Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

72-year-old Congressman pursues a Master's in AI

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 142 posts

Re: 72-year-old Congressman pursues a Master's in AI

#61

Post by mindcrime »

cm2187 wrote: post #49
mindcrime wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To keep the muscle analogy, you won’t compete as an athlete at 72 no matter how fit you remain. I hate to be "pedantic guy", but FWIW there are absolutely 72 year old competitive athletes. They may not be competitive against folks 20+ years younger than themselves, but many people continue to compete in "masters" divisions of various competitive sports until pretty much the day they keel over. Heck, there are folks w…

> They may not be competitive against folks 20+ years younger than themselves that's kind of my point. Of course they can compete against other 72 year olds.

Sure. And I agree that you "can't defeat nature" in the end, but at the same time, that's no argument against fighting it tooth and nail, right down to the bitter end, staying as fit as possible, both mentally and physically. :-)

Re: 72-year-old Congressman pursues a Master's in AI

#62

Post by pleb_nz »

onion2k wrote: post #51
wolverine876 wrote: post #7

A major problem in our society is that '72-year-old' is in the headline. If you are not growing, you are declining or dead. Not only does the world change under your feet, you need that stimulation just to stay healthy. We ruin the talent, economic value, and freedom and opportunity of a very large portion of the population by dimissing the growth of anyone in late middle-age or later. 72 years old shouldn't be remar…

If you are not growing, you are declining or dead. What's wrong with retiring and living out your last years peacefully relaxing with your hobbies and family? There's absolutely no reason why people have to continually grow until they're in the ground. You're applying an adage about companies to people, but companies need to fight against inflation, and people don't.

I might be reading it wrong, but I don't think that's what they're trying to say. You're right, people should be able to. But people should also be encouraged and helped if it's their desire to continue to grow.

To me it feels like society virtually throws seniors away and I don't believe we treat them well at all.

Personally I think once you stop learning and growing it's the start of a 'faster' downward spiral. If you don't use it you lose it. I intend to keep active and continually growing as long as I have the desire, not because society says you're old, out of date and couldn't possibly contribute any more.

Re: 72-year-old Congressman pursues a Master's in AI

#63

Post by pleb_nz »

cm2187 wrote: post #49
mindcrime wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To keep the muscle analogy, you won’t compete as an athlete at 72 no matter how fit you remain. I hate to be "pedantic guy", but FWIW there are absolutely 72 year old competitive athletes. They may not be competitive against folks 20+ years younger than themselves, but many people continue to compete in "masters" divisions of various competitive sports until pretty much the day they keel over. Heck, there are folks w…

> They may not be competitive against folks 20+ years younger than themselves that's kind of my point. Of course they can compete against other 72 year olds.

Why does it have to be a competition. Shouldn't it be about being able to help and contribute. Too much focus on efficiency and not enough on well being of society as a whole.

80 year olds with a desire can still contribute. It doesn't have to be in competition with 20 years.

Re: 72-year-old Congressman pursues a Master's in AI

#64

Post by wolverine876 »

acituan wrote: post #55
wolverine876 wrote: post #7

A major problem in our society is that '72-year-old' is in the headline. If you are not growing, you are declining or dead. Not only does the world change under your feet, you need that stimulation just to stay healthy. We ruin the talent, economic value, and freedom and opportunity of a very large portion of the population by dimissing the growth of anyone in late middle-age or later. 72 years old shouldn't be remar…

> If you are not growing, you are declining or dead. Normativity of growth also gives all sorts of inefficiencies, diseases and economic problems. > Not only does the world change under your feet, you need that stimulation just to stay healthy. I partially agree with this. You need to keep updating your model of the world not only because the world is changing under your feet, but also your priors are always guarante…

I think you interpret "growth" in a narrow framework of your perspective. The word means a lot more, and I meant things very different from your interpretation. For example, I wasn't talking about economics at all.

Also, that growth (in the sense I mean) is necessary for people to function. They deteriorate without it, like a tree without enough water and sun.

> A wiser old person's transfer of their skills and perspectives (not propositions, or knowledge) to a younger person would not register with your notion of "personal growth" but nonetheless is a superior betterment at the group level, and thus has a much scalable adaptive value.

I see the claim but don't see support for it, or why it's mutually exclusive with growth (in any sense).

Re: 72-year-old Congressman pursues a Master's in AI

#65

Post by XorNot »

onion2k wrote: post #51
wolverine876 wrote: post #7

A major problem in our society is that '72-year-old' is in the headline. If you are not growing, you are declining or dead. Not only does the world change under your feet, you need that stimulation just to stay healthy. We ruin the talent, economic value, and freedom and opportunity of a very large portion of the population by dimissing the growth of anyone in late middle-age or later. 72 years old shouldn't be remar…

If you are not growing, you are declining or dead. What's wrong with retiring and living out your last years peacefully relaxing with your hobbies and family? There's absolutely no reason why people have to continually grow until they're in the ground. You're applying an adage about companies to people, but companies need to fight against inflation, and people don't.

I'd argue hobbies are growth though. People might not be racing to smash new frontiers, but they do learn at a steady pace with hobbies, even if it's as simple as developing some dexterity for a particular task.

Re: 72-year-old Congressman pursues a Master's in AI

#66

Post by wolverine876 »

donatj wrote: post #29
wolverine876 wrote: post #7

A major problem in our society is that '72-year-old' is in the headline. If you are not growing, you are declining or dead. Not only does the world change under your feet, you need that stimulation just to stay healthy. We ruin the talent, economic value, and freedom and opportunity of a very large portion of the population by dimissing the growth of anyone in late middle-age or later. 72 years old shouldn't be remar…

I mean I'm nearing 40 and pondering if the investment of going back to school would actually be worth the effort given the say roughly 20 years I'd have to enjoy it, especially given how the last 20 years have completely flown by. I think there's a valid "why?" here. Obviously it comes down to some people being driven to knowledge purely for knowledge sake, and that's wonderful. That's what makes them happy. I think…

You have no idea where your path will lead. Don't let society's dismissal of middle-aged people dampen your dreams. And 20 years is a career.

Re: 72-year-old Congressman pursues a Master's in AI

#67

Post by seanmcdirmid »

2000UltraDeluxe wrote: post #58
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 72 years old shouldn't be remarkable, but the norm. Having neither of my parents even make it to 72, I’m pessimistic. I hope I will be lucky that my health allows me to keep learning and doing cool stuff at that age (and that I’m actually alive), but the sad reality is that health and genetics can be against us, and being in a healthy thriving state at 72 is more an exception than the norm.

I consider anything past 70 to be a bonus. If I make it for a few more years than that and I feel like studying, then why not? I mean, I probably won't want to, but if that guy want to study then good on him!

I’m really worried about existential depression at and beyond that age. Hopefully there are some (legal) drugs for that, I don’t really trust my own mind to get me through that (and after 70, I’m not really worried about a substance dependency).

Re: 72-year-old Congressman pursues a Master's in AI

#68

Post by bmitc »

wolverine876 wrote: post #7

A major problem in our society is that '72-year-old' is in the headline. If you are not growing, you are declining or dead. Not only does the world change under your feet, you need that stimulation just to stay healthy. We ruin the talent, economic value, and freedom and opportunity of a very large portion of the population by dimissing the growth of anyone in late middle-age or later. 72 years old shouldn't be remar…

I get what you’re saying, but I think it’s a little too much to call it a “major problem”. Getting a master’s degree is a ceremonial task that has basically no meaning other than what certain jobs may require or want, usually jobs at the beginning of one’s career. Getting a master’s at 72 is kind of weird I think, since he could just as easily learn the material without the degree by taking selective courses. Getting a degree often comes with logistical things orthogonal to learning what you’d like to learn.

And let’s not mistake, one’s mental faculties are lesser as you age. It’s biological. It is remarkable in that aspect as well. Let’s not pretend like one retains a youthful brain, in terms of processing power, throughout one’s entire life. At 72, he is at the life expectancy for men in the U.S. Implying it’s just beyond late middle age is a little strange.

In summary, I think getting a master’s at that age is sort of pointless aside from a certain ceremonial and logistical challenge. It’d be more efficient to take specific classes from good professors. Taking classes from poor professors was a waste of time in my 20s. I can’t imagine doing it in my 70s.

Re: 72-year-old Congressman pursues a Master's in AI

#70

Post by wolverine876 »

onion2k wrote: post #51
wolverine876 wrote: post #7

A major problem in our society is that '72-year-old' is in the headline. If you are not growing, you are declining or dead. Not only does the world change under your feet, you need that stimulation just to stay healthy. We ruin the talent, economic value, and freedom and opportunity of a very large portion of the population by dimissing the growth of anyone in late middle-age or later. 72 years old shouldn't be remar…

If you are not growing, you are declining or dead. What's wrong with retiring and living out your last years peacefully relaxing with your hobbies and family? There's absolutely no reason why people have to continually grow until they're in the ground. You're applying an adage about companies to people, but companies need to fight against inflation, and people don't.

I didn't say anything about retiring, working, etc. You can grow plenty in retirement too. My prediction is that if someone doesn't grow - explore and learn new things - however they do it, they'll deteriorate and lose much of their enjoyment. The brain and soul need the stimulation of new things.

> You're applying an adage about companies to people, but companies need to fight against inflation, and people don't.

It's interesting that multiple people read 'grow' as economic growth, when we know it means much more. (Also, companies don't grow to overcome inflation, but to provide ROI to their owners.)

Post reply on HN