4 ms·

I suspect there are 2 1/2 types of older workers. 1. workers who stop learning 2.a. workers who continue learning, and 2.b. workers who continue learning and

by riggins 13y ago

I suspect there are 2 1/2 types of older workers. 1. workers who stop learning 2.a. workers who continue learning, and 2.b. workers who continue learning and also keep ratcheting up the difficulty ... learning harder and harder material. I suspect category 2.a will encounter little ageism and 2.b will be in high demand.

DanBC 13y ago
Apply your idea to any other group facing discrimination. It's abhorrent to blame discrimination on the people being discriminated against by calling them dumb.
- asdfdsa1234 13y ago
  What about dumb people? Anti-dumb discrimination is rampant in Silicon Valley.
_random_ 13y ago
Your general learning capabilities decline with ageing. Also it's not about learning nowadays. It's about switching. Switching between similar technologies. Using NoSQL/Node.js/FancyMvc.js is not learning - it's same ol' deep inside. Reading about quantum computing is learning.
- michaelochurch 13y ago
  30. Supposedly way past my peak. Haven't felt it. Actually, it seems to be the reverse. When I was 10 years younger, I'd think I understood a topic with only a superficial knowledge. Now, I'm older and I'm better at learning, but I also know what I don't know. My clock speed is probably 5 to 10% slower than at peak (mid-teens) and will probably slow by another ~2-5% each decade, but software quality keeps going up and, as you probably know, clock speed isn't the most important factor when it only varies by a few percent.
  - _random_ 13y ago
    Common, thirty is not old at all :). I meant 40+ - exponential decline rather than linear one. Naturally 30-35 is like a sweet spot between experience and speed. PS: being 28 myself I am more of a concerned theoretician; I know three people who are 35-40 and quite better than me.
    - michaelochurch 13y ago
      There really isn't a strong case either way on the matter of mid-life cognitive decline. The peak is "somewhere" between 17 and 70, but the plateau is so flat that it's hard to pinpoint it to a specific age and it seems to depend a lot on the individual. We still don't know when we peak. I tend to take that as a positive. Where there is exponential worsening is in physical health: risk of death (also, risk of cancer) go up at about 9% per year, or a doubling each 8 years-- that's the Gompertz model, and it holds well from about 20 to 85. For mental decline, though, evidence for general decline in healthy people is pretty thin.
hga 13y ago
Your suspicion turns out to be wrong in practice. It's a nice idea, it should be the way things work, but it demonstrably isn't.
- riggins 13y ago
  Do you have a source for that? A study that has somehow controlled for continued learning? I'm interested because I'd be genuinely surprised if that's the case.
  - hga 13y ago
    I can't even imagine the study design that could answer that question, you're adding a second variable that would be very hard to measure. What we do see, anecdotally and in formal studies, is that if you vary only the variable of age, it makes a substantial difference. I personally discovered that during a job hunt where someone pointed out I should drop my age from my resume, extra controlled as it were because for a very very long time I looked 20 something (a bit beyond age 50).
    - riggins 13y ago
      you're adding a second variable that would be very hard to measure. No I didn't. I had group 1, 2.a, and 2.b all along. I think that group 1 may suffer discrimination. To elaborate the 'may', I'd stipulate that group 1 probably has a harder time getting interviews than a younger person with the same resume. I don't think it is necessarily discrimination though. I think there's a legit reason someone who's 40 who has the same resume as someone who's 20 would be less attractive. To be succinct, the guy who's 20 may be the next Jeff Dean or Steven Wozniak. The 20 year old has 'he may be the next Jeff Dean'-option value. The 40 year old ... if he's been programming for 20 years and he's not Jeff Dean ... he's probably not turning into Dean now. No 'he may be the next Jeff Dean'-option value.

by riggins 13y ago

DanBC 13y ago

Apply your idea to any other group facing discrimination. It's abhorrent to blame discrimination on the people being discriminated against by calling them dumb.

asdfdsa1234 13y ago
What about dumb people? Anti-dumb discrimination is rampant in Silicon Valley.

_random_ 13y ago

Your general learning capabilities decline with ageing. Also it's not about learning nowadays. It's about switching. Switching between similar technologies. Using NoSQL/Node.js/FancyMvc.js is not learning - it's same ol' deep inside. Reading about quantum computing is learning.

michaelochurch 13y ago
30. Supposedly way past my peak. Haven't felt it. Actually, it seems to be the reverse. When I was 10 years younger, I'd think I understood a topic with only a superficial knowledge. Now, I'm older and I'm better at learning, but I also know what I don't know. My clock speed is probably 5 to 10% slower than at peak (mid-teens) and will probably slow by another ~2-5% each decade, but software quality keeps going up and, as you probably know, clock speed isn't the most important factor when it only varies by a few percent.
- _random_ 13y ago
  Common, thirty is not old at all :). I meant 40+ - exponential decline rather than linear one. Naturally 30-35 is like a sweet spot between experience and speed. PS: being 28 myself I am more of a concerned theoretician; I know three people who are 35-40 and quite better than me.
  - michaelochurch 13y ago
    There really isn't a strong case either way on the matter of mid-life cognitive decline. The peak is "somewhere" between 17 and 70, but the plateau is so flat that it's hard to pinpoint it to a specific age and it seems to depend a lot on the individual. We still don't know when we peak. I tend to take that as a positive. Where there is exponential worsening is in physical health: risk of death (also, risk of cancer) go up at about 9% per year, or a doubling each 8 years-- that's the Gompertz model, and it holds well from about 20 to 85. For mental decline, though, evidence for general decline in healthy people is pretty thin.

hga 13y ago

Your suspicion turns out to be wrong in practice. It's a nice idea, it should be the way things work, but it demonstrably isn't.

riggins 13y ago
Do you have a source for that? A study that has somehow controlled for continued learning? I'm interested because I'd be genuinely surprised if that's the case.
- hga 13y ago
  I can't even imagine the study design that could answer that question, you're adding a second variable that would be very hard to measure. What we do see, anecdotally and in formal studies, is that if you vary only the variable of age, it makes a substantial difference. I personally discovered that during a job hunt where someone pointed out I should drop my age from my resume, extra controlled as it were because for a very very long time I looked 20 something (a bit beyond age 50).
  - riggins 13y ago
    you're adding a second variable that would be very hard to measure. No I didn't. I had group 1, 2.a, and 2.b all along. I think that group 1 may suffer discrimination. To elaborate the 'may', I'd stipulate that group 1 probably has a harder time getting interviews than a younger person with the same resume. I don't think it is necessarily discrimination though. I think there's a legit reason someone who's 40 who has the same resume as someone who's 20 would be less attractive. To be succinct, the guy who's 20 may be the next Jeff Dean or Steven Wozniak. The 20 year old has 'he may be the next Jeff Dean'-option value. The 40 year old ... if he's been programming for 20 years and he's not Jeff Dean ... he's probably not turning into Dean now. No 'he may be the next Jeff Dean'-option value.