 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
think positive 
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| David wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | The crack about raising the voting age was just burley in the water. 
But if you could go back and have a conversation with your 16 year old self, how would that go?
You reckon your 36 year old self will agree with where you are now? |
We don't even have to imagine what this would be like; you can actually use the Nick's search function to go back to when I was 16 (October 2004 to October 2005) and see how I wrote and reasoned at that age compared to now. Indeed, if you were to take a sample of posts that I've written over my time on this forum, I think it's fair to say there was a pretty steep climb in my ability to express ideas until about the age of 20 or 21, followed by a more gradual increase since then. To be honest, I read some stuff I wrote around then and wonder if I've actually become less intelligent (and no, this isn't an invitation for another free character assessment, Stui...  ).
The truth is that I've probably gained in some areas and lost in others. In particular, the stress and distraction of becoming a parent feels like it has taken a few notches off my mental capabilities, while the experience has aided me in other ways – I'm a much better multi-tasker now than I ever was before.
Will I have changed significantly again at 36? One would certainly hope so! But I expect that change will be much more gradual, and probably less an upwards trajectory than a sideways one – which is to say, I don't expect my IQ will have skyrocketed or necessarily even improved at all, but I do expect that my views on various subjects and attitude about life will have altered. Which is as it should be: if the prospect of personality change is scary, intellectual stagnation should be infinitely more terrifying.
Does that mean that I'll look back at myself at 28 and think, "Jesus, what an idiot?" Perhaps; after all, that's something that most people feel at some point about their younger selves. But I wouldn't necessarily take the existence of that sentiment as evidence of its own truth: I can look back at myself as a 16-year-old and cringe, but it's easy to forget what it was actually like to be that age, with all the stuff buzzing around one's head and the genuinely open-minded intellectual curiosity that only a teenager can feel. The common presumption as to why we so often feel smarter than we used to be is that we're actually getting smarter; an alternative explanation might be that we're constantly falling for the old mistake of overlooking our own current failings at the expense of overestimating those of other people (in this case, the person we were in the past). To borrow a Biblical analogy, perhaps we always carry a plank in our eye but only tend to notice it in hindsight.
I think it's likely that this attitude of looking back at one's younger self with a superior sense of being "so much smarter now" is really just a bit of a conceit; just as arrogant and near-sighted as dismissing another person's intelligence without having access to the full picture. Distance tends to caricature people, and time is just another form of distance. We're told that we ought to have empathy for others; perhaps we also need to be better at having empathy for who we used to be. |
Great post. It's easy to judge ourselves harshly for things that have changed our direction in the past. But as with everything, hindsight is always 20/20. I've done that a lot in the past, I remember word for word things I wish I'd never said or done and it used to haunt me. Forgiving my younger self, knowing why I did those things, brings me peace. Not for everything mind you. Not everything should be forgivable.
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
 |
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
It takes a lot of discipline to be either a sober young person or an open-minded old fart, counteracting the context around you.
The stuff people are unaware they have no clue about is the bit which disturbs me. Even so, should we wish to retain a whiff of free will about us, old farts ought to be judged a hell of a lot harder for that sort of ignorance given young folks are, well, younger, and more narcissistic by chemistry.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm
Last edited by pietillidie on Wed Nov 23, 2016 8:44 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Leaving free will in the mix but lets take IQ out of it. IQ is something that doesn't change measurably over a life.
Consider that the brain is basically an organic computer, a learning machine. Everything you do, learn and experience is filed away and used in the matrix used for decision making. That data set informs your opinions and beliefs. People hold that stuff pretty close and we've all seen how people rationalise or bat away information that doesn't match their view, enter into cognitive dissonance when events occur that they can't rationalise or bat away and can change their opinions and beliefs over time with the repeated trickle of new information.
It logically follows that the more data in that decision making matrix, the better decisions people make. That data is usually accumulated over time with more input from things you do, learn and experience personally.
Now, not everyone who is older has a breadth of experiences. Some people exist happily in a rut doing the same job and the same routine for their whole working life so they don't accumulate new data, just continually reinforce the old data until their decision making and thinking is locked and they're actually dumber than when they were young because they're inflexible and incapable of change or growth.
For the majority however, as you grow older you do expand that data set, do learn, grow and experience new things, all of which means your decision making are more informed than when you were younger and therefore, less dumb.
QED.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ I think one important thing you're overlooking there is that we're not just gaining data, but losing it too. As we gain memories and skills, others are wiped or begin to atrophy. If you want to continue using the computer analogy, we don't have unlimited disk space; at some point (maybe around the mid-20s, maybe a little after), we reach capacity.
Of course, this could still be a process of constant improvement if we were constantly refining the data in our brains and replacing junk with stuff of value, but – as anyone with a computer will admit – that's not how things work. A lot of the junk just inevitably gets replaced with more junk. And like a computer, our brain's processing capability can start to deteriorate pretty quickly (and even a well-cared-for hard drive is only heading in one direction).
This isn't just my opinion – the research about fluid intelligence in the link I posted above suggests that this is more or less precisely what's happening. Hopefully we manage to make up for that in other areas, but I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that our intelligence is increasing substantially over the course of our adult lives.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
You used the word "intelligence" again, I used the term decision making. Difference as I suggested above.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Morrigu 
Joined: 11 Aug 2001
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Well.... I could agree with you if it wasn't for Consultants
_________________
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | ^ I think one important thing you're overlooking there is that we're not just gaining data, but losing it too. As we gain memories and skills, others are wiped or begin to atrophy. If you want to continue using the computer analogy, we don't have unlimited disk space; at some point (maybe around the mid-20s, maybe a little after), we reach capacity. . |
Simplistic and incorrect.
Yeah we don't have unlimited disc space but to compare the brains functionality to a current day PC is like comparing a model t ford to the space shuttle. Modern PC's aren't even remotely close to being able to replicate brain function, when they can watch out because that's when AI reaches the point the human race is farked.
You don't lose data, life it not a Simpsons episode, it just gets compressed and archived and harder to access but it's still there.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
On the contrary, we are constantly losing and rewriting memories. Skills, too, tend to diminish once they're no longer in use. That to me suggests that our brain after adolescence and early adulthood is in constant rebuild mode, and not improving at a constant rate as you suggest.
(Obviously neither of us are saying that computers and brains are the same thing – it's just a loose analogy.)
Anyway, perhaps this article deserves the last word on this:
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/03/the-smartest-age/387862/
| Quote: | The results make a certain amount of intuitive sense. Memory-related tasks benefit from the sharpness of a younger brain, while tests that depend on a sizable knowledge base—the definition of martinet—might require a lifetime of lived experience. And maybe there’s just something about middle age that heightens emotional sensitivity.
The takeaway from the study is a happy one: There’s no single “smartest” age—people of different ages are best at different things. |
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Nothing much to disagree with in the above.
Experience definitely adds content, but as Stui noted, practice or the lack thereof subsequently strengthens or weakens neuronal pathways and therefore practical accessibility.
Raw computation power then determines the number and complexity of calculations that can be run on the given infrastructure within a useful time frame.
BTW, this is why strong forms of identification, from religion to ethnic grouping, nationalism, partyism, sexuality and social class, have a habit of turning people into complete morons. Meanwhile, in lieu of a charmed life consisting of a broad experience and few constraints, a broad education done well is the worst enemy of The Club and always will be.
It's disconcerting watching people cling to narrow group identities once you factor in the cognitive costs of doing so.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Having watched a few people turn cult like, through the religious school system or otherwise, I totally agree with you. Gobsmacking the stuff they say/believe.
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^Indeed.
But take even something like sexual identity. If people get too much of their identity from being stereotypically macho or feminine, or even stereotypically gay, they can easily lock themselves into very small boxes.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^
Yep. It works across the board. Any very strong set of beliefs whether religious or political or otherwise or personal identity affiliation impacts the ability to take in new and contrary information and grow. Instead they continually reinforce the wall around their belief system until they do indeed lock themselves into a box of their own making.
i see it at work where I have people with zero initiative and a narrow knowledge set trying to say they have 20 years experience.
When you break it down, they have 6 weeks experience reinforced and repeated for 20 years because they were taught one task, learned it by wrote with no understanding and repeated it. They find process change incomprehensible and struggle to deal ego wise with new employees trained properly who have a much broader and deeper knowledge after 12 months than they're ever going to be capable of developing.
Younger people are generally far more open and flexible to change, I'll give them that.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | ^
Yep. It works across the board. Any very strong set of beliefs whether religious or political or otherwise or personal identity affiliation impacts the ability to take in new and contrary information and grow. Instead they continually reinforce the wall around their belief system until they do indeed lock themselves into a box of their own making.
i see it at work where I have people with zero initiative and a narrow knowledge set trying to say they have 20 years experience.
When you break it down, they have 6 weeks experience reinforced and repeated for 20 years because they were taught one task, learned it by wrote with no understanding and repeated it. They find process change incomprehensible and struggle to deal ego wise with new employees trained properly who have a much broader and deeper knowledge after 12 months than they're ever going to be capable of developing.
Younger people are generally far more open and flexible to change, I'll give them that. |
thats because of Pokemon.
They have a new fad every other week, they need change
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
blackmissionary 
Lurker King
Joined: 26 Jul 2002
|
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
An interesting take, BM. I read that article a few months back and wasn't sure what to make of it – I'll share what I posted on Facebook at the time:
| Quote: | I feel like I can't quite grasp his point. Perception (visual, aural, etc.) is a form of accessing what could fairly be described as 'information' (e.g. the grass is green; being stung by a bee feels like this). When we recall such experiences, we are somehow drawing upon that information without necessitating its ongoing presence: this is memory. If memory is not stored in our brain – i.e. somewhere within our neurons or passageways or within the sum total of everything going on in there – where is it? It's not in my big toe. It's not 'nowhere' (otherwise, how could a memory possibly be remembered?). The only possible conclusion, surely, is that memory is stored in the brain. And that means physically retained in some form (hence why brain damage can lead to memory loss), and that means that it should be at least theoretically interpretable, downloadable and all the rest of it.
I appreciate that the idea of a brain as a 'computer' is only an analogy and perhaps a not particularly good one. But I'm very sceptical about the assertion that our brain doesn't engage in something that could be described loosely but reasonably as 'information processing'. |
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
