4 ms·

> Respect that, as better than me just because he's older? He's not better because he's older. He's more experienced because he's older. That experience has

> Respect that, as better than me just because he's older? He's not better because he's older. He's more experienced because he's older. That experience has value because you cannot earn it any other way. > what does he have that I don't? Knowledge, tolerance, sacrifice, endurance, and perspective perhaps? When you are 50 you will have some of the same things simply due to the fact that you lived to that age. Older folks are human and make many mistakes just like every other human. It's because they've made more mistakes than younger folks that they are ahead on the opportunities to learn. There's nothing special, other than having been able to do everything you'll do, long before you can do it. If you're having trouble seeing this point of view, compare your abilities and life experience to that of a 10 year old. Explain yourself to that 10 year old such that the youth will possess the sum total of your experiences and be able to act as you would act. Not possible you say? Perhaps now you can appreciate the value of aged experience?

6d0debc071 13y ago
> He's not better because he's older. He's more experienced because he's older. That experience has value because you cannot earn it any other way. If I put a pound coin in a fire, it doesn't become valuable to put your hand in the fire just because there's no other way to get it. You might, after being burnt, rationalise it as valuable because it had cost you dearly. It might even become a ritual; a way to prove that you were a manly man who liked money or something, 'I'm tough, look at me make small gains at massively disproportionate costs.' I don't know. However, beforehand, it would seem insane to value the pound in the fire above a pound that someone else might offer you in its stead without the risk of getting maimed. Difficulty in attaining something makes sense for fashion, because it displays your fitness. However, the worth of things doesn't scale along every axis of value in proportion to the suffering or cost involved in attaining them - and I don't see how the suggested measure is of worth with respect to experiences that have nothing but age to recommend them. As far as experience goes, it seems that the experiences should be worth something for what they give you - whether that be hedons or skills or whatever - and that age is part of the cost you're paying. They're going to cost you something you're never going to get back, a portion of your life, and the return shouldn't just be that they've cost you something. The idea behind age seems to be that it's been pretty darned expensive and they must have bought something valuable with their lives because ... well, look at how much they spent. But that's not how spending works - people buy extended warranties and the like all the time. Maybe they're just bad consumers. > Knowledge, tolerance, sacrifice, endurance, and perspective perhaps? When you are 50 you will have some of the same things simply due to the fact that you lived to that age. Older folks are human and make many mistakes just like every other human. It's because they've made more mistakes than younger folks that they are ahead on the opportunities to learn. There's nothing special, other than having been able to do everything you'll do, long before you can do it. He hasn't been able to do everything I'll ever do, he can't even do everything I can do right now. He's never had the opportunity to learn about monads because he's never tried programming at all and gave up on maths when he left school. He's never had the opportunity to learn to fight properly because he's never put in the work to find decent teachers and then to practice diligently. He's never really had the opportunity to learn a great number of things about a great number of areas because he's never learnt the pre-requisites. I suppose it's true enough that they show up as potentials if you go far enough down the tree of choices that he might make and might previously have made. That he could have made better choices to net himself wider/more interesting parts of the tree. But he's followed one path through life on which those things didn't show up. Some opportunities multiply as they're seized, and if you never seize them then your range of opportunities is only ever linear with respect to time. > If you're having trouble seeing this point of view, compare your abilities and life experience to that of a 10 year old. Explain yourself to that 10 year old such that the youth will possess the sum total of your experiences and be able to act as you would act. Not possible you say? Perhaps now you can appreciate the value of aged experience? When I was ten, people of my age now, who'd lived the life I've lived, were visibly smarter than me. Just as people who continue to live the sort of life I intend to live are visibly smarter than me nine years later on from this point. But that was not my argument anyway - my argument was that age is just the chance to make something of yourself, that since many adults don't kids tend not to respect age. The two don't strongly correlate, the latter is not good evidence of the former.

6d0debc071 13y ago

> He's not better because he's older. He's more experienced because he's older. That experience has value because you cannot earn it any other way. If I put a pound coin in a fire, it doesn't become valuable to put your hand in the fire just because there's no other way to get it. You might, after being burnt, rationalise it as valuable because it had cost you dearly. It might even become a ritual; a way to prove that you were a manly man who liked money or something, 'I'm tough, look at me make small gains at massively disproportionate costs.' I don't know. However, beforehand, it would seem insane to value the pound in the fire above a pound that someone else might offer you in its stead without the risk of getting maimed. Difficulty in attaining something makes sense for fashion, because it displays your fitness. However, the worth of things doesn't scale along every axis of value in proportion to the suffering or cost involved in attaining them - and I don't see how the suggested measure is of worth with respect to experiences that have nothing but age to recommend them. As far as experience goes, it seems that the experiences should be worth something for what they give you - whether that be hedons or skills or whatever - and that age is part of the cost you're paying. They're going to cost you something you're never going to get back, a portion of your life, and the return shouldn't just be that they've cost you something. The idea behind age seems to be that it's been pretty darned expensive and they must have bought something valuable with their lives because ... well, look at how much they spent. But that's not how spending works - people buy extended warranties and the like all the time. Maybe they're just bad consumers. > Knowledge, tolerance, sacrifice, endurance, and perspective perhaps? When you are 50 you will have some of the same things simply due to the fact that you lived to that age. Older folks are human and make many mistakes just like every other human. It's because they've made more mistakes than younger folks that they are ahead on the opportunities to learn. There's nothing special, other than having been able to do everything you'll do, long before you can do it. He hasn't been able to do everything I'll ever do, he can't even do everything I can do right now. He's never had the opportunity to learn about monads because he's never tried programming at all and gave up on maths when he left school. He's never had the opportunity to learn to fight properly because he's never put in the work to find decent teachers and then to practice diligently. He's never really had the opportunity to learn a great number of things about a great number of areas because he's never learnt the pre-requisites. I suppose it's true enough that they show up as potentials if you go far enough down the tree of choices that he might make and might previously have made. That he could have made better choices to net himself wider/more interesting parts of the tree. But he's followed one path through life on which those things didn't show up. Some opportunities multiply as they're seized, and if you never seize them then your range of opportunities is only ever linear with respect to time. > If you're having trouble seeing this point of view, compare your abilities and life experience to that of a 10 year old. Explain yourself to that 10 year old such that the youth will possess the sum total of your experiences and be able to act as you would act. Not possible you say? Perhaps now you can appreciate the value of aged experience? When I was ten, people of my age now, who'd lived the life I've lived, were visibly smarter than me. Just as people who continue to live the sort of life I intend to live are visibly smarter than me nine years later on from this point. But that was not my argument anyway - my argument was that age is just the chance to make something of yourself, that since many adults don't kids tend not to respect age. The two don't strongly correlate, the latter is not good evidence of the former.