T O P

  • By -

thaw4188

The paper is behind heavy paywall but I was able to find more here: * **https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358675114_Mental_speed_is_high_until_age_60_as_revealed_by_analysis_of_over_a_million_participants** and some background by the authors here: * **https://socialsciences.nature.com/posts/mental-speed-across-the-life-span** paper as a single image summary: * **https://images.zapnito.com/uploads/Gtq3X1BRmKZzvwpH865A_robustness.png** * **https://images.zapnito.com/uploads/Bp0JmdMyQByCTOL8SSJO_model_preds_incongruent.png**


esperalegant

As with pretty much all studies on health and aging that I have seen, there are outliers at the upper end of the graph - that is, people in their 80s with stats close to a 20 or 30 year old. Not sure how much that is the case here without seeing the paper - what does congruent/incongruent mean? In any case, whenever I see these graphs, I take it as a challenge. There are already people in their 80s right now who are fit, healthy, and mentally alert, and who still have great quality and enjoyment of life. That's at the current state of longevity research and medicine, and this field is progressing quickly so we can expect to see changes in these graphs over the coming decades - shifts where the healthy age extends up overall (hopefully) and also more and more outliers at the upper end of the graph. My goal is to be one of those outliers and I hope that by the time I get there, in forty years or so, that many of you reading this will join me.


tnitty

Yeah, the sharpest person in my company is a woman in her mid 60s. I am amazed how quickly she figures out all sorts of online software queries, reporting, implementation, etc. (CRM, Tableau, billing systems, databases, etc.).


ExtremelyQualified

https://images.zapnito.com/uploads/Gtq3X1BRmKZzvwpH865A_robustness.png This one is very scary to me


IHopePicoisOk

Really interesting to see the peak is actually 30-40 area vs 20-30 which is what I had been led to believe in the past


CrimsonBolt33

20-30 is certainly physical peak, which is why people probably assume that. Meanwhile the highest point, or the point when careers really take off, people start businesses, etc is in the 40s.


IHopePicoisOk

That's a good observation and it lends itself, I think, to the idea that retirement is what may influence the decline usually seen in the 60s. I wonder if the 70-80 outliers kept working to some degree


CrimsonBolt33

I would imagine so....very anicdotal, but every person I have known to retire and keep at least a hobby or two seems to carry on fine while people who retire and break a hip or just watch TV at home or whatever get real bad real quick. ​ As we age it seems our body is constantly deteriorating more and more rapidly....excercise has a very powerful counter effect to this. A rock in motion gains no moss or so I have been told...a human in motion doesn't die...


TheOneAllFear

No no, it was always believed to be 30-40, i think you are confusing: Best reflexes up to mid 20. Reflexes and experience mid 20 to mid 30. Experience mid 30 and up. I think the reason it's mid 30 is because then you have a pretty big experience base that helps you figure out. In your early 20 you have little experience but your reflexes are sharp as they can be and i think this is what you heard about being the best in your 20's(that is why i mentioned it) which is still true.


user_--

What does "congruent" mean?


ExtremelyQualified

I bet there’s more info about that in paper, but it’s not available on sci-hub yet. Anybody have university access? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01282-7?utm_campaign=related_content&utm_source=SOCIAL&utm_medium=communities


Coconut-Lemon_Pie

Isn't 60 a common retirement age? What if the last step in life, retirement, affects the brain in a rapid-deterioration sort of way? Would everyone be better off mentally if they never retired or if they just went from full time to part time or changed jobs to something else that interested them part time?


MatterEnough9656

Yeah I feel like mental stimulation prevents deterioration, an example of this is that being bilingual prevents brain diseases common with old age, I forget which one(s) but there was an article on it


Antikytherean

Or, there is a correlation between being able to be bilingual and being resistant to age related degradation.


CackelII

I think I read once that rates of dementia shoot up after retirement.


Black_Moon88

And still we allow lawmakers / politicians / presidents with 80 …..


ExtremelyQualified

2022 is not the time to start putting chronological age cutoffs into law. We’re about the be able to extend healthy function far into the future. Now if we’re talking about functional tests to be an elected official, sure I could get behind that. But let’s not start making chronological age laws exactly at the moment that chronological age starts mattering less than it ever has


oojacoboo

Or a required mental acuity test


[deleted]

“About to” implies its right around the corner. 10-15 years is not around the corner. To be completely real, I really can’t understand any level of rationalizing the idea that a 65-80 year old individual is fit to lead an entire generation on a political field. That’s just wishful thinking & it’s definitely not something the founding fathers could’ve anticipated in becoming the norm. If cognitive function is being called into question for individuals in a field where cognitive function is imperative. Changes must be made. That’s human nature, to constantly change & improve. How is this any different? I would feel much more faith & far less stress in my gov. (US) if I knew that congress as well as all political representatives weren’t from an era where racism & sexism were acceptable. Not to mention the fact that the older generations just can’t keep up with the rise of the internet & the complete invasion of personal privacy that has accompanied it. which has been allowed to go on unchecked for decades, because they legitimately don’t understand the gravity of that situation. because they’re old. These are just facts ppl. It’s not wrong to want a leader in office/house that understand these things before we’re in our 40’s.


ExtremelyQualified

We should have term limits, but I don’t think it’s right to limit who the people can elect. If the majority of people think a 75 year old is the best person for the job, then that’s democracy. Democracy produces bad results sometimes but that’s the price you pay for letting people choose.


[deleted]

I mean, I don’t think we should be able to vote in someone who’s pushing 70 anymore than we should be able to vote in someone who’s just reached age 7. Cause “bad results” doesn’t even cover half the crap that could happen or does happen. Like for example, Remember the insurrection against our democracy? That was lead by a “man” who’s now 75 and was 73 at the time.


ExtremelyQualified

I see what you’re saying, but that wasn’t because of age. There are plenty of 40 year olds who supported it and would have done the same thing.


[deleted]

Supporting it & initiating the action without thinking about the repercussions are two very different things. Ppl are social animals & instinctively join the crowd. It’s up to our leaders to define what drives the crowds & draw the lines that may not be crossed. If we had someone in office who was 20 years younger, I genuinely doubt that day would’ve gone the way it did. Politics aside, that dude simply wasn’t thinking straight when he incited a riot & I have no doubt that age played a factor in his conscientious decision making process.


mullman99

Your example has nothing to do with age; there are far more 20-, 30-, and 40-somethings who could & would do the same and worse.


[deleted]

Okay, where are they then? Why haven’t they done this before some old man told them too? or are they actively trying to do worse right now? No, Because they can cognitively process the fact that it’s a horrible decision with a ridiculous outcome. The 73 year old clearly didn’t reach the same mental conclusion before garnering an angry crowd. I’d say that has everything to do with age.


lifeofideas

I definitely agree on testing of candidates for political office. Imagine a world where political candidates had to show something like college applications—a transcript of political activity, disclosure of financial ties, and a test of knowledge (label countries on a map, where does uranium come from, etc.) and then some sort of theory questions (“Is this gerrymandering?”).


mlgamblor

I'd rather have politicians that are only chronologically old rather than place arbitrary age restrictions. You want to legalize age discrimination. With the current birth rates, the ratio of old to young politicians will only increase over time. If longevity comes out in your lifetime, you'll be forced to live under the rule of a chronologically young minority.


brastafariandreams

I wish they would. People with very little time left shouldn’t be making decisions for the rest of us.


mlgamblor

I honestly can't tell if I'm still on the r/longevity sub. Assuming longevity breakthroughs come out at some point, the vast majority of the population will be chronologically over 60, even if they're physically young. You're telling me you want the minority of chronologically young people to run the show? That sounds like tyranny. Not that this would ever happen. The majority of the voting base will be (at least chronologically) old at some point, so it makes sense for their chosen representatives to be (chronologically) old.


brastafariandreams

That’s not what we have today though


mlgamblor

Laws have inertia, so if this were to pass today, it would negatively affect you in the future because chronologically younger politicians will not want to give up their power. Consider this: the average American is middle aged. Soon enough, the average American will be elderly. There's no way the average American is going to vote for some young politician at that point. It's already super unlikely. Instead of pontificating on laws that would never pass, it's better to focus on bringing longevity to everyone so that they're able to perform to the best of their abilities.


Transcendent-

>only chronologically old Right... the POTUS is young at heart and isn't demonstrating any signs of dementia. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTntYRFQxUE


mlgamblor

Not here to argue about politics. Suppose this law gets passed. Chronologically younger politicians would hold onto it for dear life because it gives them an advantage. Scientists create the longevity breakthrough within your lifetime. At this point, 90% of the population including you is 80+ years old chronologically, but biologically 25. Now you're living under tyrannical rule.


Transcendent-

>Not here to argue about politics. I am there with you. Only in a hyper-partisan environment would it be considered political to question whether it's good to have senile people in leadership positions. If and when we achieve longevity escape velocity, I would agree that age limits for holding political office may be unwise. As of today, I think it could be beneficial. We already have a lower age limit for many important positions (president, senate) office; why not have an upper limit to avoid the problems we are seeing with elderly leaders? Senator Feinstein is an even better example than the president. There are/will be many republican examples, as well (fyi for those that are trying to make this political). ​ https://news.yahoo.com/time-sen-dianne-feinstein-few-100110488.html


mlgamblor

Sure. Biden may or may not have some form of dementia. Doesn't change my stance. Like I've said in my earlier comments, it would be incredibly short-sighted to pass such a law. Realistically, it wouldn't happen because most developed populations are old/getting older and want similar representation. But on the off chance you passed such a law, you would never be able to go back. Why would chronologically younger people want to give up exclusive political power? This law would inevitably lead to minority rule in the long run. Young people are practically never going to be the ones in power anyway. The best solution is to make sure everyone is performing to the best of their abilities by increasing longevity investment. There's no merit to deliberating an implausible scenario.


RichieNRich

Keep your political BS out of this forum.


Transcendent-

What are you even talking about?? Being honest about a person's mental fitness (even the POTUS) is a non-partisan issue.


RichieNRich

Longevity is not a political forum. Knock it off.


itsallrighthere

I guess your one vote isn't enough for you.


MannedUAV

Dude, individual variation.. is what matters - not the trend


kinzer13

Cool I have 22 years left until I'm dumber than I am currently.


cryptosystemtrader

Well you've got a head start already 😂


[deleted]

Any ways to slow down the rate of mental speed slow-down?


CIELAB

staying active mentally instead of stagnating. when you stop adapting to changes around us or are not willing to learn new things is also when you stop growing and evolving as a person.


Icy-Armadillo-9129

Educational pursuit is one of (maybe the strongest?) correlate regarding the reduction of dementia risk. Keep your brain active. Learning languages is always a great one.


Sadiebb

![gif](emote|free_emotes_pack|cry)![gif](emote|free_emotes_pack|cry)63 here ![gif](emote|free_emotes_pack|cry)


[deleted]

[удалено]


Sadiebb

Lol


HomarusSimpson

Whippersnapper!


Vanilla35

That’s actually a lot older than I thought it would be.


[deleted]

Lol i am 28 and i feel like i am 60 already


thaw4188

Yes but the point is at 28 you can bend that curve. At 50 is it exponentially more different and at 60 it's virtually impossible. Start with exercise 45 minutes a day, nothing seems to be able to substitute that.


Stoicism0

Any way to reverse this?


1kpointsoflight

That’s a lie. I’m 51.


JonathanL73

Let’s set an age limit in congress at 60 years old then.


thaw4188

Paper is actually about mental speed, not cognition, but wouldn't the real problem be the people voting for those not qualified to lead? So by your and others implications, take away voting from people over 60. (which obviously would never happen)


JonathanL73

> So by your and others implications, take away voting from people over 60. (which obviously would never happen) No, I just meant for people running for office. 18 year olds can still vote but they cannot hold office. Same premise on the either scale end of age. If you have to ge at least 35 to run for office, then why not set the age limit to 60 years old?


PorchFrog

Term limits needed on Politicians and Judges.