I've had a recent happening with an "older" person, and if you know where on the forum to look it seems I'm not alone in this outlook as regards "older" persons having -shall we say- less than perfect outlooks and mental capabilities.

Yet throughout history, we as social creatures have venerated our aged people as "wise" or looked to them for leadership...often when the world the older person lived their lives in has no bearing whatsoever on the social mores of the current generations.

How often the cry "The parents of today are out of touch with the youth". Lets face it, social outlooks are NOT static, yet we still look to our elders for advice even today.

WHY!


(I'm sure this has been debated elsewhere, and answers supplied, but I don't know where or what the answers were. And I'd like the views of the members here. I think I have an answer, but I'd like to see if there are better ones out there.)

I think it depends on the person, i've met some very intelligent oldies who where very wise and knowledgable. But on the other hand i've met some very small minded old farts. I think it wise to leave the decision making in politics to the 30 and 40 somethings for a change as the olduns have not done a great job really

You could easily point to the house of lords as regards the olduns. They are supposed to be the final answer, but half of them can't even get their trousers on the right way round most days. I'd agree with that 30-40 age bracket being the true "leaders".

But that doesn't answer WHY we look to the aged for answers.

Maybe it goes back to that "respect your elders" thing that is drummed into your head from an early age. Also the elderly do have the most life experience so that counts for a bit I think. But if you look at any world race or tribe over thousands of years it has been the old males that have been the leaders.

I am 38 and i dont have a clue these days about anything ...................

That's my bet too. Cultural conditioning.




Here's the good news...That gets worse.

I'm just waiting for the moment when i am sat dribbling in a PVC chair and being fed by some fat nurse

get one of those Nintendo game boy advanced and get the brain training games, keeps the mind ticking over

Sounds like you're looking forward to it

Kinda

Age has nothing to do with it. Churchill was 66 when he became PM. Blair was young when he cocked this country up. We shouldn't be looking at the age or sex of the person, but the individual (and their capabilities). Some of the great leaders in history were older men. Margaret Thatcher was 54 when she became one of the great PM in the last Century. Attlee was 62 when he became PM... another great PM. Lloyd George was 53 when he became PM. In fact if you look at the record - with probably a few exceptions - our best achievements where achieved under an older person.

Some of the greater philosophers achieved their mark when they were in their twilight period. With age comes wisdom. Abraham Lincoln said " And in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years".

Or as a Chinese Proverb says "A single conversation with a wise, aged and experienced man is better than ten years of study with a young man."

I think that's precisely the sort of thinking that HQ was questioning - the Chinese culturally have a far greater respect of their elders than we in the West do; yet in actual fact, the elders are not as full of the wisdom as that proverb implies.

Either way, you can't have it both ways: you started out by saying that age shouldn't have anything to do with, and then went onto say that 'In fact if you look at the record - with probably a few exceptions - our best achievements where achieved under an older person'.

I would question the extent to which that is actually true. You might think that Blair cocked up the country, but that's arguably a political opinion, and not a careful analysis of his performance in the modern role of PM. And while both Thatcher and Attlee were undoubtedly the greatest PMs since WWII, that wasn't necessarily because of their age. In fact, your Churchill example works against you, there: his second term of office was a notable failure when - in theory - he was "older and wiser", as the saying puts it.

The reality is that it's only been in very recent times that someone in their forties would be seriously considered for the post of party leader in the UK. In the times of Thatcher, and before, you had to be an older person. So by definition, great leaders of the past are going to be older.

And then there are the counter examples, starting with Alexander the Great, Alfred the Great, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Karl Marx, Voltaire, Pitt the Younger, Albert Einstein, all of whom had acheived their reputations, or important insights, etc., before the age of 40.

You were right first time: age is not necessarily a factor.

Actually this is not true as William Pitt the younger was 24 when he became PM in 1782. However, I did notice you put him down as "the counter example"; which I stated... there are always exceptions.... and they are exceptions only.



I go by my first statement.... however, my point was – against criticism of the older person – that experience and age go together better than youth and lack of experience (with a few exceptions); but yes, we should judge the persons competence rather than their age and sex.



It was a notable failure compared to his stint during the war.... but he did get more done – and added to Attlee’s achievements.

And to clarify, I was talking about political leaders in the modern era of political parties of the last 150 years or so. Pitt the Younger did not have to face the readers of the Daily Mail

I think wisdom is an earned (or learned) characteristic. To look to an older person for more wisdom purely on the basis of their age is a futile venture as they may never have stepped outside of their home town or experienced any truly character defining events in their lifetime for example. After all wisdom is just the benefit of experience.

In a society whereby the stringent ideas of childhood, youth (young adults), middle aged and then old are fast becoming obselete as people live longer we have far more elderly people than we ever used to. In effect we have young old (60 - 80 years)and older old (80 -100 years). Would we consider turning to a 100 year old man to advise the drawing up ofpolicy on say healthcare? Since the elderly proportions of society often have more regular contact with health services their "wisdom" would be limited to their experience of services and only relevant to people of similar age.

Surely any sensible assessment of "wisdom" would be seek opinion from all age groups and walks of life to give a more complete picture of a particular subject?

To ask HQ's original question... why is there an assumption that the older someone is, the wiser they are? Is it simply because, in days gone by, older people had more experience and by default were deemed wiser? Before health policies, videos, cars, complicated form filling for benefits you might be entitled to, etc.?

HQ claims to have an answer, I note...

I agree with you here.... age (i.e. older person) is not a prerequisite to wisdom... but in most cases age brings wisdom.... in others, people just never learn...

Also I was talking individual... however I agree with your assessment in the last paragraph.

So we are awaiting HQ's wisdom??

I see what the wily old bugger's done there. He's laughing at us all ya know?

I think generally u do get wiser with age but I could point out a few examples where wise they havent been. lol

Not only not wise through picking out my faults that i pointed out with proof i didnt have but through being generally being stupid. Ive spoken to alduts with less experience than me and thats being nice

However, i still turn to the older people if I know they have the same experience as my self as they usually have better advice

it could be as simple as natural selection.
every twit in highschool may think he know how to run the world, and have wild theories that most likly bring the world into caos.
give him some minor accomplishments - and he can become head of state - and in the name of his wild ideologies lead millions to their death.

Hitler published mein cumpf at 36, and became prime minister at 44.
Mussolini became fascist at 35, and head of state at 39.
Stalin became general secretary at 44.
Napoleon - first counselor at 30, Emperor at 35.
Pot Pol - communist leader at 37, PM at 50.

on the other hand - those considered extreme in their prime years, gain some experience and perspective over the years, and become bringers of peace in years others collect pensions.

edit: twit wasnt the original word, any explanation needed for the change please PM me and I will explain. Ab76

It really depends on the person. I saw this kind of questions every where, like Age and Maturity. Age does affect wisdom or maturity, but there are many other factors too, such as family background, life experience, education etc.

Thats quite interesting. I had been of the opinion that there may be a problem with young professors.

It was reading Professor Stephen Salzberg that made me think it may be a good idea not to let people become professor before they are 40.

Whoops, theres more than one. I'll just go and find which.

This one: http://genome.fieldofscience.com/2009/09/s...accine-and.html

He's a professor and looked very young, his photo use to be on that page, as, if I recall, did more information about him, such as 'Professor' and which university. (Actually it still does say he's a professor at the University of Maryland). Theres a post from me (James Cameron) at the foot of the page.

I suspect that the average age of scientists working for Monsanto is younger than people would expect.

David Cameron is quite young.

Wisdom by democratic vote?

Name one case in history where the majority was right.



Time decides wisdom, not age.

It just appears that older people are "wise", only because they have had more time to see more failures, often those failures are by old people that have failed to embrace new ways...or by young people failing to see the wisdom of the old ways.

Why do I suddenly feel dizzy?

That's another thing that comes with age!

Tony Blair was the youngest British Prime Minister for around 200 years, David Cameron the youngest.

War sells newspapers, politicians want newspapers' support. I would suggest a young politician was statistically more likely to cave in.