13 ms·

Comments so far are sort of singling out the "negatives" i.e. make it seem like 40yo just don't want to put in the time anymore (for one reason or another) but

by velcro 2y ago

Comments so far are sort of singling out the "negatives" i.e. make it seem like 40yo just don't want to put in the time anymore (for one reason or another) but the article also mentions stuff like: - At 40+ you're more judicious about where you put your energy - In your 40s, you have some accumulated wisdom: you recognize patterns faster and are more willing to change course Do I have the blind faith to grind it out 5+ years in a stagnating startup on an off chance it might take off someday - especially if I've done that before? Looking for a better way is not always a bad thing. On another hand - my 20yo self wouldn't have believed my 40yo self - some things you just have to live through.

Dalewyn 2y ago
>On another hand - my 20yo self wouldn't have believed my 40yo self - some things you just have to live through. As Otto Von Bismarck once said: "Fools learn from experience. I prefer to learn from the experience of others."
- fijiaarone 2y ago
  How old was Bismark when he said that?
  - dambi0 2y ago
    What difference does it make?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- velcro 2y ago
  Sure - and Plato once said: "Quotation marks are always a sign of absolute truth."
  - nefrix 2y ago
    An he also said: “Don’t believe everything that is attributed to me as truth, especially question those who put “my words” under fake quotation marks.”
- drewcoo 2y ago
  He also said "What we learn from History is that no one learns from History." He was the Prussian friggin' Yogi Berra.
mijustin 2y ago
I'm the author of the post. I think you've discerned the central tension I was exploring here. Part of what I'm identifying is a simple truth: in your 40s, you don’t have that same kind of “raw firepower” you had when you were younger. That doesn't mean you can't still be ambitious or leverage your accrued wisdom, network, and resources to launch a company; it just means the dynamics are different.
- spondylosaurus 2y ago
  As the saying goes... work smarter, not harder :)
- light_hue_1 2y ago
  > Part of what I'm identifying is a simple truth: in your 40s, you don’t have that same kind of “raw firepower” you had when you were younger. I wish this self-harming myth would stop being repeated as a "simple truth". It's a simple falsehood. It comes from a 100-year old idea about scientific productivity, that science (and specifically mathematics) is a young person's game. This has been widely debunked for many decades now. The reality is that a lot of people use this myth to not admit the fact that they burned themselves out and lost their drive. Then they don't take care of their mental health and use this unscientific nonsense as the excuse for why things went wrong. I see it in colleagues all the time in science. Some burn out, others get far better, smarter, and can get things done that they couldn't have a decade before. It has nothing to do with wisdom, network, resources, etc.
  - Jensson 2y ago
    Then why are chess champions young? You can offset the loss with experience, but there is a loss, otherwise experience would easily win.
    - FreakLegion 2y ago
      Chess champions mostly haven't been young, but the dominant ones have often been dominant from the time they were young. Here's a list with ages: https://sportstar.thehindu.com/chess/world-chess-championship-full-winners-list-all-time-d-gukesh-vs-ding-liren-final-singapore-champions/article68980834.ece https://sportstar.thehindu.com/chess/world-chess-championshi... The WCC is just a tournament though, and the winner isn't always the best player. In 1993 for example Kasparov split from FIDE, and nobody thinks of FIDE's champions as "real" until Kramnik brought the titles back together in 2006. Meanwhile Kasparov lost a match and his title to Kramnik in 2000, but remained the highest rated player until he retired. And Magnus outranked Anand for years before bothering to contest the championship. The top three classical players today are in their 30s (with Arjun right there behind Fabiano and Hikaru). The most impressive to me though are Anand in his fifties and Aronian in his forties, in the 10th and 11th spots. And then of course there's speed chess, where the youngsters are barely competitive.

by velcro 2y ago

Dalewyn 2y ago

>On another hand - my 20yo self wouldn't have believed my 40yo self - some things you just have to live through. As Otto Von Bismarck once said: "Fools learn from experience. I prefer to learn from the experience of others."

fijiaarone 2y ago
How old was Bismark when he said that?
- dambi0 2y ago
  What difference does it make?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
velcro 2y ago
Sure - and Plato once said: "Quotation marks are always a sign of absolute truth."
- nefrix 2y ago
  An he also said: “Don’t believe everything that is attributed to me as truth, especially question those who put “my words” under fake quotation marks.”
drewcoo 2y ago
He also said "What we learn from History is that no one learns from History." He was the Prussian friggin' Yogi Berra.

mijustin 2y ago

I'm the author of the post. I think you've discerned the central tension I was exploring here. Part of what I'm identifying is a simple truth: in your 40s, you don’t have that same kind of “raw firepower” you had when you were younger. That doesn't mean you can't still be ambitious or leverage your accrued wisdom, network, and resources to launch a company; it just means the dynamics are different.

spondylosaurus 2y ago
As the saying goes... work smarter, not harder :)
light_hue_1 2y ago
> Part of what I'm identifying is a simple truth: in your 40s, you don’t have that same kind of “raw firepower” you had when you were younger. I wish this self-harming myth would stop being repeated as a "simple truth". It's a simple falsehood. It comes from a 100-year old idea about scientific productivity, that science (and specifically mathematics) is a young person's game. This has been widely debunked for many decades now. The reality is that a lot of people use this myth to not admit the fact that they burned themselves out and lost their drive. Then they don't take care of their mental health and use this unscientific nonsense as the excuse for why things went wrong. I see it in colleagues all the time in science. Some burn out, others get far better, smarter, and can get things done that they couldn't have a decade before. It has nothing to do with wisdom, network, resources, etc.
- Jensson 2y ago
  Then why are chess champions young? You can offset the loss with experience, but there is a loss, otherwise experience would easily win.
  - FreakLegion 2y ago
    Chess champions mostly haven't been young, but the dominant ones have often been dominant from the time they were young. Here's a list with ages: https://sportstar.thehindu.com/chess/world-chess-championship-full-winners-list-all-time-d-gukesh-vs-ding-liren-final-singapore-champions/article68980834.ece https://sportstar.thehindu.com/chess/world-chess-championshi... The WCC is just a tournament though, and the winner isn't always the best player. In 1993 for example Kasparov split from FIDE, and nobody thinks of FIDE's champions as "real" until Kramnik brought the titles back together in 2006. Meanwhile Kasparov lost a match and his title to Kramnik in 2000, but remained the highest rated player until he retired. And Magnus outranked Anand for years before bothering to contest the championship. The top three classical players today are in their 30s (with Arjun right there behind Fabiano and Hikaru). The most impressive to me though are Anand in his fifties and Aronian in his forties, in the 10th and 11th spots. And then of course there's speed chess, where the youngsters are barely competitive.