberate, as the specific work I do is more about keeping our code easy to maintain and well tested and reliable, and dealing with the outside systems we work with), I am glad that I am not the only "older" person working in the field. I'm not saying this to disagree with you, but to agree. It should be the norm that people the age of Congressman Beyer and myself can contribute, just like anyone else.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]