You make some fair points. I don't believe stupid gets constrained by age. In counterpoint I offer the truism, "you don't know what you don't know," using the

You make some fair points. I don't believe stupid gets constrained by age. In counterpoint I offer the truism, "you don't know what you don't know," using the collective you while referring to someone with a given point of view. A person that's ignorant of a certain body of knowledge may not even be aware of that ignorance let alone its size and scope. Generally, the younger the person, the exponentially larger the size and scope because that body of knowledge is not academic, it's earned through life experiences. I know an 80+ year old former farmer. He does not have a smart phone and cannot operate a computer or any other advanced technology. He's not stupid by any means even though many points of view could judge him so. Despite any rubric that measures him as stupid, he knows things that cannot be learned through experience because things just aren't done that way anymore. He knows the how and why of something in many more ways than someone half his age can even fathom. Take the older sys admin that used to build firewalls and sendmail.cf files by hand, for example. Just because there's no need to do that anymore doesn't mean that the experience is null and void. Older folks often know how and why something works (technology, human relations, etc.) while the younger folks just know how to repeat observed actions until it looks like it works. Granted, this behavior isn't just limited to the young (some people never learn). Don't discount someone's ability to contribute meaningfully just because of age. That's exactly what the sampling from stackoverflow revealed.