Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by alexvr 4718 days ago
At what age would you say you were smartest, if you have noticed any fluctuation? I hear you mental power peaks at about 22 and begins to decline after 26, but that's pretty depressing, and I don't want to believe it, so if you have experience to counter or confirm this, please share. If you have noticed any decline in "fluid intelligence," is it negligible? Does your wisdom and experience outweigh any mental decline in real-life situations? How does age affect creativity? Thank you, wise elders.
7 comments

At what age would you say you were smartest

Right now (3 days shy of 40).

if you have noticed any fluctuation? I hear you mental power peaks at about 22 and begins to decline after 26, but that's pretty depressing, and I don't want to believe it, so if you have experience to counter or confirm this, please share.

I don't really buy it. Subjectively I don't feel anything that makes me feel less smart or less capable than when I was 22. And given the huge advantage in accumulated knowledge and experience I have now, I feel FAR more capable than my 22 year old self, or my 30 year old self, or even my 35 year old self.

Does your wisdom and experience outweigh any mental decline in real-life situations?

I would say "yes". If my cognitive abilities have declined at all, I think the increase in knowledge and experience far more than compensates for that.

How does age affect creativity?

I think I'm more creative right now than at any other stage of my life.

The good thing is that software isn't math or music. In those fields you might peak at 26.

Software is mathematical but it also requires a lot of judgement and experience. Consider that Guido van Rossum didn't even START working on Python (most popular language on HN) until age 35.

From what I can see 30's and 40's is a sweet spot for a lot of programmers. It seems like a lot of startup founders are young, but I think a lot of the guys actually making systems work have been around the block a few more times.

I am thirty one and just started a BA in mathematics and I am usually the sharpest in the class filled with 20somethings .
> In those fields you might peak at 26.

This is oft-repeated, but I’ve never seen any actual evidence to support it. I know plenty of mathematicians who didn’t start doing their best work until they were in their 40s, and musicians who have only gotten better well into their 60s.

Yeah I should have qualified that... it's not even math or music, but rather particular subfields and a particular kind of person. 26 is too young too; I was taking that random number from the OP.

Galenson claims there is a human dimorphism between people (or at least artists) who peak young and old (summarized here: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.07/genius.html)

Math, music, and chess do have the most child prodigies. It doesn't mean the converse is true, that older people are worse at them :)

I did some research after asking this, and the studies' results seem to contradict each other. Apparently, our brains are largest at the age of 14, and we're smartest at about 15, especially in terms of new concept absorption. While that may be true, I once read that a fatty substance called myelin, which apparently facilitates rapid and efficient processing, is most ubiquitous in the brain in your early twenties, and a gradual decrease in this substance is probably responsible for mental decline. But a major longitudinal study on the topic found that mental abilities are largely constant from 20 to 60, and that through training, elderly brains can be significantly revitalized. I theorize that a major confounding factor is the tendency to retire around 60.
it would be really cool to see some of the sources you found in your research... :)
I learned a lot from the Seattle Longitudinal Study. This diagram basically sums up their findings: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1474018/figure/F... Also, they mentioned that if you correct for the loss in perceptual speed that comes with age, the drop is not as significant. I interpret this as, "If we give elderly people as much time as they need to take an IQ test, their performance will be relatively close to that of 20-somethings taking the same test under the same conditions." (I may be wrong, but that's what I would like to think.) I also found a study by UVA that is looking for participants, in case anyone is interested: http://faculty.virginia.edu/cogage/
I'm 46. I do agree that I felt smartest around 22-25, I was able to recall stuff quickly and think faster than now and absorb new information faster, but that's just raw calculating ability and short term memory. I have noticed over the years a slow decline, and now I feel about 10% less smart in that sense.

However, over the years I have gained a large array of mental tools, techniques and knowledge that have vastly expanded my abilities. I am a more competent programmer now, as well as a more rounded person. We will see if that holds up for another 10 years.

I really don't want to believe that. While yes I am 22, and I feel the most mentally powerful till now but I don't see how it could decline as soon as it hits 26. Too early.

I have had the privilege to work with tech folks on the other side of 40 and their experience was very handy as I was short in just that one field. Just the sheer experience helps them make better decisions. Also the fact that they have had more time to learn certain things compared to us younger ones must count to some extent maybe, right?

You have multiple fundamental cultural conflicts that I think will effectively provide enough noise to cover up any signal.

The first one is intelligence metrics are only permitted WRT aging which makes them impossible to intelligently compare. Culturally verboten to discuss the same metrics WRT class, race, pretty much anything else. So there's numbers... and we have no idea what they mean, if anything, in the bigger picture. OK then.

I suspect there are no large collection of serious peer reviewed numbers to back it up. A vague cultural belief of "everyone knows" but no one's really measured or documented it with enough detail and repetition to prove much of anything. Or its a statistical anomaly.. men who make it to age 20 have always lived to 60s-80s. The reason average lifespan exploded in the last century or two is 4/5ths of the kids stopped dying. Therefore the avg specs over the centuries means little to anyone already an adult. Might very well be the same effect. So no data and no critical analysis.

Another cultural problem is pigeonholing. Teen screws up, well its just hormones. Slightly older, must be on recreational drugs. A little older, well, he's the new guy. Bit older, the baby is keeping them up all night can't blame him. Now he's worried about his teenagers. Same old screwup who still screws up at the same rate as when he was 5, finally reaches a well seasoned age with no excuses left, well, his screw ups must "NOW" be because he's old, LOL. Even if a graph of "screwup-full-ness" is a perfect flat line for his whole life.

Another interesting distortion is changing jobs. Generally our culture doesn't give kids big picture jobs and old people entry level jobs. Odd how their demanded performance seems to match the stereotypical expectations.

Final cultural barrier you have to power thru is the classic, teens energy and ignorance rebel against parents wisdom and experience. I donno if you're going to be able to power past that, its a heck of a roadblock to correct for. Much like a recreational sport, the "conflict" might solely exist for fun/cultural reasons. There may be no actual difference at all, but humans love to "other" each other and get all dramatic, and this sounds like a fun topic to fight about, so...

I hear you mental power peaks at about 22 and begins to decline after 26, but that's pretty depressing

That seems... odd, and doesn't reflect my experience. I'm doing the best and most creative work of my life right now, I wouldn't have even been capable of any of it at 22.