[Zancarius]

> It’s all about the influences

This is key. Everything else is an excuse.

My Mum is in her 70s and until she lost feeling in one of her hands (chemotherapy 23-ish years ago) she was an exceedingly fast touch typist. Even without feeling in her hands, she could still type at ~40 WPM, possibly higher depending on what she was typing. Arthritis means she now mostly uses a tablet.

But looking at other people in that age range, I can think of literally zero from church who even know how to touch type. It's probably the difference between someone who had to do secretarial work and someone who did not.

I do think your first statement is absolutely on the mark. e.g., "I'm old, and I don't understand it, so I won't try."

The old adage is still true: Whether you think you can or you can't you're probably right.

[throwawayboise]

As someone who is older, I'd phrase it slightly differently. "I'm old, my time on earth will be gone in less time than you've been alive, this thing you're all excited about seems silly and pointless and doesn't solve any problem I have, so I won't waste any of my precious time on it."

This is part of why I've never used Facebook, Twitter, or any of the rest of it.

[elmomle]

Makes sense, though I think the same reasoning is often used to excuse obviously inefficient habits. Spending a week to learn to competently use a computer would likely save most people much more than a week over the following ten or even five years.

[Zancarius]

I agree with elmomle, but mostly because I've had a number of customers many years ago (back when I worked in tech support) who were older (70+, sometimes 80+) who were absolutely willing to learn new technologies and were generally sharp people.

The difference is definitely much less about not finding new technologies useful or irritating; it's a difference, I think, between people who are genuinely curious and interested in learning new things and those who aren't.