Age Nepotism I

[TheLastWolf]

Age Nepotism. No circumlocution. Plain old to the point. In societies around the world there is some form of reverence for elders. And it's relative, to a 17 yr old teen like me, a 45 yr old man and a 70 yr old are both elder and to the 45+ the 70 + is and so on. But what have they done to deserve more respect or treat their younger in age fellow humans condescendingly? Not all of the 'elders' most of them. They were just born earlier. Just like my later (relative) birth, they had no choice or design in theirs.

But the more grey hairs they have doesn't necessarily mean more grey cells. I've a few grey uns myself lol. Genetics not malnutrition.

I believe it must have originated when we were cavemen, low life expectancy, high risk factor from the elements and other life forms. So if a person has survived past the average lifespan, he had to be physically and mentally fit to survive in the wild so long. Clans thus had such ex alphas. My theory about the reason for such a common social phenomenon across diverse cultures doesn't stem from anthropology or behavioral psychology. But this is not relevant anymore in a modern civilization where merit trumps anything and everything else. 

I've experienced firsthand both in the real and virtual  (incl our forum, but lot less than realworld) worlds such experiences. A comment by an older person has more weight in the general publics' eyes than say a younger person's would. If I say that covid19 could prove to be good in the longer run for the prolonged survival of our so-called 'intelligent' species (herd immunity, survival of the fittest, gene pool enriched, unbiased reduction of population => more resources for survivors, since our unnatural population explosion...), people would scoff, disregard contemptuously as insane ravings. But if its coming from a philosophical leaning 50 year old at IMF/WHO, people pretend to understand and ponder by scratching their multiple/bony chins.

As far as I'm concerned, I'd call out an octogenarian and a teen if they're being jerks. As for strangers irrespective of age I'd treat them all neutrally, not assigning any unwarranted expectations. That is until I come to know them enough. 5 minutes is all you need.

As for the experience argument, fair enough. Oldies more experience, but some/most of it would have shaped their biases and prejudices, stoked their stereotypical mindset. It may be racial/ethnic, gender, religious whatnot. Problem is, like every other person with problems, they are mostly ignorant that they HAVE problems.

I hope this topic makes for an interesting discussion and a break from the mundane for most viewers 

PS most constitutions prohibit discrimination of any form and I'm pretty sure age is incl

[Darzin]

I just think society moves faster now. If you were a farmer even a hundred years ago the old people in your town and village new a ton of useful stuff. With the lightning pace of technology and huge social changes that's a lot less ture nowadays. 

[kiko]

I have this discussion a lot at home and the answer is not easy. Actually the answer is easy, it's just that it can cause trouble if I try to give it to my teenage daughter or almost teenage son...

I assume it is unconscious bias because we really have to witness and receive a *lot* of behavior that we wouldn't accept if it came from one of our age peers. So it might be a way to actually protect the young unes. If we would start treating them as 100% peers, we would also have to start holding them accountable for their actions. Mind you, all of this is probably not deliberate. On the same unconscious level we probably expect to be treated as grown-ups which must feel like unfair to a teenager or young adult when they notice they are clearly not treated equally. 

 

[maarsen]

As an oldster on this forum, in years anyway, I have to say that age does not always bring wisdom. I guess one could say surviving this long is due to having some bit of common sense, as in not winning a Darwin award in one's youth. I have noticed though that realizing that being an intelligent youth, frustrating as it is, does end when you reach your majority and can then claim to be an equal adult. Then you can treat us oldsters with respect but have no obligation to treat our ideas with the same respect.

Einstein once said they he rebelled against authority from youth. For his punishment he was made one.

[A wilding]

Experience and the knowledge and wisdom that comes with experience.

Though as said, in a fast moving world that can be less useful than it might once have been, and in general the flip side of that experience is that one can ossify and just keep doing the things that worked 25 years ago. Which is why I will be calling a halt to my career in IT fairly soon now.

[Which Tyler]

6 hours ago, Darzin said:

I just think society moves faster now. If you were a farmer even a hundred years ago the old people in your town and village new a ton of useful stuff. With the lightning pace of technology and huge social changes that's a lot less ture nowadays. 

Not just technology, but basic literacy.

In the days when learning was more-or-less all done via experience, those with greater experience had more knowledge.

These days everyone has had a formal education, about subjects that go way beyond personal experience; and technology means we have easy access to pretty much all knowledge if we care to find it.

 

An uneducated subsistence farmer say 150 years ago would be facing his first drought in his 20s; and wouldn't know what to do; his grandad might be seeing his 8th or 9th, and now the fields and what to do to survive. That matters.

Hell, the same goes for a farmer with basic education up to age 15 from 40 years ago would face the same problems - albeit with recourse to a local library, and maybe a national farming union.

Now, you can find the answer via google, and soil analysis, and be pre-warned with weather forecasts; can benefit from the wisdom of others in facebook / whatsapp groups.

 

 

ETA: TLW's illustrative example is easily rebuffed; the 50 year old professor from IMF or WHO is considered to know what s/he is talking about because they're a professor from the IMF or WHO, and one who has risen through the ranks of that organisation by being recognised as an expert - not because they're 50 years old.
It does illustrate a secondary point though - if someone wants to be considered an expert, there's a minimum amount of time it's going to take - to build up the education, experience and expertise. I've never heard of (which isn't the same as "there are none") a teenager with a PhD - because to reach PhD, you need to go through standard education, undergraduate degree, typically masters level, and then a PhD itself. Ideally with some "real world experience" mixed in between initial study, and embarking upon the PhD.
To then be considered a more general go-to expert, it then takes time to rise through the ranks of academia or the specific organisation like WHO or IMF; to gain that position of authority, who does the media interviews, advises governments etc.
Not cleverer because they're older; or more respected because they're older - but are in a position of authority because they've earned it, and put the time in to becoming that.

 

It's also worth noting that in most modern Western societies, we see the precise opposite of age nepotism, and are rather embarrassed about old folk (beyond the age of what? 70-odd), and prefer them out of sight and out of mind - quite the opposite of respect and presumed knowledge.

[Rippounet]

The prefrontal cortex is only fully formed around 25 years old in humans. Younger individuals are more likely to base decisions or ideas on emotions or impulses than on reason ("type 2 thinking") - needless to say, they're unlikely to realize that, but it's fairly easy to observe, and it's scientifically proven.
Of course, conversely, cognitive functions generally deteriorate beyond a certain age.

That being said, not sure I understand the topic. Obviously when it comes to "pure thinking," younger people can be quicker and more flexible. Problem is, there are very few situations in real life where "pure thinking" takes place ; most situations involve knowledge and/or experience. So on average, you're better off listening to someone older, but it depends whether that someone actually has knowledge and/or experience to offer.

I've never listened to people because of their age, but because they know what they're talking about. People like Robert Sapolsky:

Quote

 

https://nautil.us/issue/15/turbulence/dude-wheres-my-frontal-cortex

Dude, Where’s My Frontal Cortex?, by Robert Sapolsky

For all this we can thank the teenage brain. Some have argued adolescence is a cultural construct. In traditional cultures, there is typically a single qualitative transition to puberty. After that, the individual is a young adult. Yet the progression from birth to adulthood is not smoothly linear. The teenage brain is unique. It’s not merely an adult brain that is half-cooked or a child’s brain left unrefrigerated for too long. Its distinctiveness arises from a key region, the frontal cortex, not being fully developed. This largely explains the turbulence of adolescence.

[...]

In an adult, the frontal cortex steadies the activity of parts of the limbic system, a brain region involved in emotion; in contrast, in the teenage brain, the limbic system is already going at full speed, while the frontal cortex is still trying to make sense of the assembly instructions. One result of this imbalance is that emotions are more intense. Stick people in a brain scanner and show them pictures of faces expressing strong emotions. In the adult, there is activation of a prime limbic structure, the amygdala; shortly after, there is activation of frontal cortical regions, which damp the amygdaloid response: “OK, calm down, it’s just a picture of an angry/sad/happy/scared face, not the real thing.”

[...]

And adolescents are bad at risk assessment in a particular way, shown by Sarah-Jayne Blakemore of University College London. Ask test subjects to estimate the likelihood of some event happening to them and then tell them the actual likelihood of it happening. The feedback can constitute good news, as subjects learn that a good event is more likely to occur than they thought. Conversely, the feedback can constitute bad news, as subjects learn an event can happen more often than they expected. Both adults and teens are likely to adjust their assessments when asked again about the likelihood of good news. But teens alone don’t get the picture about bad news. Researcher: What do you think the odds are of your having a car accident if you’re driving drunk? Adolescent: One chance in a gazillion. Researcher: Actually, the risk for people in general is 50 percent; now what do you think your chances are? Adolescent: Hey, we’re talking about me; one chance in a gazillion. This helps explain why adolescents have 2 to 4 times the rate of pathological gambling than adults.

So adolescents are lousy at risk assessment and take more risks.

 

 

[Pebble thats Stubby]

the really simple answer is.   We older people remember what we where like when we where younger and all the stupid things we did.

 

thats not to say every young person does stupid things and old people don't.

 

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

8 hours ago, The_Lone_Wolf said:

Age Nepotism. No circumlocution. Plain old to the point. In societies around the world there is some form of reverence for elders. And it's relative, to a 17 yr old teen like me, a 45 yr old man and a 70 yr old are both elder and to the 45+ the 70 + is and so on. But what have they done to deserve more respect or treat their younger in age fellow humans condescendingly? Not all of the 'elders' most of them. They were just born earlier. Just like my later (relative) birth, they had no choice or design in theirs.

But the more grey hairs they have doesn't necessarily mean more grey cells. I've a few grey uns myself lol. Genetics not malnutrition.

I believe it must have originated when we were cavemen, low life expectancy, high risk factor from the elements and other life forms. So if a person has survived past the average lifespan, he had to be physically and mentally fit to survive in the wild so long. Clans thus had such ex alphas. My theory about the reason for such a common social phenomenon across diverse cultures doesn't stem from anthropology or behavioral psychology. But this is not relevant anymore in a modern civilization where merit trumps anything and everything else. 

I've experienced firsthand both in the real and virtual  (incl our forum, but lot less than realworld) worlds such experiences. A comment by an older person has more weight in the general publics' eyes than say a younger person's would. If I say that covid19 could prove to be good in the longer run for the prolonged survival of our so-called 'intelligent' species (herd immunity, survival of the fittest, gene pool enriched, unbiased reduction of population => more resources for survivors, since our unnatural population explosion...), people would scoff, disregard contemptuously as insane ravings. But if its coming from a philosophical leaning 50 year old at IMF/WHO, people pretend to understand and ponder by scratching their multiple/bony chins.

As far as I'm concerned, I'd call out an octogenarian and a teen if they're being jerks. As for strangers irrespective of age I'd treat them all neutrally, not assigning any unwarranted expectations. That is until I come to know them enough. 5 minutes is all you need.

As for the experience argument, fair enough. Oldies more experience, but some/most of it would have shaped their biases and prejudices, stoked their stereotypical mindset. It may be racial/ethnic, gender, religious whatnot. Problem is, like every other person with problems, they are mostly ignorant that they HAVE problems.

I hope this topic makes for an interesting discussion and a break from the mundane for most viewers 

PS most constitutions prohibit discrimination of any form and I'm pretty sure age is incl

Experience.  That is what age provides. There is very little that can substitute for it.  

 

(And for clarities sake as others have stated that is far from a claim of perfection or superiority.  It’s simply that someone who has been around longer is more likely to have dealt with a similar difficulty and may (may) be better able to handle something similar).

[Ormond]

7 hours ago, Rippounet said:

The prefrontal cortex is only fully formed around 25 years old in humans. Younger individuals are more likely to base decisions or ideas on emotions or impulses than on reason ("type 2 thinking") - needless to say, they're unlikely to realize that, but it's fairly easy to observe, and it's scientifically proven.
Of course, conversely, cognitive functions generally deteriorate beyond a certain age.

That being said, not sure I understand the topic. Obviously when it comes to "pure thinking," younger people can be quicker and more flexible. Problem is, there are very few situations in real life where "pure thinking" takes place ; most situations involve knowledge and/or experience. So on average, you're better off listening to someone older, but it depends whether that someone actually has knowledge and/or experience to offer.

I've never listened to people because of their age, but because they know what they're talking about. People like Robert Sapolsky:

 

I'd like to endorse the above comments by Rippounet and the long quote he gave from Robert Sapolsky.

But as a personality psychologist I'll have to add that of course there are individual differences and when one makes a statement like "younger people are likely to base decisions on impusles or emotions," "adolescents are bad at risk assessment," or "adults have less intense emotions", these are always statements true in terms of averages. At every age range there is going to be a lot of individual variation on how good people are at controlling impulsivity, for instance. There will be a few teenagers who are better at that than the average person in their 60s is, and a few people in their 60s who are worse at it than the average teenager. (Those impulsive 60 year olds are of course likely to have had no impulse control at all back when they were teens!) But one has to know someone well before one can reliably predict that they are an outlier on these traits, so it's better at the societal level to organize things to give the decisions of teens on important issues less weight. 

[TheLastWolf]

Wow. Thanks a lot people, I'll chew on it 

[Buckwheat]

1 hour ago, Ormond said:

I'd like to endorse the above comments by Rippounet and the long quote he gave from Robert Sapolsky.

But as a personality psychologist I'll have to add that of course there are individual differences and when one makes a statement like "younger people are ore likely to base decisions on impusles or emotions," "adolescents are bad at risk assessment," or "adults have less intense emotions", these are always statements true in terms of averages. At every age range there is going to be a lot of individual variation on how good people are at controlling impulsivity, for instance. There will be a few teenagers who are better at that than the average person in their 60s is, and a few people in their 60s who are worse at it than the average teenager. (Those impulsive 60 year olds are of course likely to have had no impulse control at all back when they were teens!) But one has to know someone well before one can reliably predict that they are an outlier on these traits, so it's better at the societal level to organize things to give the decisions of teens on important issues less weight. 

The above quote only explains the difference between adolescents and "adults" (those over 25, in regards to brain development). Maybe you can explain how it works in pre-adolescents, as in, younger children. Do they base their reactions and decisions on impulses even more than adolescents do?

Otherwise, I agree with the point about experience that was stated a few times. I often ask my older coworkers how to handle something that I don't know how to deal with. Not because they are older, but because they have probably run into a similar situation or handled the same task before, which means they can help me with their firsthand experience.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

As a cranky “old” (the worst type, a middle aged grammar scold old), I’m first going to quote Fezzick and point out that “nepotism” “does not mean what you think it means.”  Nepotism means giving a relative favored treatment in terms of promotions or preferment, usually in the context of employment.  I will admit that I knew that as a hot shot “young” because I knew that “nepos” was the word for “nephew” in Latin, that then filtered through Italian to become “nepotisme”.  It came from the practice of Catholic Bishops and Popes appointing their “nephews” *cough cough* to important and lucrative church positions.  It’s actually in many ways, exactly the OPPOSITE of what you are suggesting, in that tremendously unqualified young people were appointed to important positions by their elders.

That totally aside, while I remember the experience of frustration that you feel now (I was, and still am, a hot shot), I can tell you that my judgement and analysis is WAY better today than it was when I was a 20 something who thought I should be a master of the universe.  It’s not that I made bad decisions or had bad judgement when I was a young.  I made great decisions in general*.  But the weight of experience does, in fact, have a great deal of meaning, particularly in my profession, which is giving other people advice.

 

*Except after 2 AM.  Every really terrible decision I’ve made has happened between the hours of 2 am and 5 am, often at a diner.

[HoodedCrow]

Ways of closing the experience gap.

Read. You get professional writers to show you different ages, knowledge bases, lives, characters.  and points of view, all without having to do much more than make eye movements and process.

Seek out novel or enriching experiences.

Learn to think critically, otherwise you will remain with poorer cognitive abilities than a child, no matter how old you are.

Learn the powers and weaknesses of the scientific method. Apply it to your own life!

[Heartofice]

The problem with old people is that they quite often shift very much out of the ‘apprentice’ mindset , so rather than being open to new experiences or ways of thinking they will shut themselves off, assuming they know it all already. 
 

Having said that, the same problem is not just confined to older people, and I get increasingly frustrated by ‘young uns’ who think they’ve got it all sorted and know the world. 
 

You really only learn about the world from your mistakes and by trying things, and it’s frustrating listening to teenagers or 20 somethings try to talk down to people on topics they really have no first hand experience of. The internet makes experts of everyone after all.

[Zorral]

14 hours ago, The_Lone_Wolf said:

f I say that covid19 could prove to be good in the longer run for the prolonged survival of our so-called 'intelligent' species (herd immunity, survival of the fittest, gene pool enriched, unbiased reduction of population => more resources for survivors, since our unnatural population explosion...), people would scoff, disregard contemptuously as insane ravings. But if its coming from a philosophical leaning 50 year old at IMF/WHO, people pretend to understand and ponder by scratching their multiple/bony chins.

No matter the age of whomever said anything like this, they have proven themselves idiots.

[Ormond]

4 hours ago, Buckwheat said:

The above quote only explains the difference between adolescents and "adults" (those over 25, in regards to brain development). Maybe you can explain how it works in pre-adolescents, as in, younger children. Do they base their reactions and decisions on impulses even more than adolescents do?

Otherwise, I agree with the point about experience that was stated a few times. I often ask my older coworkers how to handle something that I don't know how to deal with. Not because they are older, but because they have probably run into a similar situation or handled the same task before, which means they can help me with their firsthand experience.

Yes, impulse control tends to increase on average over the lifespan (at least until onset of dementia). The average 16 year old has more impulse control than the average 10 year old, and people would certainly think there was something wrong with a 10 year old whose impulse control was at the level of the average toddler's. 

Not every characteristic that might be relevant operates this way, though. Sensation seeking tends to go up during the teen years from what it was during the elementary school years. 

[IFR]

I'm absolutely thrilled that Sapolsky has been mentioned. I recommend people read his book Behave (of which the quote Rippounet provided gives an abridged take).

As has been observed here, it has been shown that the brain is physiologically underdeveloped in the teenage years, particularly the frontal cortex. The full neuron volume is not developed until early adolescence, and then an essential pruning of suboptimal neuronal connections is needed, and myelanation, to achieve the same efficient cellular communication that adults have.

Furthermore, the risk/reward configurations of adolescents are very different from adults and even preadolescent children. Neurotransmitters such as dopamine are overactive when stimulated by large events, and underactive when stimulated by small events. Since the frontal cortex is underdeveloped at this point, the ventral striatum is pulling substitute duty. Additionally, adolescents are physiologically more vulnerable to peer pressure overriding their executive functions. Etc.

That being said, the process of human maturation is not uniform, and as other people have mentioned, some people advance at a greater biological rate than others. An extreme example would be an adult with autism. Autistic people tend to have an underdeveloped superior temperoral sulcus; a non-autistic teenager is likely to have a more developed Theory of Mind.

That example is extreme, but one can observe that emotional and intellectual maturation has individual gradients, in respect to biology and "experience". Experience is something you can gain from age, but the ability to learn appropriate lessons is not necessarily guaranteed, as much as many adults like to believe it of themselves.

And it's also important to point out that experience and a fully developed executive function aren't always advantageous. Many of the advancements in science, social policy and ideologies have been pushed forward by teenagers, who emboldened by the lack of both. Teenagers are more ready to embrace progressive changes, and to not be blinded by established prejudices, and so forth.

I'm 19 years old. From my perspective, I listen to what someone says and evaluate them using my own judgement (as much as anyone can do); not by some a priori belief that they must know better. Donald Trump is older than me, but I think by his own demonstration he has virtually nothing to offer other than an example of what not to be. Michelle and Barack Obama are older than me. I definitely listen to their advice and words,  because they have established themselves to be highly intelligent and people of great character.

[TheLastWolf]

13 hours ago, Zorral said:

No matter the age of whomever said anything like this, they have proven themselves idiots.

Nietzsche said there are no facts, only opinions 

[TheLastWolf]

21 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

 

ETA: TLW's illustrative example is easily rebuffed; the 50 year old professor from IMF or WHO is considered to know what s/he is talking about because they're a professor from the IMF or WHO, and one who has risen through the ranks of that organisation by being recognised as an expert - not because they're 50 years old.
It does illustrate a secondary point though - if someone wants to be considered an expert, there's a minimum amount of time it's going to take - to build up the education, experience and expertise. I've never heard of (which isn't the same as "there are none") a teenager with a PhD - because to reach PhD, you need to go through standard education, undergraduate degree, typically masters level, and then a PhD itself. Ideally with some "real world experience" mixed in between initial study, and embarking upon the PhD.
To then be considered a more general go-to expert, it then takes time to rise through the ranks of academia or the specific organisation like WHO or IMF; to gain that position of authority, who does the media interviews, advises governments etc.
Not cleverer because they're older; or more respected because they're older - but are in a position of authority because they've earned it, and put the time in to becoming that

Ok. Since this is an argument, let's just make him a 50 yr old grey haired academic looking man on a news channel out for TRP. Minus the PhD IMF/WHO thing. My predicament isn't going to change. 

21 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

It's also worth noting that in most modern Western societies, we see the precise opposite of age nepotism, and are rather embarrassed about old folk (beyond the age of what? 70-odd), and prefer them out of sight and out of mind - quite the opposite of respect and presumed knowledge.

That's a very recent trend and not all prevalent