If someone thinks the peak of their creativity and mental abilities occurs at mid 20's, then I feel sad for them. It's more about attitude and practicalities of life than an inherent degradation of mental faculties.
As someone who is probably already considered "old" by tech industry standards (I am 32), I've definitely noticed an improvement in my thinking and ability to solve problems compared to ten years ago.
Unless my attitude towards learning changes, some kind of physical ailment occurs, or my priorities change due to unforeseen circumstances I don't see myself slowing down anytime soon.
So it's obvious not fair to say younger people are "smarter". It might be more fair to say that younger people have more time to devote to learning.
~26 years old is really just the beginning, since the brain isn't even fully developed until that age. The hardware is now complete, so then it becomes more about regularly updating your software(i.e. challenging your knowledge and skills with new information, and not believing you are past your peak). The great thing about having fairly fixed hardware, and hardware that is pretty much like everyone else's, is that you are left with the choice of either maintaining the learning attitude of a child or settling into a role you think you are destined for, effectively closing all sorts of doors willingly. I choose to not think about my age or think of myself as an "adult". I sometimes forget how old I am. I kind of like it.
While the article itself is not poorly written, the title is incredibly bad. Kind of like using the title 'To Run a Marathon, Run Like a 94-Year-Old' when a single 94-year-old ran a marathon (it still would be impressive, though).
I think the key takeaway that led to the title is that last quote from him, paraphrased: At 94, you don't worry about losing your job. Presumably he's saying he's taking huge risks/being bold/not worrying about following other people's advice or conventional wisdom? He can do this (again, presumably) because he can live off his retirement funds/investments for what's left of his life. And he's already got major success behind him that can continue to define him, even if he hadn't come up with this new promising battery now.
So from the perspective of younger (than 94) people, is there anything we can do to emulate his experience? Take huge risks/be bold/don't follow conventional wisdom? It's risky, if you have anything to lose. It's seriously impressive when someone pulls it off, though, and those are the stories we pass on in the media and over coffee or beer.
Which is why a strong social safety net is not necessarily anti-capitalist. It is just the realisation that there are probably millions of people that would be better at your job than you but are not at the right place at the right time.
Society cannot control everything, but by making sure that everyone receive a good level education, health, food, shelter and freedom is maximising the chances that the next Steve Jobs is not wasted flipping burgers at MacDo.
These days my mind is completely devoted to this issue.
I have came to the conclusion a smart person, is smart no matter whatever he/she is doing (of course after passing learning threshold).
It is kinda obvious if you don't think about it deeply, but when you think about deeply you can understand there is something about he or she which makes him or her smart.
I mean take gaming and mathematics for example, a number one and smart gamer if can pass threshold of learning mathematics, my estimation is how much good he she was good at gaming, he or she will be good that much in mathematics too (yes the scales).
Agreed (smart person = smart no matter the activity), though that doesn't necessarily mean they will succeed at any given activity. I am always struck more by the connections that smart people make: The _really_ smart people often have this broad, even vast set of knowledge across many domains and can make connections across them that permit leaps of understanding that less smart people have a hard time following. Ironically, the really smart people are themselves struck by just how much they don't know.
To take an example, with a caveat because I'm only a small way in, _The Book of Martial Power_ by Steven J. Perlman looks at the underlying factors that make all martial arts function. He starts by identifying core principles they all have in common, no mean feat for martial arts ranging from tai chi to boxing and kung fu. He recognizes common elements, and does such a good job at reducing them to their core essence that it allows the reader to recognize how these could then apply to yet broader fields than martial arts, much the way people have both amusingly and annoyingly published books aplenty on _The Art of [Field Noun]_.
Could a persistent and only mildly smart person make these connections and recognize the commonality? I don't know. Maybe substantial persistence would allow someone to make huge progress, but I'm talking about mild smartness, not Einstein smartness. (Note that Einstein didn't self-identify as being brilliant, but did as being persistent. I'm not convinced about lack of brilliance, but he certainly was persistent. I'm also not sure I believe the estimates that his IQ was around 160, but that's the subject for many other conversations.)
Anyway, I think your (0xFFC's) point about being good at multiple fields doesn't conflict with this; in fact it is the recognition of the patterns across fields that allows smart people to be good at more than one/many fields.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14058696