we can discuss on intrinsic qualities linked to age, and I would mostly agree. interpersonal differences are more important that the average changes in character with age...
Experience, and time in the system have more impact than age... experience , and lack of experience have respective qualities. Being new in a system or having a huge network can cause good or bad. . Some good well installed people use their networks to protect the weakest, to protect innovation... this happen in administration, or in venture capital however what I was supporting when talking of young and old scientist is more linked to "incentive" linked to their economic and social position. I won't say the old are better than young, but that people who expect nothing from the system, who already have much, cannot have more, or no more expect anything, are more "free". Being free is important. Today scientist, like most workers, starts with huge debts, with huge need to have a career, with huge social expectations and ambition... Debt is really, as says Taleb, something that make people less "antifragile", more fragile. people with debt, with minimal expectation, are afraid to lose, and even sometime, afraid not to succeed. this is not good for innovation. Young poor people without debt, would prefer to take risk that to stay where they are... They would take any cheap option with the crazy hope to win. Indebted people do the opposite. The beginning of Antifragile book starts with a stoicism philosopher, who was rich, but who advised people to use few comfort so they can enjoy their "unexpected" wealth and accept their "normal" troubles... as taleb report, some great scientist and innovators were having a safe job, or a safe wealth, allowing them to do what they wanted in science. Another way to allow someone to take risk without being in risk. young or old we should give freedom to scientists. today I noticed that old scientists, not far from retirement, with adult children, with good saving, with small needs, can be free to bash the top scientists of their time, to raise their fingers to the community, to Nobel committee, to the funding agency, to their boss... There was a period when young scientist could do that, and older could not... Time have changed. anyway there are individual who can ignore incentive, but much less. moreover they are quickly eliminated by the law of survival and economics. 2013/9/25 Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> > Hi I signed up for this newsletter a few days ago. I guess I am answering > the wrong way. Let me know the right way and I will do it correct. > Just could not sit and listen to some of the the comments. Read Edmund > Storms comment a couple of times. I am a rather old guy and I am working in > the field of leadership development. I am what you call a serial > entrepreneur and have an interest in energy (also an engineering degree in > the sixties). > I have met people in their eighties with more gusto than some in their > twenties. You can wish for twenty-five year old decision makers all you > want but that is not the answer and as you know you have to be careful > about what you wish for you might just get it. I am sure it is frustrating > to have ideas and ambitions but no response from people able to help and > support. That means that you have to change the format we operate under. To > eliminate by race , sex age or . . . is first of all illegal so it wont > work. So, do I argue that you should give up? No, far from that. However, > you need to do what all small start ups are doing - MARKET YOURSELF AND > YOUR IDEAS. Also find out who is more likely to be supportive. Make your > marketing appealing for those able to help and make the message appealing > to them. I have an old say that requires you know the basics about horses. > If you want a horse to act on your wishes you cannot hang behind the load > and scream at the horse - you need to go up and take the halter and lead > the horse. > It is not an age thing. As an example I mentor a 27 year old entrepreneur > with a software product and I am almost as excited as he is. > > > > Best Regards , > Lennart Thornros > > www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com > lenn...@thornros.com > +1 916 436 1899 > 6140 Horseshoe Bar Road Suite G, Loomis CA 95650 > > “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a > commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM > > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: > >> Being one of the old people, I would like to share my impression of this >> issue. >> >> Most young people are ignorant, self-centered, and without much >> imagination. When they become old people, most remain ignorant, >> self-centered, and without imagination. Growing old simply gives a person >> who wants knowledge a chance to get knowledge. It does not increase the >> incentive to get knowledge. Therefore, if you want advice from either the >> young or old, do not look at the age. Look at the willingness to learn and >> at the degree of imagination. Consequently, this discussion is focusing on >> the wrong variable. >> >> On Sep 25, 2013, at 9:46 AM, James Bowery wrote: >> >> The scientific approach, of course, would be two establish two groups, >> one a control group and the other a treatment group where the "treatment" >> is the proposed change, in this case the age limit. >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Alain Sepeda <alain.sep...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> I agree too that most of incentive in Science is status (science in real >>> life is very like political in a way as my dear MP secretary explained to >>> me). >>> >>> about removing older people from decision, I think it can be evil too. >>> From decision maybe, but from discussion no. >>> >>> I see that older people often, because they can have no huge ambition >>> for future, because they can have enough protection to feel safe, because >>> they can have more ego than fear of the future, those fearless people, can >>> play the rebels... >>> In the early 20th century , young could play the rebels, they had to, >>> but I'm afraid modern generation of scientists are so dependent on career >>> and funding, that they cannot take the risk to think out of the funding box. >>> They are also often too submitted to fashion, while oldies can remind of >>> a period when things were different. >>> >>> they will be what Norbert Alter called "alien", people who >>> >>> Today in many controversies,; I see only oldies, who take , for best and >>> worst (I don't agree, mostly for best), crazy positions against the >>> consensus, based on old knowledge, old evidences, of their memory of a >>> period where feeling and trends were different. >>> >>> In the late 19th century, oldies were conservatives in a stable society. >>> Today oldies are keepers of dead times, of dead culture, of outdated >>> consensus, washed by waves of fashions and new consensus. >>> Oldies are rebels, aliens, foreigner of their time, like were the young >>> before. >>> Like old heros, they can decide to suicide their career to defend their >>> micro-ethics, not afraid of anything worse than the planned story... >>> retirement and death. >>> >>> Maybe they are wrong, but sure you should not remove them from the story. >>> They are what the young were before. >>> If you look for young rebel, forget in science, go to business. >>> >>> However I agree that out of science, oldies often are more defending >>> their honeypot, surfing on fashion, rather than rebels or defender of old >>> values. >>> >>> >>> >>> 2013/9/25 Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> >>> >>>> James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> There is also opposition from many ordinary people and many stupid >>>>>> people at places like Wikipedia >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> In all of these cases we're dealing with the incentives of social >>>>> status more than authority structure. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I agree. I would say it is ordinary primate behavior, similar to what >>>> you see in our cousins the chimpanzees, and in other group hunting >>>> predators such as wolves. (I am not denigrating this behavior. I have great >>>> respect for other species.) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> So how do you identify the Jason(s) most likely to be more concerned >>>>> with national security than peer pressure? >>>>> >>>> >>>> I wouldn't know. I have never met 'em. I don't even know who they all >>>> are. I know some people who have met with them, and meet with them every >>>> year. I get the impression the Jasons are a bunch of washed up old farts >>>> who are opposed to everything that wasn't discovered before they turned 30, >>>> which was a long time ago. But I could be wrong. >>>> >>>> I know that one or two of them often pull strings to have cold fusion >>>> funding cancelled. >>>> >>>> It is big mistake to give any scientist over 30 a role in allocating >>>> money or making decisions. The way to make progress is get a large pot of >>>> money and hand it out to young people, letting them do whatever they please >>>> with it. Some of them will waste it. A few may steal it. But most will make >>>> far better use of it than an old scientist could. Young people succeed in >>>> doing things the older people think are impossible, because the young >>>> people have not yet learned where the boundary between possible and >>>> impossible likes. Actually, that boundary is imaginary, like a geographical >>>> boundary -- a state line, or a property line. No one knows what is possible >>>> and what isn't. No one can even imagine. >>>> >>>> - Jed >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >
