May 14, 2014

The Democrats ought to worry about Hillary's health

Everybody is mad at Karl Rove, but not, of course, for all the good reasons for being mad at him. From the NYT:
Mrs. Clinton was hospitalized for a few days at the beginning of 2013 after sustaining a concussion, which led to a blood clot in a vein between her brain and her skull behind her right ear. 
“There’s nothing to it,” Mr. Clinton said of Mr. Rove’s remarks, pronouncing himself “sort of dumbfounded” at the suggestion. He did acknowledge that Mrs. Clinton had suffered a “very serious concussion,” and that it had taken her months to fully recover.

There's too much deference toward big shots in America. The health issues of Presidential frontrunners ought to be fair game. 

Serious health problems can have long term consequences, especially as you get older. I think it took me about ten years to recover from cancer and chemotherapy when I was 38. Currently, I seem to be -- knock on wood -- enjoying better health than I did in my 40s.

As you get older, it's harder and harder to spring back from health traumas. My mother had cancer in her early 60s. She lived another 16 years, but she remarked that because of it she went from middle-aged to old almost overnight. I doubt if Ronald Reagan ever really recovered from being shot in 1981 when he was 70.

Hillary will have just turned 69 on election day in 2016. If everything goes according to her plan, she'll be 73 when she's up for re-election. The Democrats should seriously look into Karl Rove's warning for their own good. 

The Republican have nominated a lot of older candidates lately and it hasn't done them much good. In the post-Reagan era, the three times the GOP won the White House their candidates averaged 59. The four times they lost their candidates averaged 69.

The four times the Democrats have won since Reagan, their winners averaged 48.5. The three times the Democrats lost, their candidates averaged 57.

Obviously, these sample sizes are tiny. Still, these numbers ought to give the Democrats pause before blindly adopting for Hillary's benefit the GOP's strategy of nominating elder statesmen who have come close in the past like Dole, McCain, and Romney.
  
In general, people now seem to be able to function at a high level longer than when I was young. That's a very good thing. 

Still, I'm concerned that improvements in plastic surgery and cosmetics have given us an unrealistic sense of our leaders as impervious to aging. Hillary, for example, looked terrific when she ran for President at age 60 against Obama. She may have looked better than when she was 30 and didn't believe in all that sexist nonsense about getting your hair styled by an expert, much less having a little work done.

But we shouldn't be so quick to police our skeptical thoughts about our rulers perhaps not being wholly superior to the rest of us.

P.S. What's the maximum age to command a nuclear missile submarine? All I can find is the average age of the Old Man:
How old is the commanding officer of a submarine? 
The average age of a Commanding Officer is 38-42.
   
That's a running joke in Heinlein's sci-fi novels for boys. The young ensigns on the starship all assume the Old Man is as old as the hills, but eventually you figure out that the venerable captain isn't quite 40.
      

104 comments:

Dave Pinsen said...

So are you suggesting Dems nominate Chelsea instead in '16?

Anonymous said...

http://money.msn.com/top-stocks/post--was-zuckerbergs-dollar100m-school-gift-a-waste#scpshrjwfbs

Anonymous said...

Very few elites are willing and able to spend the time and intensity it takes to keep themselves in shape physically (weight training, non-destructive cardio, etc.). Look at this 77-year old woman, Ernestine Shepherd, who was featured on CNN. Shepherd has spent the time and intensity to keep in shape physically. Any aging woman should follow Ernestine's example.

Anonymous said...

http://forward.com/articles/198054/checking-your-jewish-privilege/

smead jolley said...

David Geffen should put up his own nominee to challenge HRC. He's got to know a slightly more reliable Stiviano-like former boy toy who can mouth to the media, "all Hilary ever did was get a beautiful gay man killed. She eve said it didn't matter. Can you Bee-LEEVE this bitch?"

Anonymous said...

Hillary actually suffered a rare complication: an intracranial venous thrombosis, if I read the vague news stories correctly. But, I doubt she had permanent neurological damage.

The issue of age is real, but off limits, prob. because so many politicians are elderly. Reagan obviously was in early stages of Alzheimers by his second term.

For those of us in middle age (I am 55), if we are honest with ourselves we recognize our cognitive and physical powers have slipped significantly since age 40 or earlier.

Do we make up for it by more social connections, "wisdom", acceptance ? I don't know, but I think the sweet spot for great responsibilty is prob. 45-65.

Hillary is too old.

Anonymous said...

Hillary's age and health are minor issues compared to her demonstrated incompetence, complete lack of morals, and her marxist-elitist ideology.

Anonymous said...

"""""""Look at this 77-year old woman, Ernestine Shepherd, who was featured on CNN. Shepherd has spent the time and intensity to keep in shape physically. Any aging woman should follow Ernestine's example.""""""


'And I swear on my life, you don't look a day over 65!'--From Mel Brooks the Producers.



""""""For those of us in middle age (I am 55), if we are honest with ourselves we recognize our cognitive and physical powers have slipped significantly since age 40 or earlier.""""""""


Woah woah woah. Earlier than 40? Come come now. So you're saying that at age 30, Mark Zuckerberg is past it and over the hill and on the short decline? Several pro athletes are managing to do quite well post 30, so might care to amend the time limit.

Diet and exercise can prolong one's ability to maintain what nature naturally gave them. Especially the earlier one starts.




"""""""Do we make up for it by more social connections, "wisdom", acceptance ? I don't know, but I think the sweet spot for great responsibilty is prob. 45-65.""""""""


Well, we could do a Donald Sterling, who decided to follow poet Dylan Thomas' adage "Do not go gentle into that good night; rage against the blinding of the light."

And Donny sure is having himself one heckuva time, isn't he? All those little blue pills and bucks, of course, can certainly buy one an amazing time of life during the golden years.

Strange things are happening!

Anonymous said...

I've gotten the sense that Democrats are not that upset. Put it bluntly, even before this episode, I've gotten the feeling that the liberal wing really wants Hillary gone and is hoping the Republicans can do that, otherwise they are stuck with her.
They will show just the right amount of outage, and everyone will continue to pretend that the American "House of Cards", created by a former Deaniac has nothing to do with the Clintons.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

"Concussion" = stroke

She's a fat, daft old woman. Nowhere near the health and vigor of Reagan, and he had people accusing him of being too old from the beginning.

Anonymous said...

It wouldn't matter. The Dems sense (correctly) that they can ride the identity politics game into the WH for the next few decades.
No woman his a higher visibility than Hillary, and the best part is that she's white.
This means they still have the opportunity to run a black woman, a homo, and a tranny before they have to get creative.

Anonymous said...

i can't speak for the Navy, but the Army has informally built in systems which "kick you out" at 62 or before.

Anonymous said...

I am too lazy to look it up, but there is plenty of research that says cognitive ability (however defined) peaks in late 20's, stay about level for 10 years, goes into a slow steady decline from 40 to 65, and then goes into a steep decline.

Obviously, there are exceptions -in either direction - but you can't deny the inexorable aging process.

Even the tech billionaires (Zuckerberg just turned 30) are riding on their inventions from younger days. Z, Gates, Andreeson were teenagers when they started their companies.

As I said, 45-65 is the sweet spot for a president.

.



Anonymous said...

I think most performance-based systems have an age -based retirement. The military and police certainly have it, though the very, very generous retirement benefits make the transition welcomed.

It is puzzling that multiple figures past their prime, and in some cases obviously senile, continued to be elected. Even a major stroke affecting speech doesn't stop reelection.

Harry Baldwin said...

I heard the report on Bill Clinton's comments and I had the funny feeling he was undercutting his wife. He said, "Look, she works out every week, she is strong, she's doing great. As far as I can tell, she's in better shape than I am."

Works out every week? That's supposed to be impressive? "As far as" Bill can tell, she's healthy--that's encouraging? And she's healthier than Bill, who's had a quadruple bypass and subsequent stents and doesn't look that great himself--that's an endorsement?

After Hillary Clinton's concussion, doctors discovered a blood clot in a vein that runs between the skull and the brain behind her right ear and she was admitted to New York-Presbyterian Hospital for treatment with blood thinners. She was released after a brief hospitalization.

Bill Clinton said it was serious and took her six months to recover.


That doesn't sound good at all.

BTW, I wouldn't discount the possibility that Bill would get a kick out of seeing his wife fail in her presidential bid. There's a constant power struggle between those two and a man with his colossal ego may not look forward to playing second banana in the White House. I recall how Bob Dole undercut his wife Elizabeth when she ran in the 2000 Republican presidential primary. He described her as "a long shot," said George W. Bush's lead was "insurmountable," and mentioned that he was contributing to John McCain's campaign.

About Bob Dole's behavior, novelist Katherine Anne Porter said, "I know that when a woman loves a man, she builds him up and supports him. I never knew a man who loved a woman enough for this. He cannot help it, it is his deepest instinct to destroy, quite often subtly, insidiously, but constantly and endlessly, her very center of being, her confidence in herself as a woman."

A bit much, but probably true of the Bill Clinton and Bob Dole types.

Anonymous said...

I don't believe the Dems will go with a (non-Jewish) white candidate ever again so the question is how they get rid of her.

I thought it would be the lesbian / saudi angle but maybe not.

It would be ideal for them if the Reps do the dirt.

Anonymous said...

Please stay on this, Steve.

I'm 35. I cast my first ballot in '96 and I've never voted for a Republican - not because I fear conservatism (I'm a regular iSteve reader), but because my choices have mostly been elderly cranks, POWs, and neocon imbeciles in my lifetime. Foreign policy is 65-75% of the job of president, and Dole, Bush, McCain (and Palin!) Romney haven't inspired my confidence in that area.

But in 2016? I think I'll be learning to love the GOP, regardless of who they run. Because there's no way I'm voting for a 72 year old woman who had some kind of serious neurological issue that knocked her out of the State Department. It's CRAZY that the media hasn't buried her for the public good. It's irresponsible.

I'd be nervous about letting a 70 year old use my universal remote, or drive me to the airport. There's no way I'd want one in the most stressful, hardest job in the world.

Ray Sawhill said...

Accidents, health crises and illnesses can really take it out of a person. After I had pretty serious cancer surgery at 49, it took me about two years to fully regain my form. And by fully I don't really mean fully. My energy came about 80% back and stalled there. I felt like I went from 45 to 65 in two years.

Miguel S. said...

She's so lovable that her own party chose an unknown half-black half-foreigner with a funny name. I so hope she runs: she'll get her ass handed to her. Again.

Anonymous said...

How did she get a concussion?

Anonymous said...

""""""there is plenty of research that says cognitive ability (however defined) peaks in late 20's, stay about level for 10 years, goes into a slow steady decline from 40 to 65, and then goes into a steep decline.""""""""

BASIC cognitive abilities, no, that's not accurate. The ability to function in life, no, not accurate. Also, while it is probably true for most, the average age for PH.D candidates is around 28-30, also doctors don't become qualified surgeons until their early thirties. Apparently for the high end of the bell curve's right side, they're just getting started in their mid thirties to prove their mettle, so to speak. And Many of these are quite able to remain cognitively brilliant past their prime. Einstein and Darwin, didn't just dial it in after 40 or 50, or even 60.

Also withe each passing generation, perhaps humans are slowly developing a better sense of longevity, the prolonging of being able to more than adequate function at a high level or a higher quality level of cognitive ability past decades that heretofore were considered time to put out to pasture. With each generation

What we really need for this discussion is to invite Nicholaus Wade to the table and get his input on longevity and evolutions direct impact affecting cognitive as well as prime physical strength past a certain decade.

Lifespans have also been increasing in the western world. Up until the 20th century, a man of about 40 was considered to be a senior citizen.


""""Obviously, there are exceptions -in either direction - but you can't deny the inexorable aging process.""""""

Obviously. What we are denying is the relatively arbitrary age that you seemed to want to put on it.



"""""Even the tech billionaires (Zuckerberg just turned 30) are riding on their inventions from younger days. Z, Gates, Andreeson were teenagers when they started their companies."""""""


In the case of Zuckerberg, it's quite ridiculous to count him out just yet. We don't know what else he's capable of. If he so chooses to design several major works, so be it.

Remember, that Albert Einstein didn't present his papers on relativity until 1905 when he was 36yrs old. Was it all post glory and out to the scrap heap? Certainly not. He was quite the cognitive genius well past 65 and then some. So its the arbitrariness that is ridiculous. Developments in human evolution are being made all the time, longevity is improving, lifespans in the West, are expanding. Perhaps the Genome and DNA studies can assist and prove useful in prolonging and expanding lifespans even more into the future.

Maguro said...

Overrated.

Geoff Matthews said...

Harry Baldwin,

Couldn't you say that Sarah Palin's husband supported her? And they seem to get along fine.

Anonymous said...

Huh?

Einstein did all his major work by age 35 (earlier).

The oldest theorertiical physics accomplishment was Schrodinger who at 36 invented wave quantum mechanics. He was screwing his much younger mistress in a summer lakeside cottage at the time and so prob. felt a bit younger.

Anonymous said...

Geez, Einstein was 26 in his miracle year worked out the special relativity before then.

Anonymous said...

Sub "captains" are actually Commander rank, I believe - the Navy equivalent of a Lt. Colonel. Typically it takes at least 16 years to make that rank, and another 5-6 to make full Colonel. So a sub commander is perhaps late late 30s/early 40s.

When Bill Clinton defended Hillary's health did anyone else think of his famous quote "I did not have sex with that woman..."?

I don't think 60s is too old to be an effective leader. You compare the age of elected presidents to the losers, when really you should be comparing the age of effective presidents to the defective ones. Clinton won at 46, W at 54, and Obama at 47, while Reagan and Ike were in their 60s. That does not speak well for the "youngsters. "

Whiskey said...

I agree with other commenters that there is no way in HELL the Dems want a White woman much less Hillary! as their candidate.

Not when they can have: Oprah, or Corey Booker, or Magic, or heck Al Sharpton as their nominee.

It does not matter. Having a Black candidate is the path to electoral and governing success. It mobilizes the Black voters to be so enthusiastic they vote five times each! SWPLs fall all over themselves to vote for the noble magical Black guy (or gal) over that "icky" beta male White guy. Hispanics and Asians also vote against the White guy.

Then, when elected, the magical Black deflection shield prevents the media from EVER discussing ANY FAILURES WHATSOEVER. EVER.

Once the Dems went Black, they'll never go back. Heck they'd run Michelle before allowing Hillary! to fail.

[Dems literally cannot afford to lose -- there are so many criminal Obama scandals and his total command over everything now abolishing Congress and the courts role in things historically theirs for oversight and accountablity means the same tools they used to go after the Tea Party will be used against them. And they know it.]

countenance said...

The Presidency is a job that ages you really quickly, all the while you're in the public view.

Old looks authoritative on a man (to a point), but awful on a woman.

If I was one of Hillary's political opponents, either Democrat or Republican, and significantly younger than her, I'd go there in public, and say things like, "who wants to watch this already old woman grow really old really quickly in public view every day?" That line would work very well among women voters.

Anonymous said...

, "I know that when a woman loves a man, she builds him up and supports him. I never knew a man who loved a woman enough for this. He cannot help it, it is his deepest instinct to destroy, quite often subtly, insidiously, but constantly and endlessly, her very center of being, her confidence in herself as a woman."

I read a lot of that sort of thing here, whenever women in anything are discussed. I sometimes wonder why men are suprised at "feminism", unnecessary as it may be, rationally, in western, modern societies.

ironrailsironweights said...

Remember, that Albert Einstein didn't present his papers on relativity until 1905 when he was 36yrs old. Was it all post glory and out to the scrap heap? Certainly not. He was quite the cognitive genius well past 65 and then some.

On the other hand, Einstein moved to the United States in his early 50's, remained there for the remaining 20+ years of his life, yet always struggled with English.

Peter

jody said...

it's also easier to be president now than it was in the past, unless you want to be a genuinely great statesman, then it's probably just as hard as ever. but none of the candidates are interested in that. especially the democrats, who are just cultural marxists now.

so does it really matter if the democrat cultural marxist in control is 50 or 70? their goals are the same and their path to destroying the US is the same, and neither their goals or their path to achieving them are particularly difficult or mentally taxing. offer to give democrat voters free stuff, raise taxes to pay for it, call european conservatives racists whenever they offer a different perspective or view, repeat ad infinitum, permanent victory is assured.

considering the almost certain direction the nation is going, i don't think you would even need to be all that smart to be president. IQ 120 mediocrities can probably run the show from here on out. does it matter whether an IQ 120 mediocrity is 50 or 70? does it matter whether they work 12 hours a day or 4? does it matter if they even work every day at all?

obama is not that smart, he barely does anything, works as little as possible, and the country runs pretty well, provided you accept the current state of affairs as 'pretty well'. which many people do. most importantly, the majority of democrat voters. so, why does it matter if the president lost a few IQ points and a few hours of attention span per day, from some brain damage? if the president WANTS, the president barely has to do anything anymore.

all the hard work was done decades, centuries ago. in corporate terms, the president is not much different than a middle manager now. the president today, sits on top of a giant, well oiled machine, fueled by a giant mountain of treasure, accumulated over the last 200 years. the president can run the machine badly for years, and mostly get away with that. the mules (conservative european americans) will pick up the slack always, being industrious as they are. growing the food, pumping the oil, shoveling the coal, paying the taxes, and shooting the guns for the military. all the things that keep the nation going.

true, it is true will only take a couple of these mediocre cultural marxist presidents in a row to really crash the nation. but that's their goal.

Harry Baldwin said...

@ Geoff Matthews said...

I would never say that no political husband supports his wife. That's why I described Porter's view as a bit much. However, it's easy for me to see it applying to guys like Clinton and Dole who are in politics and therefore in competition with their wives for the attention/adulation of the public. Palin's husband isn't. Nor was Thatcher's.

jody said...

"How did she get a concussion?"

wondered this myself. seems like i never heard how she hit her head. i pretty much get the idea 'concussion' is their way of saying 'stroke'. democrats are masters of this kind of word play, so i put nothing past them.

it's possible she had a stroke, fell, and hit her head too. so technically it wouldn't be lying to say she got a concussion.

Anonymous said...

Actually, Einstein had no great insights after 35, and Darwin sat on his for decades after his at age 25 or thereabouts. So, yeah, they coasted.

I happen to be a doctor myself in a technical specialty. In my twenties I would rapidly read lab results and remembered them hours later. I can't do that now. In my 30's I was at the peak of psychomotor prowess. It now takes me longer to perform the same procedures. I read all the literature, because I was genuinely interested.

I get along better with co-workers now. I am more empathetic towards patients. I am more attuned to hospital politics.I don't read as much, even though the Internet makes everything more accessible.

Am I professionally better now than at age 40? I can't honestly claim that. I perform well, but I expect skills to decline. I will prob. be still adequate at age 65, but below my optimum.




Harry Baldwin said...

the president today, sits on top of a giant, well oiled machine, fueled by a giant mountain of treasure, accumulated over the last 200 years.

You're sure about that giant mountain of treasure? It's kind of like that briefcase full of money in "Dumb and Dumber."

24AheadDotCom said...

We won't elect Hillary, we'll elect many of the same people who brought us the last time things were fairly good for a large part of the U.S. She'll surround herself with people who are more competent than Obama has.

Look at the GOP possibilities. Can anyone see any of them doing better than Mittens did?

So, the thing to do now is to make her likely underlings better.

For a tangible example, shame @RBReich into not supporting amnesty. Pointing out to enough of his MoveOn-sphere supporters how pro-corporate his position is might at least give him second thoughts.

Hillary's Latino advisors the last time included a couple with fringe-y pasts, and the same will probably be true this time. Make them toxic.

That's how more successful groups do things. Witness, for instance, how Mittens only mentioned self-deport one time and then spent the rest of his campaign running from it. Emulate how that was forced, just do it in support of attrition.

P.S. I got temporarily suspended by Twitter for an amorphous sin; an amnesty fan probably filed a bogus report about me but Twitter hasn't yet told me exactly what I did. Since I spend hours a week on Twitter opposing pro-amnesty hacks, speaking out about that might be a good idea.

Anonymous said...

I really like the example of Schrodinger. Thirty-six years old, decrepit by theoretical physics standards: he took his 20-something mistress to his lakeside cottage for the summer, and invented wave quantum mechanics out of whole cloth.

(Heisenberg already did quantum mechnics at 22 or so, and without a mistress, but the equivalence wasn't known then.)

Later, Schrodinger helped encourage a generation of physics/math inclined to go into biology. The latter developed molecular biology.


Anonymous said...

There was a mention in a comment above about Zuckerberg inventing something.

Zuckerberg invented nothing.

Thank you.

Anonymous said...

1)why is Rove alerting the Dems to Hillary's weaknesses? Is he just laying down a marker expecting Hillary to win the nomination and then he can remind the electorate that Hillary is damaged?

2)Growing up in Europe the media harped on Reagan's supposed mental weaknesses....and Ike's weaknesses during term 2 .

Anonymous said...

Somewhat off topic. Debate over Seattle's $15 minimum wage proposal. The NYT reports:

"Minority chambers of commerce have banded together to argue that a quick hike to $15 would kill their family-run businesses; who, they argue, is going to hire immigrants learning English for $15 an hour?"

I don't follow the argument. Are they saying that immigrants learning English are not worth $15/hour, but natives who speak English are? So it follows that a minimum wage hike would shift jobs to natives from immigrants?

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2014/05/15/us/ap-us-minimum-wage-seattle-.html?hp&_r=0

Anonymous said...

An earlier fall left Hill with a broken elbow.

Does she have a problem with balance. Could she be showing signs of Parkinsons?

tsotha said...

Zuckerberg invented nothing.

Nor did Gates. I'm assuming both were reasonably competent software developers, but they're in a field where you capture 99% of the profit by squeaking out a 0.00001% win. Somebody ends up on top, but he's only a tiny bit better (or luckier) than forgotten #2. Who started Myspace? Who cares?

Anonymous said...

William Holden, the actor and alcoholic, was drunk when he fell and hit his head on a nightstand, killing him.

Maybe Hillary nips a little now and then.

I wondered about a stroke.

Anonymous said...

""""""Actually, Einstein had no great insights after 35, and Darwin sat on his for decades after his at age 25 or thereabouts. So, yeah, they coasted.""""""""


Go wikipedia Einstein. He did plenty of insights well past the 20's and into the 1930s which would be into his early/mid 50s.

Still not sure where this asinine idea that after 40 everyone is past it and might as well move into the old folks home and ask everyone to do basic chores for them since they can no longer function or perform up to the level they once were at before.

Perhaps it is based on a personal observation and thus a person may assume (incorrectly) that EVERYONE is the same way and cannot ever ever create or contribute amazing unique insights and outlooks past a certain age, preferably before about 30-35.

Honestly. Grow up.

Age is a number on a calendar. You can be "old" and past it at age 20. You can be young (referring primarily mentally/cognitively) at age 65.

Yes, it is definitely a challenge the older one gets BUT, HOWEVER, thru hard work, and the luck of good genetics of relatively amazingly good health for the majority of life, coupled with diet and exercise, and you'd be amazed at how able a person is well into and past middle age and into senior citizenry.

Keep in mind, lifespans in the west have been steadily increasing over the previous century. Up to 1900 the average lifespan was about 45. Throughout the ages before that, just making it to 40 was an amazing accomplishment.

40 in the dark ages was equivalent to about 70-75 today. It just was so rarely achieved. The chances of death in childbirth or at an early age was very high, and medicine was a frightening place to be
(like Steve Martin's SNL the Doctor of York skits. That was what most humans were up vs if they opted for doctor treatment).

We really have a lot to be thankful for that we take so much for granted. For the most part, without hardly even trying, a modern sedentary person can still make or luck his way into a lifespan of about 72 yrs, and that's without much in the way of diet and no exercise, much less attempting any form of self-improvement.

But there are numerous examples of famous peoples delivering high quality of cognitive function well past 45 and beyond, demonstrating that age truly is in some ways,.....a state of mind.

The choice is up to the individual. Either give in to negativity or choose to maintain what you have. The brain is a muscle: Use it or lose it.

Jack said...

Aristotle said that the mind is in its prime at about 49 years of age- free from the faults of either youth or old age, and combining the best qualities of both (Rhetoric, Book II, Chapter 14)

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

Remember, that Albert Einstein didn't present his papers on relativity until 1905 when he was 36yrs old."

"Anonymous said...

Actually, Einstein had no great insights after 35,...."

Einstein was 26 in 1905, and he continued to be an unusually productive physicist into his forties.

"Anonymous said...

The oldest theorertiical physics accomplishment was Schrodinger who at 36 invented wave quantum mechanics."

Max Planck was 42 when his paper on Blackbody radiation was published. Though Schroedinger certainly was an old man (he was actually about 38 at the time) to have come up with wave mechanics.

Experimentalists peak later. They need to know a lot of little things, whereas theorists just need to know a few big things.

Anonymous said...

Zuckerberg did coded part of Facebook and ran with it. Gates coded Basic for microcomputers, and bought the OS. At that point, the code was trivial and he (or Allen) was perfectly capable in writng it himself. Gates took it to IBM and negotiated the deal of the millenium.

Andreesen actually wrote most of the first Browser. Of course, it got completely overwhelmed by Microsoft, but by then he had cashed out for a few million and became a Silicon Valley venture capitalist. Oh, and married into billlons.

Anonymous said...

I am in my mid-fifties, and sad to say, I am.not as smart as I was at age 40. I can exercise all I want, do all the NYT crosswords, I will never be young again.

As iSteve readers, we accept that there are genetic limits. Yet here we are, arguing over age-based abilities. We all grow old, we wither, we shrink mentally. we will die



Anonymous said...

"So it follows that a minimum wage hike would shift jobs to natives from immigrants?"

What's the business argument for cheap labor now? They're creating so many jobs that there aren't enough natives to fill them. Make it more costly to create these jobs, and you slow down demand for unskilled labor, which means slowing demand for illegals.

Raising the minimum wage will slow demand for illegals and will penalize those who have been hiring them. Better yet, raise the minimum wage in exchange for welfare reform.

Anonymous said...

Who is the luckiest man in the 20st century?

1) Ringo Starr
2) Paul Allen

dearieme said...

"There's too much deference toward big shots in America." As far as I can tell that's been true all my life - and I dare say for decades earlier too.

dearieme said...

Well I retired seven years ago and still I published four papers last month. Or was it last year? Anyway, where was I?

Nelson Rockefeller's deputy under-gardener said...

Some people have phenomenal genes. Roger Daltrey looked better in his late 60s than most people do in their forties or even thirties. Romney is in very good nick for a man of his age. Obviously no one os ss sharp mentally or physically in their middle or old age as they are in their youth, but political leadership is about a bit more than that isn't it? I would say a politician's sixties should be his optimum years, assuming he has used hus career up to that point to accumulate experience and build up the requisite networks of contacts. I say 'he' deliberately - as we all know, ageing is far kinder to the guys than it is to the girls.

It's not by random whim that there a minimum age to become US president. People younger than 40 and certainly younger than 35 aren't even close to ready for positions of immense power and responsibilty.

Steve, didn't you theorize that GWB had had some kind of stroke in his second term as Texas governor? He became a noticeably worse, slower and less focused speaker around this time, and I don't believe it was an act to project a more folksy, anti-intellectual image (although he probably did do this to some extent too).

It's probably not a bad thing for a president to slow down mentally in his second term - this is the time when (theoretically at least) he has free rein to do crazy thngs, without having to worry about re-election.

Canaan Banana said...

Comrade Mugabe is now into his tenth decade and still leading Zimbabwe in a competent and statesmanlike manner. Well ok, that's not entirely true, but I find it amazing that a 90 year-old is capable of leading a country at all, even if badly. Hat tip here to the similarly aged (if more ceremonial) Shimon Peres, and the last-but-one Pope. That guy was not a quitter!

If a leader is 'great' in some way, there can be value in him retaining office into advanced old age, even if his mental acuity has dimmed. Providing he has able advisors/regents around him, his worth as a figurehead/helmsman can remain high even as his faculties fade. Of course, this can lead to instability and vacuums when he eventually does shuffle off (Mandela).

Chicago said...

Hillary is a paper tiger. She was beaten in the primaries by someone who was hardly even known and had no record of ever having done anything whatsoever. Obama was just a slick talker and yet he beat her. At the time she had a machine that had been built up over the years, all the contributors were lined up for her coronation. She felt she was entitled to be the president. And yet some dark horse candidate zipped past her. Apart from those in her fan base most people just don't want her.

Anonymous said...

Nelson Rockefeller's deputy under-gardener said...

Steve, didn't you theorize that GWB had had some kind of stroke in his second term as Texas governor? He became a noticeably worse, slower and less focused speaker around this time, and I don't believe it was an act to project a more folksy, anti-intellectual image (although he probably did do this to some extent too).


GWB had a stent put into a clogged artery last year. After my heart attack last year (mid-40's) my doctor told me that dementia is related to poor cardiac functioning (blood supply to the brain). Perhaps GWB's cardiac issues started a decade prior at a very low level, but enough to affect cognitive activity?

leftist conservative said...

the navy really influenced heinlein: he was only in the navy a few years as I recall before he was discharged for tuberculosis. But that time influenced all his books. However, he did spend 4 years in naval academy.

Also, heinlein had some serious medical problems in middle age, perhaps when he was about 55 or thereabouts. Anyway, after those medical problems his writing was never the same.

As for myself, I did not enjoy. I am anti-authoritarian. Got out after 6.

leftist conservative said...

oh, and the GOP is wasting its ammo on hilary. Warren will run away with the nomination (duh!)


CorpGovMedia would love hilary. But she aint even gonna have a chance. The people are in a populist mood as never before.

Anonymous said...

Surveying the national scene, the only person I'd trust to be POTUS is Paul A. Volcker, and he's 86.

dearieme said...

"People younger than 40 and certainly younger than 35 aren't even close to ready for positions of immense power and responsibility." Pitt the Younger. On the other hand, Alexander the Great. Napoleon was right on the margin.

Anonymous said...

Emotional toil, too, yes even for Hillary-- think Vince Foster.
Or, for example in my case, in which my hair went silverly white soon after the violent and deadly auto accident that killed my dear husband. Ruled vehicular manslaughter, the perp is in prison, but my son still has no father, I have no husband and a fine man has been denied the many years he should yet have had.

Anonymous said...

Seems to me that intellectual decline is slower in people in the far right of the bell curve. I am 43 and went "back" (literature sci. and comp. sci. 20 years ago) to university last year to study biomedical science with a very ambitious class of 19-20-years old who all excpect to win nobel prices. (LOL - it's true, they are so naive)And yet I have no problem to keep ut with them. But when I have some problems with chemistry (which I hated 25 years ago i high school)I just phone my 71 year old dad! He is a theoretical philospher and hasn't studied chemistry since high school. But he is the smartest guy I've know - he just checks wikipedia, phones me five minutes later with a solution to the problem that stumped my entire class. He has tons more energy than me too.

David said...

Maybe she's a drunk.

David said...

Bill Clinton might end up playing Mrs. Wilson to Hillary's Woodrow.

Anonymous said...

Rahm Emanuel is waiting in the wings for when she falters, which she will.

Anonymous said...

There's a word for a generation of slobs moving back in with their parents while addicted to WoW and social media dismissing anyone over 40 as worn out.

The word will come to me. Just gotta remember it...

Prof. Woland said...

A President Hillary Clinton would be a real shot in the arm to organize men as an effective political force which in turn could be a real long term boon for the right. Of course, the same thing was said about the white vote and a President Obama but there are several reasons why the time is ripe for a political realignment along male / female lines.
Women have been "pushing on an open door" because there has been no real political price to pay even though much of what they have been fighting for is a zero-sum game. Hillary's signature "Healthcare is a woman's issue" is a classic example. Women have far better outcomes in almost every measurable category including out living men by almost 5 years yet we spend 30-40% more for them throughout every stage of their lives. Imagine her trying to defend that. Title IX and female affirmative action are two more privileges that are ripe for ending. Up until now, all male politicians are befuddled when trying to articulate why the other 49% should possibly get some kind of representation.
I would quickly add that the politicians will only follow after men take the lead but the only thing really missing at this point is money, which can always be had, and then the media access which that buys. I envision a modern men's movement looking somewhat similar to the Tea Party where it is a combination of top down and bottom up structure. The reason the Tea Party sprang up out of nowhere was that it was an existing group looking for an organization and representation. Doing the same for men would be at least as successful and would help get the right wing past the dominance exerted by now by the Religious and Social Conservatives on the Republican Party. It would also take the focus of American politics out of race where it is currently stuck much to the chagrin of the conservatives thereby hitting two birds with one stone.

pat said...

Eisenhower essentially was brain dead after the second stroke.

My senior year in high school I went to Washington-Lee High in Arlington Va. We were all herded into busses one day and driven across the Potomac to the DAR Constitution Hall to hear the President speak. I think it was to the Chamber of Congress.

It was memorable. The Marine Drum and Bugle corps marched in. Everyone made a big fuss. But the great hall was only about a half mile from his house (the White one). He could have walked it.

The actual speech was painful. His most frequent word was 'duh'. He made little sense. He rambled and droned. It was the worst political speech I had ever heard until I heard George Moscone live many years later. Eisenhower was damaged. Moscone was just incredibly stupid.

The General was a very sick and confused old man that day. But that evening on TV he seemed fine. They had done a whole lot of editing. He smiled and waved and they intercut footage of the Marine band. He seemed fine on the tube.

Pat Boyle

Anonymous said...

You guys saying Hillary was beaten by an unknown, etc. are thinking like conservatives and not liberals. The only reason Clinton inc. is the only runner in a party that traditionally doesn't run has-been is because they are phenomenally powerful and 90's nostalgia. As a liberal watching Claire McCaskill and all the other Pro-Obamites walk past their anti-Clinton comments and seeing Elizabeth Warren unequivocally staying put, this is a gut wrenching time. What to do? Hope that in the near term the Republicans bring her poll numbers down, find dirt, etc. The threshold she needs to fall down to is much higher than it would be if she were a Republican because of that liberal bias for fresh and exciting; it's possible, but still a long shot.

Anonymous said...

""""""Perhaps GWB's cardiac issues started a decade prior at a very low level, but enough to affect cognitive activity?"""""""

One thing you got to hand it to Romney, and that is his religion prohibits alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine among other things. For his age, Romney is more than capable from a cognitive perspective.

The luckiest person in the 20st century? Easy.

Yogi Berra

"I want to thank everyone here for making this day necessary."

"Ok, you guys, go line up and pair off, in threes!"

Regarding cognitive speculating as to when someone is due for the ash heap,

"It ain't over til its over!"

Anonymous said...

Well, Clinton will probably win since the Republicans can't win Florida or Oh anymore. Republicans can only win Senate and House now. North Carolina is a swing state. Hilary is more popular with Latins than Obama. She worked in El Paso, so Republicans will lost even more Mexicans.

Anonymous said...

I agree with 24 ahead, the republicans with their kiss Texas butt which is number 2 in illegal immigration behind California. FAIR states the state of Texas has 1.8 million and growing about 25,000 to 50,000 a year in illegal immigrants, this is why why I told the Republican Party good bye. They don't care about the white working class if they did they would do policies to help West Virginia and the Kentucky, not the illegal immigrant state of Texas.

Anonymous said...

The Republican presidential candidate will be either Jeb Bush or Rick Perry.

Rob said...

She seems to have a wind problem too.

Sgt. Joe Friday said...

I am in my mid-50s and would have to say I don't feel as sharp as I did 20 years ago. OTOH, for reasons I can't quite fathom, I have had a burst of creativity since turning 50 and have invented a number of patented products that I am quite sure I could not have dreamt up even 10 years ago.

Anonymous said...

I write software and I'm 54.

The best gig you can get as one ages is as a guru. I'm very fortunate to have found my way into this role.

Generally, I design strategic core stuff for early stage startups. This takes advantage of increasing knowledge/experience/wisdom and mitigates against decreasing energy, as core application architecture can have a relatively huge impact (for better or for worse) per line of code, per design decision, etc.

I am writing the best stuff of my life now, although, again, the volume is less. Developers half my age end up studying my stuff like a book, marveling at the brevity, structural harmony, and implications for both code and business extensions.

Sounds like bragging, but frankly, after all my experience and at my age, I'd be ashamed if I couldn't be making things look like magic.

I'm a repeat offender as a CTO and as a founder, have no interest in doing that again, but that gets my input respected (and sought) all the way up and down the companies I work with.

Life is good, generally I work from home, whereever I choose to make that, and make as much money as I need.

Maybe I was a lot smarter when I was younger. I did extremely, extremely well on SAT, for instance, considering I quit high school and took the test cold some years later.

But when I was young, I was much more interested in a life of action/adventure than one of the mind. Had things been otherwise, I certainly had the talent to rise very high in something like physics or math. I even knew it at the time, but I was not then at all prepared for a daily existence of toiling at a desk/office in some intellectual pursuit. It was a choice I made then and I'm still happy with.

When I was approaching 40, I thought, oh, horrors! But in my forties, as I accepted a much more into a sedentary/settled lifestyle, I realized I was enjoying life a lot more than I was in my 30's. I think 30's can be very unsettled times for men.

When 50 approached, I didn't even give it a thought, and I'd say I'm even enjoying life more now than in my forties.

Some of this has to do with the professional roles I have now, some of it has to do with semi-random luck of my physical condition. I'm in pretty good shape (not lucky, but do to regular activity), pretty good health (semi-lucky, genes are lucky, lifestyle is deliberate), and generally having a youthful appearance, no balding, little gray yet, good sking, which is all lucky (genes, my father was also very youthful looking at whatever age he was).

I've got a youngish wife and a 10 year old son. I'm a far better family man than I would have been in earlier years.

So life is generally very very good for me in these years, but it is largely by chance. Some of the things that I could affect that make this time better, I'm just lucky that I made good decisions, etc, as i was certainly not planning for things at my age. And by the time I would have been aware of it, it would have been too late to make much of a difference.

reiner Tor said...

People younger than 40 and certainly younger than 35 aren't even close to ready for positions of immense power and responsibilty.

The greatest medieval Hungarian kings were rarely older when they got to the throne. Some of them got on the throne through a civil war. Occasionally there might have been some others to run the show for them. For example king Mátyás I (Matthias) was only 15 when he was elected, and he was a prisoner of the Czech king at the time. He had his uncle running the show for him, until he got rid of him at age 16, barely a year later. It was not uncommon for twenty-something kings to be statesmen and warlords.

Anonymous said...

I'll speak for myself. While in my late 30s commanding a military mission hunting Russian Bear bombers off the East coast, I went three days without sleep. In my early 60s, I earned a second masters degree from a prestigious university by working from 4 AM to 6 AM every morning + weekends. I'm 68 now. I couldn't do either of these any more. My mind is sharper than ever ... but the body fails me. If Hillary is elected, like Reagan I predict she will be napping every afternoon even if this is during a Cabinet meeting :-)

reiner Tor said...

I mean, great medieval Hungarian kings were rarely older than 30, when they got on zhe throne. Some were teenagers when they already managed to push powerful aristocrats around, dashing their hopes of running the show for them.

candid_observer said...

"Hillary is a paper tiger. She was beaten in the primaries by someone who was hardly even known and had no record of ever having done anything whatsoever."

If you haven't figured out why someone like Obama might have readily beaten Hillary despite her apparent advantages, this blog is wasted on you.

Anonymous said...

Barring someone of the quality of a Margaret Thatcher or a Jeane Kirkpatrick, there's no woman candidate for president for whom I'd vote. I'm a woman, not sexist, but realistic about the sexes and few women are of the temperament or intellect for the office. Of course, ditto men, especially the current horror. As I prefer male politicians, male clergy, male firemen and male cops and soldiers, guess I'm ripe for "re-education camp" or Room 101. The current crop of possibles for prez don't make me hopeful about the future, think I'll sit it out forevermore. As The Hag herself said, "What difference does it make!"

Anonymous said...

About the luckiest man of the 20th century, I am pretty sure that Ringo Starr is the luckiest man in the history of the world.

Rev. Right said...

Anonymous said...
I really like the example of Schrodinger. Thirty-six years old, decrepit by theoretical physics standards: he took his 20-something mistress to his lakeside cottage for the summer, and invented wave quantum mechanics out of whole cloth
---

I doubt that I've got anything like wave quantum mechanics to offer the world, but I'm willing to spend the summer with a 20-something mistress and see what happens.

Ray Sawhill said...

Depending on your luck, your genetics and the kind of effort you put into eating well, being fit, keeping sharp, etc, you can age a little better or a little worse. But you're still going to age. I'm finding that being 60 is a very different ballgame than being 40, for instance.

Anonymous said...

No one is saying that you can't be smart at age 70, but you were smarter at age 40. Can anyone dispute that? I am 55 myself.


Anonymous said...

We make fun of Schrodinger, but inventing wave mechanics is one of the greatest intellectual achievements in history.

Doing it while screwing a much younger woman by a lake all summer is just awesome.

leftist conservative said...

there is a world of difference between the sort of mental gymnastics used on tests, writing computer and other memory intensive tasks versus the knowledge and wisdom one attains with age. I no longer have the memory and speed of youth, but my understanding of the world is far, far beyond what I had as a youth. Wisdom. Knowledge. Far more valuable than speed and memory capacity and nimbleness.

Anonymous said...

"""""No one is saying that you can't be smart at age 70,"""""""

Sure sounded like it.




""""""but you were smarter at age 40."""""""""

BS! Smarter is a relative concept. Some people lost it by age 25, ever think of that? You should. Individuals differ from one another, there's no set number, except the one that you place upon yourself and/or allow society and others to tell you that you're past it.

Keep in mind: The ones who have the most to gain by a person believing that they're "too old" are those right behind him waiting to force him out and take his job.



"""""Can anyone dispute that?""""

Uh, yes. As an example, John Derbyshire is about to hit 70. Go tell him to his face that he's really past it. Now, its entirely possible that the Derb himself would say he's not half the man he used to be yesterday, quite a long long time ago, but he certainly is putting on a hell of an act notwithstanding.





""""I am 55 myself.""""

Oh, well then you're on the way out. Obviously.
One way to have a self-fulfilling prophecy?

Keep believing the negativity that one tells himself.

Anonymous said...

>>leftist conservative said...
""""""there is a world of difference between the sort of mental gymnastics used on tests, writing computer and other memory intensive tasks versus the knowledge and wisdom one attains with age. I no longer have the memory and speed of youth, but my understanding of the world is far, far beyond what I had as a youth. Wisdom. Knowledge. Far more valuable than speed and memory capacity and nimbleness.""""""


Amen. Although you do need a combination of both. But as they say, experience is the best teacher. A person in their twenties may not have the life experiences of a more mature person and has to undergo and endure various life experiences that will help him reach his full potential as a human being.

You need both, experience and smarts.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, experience and smarts are nice together. Is someone more likely to have an optimal combination at 50 or 75?

Some of the older posters here are just in denial. Mr. X is killing it at age 70, or 80. So? For a blog focused on HBD, many readers can't apply the basic precepts to themselvrs.

Anonymous said...

Completely OT, is there a name for whatever neurological condition Yogi Berra had? I mean, "You guys go pair up, in threes", LOL.

I know that many Yogisms were invented by third parties, and Yogi himself was a very smart guy.

Anonymous said...

"""""Yeah, experience and smarts are nice together.""""

They are. They certainly are. Oh, continue.



"""""Is someone more likely to have an optimal combination at 50 or 75?""""""

Again, these things do depend on the individual. Other facts include the particular occupation that one has worked in.

Life is your classroom and people are your books. So long as you keep reading, keep learning and above all else, keep observing what the classroom throws in your way, you can become a most excellent student. Really, it depends upon the individual and his willingness to keep on learning. No one ever said it would be easy, and at times it will be challenging. But rewarding? You betcha.





"""""Some of the older posters here are just in denial."""""""

Nope. Just denying that there is an exact age that can be placed upon every single individual at large. While obviously race is not a construct but age is largely constructed by how and what a person is willing to allow. Its a number on the calendar. Remember: Only as old as you feel.

NOW. OBVIOUSLY. Certain things are said and not said here. Obviously, you have to have excellent to above average health. That should be a given. You don't have to be a former elite athlete to enjoy an optimum amount of physical dexterity, balance, shape, etc. but you do need to be in reasonably health. Should go without saying, it really should.

ALSO, there is quite a bit of accuracy that depending on the IQ number (if you want to discuss a number). The higher the IQ a person has the greater likelihood he will experience a fuller quality of life as well as remain cognitively in shape for much much longer than say, a janitor or grocery bagger at WalMart. Some things should go without saying but...




""""Mr. X is killing it at age 70, or 80."""""""

Which proves our point. QED



"""""So?""""""

Dents the theory that by such and such an age, its all over, put out to pasture and get ready for the cartigan shawl and pants up past the navel.



"""""For a blog focused on HBD, many readers can't apply the basic precepts to themselves.""""""

Hey, talk to the hand. HBD doesn't equate to certain age and that's it. HBD also allows for the creativity of individuals, and individuals are different across the board in various things (e.g. personality, cognition, etc) therefore people can't be just en massed away as in "nope, they're past it. Sorry, old boy, so sorry."


Life is how you look at it. What the reflection's telling you, well, that's on you for accepting it. In fairness, however, some cosmetic things were invented precisely to help mother nature ward off father time (e.g. Viagara) to help an 80 yr old Sterling believe he's in the prime of late 50s. And in his case, at least up to this year, it seemed to be working for him.

Steve Sailer said...

It's called having Joe Garagiola as your boyhood friend. Yogi and Joe were the two best catchers growing up in St. Louis. Joe was verbally brilliant (he was NBC's baseball colorman for many years), while Yogi had plenty of smarts to have a 50 year career in baseball, but he wasn't as articulate. So, Joe had all sorts of great Yogi Berra stories, and then after awhile a Madison Avenue advertising firm was employed to come up with more Yogiisms.

Anonymous said...

>>Steve Sailer said...
""""It's called having Joe Garagiola as your boyhood friend. Yogi and Joe were the two best catchers growing up in St. Louis. Joe was verbally brilliant (he was NBC's baseball colorman for many years), while Yogi had plenty of smarts to have a 50 year career in baseball, but he wasn't as articulate. So, Joe had all sorts of great Yogi Berra stories, and then after awhile a Madison Avenue advertising firm was employed to come up with more Yogiisms."""""


Another key point to remember: Yogi played for the Yankees, not the Cubs or another "lovable loser" team. He played for the most successful team in history. Bill Russell has 11 rings but Yogi does have 10 so he's up there.

Catcher is the most demanding position on the diamond, often considered to be the highest IQlike position. Yogi was smarter than some made him out to be. He also won 2 pennants as manager. Oh, and he won 3 MVPs and caught Larsen's perfect game and HOF.

Point being, "yogiisms" wouldn't be popularly funny and somewhat in demand from a schnook on a losing team.

In this case, the chicken (Yogi was a great player and a pretty good manager) came before the egg (the malapropisms).

Actually, Yogi's autobiography, co-written with a neighbor back in the mid80s was very revealing in that it wasn't "yogied" up with PR or madison avenue. He wrote it at a time in life where Steinbrenner had just fired him and he was about through with organized baseball and before he made up with George. Quite revealing and have a feeling that he helped craft it more than if it were done purely by a hired ghostwriter.

And Yogi served in WW2. At D Day.

Anonymous said...

Almost forgot, Yogi's birthday was on the 12.

Happy 89th, Yogi!

Anonymous said...

Just because there are shades of gray does not mean there is no black and white.

So 70 is OK for a presidential candidate. How about 80? Or 90? Ever watched Strom Thurmond or Robert Byrd speaking live in their dotage?

Anonymous said...

"""""""Just because there are shades of gray does not mean there is no black and white.""""""""

Yes, agreed. And its exactly where the black and white lines are drawn as well as who decides who will draw them. The government? Then that's age discrimination.






"""""So 70 is OK for a presidential candidate. How about 80?"""""""


AGAIN. For those who need it all slowed down for their comprehension. Lifespans in the US have greatly improved over the last century. In 1900, the average lifespan in US was around 45-50. A 70yr old President was totally unheard of especially when there weren't as many 70 plus yr olds as we imagine.

Amazing what better genetics, extended longevity, better diet/nutrition, and of course better medical techniques/procedures will do to extend the quality of life.



""""""Or 90?""""""""""""""""""""

Know what? I'll take that bet. I will state here an now that by the year 2070, there will be a nonegenarian Presidential candidate, and by that I mean a lucid, clear speaking person who doesn't appear to have any major health problems.

'I swear on my life, you don't look a day over 65!'--From Mel Brooks The Producers.



"""""""Ever watched Strom Thurmond or Robert Byrd speaking live in their dotage?""""""""""

The point is, they were alive and fully functional. Give it a few generations from now and their counterparts will have the strength, stamina AND mental cognition of about 60.

I have however, seen Jack LaLaine at about 90 a few yrs back give a 15 minute speech at some seminar on fitness and over all quality of life.

No one would dare, DARE say that Jack looked past it, especially since he then proceeded to go to the ground and do 5 push ups. He passed away, sadly, in early '11 in his 97 yr I believe and for most of them, he was the picture book definition of health and mental cognition in one total package.

Yes, there are countless examples of late 80s and 90s still doing and achieving amazing things. Are they the majority? Of course not. The point is, they are making evolutionary history by demonstrating that this is what the quality of life should be like at any age, including toward the end.

I liken these phenoms as the physical equivalent to the right side of the bell curve. The top 2% in perfect total health inside and out, and also in perfect control of their mental faculties.

No one says it will ever be the majority; we are saying that with each successive decade it will start to become more and more commonplace.

And that is an amazing goal we should all strive to achieve.

Anonymous said...

Give me a break. Thurmond and Byrd were completely out of it in their later years.

Name a few people in their 80's and 90's contributing to the public good. Of course there will be the 2% or 1% outliers. So what? Has age rob you of statistical thinking?

Anonymous said...

This nonsensical diatribe from some old guy is a good example why the elderly are kept from positions of responsibilty, except in politics.

Anonymous said...

""""""Give me a break.""""""""""

No, sport, I don't think so.


""""""Thurmond and Byrd were completely out of it in their later years."""""""""""""""""""

AGAIN AND AGAIN. For those who didn't actually read what was keyed. I said COUNTERPARTS. Their counterparts in 2070, that's many, maaannny years from now. Many. Long time. A couple generations from now is about when we'd see a nonegenarian run for the Presidency.




"""""""Name a few people in their 80's and 90's contributing to the public good.""""""""""""

Well, I actually did (Jack Lalanne) but you weren't bothering to read or comprehend well. Guess its off to kindergarten and do try not to fall asleep until its nap time, will you? Thanks.

Want another? Donald Sterling. BAM! What the hell has these two wks national news cycles been about? Public Good? He's a landlord (thus helping to rent apts to tenets) and a sports owner (providing jobs to people).

A bit ironical, I think so!

Anonymous said...

Cont'd
"""""Of course there will be the 2% or 1% outliers.""""""

The major point is that lifespans in America have increased dramatically over the past century so that while say, one hundred yrs ago, a 70plus man fully functioning and fully cognizant was at best, an outlier and a complete statistical irrelevancy.

The outliers are increasing and the age is expanding. An outlier in 1900 = 1% of nation was less than 70yrs old and what percentage of that was fully functional, cognizant, etc.?

NOW, the outlier level is around age 85-95. That's amazing that we're even starting to see fully functional at these advanced ages.

Therefore, by 2070, it is quite reasonable that, assuming that improvements in technology, genetics, longevity, medical technology, diet, exercise, etc continue as they are, that YES... the new age of outliers of 1-2% by that time will be even higher, say...even 100.

FACT: There are more Centenarians in US (and the world at large) living today than ever before in human history. Obviously not all of them are in great shakes.

BUT.....

Extrapolate that to 2070 and there will be more of them living than at the current time and a greater number of them will be in better overall healthy as well as mental cognition.

In this way, the outlier percentage will be larger, more commonplace, and within that group we will see more fully functional (mentally and physically) than we ever had before in human history. And that's a good thing.

By 2070, we'll see Centenarians who function at the energy level of 65. And that's a good thing. AGAIN. Will they be the majority? NO. Will they be more common than they are now? Absolutely.

You must not keep up on the latest trends, right? From time to time magazines have highlighted sr citizens in their 80s and above who are still fully functional etc. So, by 2070 how far the bar will be raised? Quite far indeed. And that's a good thing.

There was a commercial in the 70s of these Eastern European or Caucausus Mts folk dwellers who were Centenarians or close to it and the ad...basically was a shameless pitch for yogurt.

The point was, that there were these 80s and 90s living and fully functioning as if they were half their age. And that was waaaay back in the 70s, you know, before Apple was just a few seeds in the hands of Steve Jobs and Microsoft wasn't even birthed yet. Heck John Lennon was still recording music. And that's real old, dude!

So, what we consider to be outliers will extend even longer by 2070. By that time, 85 won't be considered anciently past it and 95 will be the new "gosh, that is old."




""""""So what?""""""

Well, I just what. Not gonna repeat all that so next time, just pay attention.




""""""Has age rob you of statistical thinking?""""""

YOU are way older than I am. Guaranteed.

ALSO, I am referring to the future. As American lifespans increase over time and the longevity or quality of life continues to improve for millions, by 2070 the outliers will be much, much higher of an age and they will be more commonplace. A 100yr old who functions at about 65? 70 at latest? That's very very good. And that's a good thing.

You have a good day.

Anonymous said...

""""""This nonsensical diatribe from some old guy"""""

You're way older than I am. Guaranteed.



"""""is a good example""""""

ZZZZZzzzzz. Get to the point dude.



""""""why the elderly are kept from""""""""

still rabbiting on, huh?



"""""positions of responsibilty, except in politics.""""



Except for those in authority. Oops!
It's good to be the king.


Actually, you'd be surprised. It's called lawsuits. Ageism. Discrimination. So they're just pushed and shove aside in some cases. Given a paycheck with little work to do.

See, it all boils down to this. HBD is a constant, yes absolutely. But, there is room for individual exceptionalism. If an individual can achieve beyond what the "experts" told him, then so be it.

Remember, this is an amazing time to be alive in America, from a purely longevity lifespan perspective.

Again, I will take that bet. By 2070, we will see a Centenarian running for the Presidency and one that will be fully cognizant and functional.

We're already starting to see 100yr olds living pretty functionally well. In roughly 60yrs time? Not only will that number increase but the quality of life that they will enjoy will be exceptionally greater than now.

If you believe your own stats. Oops!

It's called GENETICS. The genes will get passed down so that those who make it to 100 today, will in turn pass those genes down to their offspring so that in a couple of generations hence, today's feeble old 100yr old will be an amazing specimen a la Jack Lalanne both in mind and body by 2070.

What I'm NOT saying. 100 is still 100, obviously. But, 100 won't "feel" like it does right now. Depending on the individual's history, genes, personal diet, exercise, etc. we'll see many many who are acting as if they're in a much younger and relatively stronger frame of mind and body.

And that's a good thing and one we should be striving to achieve.

Anonymous said...

One other thing noticeable about the elderly past their cognitive prime: they go on and on, as if the brakes in their frontal cortex no longer function. Whether it is your doddering uncle at Thanksgiving, or Robert Byrd in the Senate at 85, or some posters here, the phenomenom is obvious.

Anonymous said...

"""""One other thing noticeable about the elderly past their cognitive prime: they go on and on, as if the brakes in their frontal cortex no longer function.""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

I know you are, but what am I? I know you are, but what am I? I know you are buy what am I?

Ya through with the name calling?

Guess not.


"""""Whether it is your doddering uncle at Thanksgiving, or Robert Byrd in the Senate at 85, or some posters here, the phenomenom is obvious."""""""""""""""""""""""""


Still name calling. Robert Byrd, now, sport who exactly was he? Only one I know of is in the history books and I was too young to have voted for him.

But guess you were of voting age for him a'waaaay back then. Thus you're waaay old.

Busted.