How closely does your mental age tie to you physical condition?

[ardchoille50]

Well, you felt the need to obliquely reference my supposed cognitive distortions within the scope of this thread. I just requested that you finish the thought. How are we to improve ourselves without specific feedback?

Please go back and read what was actually written, I did not mention you.. any such implication is of your own doing. I was simply attempting to help you understand what I felt the OP was talking about.

"That which holds no truth, holds no power"​

 

[Huntn]

@Huntn, you introduced the irrelevant diversion of what you described as "autumn spring" relationships, (described by some, and viewed by some, as romances). I pointed out some of the contradictions and delusions - and blinkered perspectives - that sometimes follow on from that.



I still like heading to restaurants late, and dining late.

However, I don't like crowds, the rush, and, if I am honest, I now know that I never did.

I suppose what "ageing" has meant is both increased discernment - I demand more of my environment and of my companions when I am socialising, both because I am more discerning - go out less often - but can afford to pay for quality.

Slumming it no longer holds an attraction, although I can still do it if I have to.

As for travelling, I would be off in the morning, if the right situation presented itself. I think I will like to travel until I die.



Personally? No, not really.

I am one of those who was born 'middle aged', psychologically speaking, or, as someone remarked to me recently on these very threads, I have an 'old soul'.

The upshot of that is that as a youngster, I did not act in ways that people think a youngster should; I wasn't a rule breaker, or a risk taker - I just thought all of that was stupid, and silly. Actually, I thought most teenagers were morons when I was a teenager, and were very uninteresting, and vapid in their interests.

My life in recent decades - when I am absolutely but comfortably middle aged - in chronological terms - and somewhat overweight in physical terms (whereas I was slim in my youth) has been adventurous, dare I say thrilling, rather risky, challenging, and I will admit it, rather exciting at times. That is challenging mentally, physically, and intellectually; very rewarding, sometimes.

In truth, there are times that I "act" - in terms of choices I make - a lot "younger" than I did in my teens, or twenties.

So, I suppose that most of my life I have felt out of sync - very much - with what I have been supposed to feel



Ah, now I see what I think you mean.

I never meant to imply that we all age the same way nor acted the same way as we age. However there are trends, and yes they may be stereotypical or just my imagination. My Mother used to say I was born old, but I definitely act older now than I did 40 years ago. And while I accept the facts of life and am basically content with reality, I'm not thrilled with the long wind down, but accept it. It is not a source of unhappiness currently, until I truly start to lose significant slabs of my quality of life.

And I disagree with your description of my "diversion" as irrelevant. I'll admit that it irritated you, and you may not consider it worthy of discussion, but when discussing aging and speculating about the premise of extended lives in youthful bodies, there would be no traditional dirty old man syndrome. Here you'd have people in similar bodies, but with distinctly different life experiences, exploring their mental compatibles in relationships. The question is how compatible or incompatible would they be based on the difference in the length of their life experiences? Possibly a good theme for a science fiction story. I'm not looking for an answer or a rebuttal.

 

[chown33]

Here's a concrete example.

If a human lifespan was 400 years or so, Isaac Newton would still be alive, although he'd be an old man. So would Liebniz. They could still be arguing about calculus.

Also, Einstein would be a young whippersnapper, and he could argue with Newton about why gravitation affects light, and whether Newton's alchemy was a foreshadowing of quantum entanglement.

And if repair medicine was as advanced as longevity medicine, Marie Curie would also be alive, and playing tennis regularly with Einstein.

 

[Huntn]

Here's a concrete example.

If a human lifespan was 400 years or so, Isaac Newton would still be alive, although he'd be an old man. So would Liebniz. They could still be arguing about calculus.

Also, Einstein would be a young whippersnapper, and he could argue with Newton about why gravitation affects light, and whether Newton's alchemy was a foreshadowing of quantum entanglement.

And if repair medicine was as advanced as longevity medicine, Marie Curie would also be alive, and playing tennis regularly with Einstein.

That certainly adds some time perspective.

In a SciFi discussion (not this one), I previously stated I thought that human beings if their bodies and minds held up could easily live an extended life, up to 1000 years, but I wonder if that would make us more susceptible to age related psychosis or depression? That same discussion may have mentioned the book: Future Shock, a book written in 1970 whose premise was that rapidly changing technology, if it was significant enough, could cause some of us to lose our grip on reality. Like what if tomorrow, you cold teleport around the world and be anywhere in an instant? That might shake your grip a bit, even though we've see it at the movies.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Here's a concrete example.

If a human lifespan was 400 years or so, Isaac Newton would still be alive, although he'd be an old man. So would Liebniz. They could still be arguing about calculus.

Also, Einstein would be a young whippersnapper, and he could argue with Newton about why gravitation affects light, and whether Newton's alchemy was a foreshadowing of quantum entanglement.

And if repair medicine was as advanced as longevity medicine, Marie Curie would also be alive, and playing tennis regularly with Einstein.

Great post.

That certainly adds some time perspective.

In a SciFi discussion (not this one), I previously stated I thought that human beings if their bodies and minds held up could easily live an extended life, up to 1000 years, but I wonder if that would make us more susceptible to age related psychosis or depression? That same discussion may have mentioned the book: Future Shock, a book written in 1970 whose premise was that rapidly changing technology, if it was significant enough, could cause some of us to lose our grip on reality. Like what if tomorrow, you cold teleport around the world and be anywhere in an instant? That might shake your grip a bit, even though we've see it at the movies.

It is all relative, time, history, what our circumstances and society allow you to do: I have flown from western Europe to central Asia in a day - though, the return journey, for a variety of reasons - time differences, airline timetables - generally took the best part of two days - a journey which would have taken those who lived in earlier centuries, months - if not years - something which I often thought about when flying over someplace such as the Pamirs, the Hindu Kush, or the Caspian Sea.

And - the tread title notwithstanding - there are parts of the world where distances - and time - have both elongated not compressed in recent years; these were societies which had railways, running water, reasonable highways, telephones, safe airports half a century ago, and have been cast back by war, civil war, conflict, gross exploitation and massive destruction and societal collapse to a position not far removed from the medieval world when and where such journeys took months.

Change doesn't always just run in a forward - or progressive - direction.

 

[mobilehaathi]

Please go back and read what was actually written, I did not mention you.. any such implication is of your own doing. I was simply attempting to help you understand what I felt the OP was talking about.

"That which holds no truth, holds no power"​

Sure. I don't believe you. But sure.

 

[AngerDanger]

Here's a concrete example.

If a human lifespan was 400 years or so, Isaac Newton would still be alive, although he'd be an old man. So would Liebniz. They could still be arguing about calculus.

Also, Einstein would be a young whippersnapper, and he could argue with Newton about why gravitation affects light, and whether Newton's alchemy was a foreshadowing of quantum entanglement.

And if repair medicine was as advanced as longevity medicine, Marie Curie would also be alive, and playing tennis regularly with Einstein.

Ada Lovelace would be having fun using emoji to program machines that move electricity through silicon instead of moving gears through space, and she'd try to obtain a small royalty every time somebody computed Bernoulli numbers. Hell, Daniel Bernoulli himself would still be around.

In pop culture, people responsible for musical inspiration would also be the contemporaries of those they inspired. Beethoven might dig classic rock, and Bach might like dubstep. Perhaps we'd be free of the impression that the next generation's music perpetually sucks.

In general, we might gain more perspective on the human condition and not be so quick to believe that what we're experiencing is novel and manageable.

 

[chown33]

...
In general, we might gain more perspective on the human condition and not be so quick to believe that what we're experiencing is novel and manageable.

George Washington would be a diplomacy consultant, Ben Franklin would be a leading researcher in technology, and Napoleon Bonaparte would definitely be doing podcasts from St. Helena.

On the down side, Joseph Stalin would also be alive, and likely still in power.

EDIT

How could I forget the most obvious one:

Nobody would be saying "If Steve Jobs were alive, he'd ...".​

 

[Scepticalscribe]

George Washington would be a diplomacy consultant, Ben Franklin would be a leading researcher in technology, and Napoleon Bonaparte would definitely be doing podcasts from St. Helena.

On the down side, Joseph Stalin would also be alive, and likely still in power.

And, at the risk of Godwinning matters, it is possible that a certain Austrian gentleman who had dreamed of a career as an artist would also be still in power.

 

[chown33]

And, at the risk of Godwinning matters, it is possible that a certain Austrian gentleman who had dreamed of a career as an artist would also be still in power.

Well, he might be an artist instead. Or at least an architectural illustrator.

As I chose people for "still alive" or contemporaneous, I omitted those who died as a result of war or took their own lives. That leaves out that particular struggling artist.

I think it's interesting to consider what a radically different society it would be if adult lifespan were drastically extended. There are so many implications in so many areas, that it seems narrow and superficial to confine the discussion just to the "mental age" of each individual.

As a simple example, houses might be built to last a whole lot longer, because the initial investment would be worthwhile amortizing over a couple centuries. Mortgage term-lengths might also increase a lot, for similar reasons. On the other hand, maybe few would want to live in the same place for that long, so houses might become more mobile, more modular, or more easily replaced. Overall, society might become more nomadic, and maybe more sparsely distributed. That is, the way some people currently treat a year-long sabbatical trip around the nearest continent could become the predominant mode of shelter. An adulthood of multiple centuries would likely upend basic tacit ideas of permanence and ephemerality, and what things should go into which category.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Well, he might be an artist instead. Or at least an architectural illustrator.

As I chose people for "still alive" or contemporaneous, I omitted those who died as a result of war or took their own lives. That leaves out that particular struggling artist.

I think it's interesting to consider what a radically different society it would be if adult lifespan were drastically extended. There are so many implications in so many areas, that it seems narrow and superficial to confine the discussion just to the "mental age" of each individual.

As a simple example, houses might be built to last a whole lot longer, because the initial investment would be worthwhile amortizing over a couple centuries. Mortgage term-lengths might also increase a lot, for similar reasons. On the other hand, maybe few would want to live in the same place for that long, so houses might become more mobile, more modular, or more easily replaced. Overall, society might become more nomadic, and maybe more sparsely distributed. That is, the way some people currently treat a year-long sabbatical trip around the nearest continent could become the predominant mode of shelter. An adulthood of multiple centuries would likely upend basic tacit ideas of permanence and ephemerality, and what things should go into which category.

I know.

I am reminded of Gunter Grass's comment that if the Vienna Academy of High Art had accepted a certain application for a place in 1907 - "just think of the misery the world might have been saved".

But yes, an architectural illustrator - that sounds entirely fitting, and could well have worked.

 

[AngerDanger]

George Washington would be a diplomacy consultant, Ben Franklin would be a leading researcher in technology, and Napoleon Bonaparte would definitely be doing podcasts from St. Helena.

Yes, immediately after my last post, I considered the political implications. If we don't extrapolate too far back and change the entire course of human history (let's stick to granting folks after 1617 lifespans of four centuries), we'd have many people still alive who grew up along with the institution of slavery. For people who have been around since the inception of America, the motto of our current president elect (dunno if any of you have heard, but there was this election in the US recently) might elicit questions like, "Again? Was it great before?!"

It's easy to ignore abstract statistics regarding the upward trend of many folks' quality of life—after all, we only have to ignore them for eighty or so years. But if you were stuck here for 400 years, these statistics would be less abstract—you'd have lived though the numbers that are now collected and computed. You'd have grown up with women's, slave's, gay, etc. rights. You'd be less able to rely on gut instinct and instead look to experience as a means to inform your outlook.

And, outta nowhere: imagine your family tree! It would still be (almost) fully intact all the way to the 17th century! What would your great great great great great great grandparents think of you?
[doublepost=1484699709][/doublepost]

And, at the risk of Godwinning matters, it is possible that a certain Austrian gentleman who had dreamed of a career as an artist would also be still in power.

If it exists, there is probably an XKCD comic pertaining to it, and I will post it in lieu of anything substantial:

 

[arkitect]

And, at the risk of Godwinning matters, it is possible that a certain Austrian gentleman who had dreamed of a career as an artist would also be still in power.

Well, he might be an artist instead. Or at least an architectural illustrator.

But yes, an architectural illustrator - that sounds entirely fitting, and could well have worked.

If it exists, there is probably an XKCD comic pertaining to it, and I will post it in lieu of anything substantial:

People always say Hitler wanted to be an artist… In my view he was a frustrated architect — even at the height of WWII when Berlin was literally being bombed into dust he would discuss his plans with Speer (and yes they were mostly his ideas… Speer just tried to make them reality).

His academic qualifications were not decent enough to apply to Architecture School, so he tried his luck at Art school… unfortunately for us all he was a ****** artist.

Anyway, as an Architect who also does Architectural illustration, just my point of view.

Edit:
The awful thing is, based on his work he probably would have easily gained entrance into any modern day Art School… Standards are not what they used to be.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

People always say Hitler wanted to be an artist… In my view he was a frustrated architect — even at the height of WWII when Berlin was literally being bombed into dust he would discuss his plans with Speer (and yes they were mostly his ideas… Speer just tried to make them reality).

His academic qualifications were not decent enough to apply to Architecture School, so he tried his luck at Art school… unfortunately for us all he was a ****** artist.

Anyway, as an Architect who also does Architectural illustration, just my point of view.

Edit:
The awful thing is, based on his work he probably would have easily gained entrance into any modern day Art School… Standards are not what they used to be.

I've seen some of his work in history books; his watercolours weren't bad, (apparently, he did some half decent ones during the First World War) and - yes - he was reasonably proficient - and fairly talented - in reproducing buildings on paper.

However, he was beyond useless when attempting to paint, portray, sketch or draw people, which is what probably did for his application to Art School.

He himself always said that he wanted to be an artist, but certainly, I think that he was a frustrated architect. The irony is that Speer himself actually didn't want to be an architect - this is what his father was - and he had a miserable (emotionally speaking) childhood; he had wanted to teach mathematics.

Gitta Sereny's outstanding book "Albert Speer: His Battle With The Truth" is well worth reading - a thoughtful, subtle, philosophical and psychological portrait of both Hitler and Speer with a superb set of sources - the historiography is meticulous - full of fascinating interviews and beautifully written.

 

[maflynn]

I think my physical condition is not typical to my age. I run 4 to 5 days a week, I go to kick boxing classes 4 days a week, and karate 3 days a week. I typically run one or two 1/2 marathons a year and a few other races to keep me motivated.

Karate is causing some undue wear and tear on my body but I'm in better physical shape now then 10 years ago when I was only interested in just running.

 

[Huntn]

I think my physical condition is not typical to my age. I run 4 to 5 days a week, I go to kick boxing classes 4 days a week, and karate 3 days a week. I typically run one or two 1/2 marathons a year and a few other races to keep me motivated.

Karate is causing some undue wear and tear on my body but I'm in better physical shape now then 10 years ago when I was only interested in just running.

Do you think your physical activity reduces your mental age*? I don't know how old you are, but I imagine it has no great effect on someone n their 20-30s, but kicks in at older ages.

* I admit that the term may be nebulous, but that we see personality changes in many older people that we tend to associate with old age.

 

[maflynn]

Do you think your physical activity reduces your mental age*? I don't know how old you are, but I imagine it has no great effect on someone n their 20-30s, but kicks in at older ages

I have no idea in all honesty. I've always felt like I'm in the 20s, though I'm not by a far margin at this point

 

[ardchoille50]

Do you think your physical activity reduces your mental age*? I don't know how old you are, but I imagine it has no great effect on someone n their 20-30s, but kicks in at older ages.

* I admit that the term may be nebulous, but that we see personality changes in many older people that we tend to associate with old age.

I would think the opposite would be true, lack of activity reduces one's mental age. Of course, I may not be old enough to be sure, but I do know that I am in better shape now than I was when I graduated from Navy boot camp 35 years ago. I also feel that I have better mental acuity and more energy now due to being more active.

 

[satcomer]

To me as a Vet it is not the age, it's the milage! My knees and shins make feel older than I'm really am!

 

[A.Goldberg]

Not to bring up the majestic age defying drugs, but speaking of drugs as your friendly neighborhood hospital pharmacist, I feel onligated to share @Huntn

Many addictions specialists I work with use this phrase "you stop developing emotionally when you start doing drugs". I have observed this to be rather accurate. Now maybe more drug abusers inherently are more "childish" (i.e. impulsive, poor decision making, self centered) but it makes sense if drugs become the primary coping mechanism during developmental years. When they try to get sober they have in a sense stunted emotional maturity by having few-no mature adult ways of handling thoughts. For many this is around age 14.

On the otherhand, there is something weird about heroin that seems to slow the effects aging- perhaps keeping people skinnier due to surpressed appetite, possibly endocrine effects. Or maybe it's that as far as drugs go opiates don't destroy your body like crazy (like Meth or Crack or high levels of alcohol)... trick I suppose would be not overdosing or aquring an infection. Afterall, don't see many active heroin addicts over the age of like 40. (Clearly not reccomending this as a reasonable anti-aging strategy)

 

[Huntn]

Not to bring up the majestic age defying drugs, but speaking of drugs as your friendly neighborhood hospital pharmacist, I feel onligated to share @Huntn

Many addictions specialists I work with use this phrase "you stop developing emotionally when you start doing drugs". I have observed this to be rather accurate. Now maybe more drug abusers inherently are more "childish" (i.e. impulsive, poor decision making, self centered) but it makes sense if drugs become the primary coping mechanism during developmental years. When they try to get sober they have in a sense stunted emotional maturity by having few-no mature adult ways of handling thoughts. For many this is around age 14.

On the otherhand, there is something weird about heroin that seems to slow the effects aging- perhaps keeping people skinnier due to surpressed appetite, possibly endocrine effects. Or maybe it's that as far as drugs go opiates don't destroy your body like crazy (like Meth or Crack or high levels of alcohol)... trick I suppose would be not overdosing or aquring an infection. Afterall, don't see many active heroin addicts over the age of like 40. (Clearly not reccomending this as a reasonable anti-aging strategy)

Fascinating! I assume you are referencing hard core drug usage?

Btw, I was accused of not supplying a definition of what mental age is, although I feel I did. But I'll make one more stab at it. In my non-professional way, we associate certain mental development to be associated with physical age/development.

So if I said stop acting like a baby, I'm referencing infants underdeveloped emotions, (I want it now, or I'll scream bloody murder) or the inability to comprehend that your parent is in the process of preparing something for you to eat or you simply don't have the patience. Under developed risk analysis in teens. On the other end of the spectrum-old age, we associate things like loss of mental and physical capacity, with such characteristics as being cantankerous, which is clearly not consistent, but more likely to dislike change, more likely to want to go eat dinner early before the rush (this is me ), not interested in partying into the night (me), less social (me), less inclined to travel (not yet me).

My interest in this thread is the prominence of how loss of physical and mental capacity which is a physiological change is associated with mental age versus the changes your brain would undergo just by being long lived and mature, but hypothetically keeping a young body and a brain not hampered by age related degradation.

I mean if it's consistent, why don't old people want to party into the night? Lack of energy, bad back/knees, loss of balance, loss of hearing, less desire to become intoxicated, less incentive/ability to impregnate or be impregnated. These changes seems to be tied more to physical condition versus mental development.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

I mean if it's consistent, why don't old people want to party into the night? Lack of energy, bad back/knees, loss of balance, loss of hearing, less desire to become intoxicated, less incentive/ability to impregnate or be impregnated. These changes seems to be tied more to physical condition versus mental development.

A belated recognition that you cannot abide parties.

Over twenty years ago, I made the decision that I would decline all party or wedding invitations unless absolutely unavoidable.

I remember the night I actually realised - one of those bolts of searing insight - that I was bored of my mind, found the noise levels excessive and the conversation level abysmal, and that - while, most people seemed to love this stuff, personally I loathed it.

So, while it may be age, it is also - I would argue - temperament. By temperament, I am an introvert, and like small intimate gatherings.

As for dinner: Well, I, too, like to avoid the rush - but, by dining later. Long, slow, lingering dinners with congenial company are one of life's great pleasures.

And on the topic of cheerful inebriation, or intoxication: Age may grant you a somewhat more discerning palate. I still love my drink, but I would prefer not to have to drink some of the dross I was quite content to imbibe as a student.

 

[Huntn]

A belated recognition that you cannot abide parties.

Over twenty years ago, I made the decision that I would decline all party or wedding invitations unless absolutely unavoidable.

I remember the night I actually realised - one of those bolts of searing insight - that I was bored of my mind, found the noise levels excessive and the conversation level abysmal, and that - while ,most people seemed to love this stuff, personally I loathed it.

So, while it may be age, it is also - I would argue - temperament.

As for dinner: Well, I, too, like to avoid the rush - but, by dining later. Long, slow, lingering dinners with congenial company are one of life's great pleasures.

And on the topic of cheerful inebriation, or intoxication: Age may grant you a somewhat more discerning palate. I still love my drink, but I would prefer not to have to drink some of the dross I was quite content to imbibe as a student.

I've never liked large conglomeration of people at a "party". For my own sponsored gatherings I prefer a maximum of two other couples, because this allows for an intimate setting where you can fully enjoy their company and intellect or just their friendly observations, versus flitting around saying hello to 20-30 people, with rushed, less meaningful face time.

It's the same reason I dislike large gatherings at restaurants. You are down on one end of the table, and the rest of the people might as well not be there for most intents and purposes.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

I've never liked large conglomeration of people at a "party". For my own sponsored gatherings I prefer a maximum of two other couples, because this allows for an intimate setting where you can fully enjoy their company and intellect or just their friendly observations, versus flitting around saying hello to 20-30 people, with rushed, less meaningful face time.

Agreed.

I mean if it's consistent, why don't old people want to party into the night? Lack of energy, bad back/knees, loss of balance, loss of hearing, less desire to become intoxicated, less incentive/ability to impregnate or be impregnated. These changes seems to be tied more to physical condition versus mental development.

Two further points: There is, - to my mind - a difference between fancying the socks off someone, - even in wonderful middle age - and "wanting to impregnate or be impregnated".

Secondly, what one does for a living may also affect one's mental outlook: One of the things I miss about the university world is the company of bright argumentative young people, young people with healthy inquiring minds, who - at their best - questioned everything.

Sometimes, they made you think about things a bit differently. Other times, you compelled them to frame their arguments with a bit more rigour - and taught them about how the scaffolding of good arguments are constructed, that debate is more than the expression of deeply felt emotion, but includes reason, rhetoric and mastery of material and sources, too.

In any case, this did have the very welcome effect of helping to keep me mentally agile, and alert, - and up to date with what young people think, feel, and say, - and why - and I must say that I found that my students were invariably and unfailingly helpful in explaining argot, or slang.

 

[Huntn]

Agreed.



Two further points: There is, - to my mind - a difference between fancying the socks off someone, - even in wonderful middle age - and "wanting to impregnate or be impregnated".

Secondly, what one does for a living may also affect one's mental outlook: One of the things I miss about the university world is the company of bright argumentative young people, young people with healthy inquiring minds, who - at their best - questioned everything.

Sometimes, they made you think about things a bit differently. Other times, you compelled them to frame their arguments with a bit more rigour - and taught them about how the scaffolding of good argument is more than emotion, but includes reason, rhetoric and mastery of material and sources, too.

In nay case, this did have the very welcome effect of helping to keep me mentally agile, and alert, - and up to date with what young people think, feel, and say, - students were invariably and unfailingly helpful in explaining argot, or slang.

All of what you've said strikes me as right on and I agree.

That part of the statement about impregnating was supposed to be funny, but I view biology as a huge influencer of our actions and rightfully so. That's not to imply that all our social motivations involve the desire to reproduce, but I feel it's lurking there at some level. And this is not to overlook our vital need for social interaction and company, but then trying to differentiate one biological drive from another may be muddled.