Myth: Everything is done by people less than thirty

I kind of wish the T.V. show "Bullshit!" explored this idea, because personally I think it is bogus.

The common argument goes something like this:  human cognitive development peaks in your twenties and then goes on a steady, steep decline afterwards, given this, and a load of cherry-picked testimonial examples (Gauss did all of his most important work when he was in his teens!), we can conclude that all important work is done by humans less than the age of thirty and if you're older than this you might as well commit suicide.

First of all, let's assume for the moment that it is true.  The conclusion that under thirty year old people should be subsidized (where I use 'subsidize' in the loose cultural sense of the word) for the sake of their greater potential does not immediately follow.  Take, for example, the Fields medal.  Personally, I hate the Fields medal (I like the recipients of the Fields medal and their work, though).  Why?  Because it generates a horrible culture.  It generates a culture that I feel is much less likely to go after the "long hunch" (http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_johnson_where_good_ideas_come_from.html).  I recall reading an article, that I can not find so of course you'll take my word for it, about an Indian fellow studying biology.  His parents chastised him for going after such a pursuit, saying that only young men could create new developments.  To the contrary, he found in his field that only the biologists that had at least a decade of work tended to get results.  Maybe the true and noble results are the ones that require the dedication and lifetime pursuit that a thirty year old can not necessarily give.  When we encourage this statement of "Thirty year olds rule" I think it is wise to keep in mind the implicit assumption "Forty year olds drool," and that this has a deleterious effect on the great potential in those older than thirty, and the deleterious effect on pursuits that require a really long time.

Next, let's assume that the cognitive fact is true, it does not immediately follow that the potential of thirty year olds vastly outweigh the cognitive potential of those older.  In an effort to be concise on this point, I shall only leave a reference here to the keyword, "crystallized intelligence."

Next, I doubt the 'cognitive fact'.  Again, in an effort to be concise, I shall only state, "neuroplasticity."  However, even upon doing only this, I should probably also provide an explanation for the observation of apparent decline that seems common.  For this, I offer the following alternate explanation:  maybe people's tastes actually...change over time!  For example, most decline is observed to happen by the time someone is thirty--now, think for a minute, what tends to happen by the time someone turns thirty?  Hint:  they get married!  Just in my personal observation, a lot of people I know tend to become fairly scarce when they start to get serious about dating and relationships and what-not.

Finally, I am kind of hatin' on the cherry-picked idols held up for worship.  For every Gauss and Galois there is a Wiles, Halmos, and Sylvester.

In fact, let me spend some time on Sylvester (to save people some time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Joseph_Sylvester).

Sylvester is, few and far between, my second favorite mathematician (I'll spend another post on my favorite mathematician:  Halmos), particularly because he destroys this "Thirty year olds do everything" argument.  Yes, it is true, he did a lot of work in his 30's.

But then he did a lot of work in his 60's.

And again in his 80's up until his death (according to Bell's biography of the man).

In fact, Sylvester is the antithesis of a lot of trends and memes you hear about how work should be done and how thinking should be thought of.  Cayley was prim, proper, organized, and had an incredible memory.  Sylvester was impromptu, rambunctious, and forgot his own thesis result.  Sylvester would be the idol I would hold to the "long hunch" and rambling intelligence.

For those who still hold tightly to the "Thirties rule, forties drool" dogma, at the very least, please have some sympathy for those who don't.