As a 20-something programmer today, I believe that my prime as a programmer will be when I am in my 50s, because programmers seem to get better as they solve more problems, becomes more experienced, as well as more knowledgeable. That will only happen when you're constantly pushing yourself toward new horizon, though.
Today, silicon valley seems to age discriminate in favor of the young, just out of college. I think they're missing out.
I'm closing in on 50, been programming since the 1980s. I'm struck by how many things are still the same. Still use emacs. Still use email and chat (then it was the "talk" program). Still interact with the computer using a shell in a remote login session. Specific languages have had their moments in the spotlight, but we're still more or less writing programs and interacting with systems the same as we were then.
I get the reasoning, I just don't think it works. By the time you're 50 only a fraction of your knowledge is still relevant. Sure the fundamentals are the same, but the tech you're working with is probably fairly new. I've worked with a few 50+ guys who have been in the business for almost as long as i've been alive. One of the common traits i've seen is they've learned to not trust certain levels of abstraction, or techniques. Which is fine, but tech has progressed, and now many of the original reasons are no longer valid yet they're still resistant to using them.
The good guys are up to date in the state, they've learned the new features, they trust them, and they use them.. but staying up to date for 20 years is an exhausting race.
Personally I hope i'm only writing code as a hobby at 50.
I solve problems. My experience in problem solving will never become irrelevant. It happens that I solve problems with code. With my experience in problem solving, I can pick up "new tech" quickly-- primarily because there's really nothing new. Things get smaller and faster; the real technological advancements are in the physics of storage and processing. The "advances" in software seem to follow what The Graybeards Of Antiquity dreamed up in the 1960s, now with a slicker, graphically enhanced user interface.
I see so many less experienced software creators going nuts over something "new" when it's just repackaged from a decade (or three decades) ago. It's interesting to see reactions when asked "how's that different from Q?" or "but what about problem J?" and even "ah, that's over here in TAOCP ... you know Knuth, right?"
EDIT: relevant quote from another headline on HN-- 'Calling a hierarchical directory a "folder" doesn't change its nature any more than calling a prison guard a "counselor".'
I think the discrimination is largely towards older people who are relatively new to the industry. 50 year olds who have 30 year careers and aren't in management are very rare, and in my experience valued highly if they are competent.
This is a typical blog post, lots of factual assertions with no back-up in actual cited research studies. As an earlier top-level comment put it,
The article doesn't give much information
so maybe some readers here will appreciate more information. A recent book that goes into great detail about what the subtest scores of IQ tests show about what happens to people as they age is Are We Getting Smarter?: Rising IQ in the Twenty-First Century by James R. Flynn,
a scholar who has been researching IQ test raw score trends and what they mean for more than thirty years. Flynn has discovered that people who were the brightest (highest in IQ) at younger ages grow old with a pattern of decline that is more steep for their strongest abilities than people who are nearer the average in IQ, a phenomenon he calls the "bright tax." Commentary on that observation
will get you started in thinking about the issue, but I think any Hacker News reader interested in research on human intelligence really owes it to himself or herself to read Flynn's latest book in full, as I finished doing last weekend.
All of James R. Flynn's books are readable and thought-provoking, full of information you can't find anywhere else. Here is what the late Arthur Jensen said about Flynn back in the 1980s: "Now and then I am asked . . . who, in my opinion, are the most respectable critics of my position on the race-IQ issue? The name James R. Flynn is by far the first that comes to mind." Modgil, Sohan & Modgil, Celia (Eds.) (1987) Arthur Jensen: Concensus and Controversy New York: Falmer. Here's what Charles Murray says in his back cover blurb for Flynn's book What Is Intelligence?: "This book is a gold mine of pointers to interesting work, much of which was new to me. All of us who wrestle with the extraordinarily difficult questions about intelligence that Flynn discusses are in his debt." As N. J. Mackintosh (IQ and Human Intelligence 1998, p. 104) writes about the data Flynn found: "the data are surprising, demolish some long-cherished beliefs, and raise a number of other interesting issues along the way." Flynn has earned the respect and praise of any honest researcher who takes time to read the scholarly literature on human intelligence. Robert Sternberg, Ian Deary, Stephen Pinker, Stephen Ceci, Sir Michael Rutter, and plenty of other eminent psychologists recommend Flynn's research.
Another comment I can make about this blog post is that right now the Baby Boom has aged fully into middle age, and is beginning to age into old age, so the largest population cohort in American history until recently will increasingly demand attention to the issues of aging. The Baby Boom, because it is a numerous population cohort, has much influence on United States society, and that's why "classic rock" has never ceased to have radio airplay since that genre of music was first released as top 40 hits. Since millions of Americans are aging, but still think of themselves as young people belonging to a generation of young people, we can expect more blog posts and other popular writings on the topic of changes in individual intelligence in the aging process, and we may as well read sound research on the topic. Another good popular book with a lot of information on human intelligence over the course of the lifespan is IQ Testing 101 by Alan S. Kaufman.
And your post reads like a by-the-numbers homework answer or someone who is plugging Flynn's book. Merely citing references doesn't give you a coherent argument.
IQ is meaningless as a predictor of effectiveness in life. Practical intelligence relates to all sorts of attributes, of which I think the most important is experience (or possibly the ability to just get down and work). IQ is an abstract measure of problem solving ability, valued only by people who think they have a high number to brag about. Experience and age confers judgement, this helps you know which are the right problems to solve and how to solve those problems effectively.
While I get where you're coming from, I don't think you've come very far. IQ is not meaningless as a predictor at all - it correlates with income, and income correlates with some measures of impact.
Stating that the rate of IQ change is associated with the measured IQ is very relevant to the topic of brain functions and age, though not directly to improvement with age. That said, I too found the aside on Flynn's reputation to be distracting.
Great pointers, but are there any specifics you could share on 'brain functions that improve with age'? You seem to be saying there aren't any, by omission...
My non-factual opinion is that "In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, in the expert's mind there are few." means that an older person will get to the solution faster... unless it requires a complete reappraisal. So it's wise to become expert in things that change slowly: human nature, language, law, mathematics. Of course, there's nothing stopping an older person from becoming a beginner.
So, is it age or is it expertise? While there definitely are age effects, I think they are often overstated - as that study on the effect weight training for post menopausal women on bone density showed: elderly people aren't inactive because they're frail; they're frail because they are inactive. (to dramatise the point).
The article is essentially a brief synopsis of a book by the same author, <i>The Secret Life of the Grown-up Brain: The Surprising Talents of the Middle-Aged Mind</i>.
I always think of it a bit like the arc of Michael Jordan's career. At 23 he could fly and was very fast, but he couldn't shoot very well, and his game was unpolished. At 33 he was far wiser, understood the game a lot better, needed to exert less energy to accomplish as much or more, and he could shoot far better and had developed a lot of useful moves to get off a shot.
I feel like our mental capabilities follow an arc of that sorts.
I believe it's the same in every field of work. Even working in the garden or doing some fixing around the house. I'm now approaching 40 and find myself much more physically able than I was 10 years ago, mainly because I'm more patient and know better how to use my body.
The article doesn't give much information although I believe (believe, not know) that our brain deals with middle age in a smart way.
What is interesting to me is that one factor of brain ageing is the way our society is organized: we can't spend a lot of time learning after the university or when we don't have a lot of time to write code obsessively.
As with all heuristic building there are benefits and drawbacks, but my main criterion for judgement is: Are these heuristics going to help you get better in the future?
In general I find the answer is no, for the same reasons the author points out: Slower to adapt to a new environment. With faster rates of technology adoption older brains will be left in the dust as we start to capture their long term heuristics into models of social behavior that we can integrate into our decision models through our new technologies.
A few kg of blueberries a day? All my food for one day together weighs less than that. Did you mean grams? That seems low, but kg/week is still way too high.
Blueberries consist mostly of water(proteins, carbs and fat make total of 7.5 grams per 100 grams, more or less rest is water), so they aren't very rich in calories(44 kcal per 100 grams). Of course all sorts of berries would rather be an supplement than a primary energy source in the first place.
But indeed, kilograms per day? Sounds too much to be optimal, and relevancy for aging or combating it from perspective of brain development is totally left out, which makes the whole claim even more astounding. Sources or gtfo! :)
It's quite easy to eat a lot of berries in one go - I can manage 454g of strawberries in a sitting, no problem - but I still think more than kilo or two of blueberries would be a tall order.
Besides, think of the cost! Here are some US prices, as best I can tell. Anywhere from $20/72oz - i.e., $9.80/kg!
"Younger brains, predictably, are set up to focus on the negative and potential trouble."
Could this have some relevance on the excessive negativity HN comments have been accused of recently? What are the age demographics of this site's most active users?
Today, silicon valley seems to age discriminate in favor of the young, just out of college. I think they're missing out.