Study: Old Age Begins at 27

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/4995546/Old-age-begins-at-27-as-mental-powers-start-to-decline-scientists-find.html

by DanielBMarkham • 17 years ago

40 72 17 years ago

telegraph.co.uk

Allocator20082• 17 years ago

If true, and I don't know enough about this area to comment, but if so, it seems for optimum gene selection, people should procreate (or at least freeze their genetic material in a lab for future use) prior to this age.

I have often thought that perhaps the rise in mental disorders in children such as autism could be related to people waiting until later in life to have children, at which point, their DNA has already begun to break down. Studies showing that the oldest child in a family tends to also have a higher IQ is consistent with this. The younger you are when you reproduce, the more fit your genes are, and therefore the smarter, healthier, etc. your children are likely to be. Economic pressures now make people wait until later to reproduce than they did a generation or two ago, but this could be counteracted by saving genetic material in a lab when one is young, then later, when one is economically ready to reproduce, one can make use of the stored material to do so. It is unlikely in the near future that people will all of a sudden want to go back to having kids right out of high school, so, for optimum gene selection, they should at least save off their genetic material (sperm, eggs) for future use. Otherwise, going forward, the average intelligence of the populace is likely to decline.

tokenadult2• 17 years ago

What you say is consistent with what I said in my comment. I would point out, regarding storing genetic material, that I think the studies so far have not shown a large enough effect size from age on sperm to be sure that storing sperm (which has its own damaging effects in some cases) results in a better trade-off. But the general evolutionary picture would favor marrying and reproducing at younger rather than older ages.

menloparkbum• 17 years ago

I don't know enough about this area to comment

The study you're thinking of about the oldest child having a higher IQ (3 points higher on average) made a point that it was nurture, not nature.

russell2• 17 years ago

I think that, from the kid's point of view, it's better to be born to parents in their 30's. The genetic risk is small, but more than offset by the maturity and improved economic circumstances of the parents. It's not until the late 30's or 40's that genetic decline starts to be a serious risk.

Allocator20082• 17 years ago

The fact remains if IQ is tapering off in the late 20's, the a child born to the parents in their 30's may not have as high an IQ as the parents. Personally my parents were in their mid-20's when I crawled out of the evolutionary slime, and in a sense I agree with you on the maturity and economic front - both factors were issues - and I think there has been growth there since, and my younger siblings had it better as far as maturity went, but honestly I wouldn't have it any other way, at least I know I got the best evolutionary shot I could get, lol! :-)

tokenadult2• 17 years ago

This makes sense. Most Paleolithic members of the species Homo sapiens were dead by age forty, so there hasn't been much selection pressure to favor human beings preserving health or their faculties much past that age. I'm living on borrowed time, being almost twice as old as the headlined age. On the other hand, some people decline more or less rapidly, and from a better or worse base, so fifty-year-olds can still outsmart twenty-seven-year-olds in specific cases.

"However, the report published in the academic journal Neurobiology Of Ageing, found that abilities based on accumulated knowledge, such as performance on tests of vocabulary or general information, increased until at the age of 60."

Live life to the fullest while you can appreciate it.

DanielBMarkham2• 17 years ago

Lately we're finding good arguments for the idea that people start declining in abilities earlier than we thought.

At the same time, there's a lot of work being done on life extension.

What happens if we extend life to, say, 150 and what we get is this long, 100-year decline into complete cognitive paralysis?

I'm 43 and I don't feel like I'm losing it. In fact, in some ways I feel more cognitively adept than I was at 27. When I was 27 I was quicker on my feet, but there wasn't a depth there. Now, at least to me, I feel that I have a lot more weight to my decisions and actions. I dunno - tough subject. It could be, like the pot discussion, that I simply feel this way.

I do know that if cognitive decline is going to be defined as starting in the late 20s, we're going to start seeing a lot of middle-aged people getting medicated for age-related cognitive issues in the near future.

randallsquared• 17 years ago

And about your last point: this is a good thing. :) I can't wait.

jwilliams• 17 years ago

Lately we're finding good arguments for the idea that people start declining in abilities earlier than we thought.

I got the impression that the research was going the other way. A lot of current research reporting seems to indicate brain plasticity is broader and longer-lasting than we thought.

Course. I'm 27+ so a bit of bias might be creeping in.

shiranaihito• 17 years ago

That's what I've heard too - our brains are supposed to stay in good shape much longer than our bodies.

sown• 17 years ago

What happens if we extend life to, say, 150 and what we get is this long, 100-year decline into complete cognitive paralysis?

I think if they can make you live forever, they can also probably preserve your brain, too.

ErrantX• 17 years ago

Some people are talking about the first person to live to 1000 being alive today... so, a 900 year decline? :)

I think whilst you have a point you also neglect to factor in that with medical developments extending life we will also end up with developments in mental care/extension.

skalpelis• 17 years ago

Aubrey de Grey, not some people.

russell2• 17 years ago

Wisdom is what it's called. After 40 your reflexes are slower and you are less likely to have your world shattering idea. OTOH you are probably a better judge of probabilities of success/failure, people's capabilities, and allocation of resources. Lot's of people are significant contributors into their 70's.

I dont think living to 150 means being 80 for 80 years. Probably middle age get stretched forever and the decline is about as fast and as long as it is now.

amichail• 17 years ago

After 40 your reflexes are slower and you are less likely to have your world shattering idea.

For some people, creativity increases with age.

But still, quick thinking and high energy levels are useful. I think it's crucial that we compress schooling as much as possible so people can do something important while they still can.

jodrellblank• 17 years ago

What happens if we extend life to, say, 150 and what we get is this long, 100-year decline into complete cognitive paralysis?

We go "That's interesting, I wonder which processes are involved and how we can keep their desirable effects while removing or reversing the decline?"

I'm late 20s and I do feel like I'm losing it. I feel overloaded by the infohose of 'news' I skim read every day yet mostly forget completely very quickly, lacking any rigorous understanding of significant subject(s), and facing paralysis of choice of all the things that might be worth spending 10 years studying.

More weight to my decisions? I think it's more inertia and more deeply worn ruts and grooves and more deeply implanted patterns of automatically triggered response that are 'me'.

unalone8• 17 years ago

I'm 18, and occasionally I feel like I've lost something I had before. But that's a common feeling, I'm sure: I'll always want to be wiser and simultaneously younger. I doubt that has anything at all to do with my actual age or level of knowledge.

The feeling of losing things may very well stem from the inertia that builds up in life, along with your own growing awareness of your abilities. When I was 5 I thought I was a superhero: I was powerful and could crush anything. When I was 16, I didn't think that, but I thought that I was a powerful, fascinating individual around whom the world revolved. Now I've begun working out and taking care of myself, and I'm probably stronger now than I've ever been, but I don't have the same blind, false confidence I had before.

Is that losing it? I'll suspect that a year from now if I continue to work out with any level of dedication, I'll be stronger than I've ever been - not just in my mind, but in reality. Similarly, every year I become more aware of my limitations, but simultaneously those limitations lessen and disappear. I'm brighter now than I've ever been, and it's my intent never to enter a life scenario where I'm not allowed to continue to grow.

Inertia is the larger problem: both with body and mind and personality, the longer you don't use something the more it fades away. By your late 20s, you've left school, you've entered a more stable type of living, and there's every chance that you're in a duller, more monotonous setting - and worse, you're faced with the prospect of things never abruptly changing. That's deadly, and I'd suspect it contributes a lot to this attitude of people burning out.

(I come from a slightly unique perspective - the world of writing, where if you publish a book before you're 35 you're considered precocious. In all of literature, the greatest changes have come from people older than 30. I think it's because literature, unlike other forms of music, is forced to be subtle in order to work: it requires command of only a few skills, and there's no pressure to hurry with writing, and so as a result the field is full of people who can dedicate a decade to a single piece. The works that are remembered are the ones so rich with experience that they stand above even this field of work. Unlike, say, music, where not knowing anything means you have an advantage in your ability to create new works, literature very often requires at least an understanding of what's been done before, because without it the chances of your making something worth people's time is virtually nil.)

davidmathers• 17 years ago

"What happens if we extend life to, say, 150 and what we get is this long, 100-year decline into complete cognitive paralysis?"

Struldbrugs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struldbrug

radu_floricica• 17 years ago

> Twenty-seven has long had negative connotations, as it is the age at which many popular musicians died, including Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morrison, Brian Jones, Janis Joplin and Kurt Cobain.

Twenty seven is an interesting age. This much I knew for years before reaching it, and turned out to be true. I don't really know why, but it sortof makes sense. It's when you go from being a young man to a real adult. Strangely though, for me it was not filled with responsabilities, on the contrary.

jaxn• 17 years ago

I died when I was 27.

utx002• 17 years ago

you still haven't noticed?

wallflower• 17 years ago

It's never too late to start anything - developing yourself is a function of time and passion:

http://www.unlikelysalsero.com/2007/08/magic-of-time-last-on...

"The unexamined life is not worth living."

-Socrates, in Plato, Dialogues, Apology

No matter what age you are, I think this is important.

How often (daily? weekly?) do you think about your self image, attitudes, actions, beliefs, relationships, and recurring thoughts?

I didn't want to get all Mike Litman on you but..

juanpablo• 17 years ago

I don't buy it.

I suspect that it is more related to dull/stressful work environments than age (at 22 you're either still in college or fresh out from it).

Xichekolas• 17 years ago

Did they test the same people at all these ages? No.

So yeah, environment/upbringing/schooling could have a huge impact it seems. At least if you believe that skills like this can be kept 'in shape' with frequent use (which I do believe).

yters• 17 years ago

Also, mental dexterity and knowledge are probably inversely proportional to each other because once you learn more you draw on more to make decisions. So, if we could rid our minds of our knowledge we might improve our thinking speed.

Anyways, for people who feel down about their age, remember that nothing anybody does will last forever. Our judgment of significance is significantly colored by our finite sense of time. Just think of what seemed like a long time to you at 3 vs at 30. Thus, it is ok to primarily aim at happiness in this life instead of achievement, though aiming at achievement is also good if it makes you happy.

TTDaVeTT• 17 years ago

Regardless of thinking speed, the more you know, the better you think. You are able to analyze a given situation or problem more effectively because you can draw on past experience or knowledge and make a more informed decision. I would happily take an 'experienced' brain over a young on that is faster (if thats even true, which i dont really believe...).

juliend2• 17 years ago

I only hope that my age will not keep me from learning new things. The most important thing when learning is to keep a good attitude. I believe that the brain can be trained to get smarter at all ages.

Rexxar• 17 years ago

It's may be a problem of training. A lot of people stop learning new things when then leave university so their brain could become less efficient.

Correlation don't imply causality. There is not enough facts to convince me.

msie• 17 years ago

Sigh, I wasted the best years of my life in a startup that didn't get me rich. ;)

mxcl3• 17 years ago

Sounds like there's a story there. Care to tell?

keltecp11• 17 years ago

I refuse to believe this.

weiser• 17 years ago

Ok, so certain mental abilities deteriorate. Maybe, some other mental abilities improve.

The problem with this research is that it is trying look at brain from a certain view point, ignoring all other view points. A more holistic approach would provide a better understanding of how mental abilities change over time.

nraynaud• 17 years ago

ok, my next startup will be selling suicide gears for 29+ people ...

rafa8a• 17 years ago

Damn, I only have 4 years left.

aneesh• 17 years ago

"Researchers have found that peoples' mental abilities peak at 22 before beginning to deteriorate just five years later."

The 5-year gap doesn't make sense. If you're at your peak at age 22, wouldn't you, by definition, begin to decline immediately after? :-)

I suppose you could level off for 5 years, but then it's misleading to call 22 a "peak".

ricmorton• 17 years ago

In case anyone is worried about their twenty-something cognitive performance, bear in mind that the refutation of this study will probably not surface in the media; http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-docum...

-An unconcerned twenty-something ;)

alecco2• 17 years ago

Try one of those mind training games for a couple of months and you'll see how lame this kind of study is.

mxcl3• 17 years ago

You sum up most of the stupid attitudes in this thread. The scientists in this study most likely are better at this field than you. Probably The Times misinterpreted the results. Still your denial is hilarious. Just because you're smart, doesn't make you right. That goes for all of you.

alecco2• 17 years ago

I'm not a neuroscientist. But I'm an avid reader of neuroscience blogs (not the shiny ones, the ones by and for scientists) and papers. The Torygraph isn't exactly qualitity media but I doubt they misinterpreted the paper that bad.

The problem with current research is it's requiring too much previous knowledge to grasp even the abstract. And it's getting more granular and harder to sell with mainstream headlines. I actually prefer it this way.

There is a large amount of neuroscience research from the last decade that didn't make it to mainstream media. Specially things that could offend people or cults.

Mainstream media is obsolete because of this. A small blog post with proper explanations as popups or links to references (even Wikipedia) delivers more efficiently.

pekka• 17 years ago

So true, It is a known fact among the chess players that the ability to calculate ahead peaks at the age of 27.

dgordon• 17 years ago

No it isn't. Everything I've heard suggests that chess players tend to peak around their mid-30s, and then you have Viktor Korchnoi, who won the Soviet junior championship at 16, was playing for the world championship at 50, and was rated 85th in the world at 75. His 78th birthday is coming up next week.

old-gregg• 17 years ago

Maybe...

Let me share my personal experience: when I was 18-21 I struggled with advanced math in college. Now, at 30, when I re-open those books just for fun, everything makes so much sense and some aspects of it are even enjoyable.

I've failed to find a plausible explanation for myself. I haven't done much math (calculus, probability, statistics) since graduation, yet the exact same books are so much easier to read now.

I experienced a similar effect much earlier in my life: I struggled with understanding recursive algorithms when I was 12, but when I came back to them at 16 I laughed at myself - it suddenly seemed so trivial.

mxcl3• 17 years ago

Well honestly, this was a statistical study. Still those of us who are 27 are glad to hear you part anyway! Damn. I don't want to have passed my prime.

wheels• 17 years ago

Also anecdotal, but...

As I started getting into heavy research on recommender systems for our startup after being somewhat lax in my research reading for a few years I stumbled into some papers that were really hard for me to push through. I kept thinking, "I must be slipping, I know this stuff wasn't as hard for me in college."

Then at some point I needed to look up a couple things in some of my textbooks (I saved them all) and as soon as I picked them up I thought ... wait? That was the hard stuff? This is all so ... trivial. Since the progression from textbooks to academic papers had mostly come at some remove, I'd not noticed that I was gradually reading much harder material, to the point that the stuff that I found hard in computer science in college now seems all rather easy.

Now, I'm 28 at this point, but already I've noticed that I'm not as fast as I once was, but I've got more momentum. When I throw myself at a problem it's with the goal of crushing it rather than dancing around it. This seems to be what's awesome about smart folks that are in middle to older ages. There's like this blunt force of knowledge that can be thrown at hard problems. Great systems programmers in their 50s are awesome to work with.

Note, also, that the article also mentions that knowledge based abilities increase up until you're 60.

mechanical_fish• 17 years ago

Once you've got an intuitive picture of how something works, you will find that the details just fall into place. But often that intuitive picture can't just be gifted to you, despite the best efforts of our best teachers to concoct the perfect metaphors. It takes time. You have to fiddle around with the concepts in your head, sometimes for years, before they really sink in. You might have to repeat them several times, or approach them from several angles, or encounter them in unusual surroundings, or find the one book that finally explains the subject in a way that clicks.

Once you really understand something, trying to remember what it was like before you understood it is like trying to forget how to read.

ars• 17 years ago

If the peak is at 22, we are really short changing our children by setting the age of majority at 18.

Eliezer• 17 years ago

No frickin' kidding.

jaymstr• 17 years ago

I'm 23. I'm going to reference this research when we pitch our company to raise money. Fund the young guys.

brlewis• 17 years ago

That's a good idea. And if you're still pitching when you get older, you can reference this other study about the brain peaking at 39: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=345785

DanielBMarkham2• 17 years ago

Never trust anybody over 30, man

http://www.bartleby.com/73/1828.html

morbidkk• 17 years ago

May be Its fault of education systems and corporate jobs..I don't buy it for sure

danbmil99• 17 years ago

Who cares if your clock slows down say 20% by 50? Think how easy it is to optimize any program by 20%. It's irrelevant. Much more important is what software you're running. Like other posters here, I struggled with things in my 'prime' that I now find much easier. That phenomenon doesn't seem to get talked about much. There seems to be this truism that intellectually challenging work peaks before 30. How many great novels or plays were written by anyone in their 20's? Yet important math and music is often done young. Go figure.

unalone8• 17 years ago

I dunno about novels or plays, but Orson Welles was 25 when he made Citizen Kane.

I think it all matters on how accessible the medium is to young people. Modern music is VERY accessible, because there are so few limitations that you can really do whatever you want and while it may not be good, you've got a better chance of its being so since the concepts behind music are comparatively simple.

If we were talking about the world of composition, on the other hand, things would be much different. I doubt that we'd see many young brilliant composers, unless they were Mozarts (i.e. helped along heavily by parents).

neilo• 17 years ago

Carp, no wunder Im dum nwo

Study: Old Age Begins at 27

Related Stories