What’s Your Permanent Age? (2007) | Hacker News Reader

What’s Your Permanent Age? (2007)

dilbertblog.typepad.com

103 pointssuprgeek37 comments

I almost didn't post this because it's (extremely) long, rambling, and sounds more dogmatic than intended. But if anyone can get anything at all from it, then I'll be glad I posted it, so I'm going to take that chance. I'm just trying to start a discussion, not convince anyone of anything.

First, no matter how much you press me, I'm not going to say I have a permanent age. I recognize far too much change in myself in just the last 5 years to assume that anything will stay constant for the next (hopefully) 50 or more.

More importantly, the comment that Scott Adams is trying to shove people into categories is missing something fundamental: People willingly assign themselves a permanent age all the time.

As a commenter on Scott Adams post hinted at, this question is really about our biases of particular ages and how we want to position ourselves relative to our chronological peers.

I think there is something narcissistic about saying you aren't really the age you are. You're saying that you're different. That you're really more mature (if you're claiming an older age) or that you've hung on to more of your youth (if you're claiming a younger age). Almost everyone feels that they're mature or youthful or both. Thinking you're different is perhaps the least different thing you can do. See: http://xkcd.com/610/

The article Advice For Young People linked by itmag resonates with me too, but...

"If I was young today, I’d commit to spending a couple hours every single day on building something."

No you wouldn't. If you were young today, you wouldn't know what you know now, so you'd probably spend your youth exactly as you spent it the first time.

And yet even with your misspent youth, you turned out fine. Apparently fine enough to offer advice on how to spend your youth. So why would others with misspent youths not turn out just as well as you did?

In fact, maybe not spending a couple hours every single day building something in your youth is what made you so passionate about building something now. Maybe, paradoxically, not building something in your youth is precisely why you're recommending building something in your youth.

"'Good' parenting, apparently, is trying techniques on your kid that were never used on you, even though you still turned out just fine. 'I think TV is bad, I won't let my kids watch it.' Outstanding. But how do you explain how you watched 5 hours of TV a day for thirteen years straight and still turned out ok? Think it over for a moment. You'll never admit the answer: because you're different. You succeeded despite the TV.

But look around: everyone you know over 30 also did fine despite the TV, no lawyer ever says, 'Your Honor, my client saw every episode of Bosom Buddies and McHale's Navy, I move for dismissal.' Which is why I am telling you: TV is bad for the kid, but that thinking is much worse.

So too: sugary cereals, bullying, Playboys. None of those things are good for kids, I am not saying to expose your kids to them. But thinking that they will be worse for your kids than they were for you is the fundamental, narcissistic error of parenting. 'My kids are weaker than me.' Then humanity is doomed."

No one likes making mistakes or missing opportunities, but even with your mistakes and missed opportunities, you're smart enough to recognize your mistakes and missed opportunities and learn from them. Maybe even because of your mistakes.

I've drifted from the original topic, but what I'm trying to say is that distancing yourself from your chronological peers because you feel you're different could be harmful.

If there is one universal truth I can recognize in my life, it is that assumptions I make about people are wrong. I assumed people who partied all the time in college were immature, but drunks and druggies (intentionally referring to them in the way I first thought about them) have often ended up being the people I relied on in one way or another.

People I've assumed would never fall have fallen. And then when I assumed they were actually bad people, they turned out to be good people just with faults.

People I've assumed would never get their act together have left me in the dust... and then fallen again and shown that they still have faults.

We all deal with balancing youth and maturity. We all have things about our past selves we regret and things we wish we could get back. We all have things we hope for the future and things we fear.

Think holistically about the claim of being 18 or 35 or 70 permanently. Those claiming to be 18 forever aren't claiming everything about 18. They're cherry-picking. It's just like what came up on HN before about why Europe sometimes seems to Americans to be better in every way. Because we cherry-pick. We take the best features of each country and ignore all the bad ones. People claiming a particular age are taking the best features and ignoring all the bad ones. But the good and the bad are equally part of being that age.

I guess what I want to leave with is this:

We have more in common that different. All of us. From a 4-year old Japanese kid to an 70-year old tribal leader in the Amazon.

And more importantly, we all have something to offer each other. If you give them a chance, most people will turn out to be better, or at least more interesting and nuanced, than you first imagined.

Just resonating on one point

> I think there is something narcissistic about saying you aren't really the age you are. You're saying that you're different. That you're really more mature (if you're claiming an older age) or that you've hung on to more of your youth (if you're claiming a younger age). Almost everyone feels that they're mature or youthful or both.

I would read the OP rumbling more as "Everyone has an age it longs to match" and not as if you fooled yourself thinking you're not your age.

Having your eternal age at 40 would mean, holding yourself to the standard of your ideal 40 something man/woman for the most of your life. That would also mean trying hard to meet this standard for 40 years, swallow your disapointment when you reach your 40s and are still far from the image you had of it, and using the rest of your years to reach this ideal afterwards.

This is of course an naive and exagerated view, and as usual with Scott Adams the idea is just to have thoughts provoked by the assertion. But the idea of a "perfect" age you long to match rings true enough to my ears.

You 're being idealistic, critical, slightly nihilistic, your permage must be 19

There's two ways of learning why you shouldn't swim with crocodiles: The hard way and the easy way.

We would prefer our children to learn the easy way, but sometimes they need to learn the hard way.

How about a fun little App based on this idea? Inputs: Things that you enjoy, your leisure preferences, What instinctively draws you etc.

Outputs: Your permanent age (in a humorous way) + Share on FB/Twitter

I'm sure you've been preempted by about fourteen different quizzes on three different quiz generator services. :P

I'm 25 but I feel alienated from my age peers. Probably not uncommon here.

I resonate well with this kind of thing: http://tynan.com/youngpeople

Interesting, but not sure I agree. I find that life changes in unexpected ways. As humans, we adapt to those drastic sudden changes and learn and grow from that experience; and as your perspectives change so do you.

I know for me, my "permanent" age changed quite a bit when I started traveling to other countries and interacted with people from other cultures. The world is so full of enriching experiences, why limit yourself to the ideologies of a single age?

There's an idea called "Self-concept", which is basically the collection of thoughts that make up your core identity. Eg "I am an American, Democratic Stanford Graduate." Note that these attributes don't have to be comprehensive, or even true-they're just the core beliefs you have about yourself.

Self-concept changes, but rarely, and usually more due to a few big experiences than over time. So in "permanent age" terms, you're more likely to go from 42 to 18 or 12 to 26, than you are to go from 42 to 43.

I'm 29 right now, and that feels about right for my permanent age. I always felt a little out of place with the pace of life when I was younger, I like having stable relationships and a reasonable balance between career and social life. I like being comfortable with money and being able to travel and do what I want. At the same time, I'm not anxious to have a family and sacrifice so much of my time.

I'm in my twenties but I feel much older. I've been working in software development for a few years, part time, earning a good salary for my age and area, and dreaming of going solo and being independent.

The only problem with my current life is that even though I can say I'm happy (with my family and girlfriend), I can't socialize with most people my age, because they are in a different state of mind (only thinking about partying, the girl they hooked up last weekend, etc)

That's not the problem with people of your age. That's the problem with the people you picked up as your friends.

Consider changing them to another set, you might be happier. Try choosing people with a serious hobby, they tend to be deeper.

I agree. I've also found people with hobbies that are dangerous tend to be more mature. For example, people that go hiking, rock climbing, etc... I am not sure why and I am wary of saying it is because stupidity will get you killed in those situations and a more serious outlook serves you well, but that is one possible reason.

It takes serious planning and visualization over several years to excel at a demanding hobby. It requires dedication for the sake of its intrinsic rewards. These sorts of hobbies rarely have the potential to "turn into a business." Any serious practitioner has effectively self-selected as a person who has the means, makes the time, and has a passion for the pursuit of personal fulfillment.

+1 for wording it so well. I might add that it also takes a person who is willing to accept full responsibility for his actions and the actions of others in his group since nature takes no excuses.

Well I wish it was as easy as changing your operating system. The truth is, that living in a small city, in a third-world country, makes it hard to find people with hobbies aligned with yours, especially if you have uncommon hobbies.

It's not hard, Deeper people aren't uncommon. They tend to flock to other deeper people.

Once you've found one you suddenly have access to a sizable colony. It's easy once it's your priority. Try finding them over internet.

Not much point seeking for them by visiting ordinary parties since they rarely attend these.

I've seen this "change your friends" thing before, when it is perceived that they are holding you back. Is it me, or does this not seem a little callous?

I've worked hard to get where I am now, and I've got a good s/w dev job, and am working towards having my own s/w company etc. And it takes a long time and it's hard but I still do it because I've a clear vision of where I want to be. But my friends aren't like that. Mostly they have jobs that they do only for the money, and aren't driven to put the extra effort in outside of work in order to get where they would prefer to be.

I have quite a few friends (I like to think!), and I'm not friends with them because they further my own selfish ends, I'm friends with them because they're good people to be around, they're funny and witty, and we're pretty much guaranteed a good laugh when we get together. I couldn't imagine deliberately splitting away from them in order to meet more business-minded people.

Surely if you "choose" friends (because making good friends is really as easy as saying, "I'll have you, you, and you") solely for selfish means then you're not being a good friend to anyone. Although I do want to make money and be rich and run my own company, I have no interest in being the next Tim Ferris (author of The 4 Hour Work Week), who I see as being the personification of self-interest.

This is not meant as a criticism, only that I think that we should be careful with the "change your friends" advice. Good friends are as much an investment of your time and energy as anything else.

> Good friends are as much an investment of your time and energy as anything else.

Absolutely. So, what is the ROI on your investment? And, do you understand what "sunk costs" means?

> I couldn't imagine deliberately splitting away from them in order to meet more business-minded people.

Then don't. However, the consequences of your choices don't depend on whether you want said consequences.

While you're at it, look up "false dilemma". Your current friends and "business-minded people" aren't the only options.

Is it really necessary to look at friends in terms of "ROI"? Should I calculate the ROI for each friend? And if a particular friend falls below his/her expected "return" (however that's calculated) then do I ditch them?

> Your current friends and "business-minded people" aren't the only options.

I agree, I inferred that these were the only two options from the "change your friends" advice. I wanted to highlight the importance of having a good set of people around you, and that aiming only for business-minded people is probably a bad idea (in my opinion). Especially since I've seen this advice handed out more than once on this forum and others.

How about HOI - happiness on investment. If you're happy with your social life, don't change it. If you aren't, then why the hell are you repeating the patterns that got you there?

> Is it really necessary to look at friends in terms of "ROI"?

It's not "necessary", but why would you keep friends who aren't "worth it", however you define both "worth" and "it"?

You don't need to drop your existing friends to make new friends. Just make new friends. Eventually you'll either hang out with them more than the others, or not.

Also, as a s/w entrepreneur myself who hangs out with a lot of similar people, I made an effort over the last few years to make friends on different career paths. It's nice to talk about something besides technology and startups from time to time.

My closest friend is still a college buddy. He works in a completely different industry and has different goals in life, but we still relate on a fundamental level.

He said: "I can't socialize with most people my age: only thinking about partying, the girl they hooked up last weekend" You said: "I'm friends with them because they're good people to be around, they're funny and witty, and we're pretty much guaranteed a good laugh when we get together." Can't you see that your situation is a mirror of OP?

I often feel like I'm a 12-year-old trying to operate an overgrown body. Youth has passed me by. My intellectual prime was when I was 12-14. That's when I started questioning the concept of god, contemplated existence, the universe, the purpose, function, and meaning of life, and made up my core philosophical and political beliefs influenced by John Lennon. I still secretly read young adult fiction from time to time.

I don't think anyone really grows up - people just get older. Adults are just kids with money. The difference between men and boys is the price of their toys, as the saying goes. I never feel any different on my birthday.

“I don’t know if I’ve come of age, but I’m certainly older now. I feel shrunken. As if there’s a tiny, ancient Oliver Tate inside me operating the levers of a life sized Oliver-shaped shell. A shell on which a decrepit picture show replays the same handful of images.” — Oliver Tate, Submarine

I just wanted to say that I really liked that sentence:

"Adults are just kids with money."

It's funny, yet true.

I also think my intellectual prime was around that age, even if I never read young adult fiction. Well, in school maybe.

When I was in my early twenties people said they thought I was much older because I came across as very mature. I liked being told that.

Now I'm 43 and I feel like I'm 25. I'm much more likely to go out and do stuff that 25 year olds do than guys my age who are married and have kids.

It's partly a function of being single, but it's also because a few years ago I realized there were a lot of things I still wanted to experience and I was letting life slip me by.

Also, I've seen a lot of people my age start to let themselves go physically, which is having an impact on the way they go about their lives. I committed seriously to fitness a couple years ago and am amazed at how much more energetic I am, even though I was in decent shape before (decent enough that I could play indoor soccer every weekeend, go skiing etc).

Interesting. I always thought I'm quite the child (although I can act mature when needed). I never thought of it as a permanent thing, though.

And I don't live in the past and I think partly is because of this childish point of view to life I have. I would think older types tend to look back more?

For the Twilight Zone fans, there is an episode (Queen of the Nile) where an immortal Egyptian princess is alive, in the modern day. She lives off of male souls to continue her immortality. She mentions to one of her victims that she's 38. If she's immortal, why choose 38 to live forever? She explains she chose it because any younger, and others consider you too inexperienced to take seriously; any older and you lose attractiveness/health. Perfect age? Maybe. Granted, this is a tv show from 1964. Food for thought.

This is pretty terrible pseudo-scientific rambling. People change, for better or worse, all the time, and vary much more than the narrow band of categories he's trying to shove people in to.

It's not scientific at all and it's not meant to be. It's a question you can ask friends to try to get to know them better.

That's an interesting subject to me, because i found myself constantly working with different age groups (i was 21 when i was working in a company where everyone was ~10 years older than me, now that i 'm 31 i 'm doing some postgraduate work where i get to be with ~25 year olds). I was always considered "too serious" for my age group as a kid (and frankly i still find my age group annoying). My permanent age must be 35. Would be interesting to see what's yours.

I think he nailed it with the past, present, or future orientation. My mood is almost always set by what is planned for the near future, and I know people who very much exist in the present or past.

This is all my own anecdotal observation though. I would love to read studies done to explore this area of human psychology. Could there be a link between optimism and tense-orientation?

I'm permanently 45, since I was 15 and started worrying about my first "investment" (rare comic books). I'm 30 now, but still feel like a very young 45 years old...

edit: oh jeez, I've read the article after I posted my comment... almost same age as Mr. Adams.

Odd, maybe I should press myself harder but if I have to choose a permanent age I would say it always has been a few years in the future.

Luckily I'm an optimist.

I don't get why this is a clever observation in any way. Nothing defines an "age" except the people that happen to be it, so if everyone's "real" behavior is determined by a different permanent age what is left to define the age they actually are?

Cute, I guess, and I know I'm biased towards thinking anything out of Scott Adams' mouth is worth less than the dirt on my shoe due to his proud misogyny, but this reads like an uncomfortable attempt to find an extrinsic reason why he feels alien amongst his peers (and always has, apparently).

The latter.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com