Seems like a tradeoff between fluid intelligence and pattern recognition. In my 20's it was easier to pick up new concepts, with longer short term memory. In my

Seems like a tradeoff between fluid intelligence and pattern recognition. In my 20's it was easier to pick up new concepts, with longer short term memory. In my 50's, I have acquired more patterns to apply. The downside, when I was younger, was going down blind alleys that wound up as a dead ends. The downside, when I got older, is misapplying an old pattern instead of synthesizing a new one. That's why I liked working with older people, in my 20's, and now working with younger people. To balance both tradeoffs. The Supreme Court spends much of its time interpreting the patterns that are laid out in the constitution and laws passed by congress. Sometimes it synthesizes a new pattern, which will be interpreted for the next 10's or 100's of years. For copyright, there is some value in recalling patterns from the last few decades. For example, the film industry thought that TV and later VHS would kill their business. Another is when the music industry thought that radio, cassette tapes, and MP3 files would kill their business. The problem of employing experts as the final judge is their bias towards a particular pattern. The time spent going deep in a particular field would mean that they have less time to go broad across all fields. IMO, how to benefit US commerce is about as broad as it gets.