"...can we please, just please, be honest about our presidential candidates not being magically immune to cognitive decline? People have eyes and ears, and scientists don’t have a bunch of prestige left to burn of late." Thank you.
I have a better idea: we should collectively declare that going forward, our culture will place much more emphasis on epistemology and logic when it comes to distributing "facts" about "reality".
I like this better because it covers your case, and all others also, and lack of true critical thinking (philosophy) is the root cause of our problems.
It’s forever baffling to me why psychoanalyzing candidates in the press is off-limits (for good reason, at least the vast majority of the time) but the neuroscience equivalent (or frankly pseudoscience—body language “reading” etc) is uncritically given a free pass
This is called "culture", and it is one hell of a drug!
The conspiracy theorist in me thinks it's because psychoanalysis has too much power, so it is forbidden. The public realizing that our leaders don't know what they're doing would be very problematic.
I was glad he mentioned both Fox News and CNN, as they are equally biased, and therefore, not valid sources for any news, let alone analysis. Even if we look at Biden and Trump with non-expert eyes, neither fits any definition of a "super ager." This is not a criticism of their politics, or worth, but just an honest assessment of them.
Approaching 40, I've had a sense that (pandemic aside... which is weird to write), my memory has not been as good compared to when I was late 20s / early 30s. Previously, I was thinking that life experience, in the framework of "the body keeps the score" was probably why I was having more rapid issues (read: decline) compared to others of similar age. This leads me to believe maybe other geriatric millennials are also having some issues and probably just don't want to talk about (or accept) that this is the case.
That metaphor of the White House as our national brain's prefrontal cortex is going to stay even in MY age-addled brain for a long, long time. Brilliant post!
Refreshing to hear some straight talk about this. The NPR coverage of this recently was instructive -- there's a difference between the kind of memory lapses Biden exhibits and the extreme lapses of judgment that Trump exhibits with his foreign policy (giving Russia carte blanche to attack countries who are derelict in their payments).
Judgment, to me, really is the more salient factor. I was always a classic absent-minded professor, forgetting where I left my keys because I was caught up in my course planning or research. That kind of forgetfulness or difficulty with extemporaneous speaking doesn't impair someone's judgment. And we expect that with age comes some degree of wisdom.
I'd say that given everything he's endured in his life, Joe Biden has learned some valuable lessons and can still lay claim to good judgment. None of the recent stories call this into question. Obviously there does come a point when cognitive decline can impair judgment by substantially altering a person's perception of reality or their self-confidence. Someone like Bill Clinton was presumably close to the top of his cognitive powers while president, but was also prey to ego and libido in ways that an older person is not. All of these are tradeoffs. But the question of judgment is the one that seems most crucial to me.
> there's a difference between the kind of memory lapses Biden exhibits and the extreme lapses of judgment that Trump exhibits with his foreign policy (giving Russia carte blanche to attack countries who are derelict in their payments).
There is also an important difference between what appears to be true (what you are talking about: your subconscious mind's model of reality) and what is true (which is unknown, and unknowable).
Phrases like "should be informed by science, not politics" sound rational enough, and in some sense they are. But in practice they translate to "should be made by technocrats, not the people we elected."
Democracy is a system that claims, and demands that we accept, that the process by which decisions are made is more important than which decisions are made. It's an extraordinary claim, but it has actually worked out reasonably well compared to other systems.
> Democracy is a system that claims, and demands that we accept, that the process by which decisions are made is more important than which decisions are made.
The illusory truth effect (also known as the illusion of truth effect, validity effect, truth effect, or the reiteration effect) is the tendency to believe false information to be correct after repeated exposure.[1] This phenomenon was first identified in a 1977 study at Villanova University and Temple University.[2][3] When truth is assessed, people rely on whether the information is in line with their understanding or if it feels familiar. The first condition is logical, as people compare new information with what they already know to be true. Repetition makes statements easier to process relative to new, unrepeated statements, leading people to believe that the repeated conclusion is more truthful. The illusory truth effect has also been linked to hindsight bias, in which the recollection of confidence is skewed after the truth has been received.
In a 2015 study, researchers discovered that familiarity can overpower rationality and that repetitively hearing that a certain statement is wrong can paradoxically cause it to feel right.[4] Researchers attributed the illusory truth effect's impact even on participants who knew the correct answer to begin with, but were persuaded to believe otherwise through the repetition of a falsehood, to "processing fluency".
The illusory truth effect plays a significant role in fields such as advertising, news media, and political propaganda.
Hoel writes "Quick question: do you think that maybe you need executive function to run the executive branch of the US government? If the nation is itself a brain, the White House is supposed to act like the nation’s prefrontal cortex; strip its white roof off, and then within the Oval Office peel back a further skull, it turns out we’re stacking much smaller real prefrontal cortexes within our nation-wide one, like a Russian doll. No matter what, in 2024 it will be only a little gray wrinkle at the end of this process, governing almost everything."
This seems confused. The president does not "run" the executive branch. Most of the decisions are made by managers already in place before a new president comes in. The high-level decisions will be made by the team the president brings in as his administration. The idea that the president is making operational decisions about what to do seems rather fantastical to me. For example, consider the uniformly-poor quality of decision making in US foreign policy over the past 30 years. If an individual mind was involved in making this policy, one would expect there to be more variation. But it smacks of committee-mind. President Obama, who was the youngest president over this time, talked about the foreign policy "Blob" and how changing what the government does is like moving an oil tanker.
I have a few thoughts, and they are coming from someone whose 88-year-old father lives with him and watching him and my grandfather, who lived until 96 and both have been probably in 10% of the cognitive ability in their age group for their whole life, even though it is a sample size of 2:
First, I believe this topic should be discussed in a general context since as soon as we put either Biden or Trump or both. We lose 33-50% of the population because the other party's candidate is worse than my party's candidate. We simply need to ask questions such as how important cognitive cognition is for this role (the answer is probably very important) and other question could be, would we consider a person in their 80s to make important decisions or life and death decisions for either us or the country or the world? Even if we can surround the president with smart people, eventually, they will have to make the final decision.
Second, I do not think we will see the last of Trump if he loses this time as I am very optimistic that he will try again as he will be around 82 in 4 years, very close to what Biden is today.
Third, if no one else is going to really attempt for nomination or will make a half-hearted attempt like Republicans are trying, the voters do not have a choice other than picking one of these two individuals. How do we address this situation in the future even if we cannot do something in 2024? What needs to change, i.e., a third party or another way to entice better candidates?
When we have multiple wars in the world right now if we wake one of these potential presidents at 2am, would they be effectively able to make decisions? One of them recently said that he is the best person to be president of the country. I think knowing when we are beyond our peaks is very critical in life, and it feels like both and others who have passed their prime in the senate/congress are putting their personal interest over the country's interest to hang onto the power.
I don't disagree with the idea that age affects cognitive abilities--particularly since it starts doing so at 30. Of course, one can then argue that we should lower the age required for the presidency to say 25 so we can get candidates that are at "the top of their abilities."
I disagree with the headline. We have NO IDEA what size either of the candidates prefrontal cortex is. I had a brain MRI less than a month ago for reasons unrelated to mental decline (and which thankfully eliminated the concern that prompted the MRI.) I got curious and asked the doctor if the MRI showed any signs of dementia. I'm less than two years younger than Biden.
My doctor said that dementia is diagnosed by ones actions, not brain size, and that my brain showed no sign of shrinkage at all. Whatever it is that has me occasionally search for--and eventually find-the right word or the reason I am in the kitchen isn't a function of brain size.
Maybe we should want younger presidential candidates, but they aren't what we have now and trump is not functionally "younger" than Biden by any means. The way to deal with Biden's age is not to bemoan it, but to point out how little it shows in his actual decision making and reasoning processes. In terms of cognitive ability, I will choose Biden over the likes of MTG or Mike Johnson any day, even if they are of an age to be "at the top of their professions."
Deal with the current situation by evaluating the actions, not making generalizations from Neuroscience. I don't CARE if there are "superagers" or not. I just want a rational person to lead the country from the choices before us.
As a strong intuitive, I keep sensing that this goes beyond aging brains. Ive met and connected with people who are a lot younger in years who are 'lost.' I occasionally have to pause and rethink. Although I can't, won't be offering an assessment of Biden or Trump who are met that far apart om age., I have beem sensing something different going on worldwide.. Relaled to atavistic ... primal gear that's rising out of climate change..Not that everyone is aware of that. Atavistic fear is deep seated. Refers to instances when an organism possesses traits closer to a more remote, older ancestor.
It is more complicated than that. Back in the day, Americans liked to fret about Bush Sr. being too old and them ending up ruled by Dan Quayle or about Ronald Reagan being too old and them ending up ruled by Bush Sr. Cooler heads prevailed in the nomination process, though, and nothing came out of it.
Slips like the ones being held against Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden have been commited by American presidents since time immemorial. Carter headed the Carter Administration, Reagan may or may not have been told about Iran-Contras [As a Brazilian, I must say my fondest memory about an American president is Reagan mistaking Brazil for Bolivia in Brazil and trying to justify it later by saying Bolivia was the next stop at his tour (it wasn't even a part of it). So what? Americans did vote for Reagan neither for his mastery of Latin American geography and event planning nor for his awareness of his surroundings.]. Clinton misplaced the nuclear codes. Bush II kept American comedy industry afloat.
It is hard to argue that Biden and Trump declined and that someone would be more eager to vote in their 30 years younger selves. Thirty years ago, Trump was a disgraced businessman hounded by creditors while Biden was missing his shot at becoming head of government by imitating someone who missed his shot at becoming head of government. Thirty years later, Trump's creditors are a footnote, Neil Kinnock is a trivia answer, Donald Trump is the Messiah and Joe Biden is America's last hope against him.
I really don't think 4 years from now anyone will believe age played a relevant role at the disasters that will unfold in the next presidential term. However, I can not resist pointing out that Biden is not only "a bit younger than Jane Fonda (86) and a lot younger than Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett (93)." He is also much younger than Churchill and Einstein would be if they were alive today. Both are considered to be at the top of their professions.
Ha! (The parts about Bolivia being the next stop on the tour, and about Einstein and Churchill - playing with tenses.) I do feel a bit tense occasionally, and recognize there are disasters in the world in the past, present, and likely the future too, given our track record on this planet, and also there are some wonderful things going on too. So let’s not entirely lose sight of that. Can we all read Ross Gay’s Book of Delights? Obviously we all can’t and even if we all did it wouldn’t magically solve everything. But I started reading it and it’s good so far, and helps remind me of the goodness and humanity in people. That and reading someone’s Substack comment that she finds furniture that’s put out on the street because it’s broken. And she fixes it up with wood glue and puts it back out on the street and it gets picked up right away by someone else. So with this person existing, maybe there’s some hope for us.
Hell, I am only 65 and my most recent CT and MRI indicate that, like most males my age, my prefrontal cortex has shrunk a bit (as is to be expected).
I'd be interested if anybody knows of research specifically addressing/studying age related either shrinkage or some sort of fMRI (aka phrenology MRI :) ) loss of function in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex specifically.
No doubt "people say" that Trump's DLPFC is "yuuge", the "biggest they have ever seen".
>frankly, Harrison Ford, Paul McCartney, and Martin Scorsese did their best work decades ago; they’re not at the top of their professions.
But all three of them are working full-time at their chosen professions -- and doing that work at the highest level. Scorsese just put out what many people are calling a masterpiece, a gigantic project with millions of individual parts. Ford is starring in a hit TV show and just put out multiple movies. Paul McCartney is releasing albums, doing press, and headlining a world tour that's sold out, performing stadium concerts that last for hours.
Other than the flat-out ageism of your assumptions, what are you saying here?
You miss the point. Aggressively, rabidly, furiously. "Ability" is a coordinate, a value. "Decline" refers to its time derivative being negative. That is, someone with a one-in-a-billion ability level may decline substantially and yet still remain well above one-in-a-million.
Then we agree that their age is not a defining factor. Their individual talents and efforts are what matter. Not their ages. This is the opposite of the point being made by the original post.
I referred to Harrison Ford, Paul McCartney and Martin Scorsese, all of whom were cited in the OP. And all of whom are objectively doing just fine in their demanding jobs and are working at very high levels. To suggest otherwise is absolutely ageism. What other explanation is there for those comments? Reflect upon that and what it suggests about the biases that are at play.
Well, that’s a convenient out for you. And that’s fine. If you are lucky enough to grow old perhaps you will gain a bit of self-awareness. Until then, best of luck.
Then please explain how the recent work of Harrison Ford, Martin Scorsese and Paul McCartney support your point? Because the OP names them as evidence that it’s not ageism to say people of their ages are just too old to do capable, difficult jobs. Because so far you have not engaged with my point - you’ve just cited excuses for not.
>> Ultimately, we are due for a national conversation about what we should expect in terms of the cognitive and emotional health of our leaders. And that should be informed by science, not politics.
> Sounds good.
It doesn't sound good to me. This statement could easily be mistaken to assert that *only* science should be allowed to opine on the matter, but science deals mostly with the physical realm, and this is not a purely physical matter. At the very least philosophical perspectives should also be considered.
"...can we please, just please, be honest about our presidential candidates not being magically immune to cognitive decline? People have eyes and ears, and scientists don’t have a bunch of prestige left to burn of late." Thank you.
I have a better idea: we should collectively declare that going forward, our culture will place much more emphasis on epistemology and logic when it comes to distributing "facts" about "reality".
I like this better because it covers your case, and all others also, and lack of true critical thinking (philosophy) is the root cause of our problems.
It’s forever baffling to me why psychoanalyzing candidates in the press is off-limits (for good reason, at least the vast majority of the time) but the neuroscience equivalent (or frankly pseudoscience—body language “reading” etc) is uncritically given a free pass
This is called "culture", and it is one hell of a drug!
The conspiracy theorist in me thinks it's because psychoanalysis has too much power, so it is forbidden. The public realizing that our leaders don't know what they're doing would be very problematic.
I was glad he mentioned both Fox News and CNN, as they are equally biased, and therefore, not valid sources for any news, let alone analysis. Even if we look at Biden and Trump with non-expert eyes, neither fits any definition of a "super ager." This is not a criticism of their politics, or worth, but just an honest assessment of them.
> This is not a criticism of their politics, or worth, but just an honest assessment of them.
It may be honest, but it is not truthful.
Who the fuck repeatedly mixes up Nikki Haley with Namcy Pelosi? Or Abdel al-Sisi with López Obrador?
The fuckers are washed. I wouldn't trust 'em to fill out a form, let alone be commander-in-chief of the world's most powerful military.
Interesting hallucinations, thank you human.
Approaching 40, I've had a sense that (pandemic aside... which is weird to write), my memory has not been as good compared to when I was late 20s / early 30s. Previously, I was thinking that life experience, in the framework of "the body keeps the score" was probably why I was having more rapid issues (read: decline) compared to others of similar age. This leads me to believe maybe other geriatric millennials are also having some issues and probably just don't want to talk about (or accept) that this is the case.
Well done. Thank you.
That metaphor of the White House as our national brain's prefrontal cortex is going to stay even in MY age-addled brain for a long, long time. Brilliant post!
Refreshing to hear some straight talk about this. The NPR coverage of this recently was instructive -- there's a difference between the kind of memory lapses Biden exhibits and the extreme lapses of judgment that Trump exhibits with his foreign policy (giving Russia carte blanche to attack countries who are derelict in their payments).
Judgment, to me, really is the more salient factor. I was always a classic absent-minded professor, forgetting where I left my keys because I was caught up in my course planning or research. That kind of forgetfulness or difficulty with extemporaneous speaking doesn't impair someone's judgment. And we expect that with age comes some degree of wisdom.
I'd say that given everything he's endured in his life, Joe Biden has learned some valuable lessons and can still lay claim to good judgment. None of the recent stories call this into question. Obviously there does come a point when cognitive decline can impair judgment by substantially altering a person's perception of reality or their self-confidence. Someone like Bill Clinton was presumably close to the top of his cognitive powers while president, but was also prey to ego and libido in ways that an older person is not. All of these are tradeoffs. But the question of judgment is the one that seems most crucial to me.
> there's a difference between the kind of memory lapses Biden exhibits and the extreme lapses of judgment that Trump exhibits with his foreign policy (giving Russia carte blanche to attack countries who are derelict in their payments).
There is also an important difference between what appears to be true (what you are talking about: your subconscious mind's model of reality) and what is true (which is unknown, and unknowable).
Phrases like "should be informed by science, not politics" sound rational enough, and in some sense they are. But in practice they translate to "should be made by technocrats, not the people we elected."
Democracy is a system that claims, and demands that we accept, that the process by which decisions are made is more important than which decisions are made. It's an extraordinary claim, but it has actually worked out reasonably well compared to other systems.
> Democracy is a system that claims, and demands that we accept, that the process by which decisions are made is more important than which decisions are made.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect
The illusory truth effect (also known as the illusion of truth effect, validity effect, truth effect, or the reiteration effect) is the tendency to believe false information to be correct after repeated exposure.[1] This phenomenon was first identified in a 1977 study at Villanova University and Temple University.[2][3] When truth is assessed, people rely on whether the information is in line with their understanding or if it feels familiar. The first condition is logical, as people compare new information with what they already know to be true. Repetition makes statements easier to process relative to new, unrepeated statements, leading people to believe that the repeated conclusion is more truthful. The illusory truth effect has also been linked to hindsight bias, in which the recollection of confidence is skewed after the truth has been received.
In a 2015 study, researchers discovered that familiarity can overpower rationality and that repetitively hearing that a certain statement is wrong can paradoxically cause it to feel right.[4] Researchers attributed the illusory truth effect's impact even on participants who knew the correct answer to begin with, but were persuaded to believe otherwise through the repetition of a falsehood, to "processing fluency".
The illusory truth effect plays a significant role in fields such as advertising, news media, and political propaganda.
Hoel writes "Quick question: do you think that maybe you need executive function to run the executive branch of the US government? If the nation is itself a brain, the White House is supposed to act like the nation’s prefrontal cortex; strip its white roof off, and then within the Oval Office peel back a further skull, it turns out we’re stacking much smaller real prefrontal cortexes within our nation-wide one, like a Russian doll. No matter what, in 2024 it will be only a little gray wrinkle at the end of this process, governing almost everything."
This seems confused. The president does not "run" the executive branch. Most of the decisions are made by managers already in place before a new president comes in. The high-level decisions will be made by the team the president brings in as his administration. The idea that the president is making operational decisions about what to do seems rather fantastical to me. For example, consider the uniformly-poor quality of decision making in US foreign policy over the past 30 years. If an individual mind was involved in making this policy, one would expect there to be more variation. But it smacks of committee-mind. President Obama, who was the youngest president over this time, talked about the foreign policy "Blob" and how changing what the government does is like moving an oil tanker.
Really good point(s), I agree. Just read your comment now after adding mine. Please excuse the redundancy.
I have a few thoughts, and they are coming from someone whose 88-year-old father lives with him and watching him and my grandfather, who lived until 96 and both have been probably in 10% of the cognitive ability in their age group for their whole life, even though it is a sample size of 2:
First, I believe this topic should be discussed in a general context since as soon as we put either Biden or Trump or both. We lose 33-50% of the population because the other party's candidate is worse than my party's candidate. We simply need to ask questions such as how important cognitive cognition is for this role (the answer is probably very important) and other question could be, would we consider a person in their 80s to make important decisions or life and death decisions for either us or the country or the world? Even if we can surround the president with smart people, eventually, they will have to make the final decision.
Second, I do not think we will see the last of Trump if he loses this time as I am very optimistic that he will try again as he will be around 82 in 4 years, very close to what Biden is today.
Third, if no one else is going to really attempt for nomination or will make a half-hearted attempt like Republicans are trying, the voters do not have a choice other than picking one of these two individuals. How do we address this situation in the future even if we cannot do something in 2024? What needs to change, i.e., a third party or another way to entice better candidates?
When we have multiple wars in the world right now if we wake one of these potential presidents at 2am, would they be effectively able to make decisions? One of them recently said that he is the best person to be president of the country. I think knowing when we are beyond our peaks is very critical in life, and it feels like both and others who have passed their prime in the senate/congress are putting their personal interest over the country's interest to hang onto the power.
I don't disagree with the idea that age affects cognitive abilities--particularly since it starts doing so at 30. Of course, one can then argue that we should lower the age required for the presidency to say 25 so we can get candidates that are at "the top of their abilities."
I disagree with the headline. We have NO IDEA what size either of the candidates prefrontal cortex is. I had a brain MRI less than a month ago for reasons unrelated to mental decline (and which thankfully eliminated the concern that prompted the MRI.) I got curious and asked the doctor if the MRI showed any signs of dementia. I'm less than two years younger than Biden.
My doctor said that dementia is diagnosed by ones actions, not brain size, and that my brain showed no sign of shrinkage at all. Whatever it is that has me occasionally search for--and eventually find-the right word or the reason I am in the kitchen isn't a function of brain size.
Maybe we should want younger presidential candidates, but they aren't what we have now and trump is not functionally "younger" than Biden by any means. The way to deal with Biden's age is not to bemoan it, but to point out how little it shows in his actual decision making and reasoning processes. In terms of cognitive ability, I will choose Biden over the likes of MTG or Mike Johnson any day, even if they are of an age to be "at the top of their professions."
Deal with the current situation by evaluating the actions, not making generalizations from Neuroscience. I don't CARE if there are "superagers" or not. I just want a rational person to lead the country from the choices before us.
Perfectly stated.
As a strong intuitive, I keep sensing that this goes beyond aging brains. Ive met and connected with people who are a lot younger in years who are 'lost.' I occasionally have to pause and rethink. Although I can't, won't be offering an assessment of Biden or Trump who are met that far apart om age., I have beem sensing something different going on worldwide.. Relaled to atavistic ... primal gear that's rising out of climate change..Not that everyone is aware of that. Atavistic fear is deep seated. Refers to instances when an organism possesses traits closer to a more remote, older ancestor.
It is more complicated than that. Back in the day, Americans liked to fret about Bush Sr. being too old and them ending up ruled by Dan Quayle or about Ronald Reagan being too old and them ending up ruled by Bush Sr. Cooler heads prevailed in the nomination process, though, and nothing came out of it.
Slips like the ones being held against Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden have been commited by American presidents since time immemorial. Carter headed the Carter Administration, Reagan may or may not have been told about Iran-Contras [As a Brazilian, I must say my fondest memory about an American president is Reagan mistaking Brazil for Bolivia in Brazil and trying to justify it later by saying Bolivia was the next stop at his tour (it wasn't even a part of it). So what? Americans did vote for Reagan neither for his mastery of Latin American geography and event planning nor for his awareness of his surroundings.]. Clinton misplaced the nuclear codes. Bush II kept American comedy industry afloat.
It is hard to argue that Biden and Trump declined and that someone would be more eager to vote in their 30 years younger selves. Thirty years ago, Trump was a disgraced businessman hounded by creditors while Biden was missing his shot at becoming head of government by imitating someone who missed his shot at becoming head of government. Thirty years later, Trump's creditors are a footnote, Neil Kinnock is a trivia answer, Donald Trump is the Messiah and Joe Biden is America's last hope against him.
I really don't think 4 years from now anyone will believe age played a relevant role at the disasters that will unfold in the next presidential term. However, I can not resist pointing out that Biden is not only "a bit younger than Jane Fonda (86) and a lot younger than Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett (93)." He is also much younger than Churchill and Einstein would be if they were alive today. Both are considered to be at the top of their professions.
Ha! (The parts about Bolivia being the next stop on the tour, and about Einstein and Churchill - playing with tenses.) I do feel a bit tense occasionally, and recognize there are disasters in the world in the past, present, and likely the future too, given our track record on this planet, and also there are some wonderful things going on too. So let’s not entirely lose sight of that. Can we all read Ross Gay’s Book of Delights? Obviously we all can’t and even if we all did it wouldn’t magically solve everything. But I started reading it and it’s good so far, and helps remind me of the goodness and humanity in people. That and reading someone’s Substack comment that she finds furniture that’s put out on the street because it’s broken. And she fixes it up with wood glue and puts it back out on the street and it gets picked up right away by someone else. So with this person existing, maybe there’s some hope for us.
Hell, I am only 65 and my most recent CT and MRI indicate that, like most males my age, my prefrontal cortex has shrunk a bit (as is to be expected).
I'd be interested if anybody knows of research specifically addressing/studying age related either shrinkage or some sort of fMRI (aka phrenology MRI :) ) loss of function in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex specifically.
No doubt "people say" that Trump's DLPFC is "yuuge", the "biggest they have ever seen".
>frankly, Harrison Ford, Paul McCartney, and Martin Scorsese did their best work decades ago; they’re not at the top of their professions.
But all three of them are working full-time at their chosen professions -- and doing that work at the highest level. Scorsese just put out what many people are calling a masterpiece, a gigantic project with millions of individual parts. Ford is starring in a hit TV show and just put out multiple movies. Paul McCartney is releasing albums, doing press, and headlining a world tour that's sold out, performing stadium concerts that last for hours.
Other than the flat-out ageism of your assumptions, what are you saying here?
You miss the point. Aggressively, rabidly, furiously. "Ability" is a coordinate, a value. "Decline" refers to its time derivative being negative. That is, someone with a one-in-a-billion ability level may decline substantially and yet still remain well above one-in-a-million.
Scorsese and McCartney are significantly sharper right now than either Trump or Biden, neither of whom were exactly geniuses in their prime.
Then we agree that their age is not a defining factor. Their individual talents and efforts are what matter. Not their ages. This is the opposite of the point being made by the original post.
I referred to Harrison Ford, Paul McCartney and Martin Scorsese, all of whom were cited in the OP. And all of whom are objectively doing just fine in their demanding jobs and are working at very high levels. To suggest otherwise is absolutely ageism. What other explanation is there for those comments? Reflect upon that and what it suggests about the biases that are at play.
Well, that’s a convenient out for you. And that’s fine. If you are lucky enough to grow old perhaps you will gain a bit of self-awareness. Until then, best of luck.
Then please explain how the recent work of Harrison Ford, Martin Scorsese and Paul McCartney support your point? Because the OP names them as evidence that it’s not ageism to say people of their ages are just too old to do capable, difficult jobs. Because so far you have not engaged with my point - you’ve just cited excuses for not.
>> Ultimately, we are due for a national conversation about what we should expect in terms of the cognitive and emotional health of our leaders. And that should be informed by science, not politics.
> Sounds good.
It doesn't sound good to me. This statement could easily be mistaken to assert that *only* science should be allowed to opine on the matter, but science deals mostly with the physical realm, and this is not a purely physical matter. At the very least philosophical perspectives should also be considered.