Thoughts on aging's effect on learning and intelligence

[suzzer99]

This is from a thread in STTF. I thought maybe I would bring it out here to see if we can get some interesting discussion going.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A big selling point for me switching would be if I actually think a stubborn old slow learner like can learn to beat 3/6 or 5/10 in any reasonable timeframe.



[/ QUOTE ]

This is very interesting to me. I've been playing 6 max for just over a year and the transition/learning for me has been at times painfully slow - and I'm older than the avg. poster. I've often wondered if that was a factor, but have no way to measure it other than to know that for me learning has taken or is taking longer than say FD or Manchild. Microbet has made the transition much quicker and he is older, but also less emotional about his game and probably smarter than I am.

Last month was sort of a revelation for me. I learned TO APPLY some basic concepts that should have been evident to me from the beginning regarding aggression, hud integration and a few other things that I knew, but like I said, wasn't applying to my game. I think its frustrating to my coach to the point where he has pretty much given up on me (not his fault [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]), which in turn is very frustrating to me because with a few more tweaks to my game I think I'm about there. "There" being a solid player up to 200nl maybe 400nl, not quite as good as FD but almost - at least in my mind.

Finally my goal a year ago was to work my way up to 3-6 or 5-10. Now its just to be solid at 1-2, and I've never been one to settle for second best etc. Meh, ranting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like you and I have similar tendencies to analyze things and the nature behind them.

For one thing it's pretty much a given that you learn faster when you're younger. My friend's daughter is 14. I've been part of her life for 7 years or so and just marvel at how sponge-like their brains are. You tell her something once and pretty much know it's going to be stuck in there for life. It's a scary power to have actually. Also anything sports related, you tell her once to try something a different way, and she instantly picks it up. No bad habits that take months or years to break.

Also pretty much all of the great mathematical, etc. geniuses will do their best work by their late 20s. But that doesn't mean people can't be really smart, it just means probably not world-class, bleeding-edge smart. Like a great sprinter who can still be really fast, just not winning the olympics fast.

So when you get in your 30s and 40s you lose maybe a little bit of raw intellect, and a lot of your willingness/ability to learn new concepts. I've worked with older guys who were COBOL programmers or something that just couldn't get all the messy crap of web programming. They just wanted someone to define their environment for them and tell them where to write the code and what it should do. Web programming just has way more to it than that. Then again I have a feeling those guys may not have been very good COBOL programmers either.

But the good news is I think the latter can be fought back against. I hate learning a new language (like the COBOL dude). It's like it hurts or something. Whereas when I was younger I might have thought it was fun. But once I force myself to learn it, I get it just about as well as I ever would have, if not as quick. Then cleverly applying what I've learned is fun. Just the raw blue-sky learning is painful. I think those two things must happen in different parts of your brain.

I used to work with a guy in his 40s, maybe early 50s, who by all rights could be a genius. He was definitely one of the best in the world at what he did (statistical consulting). One big thing I noticed about him is that he never showed the slightest hesitation to learn something new. He got frustrated with our computer support guy when he was having problems with his machine, and basically taught himself everything he needed to know to fix the problem himself in a few hours. It's almost like he was missing that getting-old "crustification" gene, and maybe that was more his secret to being a "genius" than anything else. I've always wondered.

So anyway to sum up, my theory is that if you were smart enough to learn to beat 25/50 when you were 18, you're probably still smart enough at 40. But you have to fight really really hard against stubbornness. Of course all the extra emotional baggage you've accumulated in 22 years, and all the other skills and innate qualities that make up a great poker player also come into play. I'm just trying to isolate on the intelligence/learning variable.

[blah_blah]

[ QUOTE ]
Also pretty much all of the great mathematical, etc. geniuses will do their best work by their late 20s. But that doesn't mean people can't be really smart, it just means probably not world-class, bleeding-edge smart. Like a great sprinter who can still be really fast, just not winning the olympics fast.

[/ QUOTE ]

This simply isn't true anymore. There are obviously some exceptions like Terence Tao or Ben Green but mathematics is much less of a young man's game than it used to be (partly because there is a lot more that you need to know to do mathematics nowadays, as opposed to 100 years ago when a bright 20 year old could probably pick up all the material necessary to be on the cutting edge of his chosen field).

[microbet]

I feel as smart as ever and like I learn things just as quickly as ever. I also run a mile faster than I could when I was 17.

There are a few factors in why old people are perceived to be dumber and why they sometimes actually are.

Most people let their brains (and bodies) atrophy.

There are a lot of important things old people have done in math and science too. Part of the reason breakthroughs are associated with young people is partly because it is more remarkable when someone does something very young (or very old) and it is remembered. It's also partly because when someone with a new remarkable brain gets his first chance to do something remarkable it's going to be when he or she is young and a lot of breakthroughs have to do with a having a new perspective.

Being a super genius at something also has a lot to do with a moderately long (meaning a few years - not like decades) and extremely intense study of something. For a lot of reasons this is just something younger males are much more likely to do than other groups. It probably goes back to our evolutionary history and it's all scheming to get laid, which I guess makes PUA the perfect science.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

There are a lot of important things old people have done in math and science too. Part of the reason breakthroughs are associated with young people is partly because it is more remarkable when someone does something very young (or very old) and it is remembered. It's also partly because when someone with a new remarkable brain gets his first chance to do something remarkable it's going to be when he or she is young and a lot of breakthroughs have to do with a having a new perspective.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it has less to do with this, and more to do with the nature of what a breakthrough is. Successful older scientists are going to have much more formalized training thinking about things in the old ways, and that's a lot harder to break out of. The real revolutions are almost always youngsters. Plenty of good science gets done by people in their middle to late career, obviously, just not the kind of epochal theoretical breakthroughs that people are typically thinking of in this context.

I think brain atrophy is a pretty big effect. I've sort of gotten out of the habit of doing calculations and haven't gone to a class in a couple of years, and it's definitely showing. I'm trying to get myself back into a regimen of spending a couple hours a day working through new stuff to get back into mental shape.

[suzzer99]

Ok, that mathematics thing is something I read a while back. Let me ask you something though, since I know nothing about the state of modern mathematics. When I think of genius I don't just picture someone who solved a tough proof or made some kind of advancement that happens every few years. I mean someone who revolutionized some area of mathematics or science. Einstein, Newton, Descartes, Copernicus (helio-centric theory is believed to have been born in his 20s), Tesla, probably the guy who invented the wheel. All these guys had their big eureka moment in their 20s. Then many of them went on to postulate all kinds of wrong theories as they got older.

Are there any examples of people having the genesis of some idea that revolutionized their field while in their late 30s or beyond?

[suzzer99]

[ QUOTE ]
I feel as smart as ever and like I learn things just as quickly as ever. I also run a mile faster than I could when I was 17.


[/ QUOTE ]
But can you run a 100 yard dash as fast?


[ QUOTE ]

Being a super genius at something also has a lot to do with a moderately long (meaning a few years - not like decades) and extremely intense study of something. For a lot of reasons this is just something younger males are much more likely to do than other groups.

[/ QUOTE ]

This makes a lot of sense. Supposedly in chess the best players aren't the smartest, but the ones who can concentrate the best. Maybe genius comes down to concentration stamina more than anything else.

[AZK]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity

[suzzer99]

So basically our brain can still be coerced into developing throughout our lives based on usage patterns. This would seem to support the "possible, but hard" hypothesis to massive new learning past the 30s. And maybe just that extra effort needed is enough to keep one from coming up with a world-class genius moment.

[gobbomom]

[ QUOTE ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity

[/ QUOTE ]


fascinating! I was just going to post of my own theory involving the brain's neuro pathways being the cause of increased/ decreased learning abilities.

[BigPoppa]

So what can I do to keep my brain from atrophy?