Brian63
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2001
- Messages
- 1,639
- Location
- Michigan
- Gender
- Male
- Basic Beliefs
- Freethinker/atheist/humanist
Largely, throughout the course of my life I have held what may be a strong misconception---that, all else being equal, it is wiser to rely on the advice of older people who have accumulated more experience than it is relying on the advice of younger people who have not. That comes into play when I go to a doctor, for instance. If there were 5 to choose from, and there was no other known basis to favor one or the other, I would rank my preferences with the oldest doctor being the highest (though if they were old enough, a case could be made that their cognitive functions have degraded). The same instinct runs when choosing a lawyer, a financial adviser, and many other fields. Even in our own work, when we start a new job or new position there is a learning curve. As you get more comfortable and practiced and you collect more knowledge, then you can make wiser choices and do your job more efficiently.
At other times though, it seems that being older would be more of a liability than an asset. Yes, you would have more experience under your belt still. However, it can also mean that you are entrenched in a certain (flawed) mindset and are not as open to innovative ideas (which are more justified). It hinders you from obtaining new knowledge. When going into a computer store, I would favor a (relatively) younger salesperson in their 20s or 30s over someone in their 50s or 60s, when it comes to helping me select the newest and most useful computer hardware for my needs. Probably the same when going to a car mechanic to help fix the engine.
A couple months ago the first-ever images of a black hole were produced by a team of scientists, and one striking feature is that those scientists, engineers, astronomers, etc. were largely not a group of middle-aged or elderly people, but rather they looked like a bunch of kids in their 20’s and 30’s. Why would it be that a group of relatively young people made this significant discovery, rather than a group of older and more experienced people?
So I am trying to reinterpret what the relationship is between experience and knowledge. It seems having knowledge would be the end goal, while having a long history and experience in a field can sometimes be an asset towards achieving that goal, but at other times can be a liability. Do you agree or disagree? How should we determine which is which?
At other times though, it seems that being older would be more of a liability than an asset. Yes, you would have more experience under your belt still. However, it can also mean that you are entrenched in a certain (flawed) mindset and are not as open to innovative ideas (which are more justified). It hinders you from obtaining new knowledge. When going into a computer store, I would favor a (relatively) younger salesperson in their 20s or 30s over someone in their 50s or 60s, when it comes to helping me select the newest and most useful computer hardware for my needs. Probably the same when going to a car mechanic to help fix the engine.
A couple months ago the first-ever images of a black hole were produced by a team of scientists, and one striking feature is that those scientists, engineers, astronomers, etc. were largely not a group of middle-aged or elderly people, but rather they looked like a bunch of kids in their 20’s and 30’s. Why would it be that a group of relatively young people made this significant discovery, rather than a group of older and more experienced people?
So I am trying to reinterpret what the relationship is between experience and knowledge. It seems having knowledge would be the end goal, while having a long history and experience in a field can sometimes be an asset towards achieving that goal, but at other times can be a liability. Do you agree or disagree? How should we determine which is which?