[aleph_minus_one]

I disagree with

> 1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.

> 2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.

> 3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.

My experience is rather that early in your life you get "imprinted" with specific values, and then you judge technology by how it fits these values:

For example, I was "imprinted" against surveillance since I was born in West Germany, and people were telling me what evil surveillance stuff the Stasi does in "the other Germany (GDR)". Also I deeply detested authorities (I was likely born this way), and thus got attracted to hacking.

Thus, for example:

I already heard about the internet early in my life (from magazines) - say, when I was 8 years old - but I actually saw how people organized stuff "offline" against what I would consider "how the world naturally works" (believe it or not).

Smartphones were invented when I was between 15 and 35, but I immediately saw them as surveillance bugs. The same holds for the advent of social networks.

On the other hand, 3D printing got mainstreamed later than when I was 35, but I immediately got in love with it, and couldn't wait the day until 3D printing got more reliable and I earned enough money to get a 3D printer, since 3D printers fit my values very well.

So, in my experience it is typically not about the year when something was invented, but rather about whether the invention is a good or bad fit for the values that you were shaped with in your early life.

[iammjm]

You might find the hypothesis more convincing if you replace technology (something you clearly care about and are up to date with) with something that's not generally your thing but which changes dynamically, like maybe music, fashion, or architecture

[aleph_minus_one]

> You might find the hypothesis more convincing if you replace technology [...] with something that's not generally your thing but which changes dynamically, like maybe music, fashion, or architecture

Let's take music. I clearly grew up in an environment where I think I got a rather "acquired", high-brow taste in music.

While I, as of today, do see that some of this taste that I was imprinted with can be a little bit arbitrary, I would clearly say that nevertheless my taste in music is strongly influenced by whether it fits the "taste values" with which I was shaped early in my life, similarly to what I wrote in my previous post:

> So, in my experience it is typically not about the year when something was invented, but rather about whether the invention is a good or bad fit for the values that you were shaped with in your early life.