Are old people smarter than the youth?

[Grayman]

1) We lose a few IQ points as we age.
2) We become less tolerant of new ideas.
3) Our brain loses its plasticity as we age.

We gain in experience but what good is that when we can no longer use the data effectively?

 

[Jennywocky]

1) We lose a few IQ points as we age.
2) We become less tolerant of new ideas.
3) Our brain loses its plasticity as we age.

We gain in experience but what good is that when we can no longer use the data effectively?

One question: At what point do you think that occurs? (i.e., where increase in experience no longer is enough to overcome loss of computational ability?)

And yes, there's a decline; but some situations might favor speed of mind where others might favor experience / pattern recognition and a variety of tools in the mental toolbox. Some of it's also people knowledge -- you recognize behaviors and how people work and know how to leverage what you know to get a desired effect... + networking.

It's a "smart" move to pull something out of an area you can't compete in and place it in an area you can. Youth often seems to go for the blitz...

 

[QuickTwist]

People grow into themselves as they age. The older you get the more specialized you get into doing what you're good at.

 

[Hadoblado]

I think it depends on the individual, and what capacity you care about.

Some people's intelligence scales well with time, as they use that time to improve their understanding, which has knock on effects across the board. Even if they're losing fluid intelligence gradually, it's not until much later that this outweighs the benefits of experience and time.

Some people stagnate with time, never changing their perspectives or approach. These people benefit a whole lot less from time and experience, but still lose fluid intelligence at the same rate. The worst case scenario being when they're stuck in a different era, unable to update their perspective to include current social norms and trends.

All in all, young people are able to be minmaxed more, by specialising hard they can take advantage of greater raw processing and creativity. Old people are almost invariably more rounded, with better meta-cognition than their younger selves, so long as they don't commit to too narrow a perspective.

 

[Tannhauser]

One thing is for sure – the Semmelweis reflex becomes severely more prominent with age. I get it though. When you are old, your age is proof that your belief system is at least good enough for surviving a long time. There is no reason for the brain to expend energy on re-evaluating your beliefs at that point. Just surviving 50 years was a huge feat in prehistoric ages. Nowadays any idiot can manage that, so there is no natural selection of clever belief systems.

 

[Inquisitor]

Yes they're smarter and wiser. By a long shot.

The Secret Life of the Grown-up Brain: The Surprising Talents of the Middle-Aged Mind: Barbara Strauch: 9780670020713: Amazon.com: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51AgvAXN%2B8L.@@AMEPARAM@@51AgvAXN%2B8L

The idea that old people become more rigid and less adaptable to change is an archaic and now defunct belief. New research indicates just the opposite. The only thing that really declines is memory (remembering names becomes more difficult but not faces), and computational speed. The latter is a kind of "smartness," but the reality is that we have machines to take care of that for us. It may seem like older people are less open to new ideas, but in fact, they're just less open to bullshit (ie ideas and values that lead nowhere).

Many other areas actually improve. White matter peaks in middle age, not in your twenties. Big picture thinking improves, pattern recognition, interpersonal skills, inductive reasoning, etc. I can't wait to get older...

 

[Brontosaurie]

It evens out pretty much. It's much more about the individual than the age or anything. Then of course it happens that people turn into wastes of intelligence at older ages if they fail or become traumatized, but they still tend to come off as bright imo.

Discounting that and serious neurodegenerative diseases, i'd say age isn't much of a factor in crude intelligence because the benefits and drawbacks are subtle and even each other out.

 

[Hadoblado]

Yes they're smarter and wiser. By a long shot.

The Secret Life of the Grown-up Brain: The Surprising Talents of the Middle-Aged Mind: Barbara Strauch: 9780670020713: Amazon.com: Books

The idea that old people become more rigid and less adaptable to change is an archaic and now defunct belief. New research indicates just the opposite. The only thing that really declines is memory (remembering names becomes more difficult but not faces), and computational speed. The latter is a kind of "smartness," but the reality is that we have machines to take care of that for us. It may seem like older people are less open to new ideas, but in fact, they're just less open to bullshit (ie ideas and values that lead nowhere).

Many other areas actually improve. White matter peaks in middle age, not in your twenties. Big picture thinking improves, pattern recognition, interpersonal skills, inductive reasoning, etc. I can't wait to get older...

Study? Seems pretty easy to call everything one doesn't believe BS, then pat self on back for successfully distinguishing BS from truth. I'll give you that old people know better what they want, are therefore better positioned to not waste time on ideas and values that lead nowhere (for them).

 

[Tannhauser]

Yes they're smarter and wiser. By a long shot.

The Secret Life of the Grown-up Brain: The Surprising Talents of the Middle-Aged Mind: Barbara Strauch: 9780670020713: Amazon.com: Books

The idea that old people become more rigid and less adaptable to change is an archaic and now defunct belief. New research indicates just the opposite. The only thing that really declines is memory (remembering names becomes more difficult but not faces), and computational speed. The latter is a kind of "smartness," but the reality is that we have machines to take care of that for us. It may seem like older people are less open to new ideas, but in fact, they're just less open to bullshit (ie ideas and values that lead nowhere).

Many other areas actually improve. White matter peaks in middle age, not in your twenties. Big picture thinking improves, pattern recognition, interpersonal skills, inductive reasoning, etc. I can't wait to get older...

Yes! By a long shot! Here is a pop-science book to support the claim.


Anecdote: I was misdiagnosed by a very experienced doctor once, simply because he didn't understand the simple logical fact that "A implies B" is not the equivalent of "(not A) implies (not B)". Or in terms of diagnosis: he assumed "All people with symptom A have illness B" is the equivalent of "people without symptom A do not have illness B ". In his experience, he probably only encountered patients who had both A and B, slowly convincing him that there is a one-to-one relationship between them.

Old people rely heavily on heuristics gained from experience – that is good in a lot of domains – very bad in others, which, unfortunately, comprise a large part of the modern, complex world.

 

[Hadoblado]

Heh seems like there's a common theme here.

I was misdiagnosed with dyslexia by a very old doctor. Oh also, I had a middle aged doctor conclude I had 20/20 vision when the eye test they were using spelled out a sentence advertising the place of practice... I was able to predict the entire test from the first few lines... I was pretty annoyed.

 

[Inquisitor]

"Let's on pick on doctors guys! They're fuckups who regularly misdiagnose people and hence are a perfect example of why old people shouldn't be respected for their experience or expertise."

Forget the fact that doctors have to see an obscene number of patients every hour (15-minutes/patient), fill out a burgeoning amount of paperwork, deal with ever-increasing amounts of regulation, don't get enough sleep, are increasingly stressed/burned out, face ever-growing demands, have to deal with non-compliant patients, are under-paid and under-valued, and face the prospect of a malpractice lawsuit with every patient...Yeah none of that shit matters. They're just old and fallible.

Have you read that "pop-science" book you so deride? No? Then STFU. You know jack about neuroscience. Go read a book.

 

[Tannhauser]

Forget the fact that doctors have to see an obscene number of patients every hour (15-minutes/patient), fill out a burgeoning amount of paperwork, deal with ever-increasing amounts of regulation, don't get enough sleep, are increasingly stressed/burned out, face ever-growing demands, have to deal with non-compliant patients, are under-paid and under-valued, and face the prospect of a malpractice lawsuit with every patient.

In that case, old doctors should be confined to solving Sudoku puzzles in a retirement home.

 

[Hadoblado]

I could bury you under a pile of books you haven't read Inquis, that doesn't mean I can just assume their veracity until you have read them. That's not how things work.

Popsci can be disregarded in favour of the actual science it leans on. Cut out the middleman.

Try to understand what you're asking of us. Nobody is going to sit down and read a book just to try to understand an otherwise poorly supported opinion they happen to not agree with. That's asking too much. Especially when the book in question is just summarising studies and diluting them with anecdotes. Especially especially when the book pretty obviously fills a niche in providing self esteem and security to those suffering existential angst and whatnot from midlife crises etc.
In other words, the books existence is explained entirely by the demand for its content. One doesn't need to look far for a review that dismisses it as such:

Spoiler

Simplistic, feel-good ladies' magazine journalism, that reads like something you'd read in a doctor's waiting room. Far too much of the book is taken up with anecdotal reports about how "wise" the author's friends believe themselves to be in middle age. When the author bothers to describe actual research, she dumbs it down so much her account conveys almost no actual information.

This book appears to be popular because it tells fearful middle aged people what they want to hear, that even though they can't remember what it was they went up the stairs to get, they're actually wiser and more competent than they used to be. Perhaps that's true, but nothing in that book makes a compelling case for it.

When the author finally gets around to writing about research that I'm familiar with--that having to do with dietary interventions and the impact of diabetes on cognition--she cites old, discredited theories as if they were fact and gets the relationship of diabetes, Alzheimers and dementia backwards, writing about the topic in a way that would be very upsetting to anyone with a Type 2 diabetes diagnosis. If you're one of them, please read the page about diabetes and dementia that you'll find on the Blood Sugar 101 web site at http://www.bloodsugar101.com/23747286... .

It's disheartening to see so many positive reviews of a book that does such a poor job of explaining the science exploring a topic of such great importance. People who are satisfied to learn about health issues at the infomercial level this book provides are the ones most likely to fall for life extension and supplement scams. (less)

The review is obviously cherry picked, as there were many positive ones on the same page. But it illustrates that essentially you're asking us to take your word for it, when your word doesn't have much clout. Every time you recommend people read the same books as you you are dismissed because people don't want to spend limited time learning not-science. You walk away assuming them ignorant because they're unwilling to read. The answer? Link to the actual science and see what happens. If you are as well read as you proclaim yourself to be, and your positions are as well evidenced as you seem to think, then it shouldn't be hard to dig up the journals that helped bring you to your current conclusions.

Because every time you do this nothing happens. It's a waste of your time if nobody actually listens to you, and nobody will listen to you until you've actually established some authority, or are giving people the information you want people to have using a means that they're willing to accept. You can't achieve the former without the latter, so start with the latter. Site the journal article that provided the evidence for your esteemed author to weave into a narrative. Otherwise, for all intents and purposes, you're talking a different language to basically everyone here.

 

[Inquisitor]

In that case, old doctors should be confined to solving Sudoku puzzles in a retirement home.

What I outlined above is what all primary care doctors are facing now, both young and old, but I guess you'd prefer to be seen only by nurses, nurse practitioners, and computers b/c that's where we're headed anyway. Maybe when you finally grow up and get an NCD you'll finally realize the difference that an extra 4-6 years of training can make.

 

[Cheeseumpuffs]

Are old people smarter than the youth?

No.

1) We lose a few IQ points as we age.

Is this true?

This seems wrong.

 

[Rualani]

I'd heard the same thing as the OP. Here's a brief article talking about crystallized intelligence vs fluid intelligence. http://psychology.about.com/od/cognitivepsychology/a/fluid-crystal.htm I haven't dug in deep enough to have a good idea of what's ACTUALLY happening with intelligence and age. I just know what's floating around.

I think age has the potential to grant someone superior wisdom based on experience, but that experience has to happen.

 

[Grayman]

https://www.quora.com/Can-does-IQ-change-over-time
This includes what Rual mentioned. I liked the charts in this link above.

"Average raw IQ scores decrease with age, though the average IQ at older ages stays at 100 because IQ tests are normalized for each age."

[bimgx=250]https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-8d89f0a77ee7418581255022ebc1795c?convert_to_webp=true[/bimgx]

 

[Yellow]

I realize I'm working backward here, but the more obvious arguments have already been taken, so it's time for a new tack.

Okay, so I'm going to assume that "smart" here means an observable combination of raw intelligence, creativity, and relatively high ability to learn and retain new information.

In that case, younger people are of course smarter. They have to be. That's what youth is designed for, right? Acquiring knowledge and experience and applying it in a combination of traditional and novel ways to lay the foundation for adult life?

What use is a smart old person? Old people don't have to be smart. Old people are examples of good habits (well, until recently). You didn't usually get to be old unless you avoided/survived all of the things that prevent old age. So, if you make it to old age, you are an absolute resource for the youth, but you're not "smarter" than them. Experience isn't intelligence. Having one situation remind you of another isn't some crazy amazing memory trick.

I completely understand a respect for the knowledge of one's elders (and I mean elders, not someone a few years older), but it's the same respect I have for a good reference book: "Let's see what someone else did in this situation I'm about to face," or, "I wonder what that storm was like fifty years ago".

To be honest, our geriatrics seem to be increasingly infiltrated by wrinkly brats who grew old rather than grew up. I blame recent medical advances.

 

[Intolerable]

No, youth are quicker to find a solution to a problem. This is due to psychological and physiological factors. One such psychological factor is the sponge effect. A dry sponge pulls everything whereas a wet sponge pulls only some things. The tendency to lean on known principles for humans is great. So the more known things, the less we take in by default.

Of course if you put a learned person into a field of study they have spent their life on you've made a good choice. The young may hope to surpass them someday but it won't be today.

I've had these conversations at times where I feel as though the people I am arguing with have either settled on a way of thinking via convenience ( older ) or have settled on a way of thinking without having seen all possibilities ( younger ).

It happens that way almost all the time.

 

[Black Rose]

acquisition of knowledge
accumulated knowledge

accumulated = age * acquisition rate (intelligence)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

The general figure for the heritability of IQ, according to an authoritative American Psychological Association report, is 0.45 for children, and rises to around 0.75 for late adolescents and adults.[5][6] The heritability of IQ increases with age and reaches an asymptote at 18–20 years of age and continues at that level well into adulthood.[7] Recent studies suggest that family and parenting characteristics are not significant contributors to variation in IQ scores,[8] however poor prenatal environment, malnutrition and disease can have deleterious effects.[9][10]

The brain is a map. Intelligence is the ability to change the map. There are different ways to change the map. Imagination is a way to change the map. Introspection and Introversion. Direct perception can change the map and Extraversion. Meta-Intelligence is a way to change the map. You can learn how to change the map.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_perception

https://youtu.be/6FESJTYuFM8

 

[Urakro]

Inquisitor could use a study of the real philosophy in academics. To learn the structure of a valid argument by putting together a really good premise, and learning of the common fallacies people fall into. I like the basic structure, it's almost like math. They should even use it in therapy for certain cognitive training exercises for irrational and negative thought patterns.

Not that I practice the structure all that frequently.

As for the topic, I thought IQ was sort of meaningless. I thought if a guy who's played with shapes, patterns and numbers for fun since we was very young gets an IQ score of x, and another person with much less experience with shapes, patterns and numbers gets the same score, wouldn't that make the second person smarter?

I still am not aware if there's an accurate way to measure intelligence.

 

[Intolerable]

As for the topic, I thought IQ was sort of meaningless. I thought if a guy who's played with shapes, patterns and numbers for fun since we was very young gets an IQ score of x, and another person with much less experience with shapes, patterns and numbers gets the same score, wouldn't that make the second person smarter?

I still am not aware if there's an accurate way to measure intelligence.

Some tests that I've seen don't strike me as the type you can game.

I took one recently for example that gives you numbers in a sequence. The numbers were always 3, 4, 5 and 6. The numbers were also repeated 3, 4, 5 and 6 times. Each half second a set would flash and you had that amount of time to respond before the next set. You had to give the number of numbers that appeared on the page, not the value represented.

Tests like that I have trouble believing can be gamed.

 

[Urakro]

Some tests that I've seen don't strike me as the type you can game.

I took one recently for example that gives you numbers in a sequence. The numbers were always 3, 4, 5 and 6. The numbers were also repeated 3, 4, 5 and 6 times. Each half second a set would flash and you had that amount of time to respond before the next set. You had to give the number of numbers that appeared on the page, not the value represented.

Tests like that I have trouble believing can be gamed.

hmmm, yeah, I see what you mean. The first question I think of though is what is that testing? And why do we call that thing that it's testing intelligence?

 

[redbaron]

I tend to think of IQ as a measure of capacity rather than true intellectual ability.

As an allegory, a 4Litre engine is more powerful than a 2Litre engine, but you'll still no doubt lose to a profeessional racecar driver despite the inherent power advantage if you've only just started learning to shift gears. But if two people who've got the same skills, drive and determination drive two very different cars (one with objectively higher capabilities) then the better car will win.

You still have to develop skills and abilities, as well as foster the motivation to continuously improve if you want to maximize the potential of the bigger engine.

 

[EditorOne]

"1) We lose a few IQ points as we age.
2) We become less tolerant of new ideas.
3) Our brain loses its plasticity as we age.

We gain in experience but what good is that when we can no longer use the data effectively?"

The only change I've noticed at the mature age of 66 is a little longer to get to the answer on "Jeopardy!" and a little more patience in general. I love innovation, change, newness, surprises, all that good stuff, as much as ever.
So your assumptions may be correct generally, but I assure you, these fates are not inevitable. Do not despair.
There are some developments that indicate we lose brain function because we stop using our brains as much, and that a steady diet of new information and problem solving keeps those IQ points up and the plasticity plastic.

 

[Yellow]

There are some developments that indicate we lose brain function because we stop using our brains as much, and that a steady diet of new information and problem solving keeps those IQ points up and the plasticity plastic.

You're right, of course. My general annoyance with the Silver Tsunami aside, some people choose to prevent the decay of their minds. You have to work at keeping your brain agile. It's just that most people retire their brains in their 20's or 30's, and they go to pot at an alarming rate. Those who attend to their own mental fitness get to enjoy a much less drastic decline.

 

[Inquisitor]

I could bury you under a pile of books you haven't read Inquis, that doesn't mean I can just assume their veracity until you have read them. That's not how things work.

Popsci can be disregarded in favour of the actual science it leans on. Cut out the middleman.

Try to understand what you're asking of us. Nobody is going to sit down and read a book just to try to understand an otherwise poorly supported opinion they happen to not agree with. That's asking too much. Especially when the book in question is just summarising studies and diluting them with anecdotes. Especially especially when the book pretty obviously fills a niche in providing self esteem and security to those suffering existential angst and whatnot from midlife crises etc.
In other words, the books existence is explained entirely by the demand for its content. One doesn't need to look far for a review that dismisses it as such:


The review is obviously cherry picked, as there were many positive ones on the same page. But it illustrates that essentially you're asking us to take your word for it, when your word doesn't have much clout. Every time you recommend people read the same books as you you are dismissed because people don't want to spend limited time learning not-science. You walk away assuming them ignorant because they're unwilling to read. The answer? Link to the actual science and see what happens. If you are as well read as you proclaim yourself to be, and your positions are as well evidenced as you seem to think, then it shouldn't be hard to dig up the journals that helped bring you to your current conclusions.

Because every time you do this nothing happens. It's a waste of your time if nobody actually listens to you, and nobody will listen to you until you've actually established some authority, or are giving people the information you want people to have using a means that they're willing to accept. You can't achieve the former without the latter, so start with the latter. Site the journal article that provided the evidence for your esteemed author to weave into a narrative. Otherwise, for all intents and purposes, you're talking a different language to basically everyone here.

Believe it or not, I'm not actually trying to convince anyone here of my views. I just lay them out there like everyone else. The question was "Are old people smarter than the youth?" My opinion is that the answer to that question is definitely "yes." I cited that book b/c I thought it made some excellent arguments. I could care less if people go and read it.

The personal attacks are what I react to. It's comments like this: "I could bury you under a pile of books you haven't read Inquis," that don't belong. I never initiate hostilities against anyone.

I reacted negatively to Tannhauser's usual antics about physicians b/c my parents are doctors, and the stereotypical view that many people tend to have about them is inaccurate. Unless you are close to any physicians (friends, relatives), you have no idea just how perfect we as a society expect them to be while at the same time creating a work environment for them that makes it ever-more-likely that mistakes will be made. And then he and a few others used that fallibility as evidence that old people really are fallible. It's a distortion of the truth. They're no more fallible or subject to biases and irrationality than youth. In fact, neuroscience indicates younger brains (teens and twenties) are far more emotionally reactive than more mature brains. Something to do with the amygdala.

There's a whole host of other reasons I believe older people should, as a rule, be trusted, have our respect, and we should give greater weight to their advice and guidance over that coming from youth. That said, I could care less if others on here disagree. They'll come around eventually once they realize wisdom is far more valuable than raw intelligence. This is the way I live my life and think about the world. Others are free to do differently. Judging from what I've seen here, many forum members seem to be more on the side of extreme skepticism of authority figures anyway, so I kind of feel like this:

 

[The Gopher]

I didn't take that as hostile that's more a fact. Unless you are insulted by the idea you haven't read every book in the world. Anyway I didn't read the rest since I have to go but I think with the current technology promoting change so much we can hope people in the future will retain more adaptability as they age simply through environment regardless of how much they currently have.

 

[Tannhauser]

The personal attacks are what I react to. It's comments like this: "I could bury you under a pile of books you haven't read Inquis," that don't belong. I never initiate hostilities against anyone.

Yes, Inquisitor is the quintessential example of a fully objective and non-personal debater. Like here (from http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=23527) :

Your stance is bullshit and your arguments are pathetic. It amounts to nothing more than excessive pedantry and obsessiveness over external data. You lost before in that PerC discussion, and you've lost again now.

 

[Inquisitor]

Yes, Inquisitor is the quintessential example of a fully objective and non-personal debater. Like here (from http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=23527) :

Hey guess what Tannhauser? I used to think you were a swell guy. But since you've taken to attacking me at every turn and have offered nothing remotely constructive as an alternative, you're on my ignore list. The only thing you care to do apparently is bash the MBTI, make fun of typology, and look down on people who are not 100% skeptics like you. You're more of a fanatic than I am! At least I have constructive suggestions. What do you offer? Nothing except doubt.

Also, what you quoted was not a personal attack. Reckful only comes out of the woodwork to bash people who potentially infringe on what he perceives to be the only accurate interpretation of typology (his). His intent was not benign, let alone benevolent. He's already had the same argument with loads of other people, therefore he certainly did not initiate the discussion b/c he genuinely wanted to know what I thought. The guy has tens of thousands of posts under his belt.

Good Bye.

 

[redbaron]

I never initiate hostilities against anyone.

 

[Black Rose]

Believe it or not, I'm not actually trying to convince anyone here of my views. I just lay them out there like everyone else. The question was "Are old people smarter than the youth?" My opinion is that the answer to that question is definitely "yes." I cited that book b/c I thought it made some excellent arguments. I could care less if people go and read it.

They're no more fallible or subject to biases and irrationality than youth. In fact, neuroscience indicates younger brains (teens and twenties) are far more emotionally reactive than more mature brains. Something to do with the amygdala.

There's a whole host of other reasons I believe older people should, as a rule, be trusted, have our respect, and we should give greater weight to their advice and guidance over that coming from youth. That said, I could care less if others on here disagree. They'll come around eventually once they realize wisdom is far more valuable than raw intelligence. This is the way I live my life and think about the world. Others are free to do differently. Judging from what I've seen here, many forum members seem to be more on the side of extreme skepticism of authority figures anyway, so I kind of feel like this:

Yes you are now older and wiser than before joining this forum. You now know that young people exist here. In light of that fact you should know that bringing up certain concepts in relation to the topic can trigger a response to a perception of bias against them. Such as how you keep bringing up Age and experience as a way of discounting their ways of reasoning which would mean you don't care about good reasoning but only Age and experience. This is the perception and you are continuously fighting against it. Hopefully you now know that to young people on this forum that this perception of your bias is the cause of them rejecting your reasoning. I know that you were objecting to Hado suggesting you were not INTP in the witchhunt thread but I assume you were not fully aware of the thread being in The ARENA section. In that section you are supposed to fight about topics and not get offended about them. You are supposed to pretend to be offended which in your case you were not pretending thus all the hostility you received in a section meant for pretending. You need to just relax and understand how the forum works. Young people here like to pretend and reason and not get too serious about disagreements. Projected Bias is a non tolerable issue for INTP forum members. You need to cancel that perception by realizing it's not just about your reasoning but your perceived lack of open mindedness and seriousness. This is how I see it because I have been here a long time and I do respect experience and do remember how I was 5 years ago. My amygdala gave me bad anxiety and I made many mistakes in reasoning and understanding the perceptions others had of me. I try not be be offended so much which improves my reasoning.

 

[Tannhauser]

But since you've taken to attacking me at every turn and have offered nothing remotely constructive as an alternative, you're on my ignore list. The only thing you care to do apparently is bash the MBTI, make fun of typology, and look down on people who are not 100% skeptics like you. You're more of a fanatic than I am! At least I have constructive suggestions. What do you offer? Nothing except doubt.
Good Bye.

Whenever I have critiqued MBTI I have tried to do it with concrete arguments. I only make fun of arrogant claims without substance.

As to constructive solution, it is simple: no-one (especially not quintessential INTPs) wants to read their fate from a table of logarithms. Use the MBTI as a tool for self-analysis, but spend very little time theorising and instead engage in a disciplined process of trial-and-error.

Besides – doubt is what is going to prevent me from dying as a complacent and self-satisfied fool.

 

[Cheeseumpuffs]

In fact, neuroscience indicates younger brains (teens and twenties) are far more emotionally reactive than more mature brains.

Does emotionally reactive == unintelligent?

 

[Inquisitor]

Does emotionally reactive == unintelligent?

Of course not. But it is going to impact decision-making. Probably negatively.

 

[Cheeseumpuffs]

Of course not. But it is going to impact decision-making. Probably negatively.

That doesn't really seem like an intelligence thing, then. Intelligent people are just as capable of making poor decisions as unintelligent people.

 

[Grayman]

That doesn't really seem like an intelligence thing, then. Intelligent people are just as capable of making poor decisions as unintelligent people.

Old people aren't fallible though. Their decisions have stood the test of time.

 

[onesteptwostep]

It also depends on what the problem that is to be solved as well too. There are political problems which affect real life in society and there's complex math problems which'll probably be printed and be gathering dust until the politicians decide to bomb a country.

So who's the stupider one? The politicians or the religious fanatics on the other side?

Also, apples.

Spoiler

but in srs:

I think generally the youth have the ability amass vast amounts of information due to the internet culture, but does this always translate into intelligence? I think overall 'older' people are smarter than the youth. And by youth I would say the below late twenties/thirties category, just to place a marker somewhere. Why is this.. well the older generation has seen their predecessors come to; they understand how they see and perceive the world, therefore it gives them a natural edge. Experience is also another big factor. More experience means less psychological lapses when the need for quick thinking arises. But also like I've lightly noted from without (the spoiler post), it depends on what problems you're up against as well. F***. It's all relative.

 

[QuickTwist]

Old people aren't fallible though. Their decisions have stood the test of time.

Except there is a huge difference now than when we were competing with any number of other animals and/or afraid to be eaten by them. Humanity has turned into a grey like soup where there is not the constant need to protect oneself through physicality on a daily basis for most of humanity. This is what we get when we all start to gather in the same places all bunched up. We have people living longer and more people being born. It is of the youth to do and it is the wise to make decisions. There is a reason the American President is required to be a certain age before they can be elected.

 

[Grayman]

Except there is a huge difference now than when we were competing with any number of other animals and/or afraid to be eaten by them. Humanity has turned into a grey like soup where there is not the constant need to protect oneself through physicality on a daily basis for most of humanity. This is what we get when we all start to gather in the same places all bunched up. We have people living longer and more people being born. It is of the youth to do and it is the wise to make decisions. There is a reason the American President is required to be a certain age before they can be elected.

Capitalism is the new 'evolution' and those who make it and are old, stood the test of time, are infallible. Doctors are and example of this.

 

[Minuend]

Depends on the intention of the question ._.

If you're going to see everyone through the lens of age, then you'll have more than usual skewed perspective of a person. It's like deciding what a religious person thinks before he even opens his mouth. Or thinking a mental ill person incapable of rational thought. Or thinking an atheist evil for not believing and having no moral code. Even if there are statistics pointing one way or another, there will always be exceptions.

People have different degrees of cognitive potential. Some develop, some regress, some stay the same. People wont magically turn wise because they age. People don't magically start prioritizing reason, logic, wisdom just because they age. It can happen, but it's not a given.

Listen to the individual and judge him for what he says and thinks, not for which system of belief he identifies with, what his age is, what he looks like and so forth. And even when someone's wrong often, even broken clocks are right twice a day etc

 

[DjGatsby]

That's correct. But a 70 year old janitor probably has more practical life experience than say, a 26 year old physic's professor.

 

[bvanevery]

"Average raw IQ scores decrease with age, though the average IQ at older ages stays at 100 because IQ tests are normalized for each age."

Do you actually care about average people in the population? Are you designing a marketing campaign or training troops for a war or something? I know I'm smarter than most people on the planet, every standardized test I've ever taken in my life has said so. Doesn't mean there aren't plenty of other people equally smart, and a few even smarter, the really freak exceptional types. But there's hordes of dummies out there... I'm just not seeing why I'm supposed to care. I don't evaluate my own life prospects in terms of average people.

I know my brain gets tremendous amounts of exercise per day, and I'll be doing exceedingly brainy things until I die. I'm probably not going to fall prey to Alzheimer's either, because I have a Dad who was smart enough to be on the leading edge of nutritional understanding, and I've read the books he's tossed my way. Short version is get rid of those carbs and sugars if you wanna keep your brain going. Alzheimer's is called by some "diabetes of the brain".

My limited understanding of neurology is the idea that you don't get new neurons has been debunked. You do. It's more like a muscle, use it or lose it. I use mine all the time. Not worried about getting dumber. I know my knowledge base improves hugely in this internet age. I might even be getting analytically smarter, in the sense of having more familiarity and practice with different strategies, and knowing more about when the expended effort is not likely to yield a useful outcome.

Suck it, young 'uns! I'm way ahead of you on some things. And don't underestimate the old adage, "Age and treachery will always overcome youth and skill."

 

[Architect]

The evidence is that for both our bodies and our minds it's more how you use them than how old they are. Physically you can age quite slowly, I've worked hard at this and am healthier (stats, endurance, weights, etc) than when I was 30, and my biological age is sub 30 (I'm turning 50).

What we know now is that who you are is what you think. Old tend act like old people because they think like old people, and notice that's changed. My grandparents were the last of the really old; they looked, acted and dressed old. My parents act much like they did when they were younger, I think in large part because now it's expected/accepted for the old to be young. *

There are inevitable aspects of aging, many however that already can be counteracted. Importantly the loss of cellular phosphatidylcholine and coenzyme-q-10, both of which can be supplemented.

* On IQ it's a matter of use and training. Use your thoughts poorly and you'll have a low IQ, use them better (in this sense) and it'll be higher.