72-year-old Congressman pursues a Master's in AI
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
There will be a new norm of politician who is less of a laughingstock and more of a quality leader who looks into things in a qualitative way. It'll still be a politician who will need to know the game though.
In a post-Trump world you can generally expect the return of subjective quality in government. This will be good in a lot of ways, but it will also generally lead to some other unwanted factors coming back into style.
Diehards will be way more awkward and will fade as attention moves away from them. These were never quality positions in the first place though.
You'll probably see new silent generation(s) come about, and conspiracies in government will return to their archetypally stable form, as tacit agreements to preserve a given form of stability.
(The recent wacky-conspiracy-theory trend provided wonderful cover for the boring way conspiracies actually form and operate, being mostly without much conscious control and generally in favor of more-of-desired-brand-of-stability rather than chaos)
It will take unity to accomplish what's ahead, just as it took diversity to accomplish the most recent changes in culture and fight the accompanying battles. It will take persistent unity to take on government corruption. Waste there will become a bigger issue than we know now. And not along old party lines. The old ways of making noise will no longer work as well, but the new ways will work in favor of smart people and loud people getting together.
This will all develop in waves, it's not a one-and-done but rather a trending vein or wave process.
The biggest challenges will be centered around questions of who we want to be as humans, and whether we really believe in the desired-unknown as a body, or if we still think we are suckers for believing in developmental progress. If the latter we will get more of the undesired-unknown (recent chaos) in disguise as the desired-known (icons of the past).
Anecdotally one will still be able to see whatever one needs to see in government to reflect preferred perspectives, mask one's own blindspots, etc. But more objectively speaking there should be clear, solid trends like these that can probably be charted or tracked in a reliable way.
(This is subjective-probabilistic speculation based on my professional background with individual and group archetypes & personality development. There's always a chance I'm 150% wrong)
Perhaps the mechanism for a new one would be avoiding repeats of the various disasters of the last five years. Except to me it seems like whoever delivers that will want to get paid for it, so that seems to point in the opposite direction from an anti-corruption campaign.
What?
I read your post several times until I realized you're saying nothing with a huge amount of fluff
This means you'll tend to look for reflections of your _personal_ gifts / lack of them, within government. "Gifts" is synonymous with your preferred perspectives on things. E.g. if you are attuned to watching for moral quality, you'll naturally develop gifts in that area and look for matching gifts/blindspots in that area on the part of your government.
Or if you are yourself a deep thinker, you'll bias yourself toward pointing out fluff--this phenomenon is generally independent of, and out of proportion to, others' perspectives, like even if they say "hey let's ask for clarity before throwing out critique" or whatever, you may tend to go "nah I just got a feeling" and make a judgment call because this feels right to you.
So to develop a circumspect (higher quality) POV on government & processees, you'll want to cover that blind spot by looking at objective measurements, for example. That could look like asking "how could I measure that," rather than rewarding subjective bias.
Then with subjective bias, working in parallel to the objective improvements, you also want to integrate subjective means for raising the quality level.
Please see profile--I lean toward not giving specifics / examples for this stuff anymore because it's a waste of my time & experience. I stare at relevant 3rd party data/charts which connect back to archetype (housing charts, broader national/intl economy, and so on) and make charts all day, and broader 1Y+ charts speak for themselves in a lot of cases (long-term cyclical reversion to mean for example). Accordingly, broader comments are intentionally broad and such comments will naturally seem fluffier.
I had some interesting conversation with some individuals. One used to work for engineers in the Navy and wanted to understand more of what they did. Another was involved in some early work on lithium battery technologies and wanted to understand software engineering.
Being a Congressman not only means attending to his local issues and policies.
It also means helping create federal and state policies, regulations, being member of national committees, etc.
And there are going to be more such bodies in the near future centered around technology and AI.
It's laudable that he is keeping himself updated and informed.
Remember the judge who learned Java? It's like that.
For example from a Jungian-oriented perspective on "the afternoon of life," you could say that the tension between opposites is reduced, so you can finally start to look at combining opposites that you had previously thought were required to work separately. Putting the weapons down and putting ideals back in the front seat.
One might explore becoming a Windows + Linux person for example.
Or becoming more aware of intertwining logical and emotional perspectives on a given topic...maybe one "just likes" using Photoshop even though it is the only thing keeping them on their old Mac. Still, logically it doesn't make sense in some ways, so they pick up a Chromebook for the day-to-day web stuff.
This can be related back to everything in one's life, from learning about relationships to programming language dynamics to new fitness skills. The old opposites want to make war. But how can they work together to create a new, improved, third point of progress?
And that's just one of thousands of different techniques relevant to aging...for this reason it can help to look at broader surveys on aging, be they books, Youtube videos, blogs, etc., and kind of mentally check off techniques that can apply to learning as you come across them. The best techniques for a given individual are generally found spread across many sources, and sometimes those sources are surprisingly not at all "about" learning.
IMO it's a great idea to keep a log of one's aging process, as well.
We have known for a long time that various stuff will be learned by you whether you prefer it or not, depending on your past and barely mitigated by even a generally conscious developmental bent.
If you can move it into the conscious zone you can control future outcomes to some extent and possibly control the upside and downside factors through a process of reconciliation.
And as a general developing body / organism, we are all experiencing this together as well, with even less conscious control. Species as individual with separate personality characteristics.
(and, come to think of it, I've finally convinced my spouse of the value of letting me have 4-hour blocks of focus time)
Time isn't as available as it used to be when I was a kid. My brain still works the same though. Learning is learning.
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 remarkable, but the norm.
It might be fair to say, as a sibling comment does, that one needs younger politicians so they can better represent one's constituents.
But to dismiss them just because they're old amounts to shutting off an economically productive segment of the population. More importantly, by discriminating against individuals because of their class membership rather than because of their abilities amounts to prejudice, no?
It’s also factual that wealth greatly impacts education, but we wouldn’t want to suggest poor people are unfit for office due to this disadvantage right?
My parents are into their 70s and I have yet to detect even the slightest mental degradation.
Humans memorize the information relative to them. If politicians memorize racism they’ll make racist policy.
I don’t want people who think in 100 year old social terms alone deciding my fate.
Society that never retires old ideas, demands speech stay on specific rails is hardly free. That type of governance is the basis of a police state.
Discriminating against someone on the basis of age is anti-social behavior.
? Does my comment read otherwise?
So for example in my area, given that as much as 40% of the population is hispanic / latino, I'd really like to see more people from that demographic get elected. Likewise, about 50% of the population is female, therefore I want to see more women elected. I even want to see fewer lawyers and more laborers, teachers, etc in elected positions. I'm not convinced that politician should be a career and it definitely should not be the sole domain of old, white, rich lawyers the way that it has been historically. And, regardless of who is elected, I want them to be mentally adept and aim to be educated and informed rather than complacent.
So even someone in their 70s might start an MS and then have a decade or more to make use of it. That's not what's happening here, but it could be.
Really puts all those times I thought it was too late for this or that in perspective.
Following that, he started a Masters of Aeronautical Engineering. Until my mum suggested he spends more time with her at home.
Now he does gym circuit training with a group half his age, at 6am three mornings a week.
Hope I have that energy when I am his age...
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.
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!
Is that the definition of a mid-life crisis?
I'll see you in a decade and a half, I guess. :)
On the bright side however, life expectancy is growing worldwide. In Spain, where I live, average expectancy before Covid peaked at 84 years old. In the US it was 79. The difference is irrelevant to my point (I have no clue what the cause is); the fact is in both cases the stat has grwon explosively in the last 50 years [1] [2]
Likewise there is dramatic progress being made against cancer [3] and other deadly diseases.
Down to everyday life, I am constantly amazed by what some 70 year olds look like nowadays.
I don't lead a perfect lifestyle, but the idea of being able to get a degree on a complex topic like AI in the 70's definitely inspires me to at least try and tilt the odds in my favor to get to that age in good standing. The amount of information and inexpensive tools at our disposal today is staggering.
[1] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.IN?location...
[2] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.IN?location...
[3] https://ourworldindata.org/cancer#is-the-world-making-progre...
We like these type of stories because it reinforces all our denial about old age and death.
We worry about cancer and disease but the real problem is plain old falling. Fall, hurt your leg and then a spiral starts that you don't come back from.
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 for a lot of us though, knowledge is a more practical commodity. It's just one of a number of tools that allow us to build better.
Now that I'm older, I increasingly value the last category of continuous learning. It's one of the greatest privileges of being in a developed Society with access to information. It is one of the cheapest and most enjoyable forms of entertainment available to human beings, and something that it seems that people the frequently undervalue.
I'm a little frustrated with how many people seem to treat learning like an activity exclusive to schools. Self-guided learning is extremely valuable.
Attending a formal educational institution, on the other hand, has proven very effective at getting people to knuckle down and study calculus (or whatever their “blocker” discipline is) so that they can move on to studying what they’re really interested in.
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 who are 70+ competing in ultra-marathons.
that's kind of my point. Of course they can compete against other 72 year olds.
80 year olds with a desire can still contribute. It doesn't have to be in competition with 20 years.
I agree with the first statement, but more of a function of accumulated metabolic and cognitive dysfunction than merely age.
I don't think the second statement necessarily follows. Time spent fully engrossed in a subject, where the learner is able to put away their ego and learn as a child would, is what is conducive to good learning. That can happen at any age, but in practice, seldom does due to the demanding structure of adult life.
That's what I'm talking about, but don't blame some external force for that outcome. It's a choice; it's about priorities. If you give yourself time for a little growth, I think you'll net much greater productivity overall - including emotional presence for your family.
My claim, which admittedly is hard to substantiate, is that growth (a general term) will offset aging to a much greater degree than people imagine. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if psychological and physiological aging of the brain is mostly due to lack of growth.
> To keep the muscle analogy, you won’t compete as an athlete at 72 no matter how fit you remain.
I think the muscle analogy can be a useful one, but that it misleads here: Muscles start deteriorating at age 20 or 25; our brains do not on balance (they do in some ways, and improve in others). Peak mental performance is, IIRC, in our 40s and 50s.
And for the neuroplasticity and are the dopaminergic system differences, how much is cause and how much is effect? Our actions affect our brains and the rest of our bodies, and vice versa. If I chose to lift heavy weights every day, after ten years you wouldn't say, 'they do that because they have extra muscle'.
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.
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.
The need is to smash, or more gently explore and master, new frontiers for you.
(And to the extent you desire it, that's what really leads to new frontiers for society - personal passion and growth, leads to projects, leads to a revelation for everyone.)
> 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.)
in reality it's a lot less enticing than it sounds. Younger family tends to move on with their own life, and spouses and older relatives tend to die once you get old.
Working in older age gives you a wide social circle, stimulation and purpose that is desperately needed if you want to stay healthy and especially mentally fit. I've seen it so often that as soon as people retire they decline like crazy. Hobbies don't sustain anyone.
Even the mentality of "my last days" already sounds like you're clocking out. Every day might be your last day, even when you're not old.
This is far from universal, and I can personally name quite a few people who have absolutely avoiding rotting in old age through participation in local community - makerspaces, bridge clubs, Rotary and more.
The family moving away and leaving the older generation to rot is also far from the global norm. Even in Western countries, Asians, Islanders and Africans (among other groups) maintain strong familial bonds until the day they die.
But hobbies are still learning. But as soon as my mom stopped with hobbies and learning she started a steep mental decline. So "get busy living or get busy dying" does seem to apply.
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
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 guaranteed to suck due to inherent limitedness of human computation. That gives us the normativity of self-transendence, which is not the same thing as growth. It also includes shedding dead weight, deconstructing the not-so-useful, or mere re-organization of the existing. A mere appetite for acquiring stuff, even knowledge, does not make it.
The second problem is limiting the framing of the growth within the unit of an individual. Individuals' betterment doesn't sum to the same amount of betterment of the society, in fact it creates tons of waste. 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.
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).
I'd say the same for your premise. Your framework was "growth == better", I tried to demonstrate why that is not adequate, and in certain cases harmful.
> They deteriorate without it, like a tree without enough water and sun
And anyone with house plants know that too much of any is equally deadly as too little.
> why it's mutually exclusive with growth (in any sense).
Simple opportunity cost. An elderly doing a cultural transfer of skills, perspectives and knowledge to their grandkids, neighborhood, junior professionals etc vs. doing their own personal growth things. Don't get me wrong, in this case maybe getting a master's in AI and combining all that with their existing competencies and then doing a culture transfer could be the optimal choice here, but the time and energy cost of the activities pursued has to occupy disparate spaces either way.
So no, personal growth at all costs is not the most optimal thing at all times.
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.
My father is in his mid 70s and has been boarded in pathology and emergency medicine for most of his adult life. Recently he decided to get boarded in genetic medicine and start a new medical career.
I don't think it's too late for anything, within reason, but I also don't think it's a massive problem in society that the congressman's late age is mentioned.
I play poker with some 90 year old's, and they are damn sharp. Some people get dimmer with age, many continue to shine.
Getting a degree is a more traditional route, which older people tend to pursue. But he might be doing it for show partly since he is a politician.
https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news...
I'm getting older too, and I understand the change comment. But I do sense a decrease in "oomph", so to speak, particularly when it comes to recollection of things I used to recall instantly.
Maybe this better belongs in another comment, but in a way, it's nice the age is included in the article as maybe it could inspire others of similar age to do similar things. I have been trying to get my mom to take some online classes.
> Getting a degree is a more traditional route, which older people tend to pursue. But he might be doing it for show partly since he is a politician.
That might be part of it. Saying "I got a degree" has more impact I suppose to politicians than "I took some classes".
My overall opinion is more of: getting the master's degree is just not worth it over taking classes unless he has a need for the degree, and I have the same opinion for myself and others at a much younger age.
But regardless I'm very curious how the internet generation will be later in life. I hope I have less anxiety and pressure!
We are emotional creatures: Emotion, much more than anything else, is our experience of the world, and it is a major input in our perception, decisions, and actions.
Many people reject their emotions or are ignorant of them. And life experiences often cause a lot of emotional injury, to the point where older people reach their limits (I suspect you have a good sense of that at your age) and shut down.
The effect of that shut down - well see the first paragraph; that all deteriorates significantly. It cripples experience and ability, including good judgment, and it causes people to avoid new experiences - the experiences might be traumatic, and the skill of learning and exploring atrophes. Also, shutting down doesn't actually do away with the emotions; they come out and people become angry and cruel.
Instead, we need to learn to be resiliant, to build our emotinonal capacity, and to experience life and use our well-honed emotional insincts as hard-earned wisdom. That includes exploring and learning new things.
I turn 71 next month, and I am grateful that the congressman's age is mentioned in the headline. I think it's awesome!
As someone who also works in "AI" (the scare quotes are deliberate, as the specific work I do is more about keeping our code easy to maintain and well tested and reliable, and dealing with the outside systems we work with), I am glad that I am not the only "older" person working in the field.
I'm not saying this to disagree with you, but to agree. It should be the norm that people the age of Congressman Beyer and myself can contribute, just like anyone else.
I could read that multiple ways, but it doesn't sound good, not when we should already be sensitized not to discourage people.
Imagine saying that to a more familiar kind of less-represented student.
The next time someone asks why a university needs initiatives in diversity and inclusion, this is one argument for why: it's an unsolved problem.
What if the answer was "I'm gathering data so that I can go back and get congress to close all schools" ?
Not likely to ever be his particular angle, but in fact he is gathering understanding at least in part to inform his policy role, and his being a congressman does make his presense validly noteworthy in a way that his merely being 74 years old or any other property does not.
Maybe it was asked in a challenging disparaging unwelcoming way, but I see nothing in here to lead to that assumption.
I wonder if people that age manage to get passing grades in competitive master programs, when evaluated with the same criterias as any other students.