There are thousands of different techniques from thousands of different developmental philosophies.
For example from a Jungian-oriented perspective on "the afternoon of life," you could say that the tension between opposites is reduced, so you can finally start to look at combining opposites that you had previously thought were required to work separately. Putting the weapons down and putting ideals back in the front seat.
One might explore becoming a Windows + Linux person for example.
Or becoming more aware of intertwining logical and emotional perspectives on a given topic...maybe one "just likes" using Photoshop even though it is the only thing keeping them on their old Mac. Still, logically it doesn't make sense in some ways, so they pick up a Chromebook for the day-to-day web stuff.
This can be related back to everything in one's life, from learning about relationships to programming language dynamics to new fitness skills. The old opposites want to make war. But how can they work together to create a new, improved, third point of progress?
And that's just one of thousands of different techniques relevant to aging...for this reason it can help to look at broader surveys on aging, be they books, Youtube videos, blogs, etc., and kind of mentally check off techniques that can apply to learning as you come across them. The best techniques for a given individual are generally found spread across many sources, and sometimes those sources are surprisingly not at all "about" learning.
IMO it's a great idea to keep a log of one's aging process, as well.
I guess life processes are quite different at maturity, e.g. routines, roles and responsibilities they all condition time and available attention, which condition the possibility space for learning.
And that's just conscious learning. The automated/subconscious patterning stuff has been very interesting to me.
We have known for a long time that various stuff will be learned by you whether you prefer it or not, depending on your past and barely mitigated by even a generally conscious developmental bent.
If you can move it into the conscious zone you can control future outcomes to some extent and possibly control the upside and downside factors through a process of reconciliation.
And as a general developing body / organism, we are all experiencing this together as well, with even less conscious control. Species as individual with separate personality characteristics.
How does "learning in maturity" change from regular learning? Why do you need a book? Just go find something and learn it...the system couldn't be simpler.
These are valuable suggestions indeed. As per my spouse, she sees the value of letting me away to fully switch off (hike, surf, other sportish activity) one week or 10 days every 6-8 months. I am much fresher after these breaks.
Maybe I'm fortunate and developed some preternatural ability to learn by taking college classes almost my entire life. But I've never had a problem asking for book recommendations (from professors, the internet, etc) and then reading the book and learning. For example, I've recently worked through a good chunk of Alegbra: Chapter 0. I've read a few rust books cover to cover to understand the language, etc.
Time isn't as available as it used to be when I was a kid. My brain still works the same though. Learning is learning.
Besides having a kid and spending most of my "free" energy on him (hah -- this is actually learning to parent and the goalpost is still shifting daily) I'm approaching mid-40s and haven't slowed down. My grandma and grandpa died in their 80s and never stopped learning. Don't fool yourself into a deluded stupor, your brain is still plastic.
These aspects will start to come back into vogue as broader societal progress stabilizes at its new levels, and institutional forces internalize conflict.
There will be a new norm of politician who is less of a laughingstock and more of a quality leader who looks into things in a qualitative way. It'll still be a politician who will need to know the game though.
In a post-Trump world you can generally expect the return of subjective quality in government. This will be good in a lot of ways, but it will also generally lead to some other unwanted factors coming back into style.
The currently new core of cultural values will solidify and there will be some new level of general practice to act on those values. IOW values will fall in line in a general way as they usually do, once the battle lines fade.
Diehards will be way more awkward and will fade as attention moves away from them. These were never quality positions in the first place though.
You'll probably see new silent generation(s) come about, and conspiracies in government will return to their archetypally stable form, as tacit agreements to preserve a given form of stability.
(The recent wacky-conspiracy-theory trend provided wonderful cover for the boring way conspiracies actually form and operate, being mostly without much conscious control and generally in favor of more-of-desired-brand-of-stability rather than chaos)
It will take unity to accomplish what's ahead, just as it took diversity to accomplish the most recent changes in culture and fight the accompanying battles. It will take persistent unity to take on government corruption. Waste there will become a bigger issue than we know now. And not along old party lines. The old ways of making noise will no longer work as well, but the new ways will work in favor of smart people and loud people getting together.
This will all develop in waves, it's not a one-and-done but rather a trending vein or wave process.
The biggest challenges will be centered around questions of who we want to be as humans, and whether we really believe in the desired-unknown as a body, or if we still think we are suckers for believing in developmental progress. If the latter we will get more of the undesired-unknown (recent chaos) in disguise as the desired-known (icons of the past).
Anecdotally one will still be able to see whatever one needs to see in government to reflect preferred perspectives, mask one's own blindspots, etc. But more objectively speaking there should be clear, solid trends like these that can probably be charted or tracked in a reliable way.
(This is subjective-probabilistic speculation based on my professional background with individual and group archetypes & personality development. There's always a chance I'm 150% wrong)
The last silent generation (those a bit too young to fight in WW2 but born before the baby boom) was created by the distribution of massive new rewards. A lot of people were born poor but quickly became middle class. The system worked for them early and often, so they learned not to question it. That seems unlikely in the near future, to me anyway.
Perhaps the mechanism for a new one would be avoiding repeats of the various disasters of the last five years. Except to me it seems like whoever delivers that will want to get paid for it, so that seems to point in the opposite direction from an anti-corruption campaign.
The term "silent generation" was already in wide use when the oldest members of the silent generation were 23 (and the youngest were 6). It wasn't coined because the system working so well for them.
This means you'll tend to look for reflections of your _personal_ gifts / lack of them, within government. "Gifts" is synonymous with your preferred perspectives on things. E.g. if you are attuned to watching for moral quality, you'll naturally develop gifts in that area and look for matching gifts/blindspots in that area on the part of your government.
Or if you are yourself a deep thinker, you'll bias yourself toward pointing out fluff--this phenomenon is generally independent of, and out of proportion to, others' perspectives, like even if they say "hey let's ask for clarity before throwing out critique" or whatever, you may tend to go "nah I just got a feeling" and make a judgment call because this feels right to you.
So to develop a circumspect (higher quality) POV on government & processees, you'll want to cover that blind spot by looking at objective measurements, for example. That could look like asking "how could I measure that," rather than rewarding subjective bias.
Then with subjective bias, working in parallel to the objective improvements, you also want to integrate subjective means for raising the quality level.
Please see profile--I lean toward not giving specifics / examples for this stuff anymore because it's a waste of my time & experience. I stare at relevant 3rd party data/charts which connect back to archetype (housing charts, broader national/intl economy, and so on) and make charts all day, and broader 1Y+ charts speak for themselves in a lot of cases (long-term cyclical reversion to mean for example). Accordingly, broader comments are intentionally broad and such comments will naturally seem fluffier.
Sen. Wyden from Ore. frequently speaks at DefCon and when he answers Q's he also asks lots of Q's. He talks with that odd (IMHO cringey) politician cadence, but he's a smart dude when it comes to tech, especially privacy.
A major problem in our society is that '72-year-old' is in the headline. If you are not growing, you are declining or dead. Not only does the world change under your feet, you need that stimulation just to stay healthy.
We ruin the talent, economic value, and freedom and opportunity of a very large portion of the population by dimissing the growth of anyone in late middle-age or later. 72 years old shouldn't be remarkable, but the norm.
But isn't this exactly the mindset that the original comment in this thread was criticizing?
It might be fair to say, as a sibling comment does, that one needs younger politicians so they can better represent one's constituents.
But to dismiss them just because they're old amounts to shutting off an economically productive segment of the population. More importantly, by discriminating against individuals because of their class membership rather than because of their abilities amounts to prejudice, no?
Sure, but you still need to consider the individual and not paint an entire demographic as “less than”. To do otherwise is prejudice. Ageism in this case.
It’s also factual that wealth greatly impacts education, but we wouldn’t want to suggest poor people are unfit for office due to this disadvantage right?
My parents are into their 70s and I have yet to detect even the slightest mental degradation.
The way I like to phrase this is, I want politicians at each level to actually represent their constituency.
So for example in my area, given that as much as 40% of the population is hispanic / latino, I'd really like to see more people from that demographic get elected. Likewise, about 50% of the population is female, therefore I want to see more women elected. I even want to see fewer lawyers and more laborers, teachers, etc in elected positions. I'm not convinced that politician should be a career and it definitely should not be the sole domain of old, white, rich lawyers the way that it has been historically. And, regardless of who is elected, I want them to be mentally adept and aim to be educated and informed rather than complacent.
I love this perspective. That it's aberrant for a man at his age to pursue further education reflects our society's out-dated view that education is something to be pursued one time and when young.
My father did a Masters of Mechanical Engineering at age 70, as a full time degree. The only affordance to his age was being given an extra hour in the exams.
Following that, he started a Masters of Aeronautical Engineering. Until my mum suggested he spends more time with her at home.
Now he does gym circuit training with a group half his age, at 6am three mornings a week.
You can do a master’s part time while working with the right schedule. I did that as a full time software engineer working 40-50 hrs/week still. I’d rather this then all our representatives being ex law school or econ degree types trying to make decisions for a world that’s changing fast and not related to their fields.
> 72 years old shouldn't be remarkable, but the norm.
Having neither of my parents even make it to 72, I’m pessimistic. I hope I will be lucky that my health allows me to keep learning and doing cool stuff at that age (and that I’m actually alive), but the sad reality is that health and genetics can be against us, and being in a healthy thriving state at 72 is more an exception than the norm.
If I make it for a few more years than that and I feel like studying, then why not? I mean, I probably won't want to, but if that guy want to study then good on him!
I’m really worried about existential depression at and beyond that age. Hopefully there are some (legal) drugs for that, I don’t really trust my own mind to get me through that (and after 70, I’m not really worried about a substance dependency).
Sorry about your parents... I wouldn't want wish anyone to lose them early. I also understand that genetics sometimes are an unescapeable force.
On the bright side however, life expectancy is growing worldwide. In Spain, where I live, average expectancy before Covid peaked at 84 years old. In the US it was 79. The difference is irrelevant to my point (I have no clue what the cause is); the fact is in both cases the stat has grwon explosively in the last 50 years [1] [2]
Likewise there is dramatic progress being made against cancer [3] and other deadly diseases.
Down to everyday life, I am constantly amazed by what some 70 year olds look like nowadays.
I don't lead a perfect lifestyle, but the idea of being able to get a degree on a complex topic like AI in the 70's definitely inspires me to at least try and tilt the odds in my favor to get to that age in good standing. The amount of information and inexpensive tools at our disposal today is staggering.
People at 75 fall off a cliff physically. Life expectancy is rising but that includes spending years in long term care. 70% of people over 65 right now will need long term care.
We like these type of stories because it reinforces all our denial about old age and death.
We worry about cancer and disease but the real problem is plain old falling. Fall, hurt your leg and then a spiral starts that you don't come back from.
I mean I'm nearing 40 and pondering if the investment of going back to school would actually be worth the effort given the say roughly 20 years I'd have to enjoy it, especially given how the last 20 years have completely flown by.
I think there's a valid "why?" here. Obviously it comes down to some people being driven to knowledge purely for knowledge sake, and that's wonderful. That's what makes them happy.
I think for a lot of us though, knowledge is a more practical commodity. It's just one of a number of tools that allow us to build better.
Yeah I think that's a summary of parent point. I remember taking multiple classes at my Community College as a 17 year old to knock out College GEs. It was interesting mix. There were people like me, people that were slightly older trying to learn and find a Direction, and there were 60 some odds who are learning for the fun of learning.
Now that I'm older, I increasingly value the last category of continuous learning. It's one of the greatest privileges of being in a developed Society with access to information. It is one of the cheapest and most enjoyable forms of entertainment available to human beings, and something that it seems that people the frequently undervalue.
I generally agree. But it's worth pointing out that continued learning is more important than continued accreditation. There's probably not much economic value in a new formal degree past 70 years of age.
I'm a little frustrated with how many people seem to treat learning like an activity exclusive to schools. Self-guided learning is extremely valuable.
Self-guided learning is amazing but a lot of people struggle with the discipline involved. Often when you set out to study a topic you’re interested in, you find that it has prerequisites in other areas (such as calculus) that you may not be strong at or even actively avoid studying. For many people this can put an end to their self-guided study.
Attending a formal educational institution, on the other hand, has proven very effective at getting people to knuckle down and study calculus (or whatever their “blocker” discipline is) so that they can move on to studying what they’re really interested in.
Sure. I don't mean to downplay the value of educational institutions. I just want to stress that they aren't the only method of learning. Everyone needs some mix of self-guided and instructor-lead learning to succeed.
The reality is that most people's mental abilities have started to decline by this age, particularly the capacity to learn new things. That makes this story all the more remarkable. Part of that I think is certainly as you suggest, that the brain is a muscle, you need to use it to keep it fit. But you can't escape nature either. To keep the muscle analogy, you won’t compete as an athlete at 72 no matter how fit you remain.
To keep the muscle analogy, you won’t compete as an athlete at 72 no matter how fit you remain.
I hate to be "pedantic guy", but FWIW there are absolutely 72 year old competitive athletes. They may not be competitive against folks 20+ years younger than themselves, but many people continue to compete in "masters" divisions of various competitive sports until pretty much the day they keel over. Heck, there are folks who are 70+ competing in ultra-marathons.
Sure. And I agree that you "can't defeat nature" in the end, but at the same time, that's no argument against fighting it tooth and nail, right down to the bitter end, staying as fit as possible, both mentally and physically. :-)
Why does it have to be a competition. Shouldn't it be about being able to help and contribute. Too much focus on efficiency and not enough on well being of society as a whole.
80 year olds with a desire can still contribute. It doesn't have to be in competition with 20 years.
IME almost all 80 year olds can contribute much more than 20 year olds for any mental task, beyond super-demanding cognitive work like high-level math or some coding.
My point isn't the competition, it is the fact that there is a physical decline with age that no amount of training can offset, which you can observe if you compare to a 20yo. I think it is the same with the brain. And like for every large population it is a distribution, there are always outliers. But not many.
> The reality is that most people's mental abilities have started to decline by this age, particularly the capacity to learn new things.
I agree with the first statement, but more of a function of accumulated metabolic and cognitive dysfunction than merely age.
I don't think the second statement necessarily follows. Time spent fully engrossed in a subject, where the learner is able to put away their ego and learn as a child would, is what is conducive to good learning. That can happen at any age, but in practice, seldom does due to the demanding structure of adult life.
> Time spent fully engrossed in a subject, where the learner is able to put away their ego and learn as a child would, is what is conducive to good learning. That can happen at any age, but in practice, seldom does due to the demanding structure of adult life.
That's what I'm talking about, but don't blame some external force for that outcome. It's a choice; it's about priorities. If you give yourself time for a little growth, I think you'll net much greater productivity overall - including emotional presence for your family.
> Part of that I think is certainly as you suggest, that the brain is a muscle, you need to use it to keep it fit.
My claim, which admittedly is hard to substantiate, is that growth (a general term) will offset aging to a much greater degree than people imagine. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if psychological and physiological aging of the brain is mostly due to lack of growth.
> To keep the muscle analogy, you won’t compete as an athlete at 72 no matter how fit you remain.
I think the muscle analogy can be a useful one, but that it misleads here: Muscles start deteriorating at age 20 or 25; our brains do not on balance (they do in some ways, and improve in others). Peak mental performance is, IIRC, in our 40s and 50s.
This is not true, it varies by personality, some personalities have high neuropasticity even when they get older. It depends on individual differences in the dopaminergic system
What is "personality"? How much of that is choice?
And for the neuroplasticity and are the dopaminergic system differences, how much is cause and how much is effect? Our actions affect our brains and the rest of our bodies, and vice versa. If I chose to lift heavy weights every day, after ten years you wouldn't say, 'they do that because they have extra muscle'.
One might even go further and read this headline as "Old fart is pretending to go to school", at least that is the subtext. I kind of hear you, but I also don't quite believe you. For some it is definitely possible, but most people with that age actually dont have enough cognitive abilities left to acquire a degree. Heck, I know 35 year olds which would need a degree to be able to persue their dream job, but I am very doubtful they will even summon up the courage (and intelligence, for that matter).
If you are not growing, you are declining or dead.
What's wrong with retiring and living out your last years peacefully relaxing with your hobbies and family? There's absolutely no reason why people have to continually grow until they're in the ground.
You're applying an adage about companies to people, but companies need to fight against inflation, and people don't.
I might be reading it wrong, but I don't think that's what they're trying to say. You're right, people should be able to. But people should also be encouraged and helped if it's their desire to continue to grow.
To me it feels like society virtually throws seniors away and I don't believe we treat them well at all.
Personally I think once you stop learning and growing it's the start of a 'faster' downward spiral. If you don't use it you lose it. I intend to keep active and continually growing as long as I have the desire, not because society says you're old, out of date and couldn't possibly contribute any more.
I'd argue hobbies are growth though. People might not be racing to smash new frontiers, but they do learn at a steady pace with hobbies, even if it's as simple as developing some dexterity for a particular task.
> People might not be racing to smash new frontiers, but they do learn at a steady pace with hobbies, even if it's as simple as developing some dexterity for a particular task.
The need is to smash, or more gently explore and master, new frontiers for you.
(And to the extent you desire it, that's what really leads to new frontiers for society - personal passion and growth, leads to projects, leads to a revelation for everyone.)
I didn't say anything about retiring, working, etc. You can grow plenty in retirement too. My prediction is that if someone doesn't grow - explore and learn new things - however they do it, they'll deteriorate and lose much of their enjoyment. The brain and soul need the stimulation of new things.
> You're applying an adage about companies to people, but companies need to fight against inflation, and people don't.
It's interesting that multiple people read 'grow' as economic growth, when we know it means much more. (Also, companies don't grow to overcome inflation, but to provide ROI to their owners.)
>What's wrong with retiring and living out your last years peacefully relaxing with your hobbies and family?
in reality it's a lot less enticing than it sounds. Younger family tends to move on with their own life, and spouses and older relatives tend to die once you get old.
Working in older age gives you a wide social circle, stimulation and purpose that is desperately needed if you want to stay healthy and especially mentally fit. I've seen it so often that as soon as people retire they decline like crazy. Hobbies don't sustain anyone.
Even the mentality of "my last days" already sounds like you're clocking out. Every day might be your last day, even when you're not old.
I'm going to assume based on your username that you're about the same age as me (30ish).
This is far from universal, and I can personally name quite a few people who have absolutely avoiding rotting in old age through participation in local community - makerspaces, bridge clubs, Rotary and more.
The family moving away and leaving the older generation to rot is also far from the global norm. Even in Western countries, Asians, Islanders and Africans (among other groups) maintain strong familial bonds until the day they die.
The person in question is a Congressman, I want those people always learning, being curious, evaluating deeply what they're voting on. This person knows the law and how it's made, having them know a lot more about tech is not a bad thing.
But hobbies are still learning. But as soon as my mom stopped with hobbies and learning she started a steep mental decline. So "get busy living or get busy dying" does seem to apply.
Keeping yourself busy with something is by far the most effective way of preventing or at least delaying/slowing mental decline. The brain needs exercise just like the rest of the body to stay healthy.
Because there are numerous studies showing how "retirement" in the form of sitting around doing nothing shortens the length and quality of your remaining years.
An American man of 72 in average health has a mean life expectancy of 85, but that stretches to 97 for 72 year olds in the 95th percentile. So this Congressman might be staring down 25 years or a quarter of his life at the age of 72. That’s a long time to be relaxing. Good for him.
> If you are not growing, you are declining or dead.
Normativity of growth also gives all sorts of inefficiencies, diseases and economic problems.
> Not only does the world change under your feet, you need that stimulation just to stay healthy.
I partially agree with this. You need to keep updating your model of the world not only because the world is changing under your feet, but also your priors are always guaranteed to suck due to inherent limitedness of human computation. That gives us the normativity of self-transendence, which is not the same thing as growth. It also includes shedding dead weight, deconstructing the not-so-useful, or mere re-organization of the existing. A mere appetite for acquiring stuff, even knowledge, does not make it.
The second problem is limiting the framing of the growth within the unit of an individual. Individuals' betterment doesn't sum to the same amount of betterment of the society, in fact it creates tons of waste. A wiser old person's transfer of their skills and perspectives (not propositions, or knowledge) to a younger person would not register with your notion of "personal growth" but nonetheless is a superior betterment at the group level, and thus has a much scalable adaptive value.
I think you interpret "growth" in a narrow framework of your perspective. The word means a lot more, and I meant things very different from your interpretation. For example, I wasn't talking about economics at all.
Also, that growth (in the sense I mean) is necessary for people to function. They deteriorate without it, like a tree without enough water and sun.
> A wiser old person's transfer of their skills and perspectives (not propositions, or knowledge) to a younger person would not register with your notion of "personal growth" but nonetheless is a superior betterment at the group level, and thus has a much scalable adaptive value.
I see the claim but don't see support for it, or why it's mutually exclusive with growth (in any sense).
> I think you interpret "growth" in a narrow framework of your perspective.
I'd say the same for your premise. Your framework was "growth == better", I tried to demonstrate why that is not adequate, and in certain cases harmful.
> They deteriorate without it, like a tree without enough water and sun
And anyone with house plants know that too much of any is equally deadly as too little.
> why it's mutually exclusive with growth (in any sense).
Simple opportunity cost. An elderly doing a cultural transfer of skills, perspectives and knowledge to their grandkids, neighborhood, junior professionals etc vs. doing their own personal growth things. Don't get me wrong, in this case maybe getting a master's in AI and combining all that with their existing competencies and then doing a culture transfer could be the optimal choice here, but the time and energy cost of the activities pursued has to occupy disparate spaces either way.
So no, personal growth at all costs is not the most optimal thing at all times.
I get what you’re saying, but I think it’s a little too much to call it a “major problem”. Getting a master’s degree is a ceremonial task that has basically no meaning other than what certain jobs may require or want, usually jobs at the beginning of one’s career. Getting a master’s at 72 is kind of weird I think, since he could just as easily learn the material without the degree by taking selective courses. Getting a degree often comes with logistical things orthogonal to learning what you’d like to learn.
And let’s not mistake, one’s mental faculties are lesser as you age. It’s biological. It is remarkable in that aspect as well. Let’s not pretend like one retains a youthful brain, in terms of processing power, throughout one’s entire life. At 72, he is at the life expectancy for men in the U.S. Implying it’s just beyond late middle age is a little strange.
In summary, I think getting a master’s at that age is sort of pointless aside from a certain ceremonial and logistical challenge. It’d be more efficient to take specific classes from good professors. Taking classes from poor professors was a waste of time in my 20s. I can’t imagine doing it in my 70s.
I know a guy that started nursing school in his late 60s after retiring. He has now worked as a nurse for more than 10 years and is loving it. It’s never too late to start a second (or third) career.
My father is in his mid 70s and has been boarded in pathology and emergency medicine for most of his adult life. Recently he decided to get boarded in genetic medicine and start a new medical career.
And? That's all great, but it's not common. And the congressman seems to intend to remain a congressman.
I don't think it's too late for anything, within reason, but I also don't think it's a massive problem in society that the congressman's late age is mentioned.
As a 65 year old, I might argue that my mental faculties have changed, not necessarily lessened. I can't juggle 5 mental balls anymore, but I just write down what I need which is probably better.
I play poker with some 90 year old's, and they are damn sharp. Some people get dimmer with age, many continue to shine.
Getting a degree is a more traditional route, which older people tend to pursue. But he might be doing it for show partly since he is a politician.
I'm getting older too, and I understand the change comment. But I do sense a decrease in "oomph", so to speak, particularly when it comes to recollection of things I used to recall instantly.
Maybe this better belongs in another comment, but in a way, it's nice the age is included in the article as maybe it could inspire others of similar age to do similar things. I have been trying to get my mom to take some online classes.
> Getting a degree is a more traditional route, which older people tend to pursue. But he might be doing it for show partly since he is a politician.
That might be part of it. Saying "I got a degree" has more impact I suppose to politicians than "I took some classes".
My comment is not gatekeeping at all. Good for the congressman. I'm just of the opinion that the mention of the age isn't really that big of a deal. "Person goes to university" isn't exactly a remarkable headline. Getting a master's at 72 is rare not because of gatekeeping but because it's just not common, for a myriad of reasons.
My overall opinion is more of: getting the master's degree is just not worth it over taking classes unless he has a need for the degree, and I have the same opinion for myself and others at a much younger age.
I'm late 30's and suspect you are also not 70, so I don't know if I'm correct about this, but I suspect that not wanting growth and change at 70 might also be natural and not just social pressure.
But regardless I'm very curious how the internet generation will be later in life. I hope I have less anxiety and pressure!
It's fine to stop learning at some point. But that's for when you're retired. As long as you still opt to work (and a congressman definitely had the option to retire), you also have to keep up with the world.
What do you mean by "fine". Is it legal or your own choice? Yes. Is it healthy? I highly doubt it. Will it cause harm? I'm almost certain. I think I've read plenty of researchers advocating continued learning as essential, but I can't cite it..
We are emotional creatures: Emotion, much more than anything else, is our experience of the world, and it is a major input in our perception, decisions, and actions.
Many people reject their emotions or are ignorant of them. And life experiences often cause a lot of emotional injury, to the point where older people reach their limits (I suspect you have a good sense of that at your age) and shut down.
The effect of that shut down - well see the first paragraph; that all deteriorates significantly. It cripples experience and ability, including good judgment, and it causes people to avoid new experiences - the experiences might be traumatic, and the skill of learning and exploring atrophes. Also, shutting down doesn't actually do away with the emotions; they come out and people become angry and cruel.
Instead, we need to learn to be resiliant, to build our emotinonal capacity, and to experience life and use our well-honed emotional insincts as hard-earned wisdom. That includes exploring and learning new things.
> A major problem in our society is that '72-year-old' is in the headline.
I turn 71 next month, and I am grateful that the congressman's age is mentioned in the headline. I think it's awesome!
As someone who also works in "AI" (the scare quotes are deliberate, as the specific work I do is more about keeping our code easy to maintain and well tested and reliable, and dealing with the outside systems we work with), I am glad that I am not the only "older" person working in the field.
I'm not saying this to disagree with you, but to agree. It should be the norm that people the age of Congressman Beyer and myself can contribute, just like anyone else.
Hopefully he gets through them, looks like he’s still in the undergrad portion of this plan “must complete undergraduate prerequisite courses before starting the graduate work which he expects to start by 2024.”
Article says he's working on multi-variate calculus now, which implies he was able to dredge up enough of his 50-year-old knowledge of basic calculus to even understand what the teacher is saying. Impressive.
Master’s in CS with a concentration in AI is a better description. Cool to see a representative actually learning about the tech instead of just having legal education which is sadly far too common (same focus as my MS in CS though that was 10+ years ago and things have changed just a little on the AI side)
As someone considering my MS in CS with a focus in AI, I gotta ask you why you did it, and was it worth it for your career? Would greatly appreciate the insight, thanks.
Happy to share. My main reason was that I really wanted to get more into machine learning and didn’t feel like it was going to be as fast to go deep on my own. It’s much easier now, both in terms of educational materials available and the amount of people publicly talking about the field, but there’s something to the structure that helped me set aside the time to learn too. I made the choice to not do it full time at a higher ranked school and instead do part time classes because I didn’t think it was worth paying for myself, and my employer would pay for it as long as I kept working for them. Not sure that trade off was worth it in the end, and working while going to school was exhausting, but it was fun to both keep a career and get to be a grad student for a bit. It helped with practicing to work hard and manage my schedule well. I did also spend most of my career after this in ML so it helped with positioning and preparation to start taking ML-related roles, but there are a lot more companies now in the space where you can likely learn quickly by coming in as a junior engineer and learning on the job. Feel free to email me or send me a DM on Twitter if you have more specific questions I can help with. Info is in my profile.
This may be good for his personal development or growth and understanding but wouldn't his constituents rather he dedicate his time to representing them and their interests in the house of representatives?
Maybe they don't mind him spending a few hours on it each day after he's done with work and would rather he have this more knowledgeable take on relevant legislation.
I'm his constituent and I don't mind at all. I think having some free time is crucial to performing well at all jobs and if he chooses to spend that time on coursework that could give him greater insight into Congressional policy then more power to him.
Representatives have to do both, represent the interest of their voters, but also legislate on all sort of national topics, from financial regulations to defence matters. So it is very reasonable for a member of congress to become a specialist on a topic that may be of critical importance to the country one day. I wish more would have done that in the 90s when the internet and personal computers started being a big thing.
If this same person was deciding to spend 3-4 hours a day watching Netflix or playing basketball, this would not even be a question. He has a life outside of Congress and I see nothing wrong with using it to further his education.
He represents VA-08, which is basically 90% defense contractors, systems integrators, and technology consultants — there’s a reason he’s chair of Space and Aeronautics — so arguably this is right in his constituents’ wheelhouse.
To be more specific, his district includes the “National Landing” development which will include Amazon’s HQ2 and a Virginia Tech “innovation” campus, as well as the Thomas Jefferson magnet high school, the CIA, the Pentagon, Fort Belvoir… and many surrounding neighborhoods.
It surely needn’t be a requirement, but demonstrating this level of commitment to executing your duties to the best of your ability is worthy of a lot of respect. Props to Rep. Beyer. Even if it means his vote just cancels out some other congresspersons vote that has been paid for.
Good for him. I have so much respect for leaders that actually understand things at a deep technical level. I will also keep an eye out for his AI caucus. The US desperately needs regulation regarding automated systems.
When I was the common age to go to college I didn’t want anything to do with school. It worked out and I’ve worked as an engineer at several FAANG and the like. However, what I wouldn’t give to have the freedom and lack of responsibilities to be able to go to college now. Not for the parties, I did plenty of that and it’s completely out of my system. I’m jealous of being able to dedicate the majority of the time studying stuff that interests me. It’s such a small window where I get to do it these days.
Learning something new and highly technical like machine learning seems a good way of spending time in one's 70s. Even he is not retired but a congressman. It encourages me think that I am not too old to learn machine learning.
When I attended a California UC and CSU university, I met some seniors who were getting a engineering degree just for fun. At that time I think California seniors could attend courses with no tuition. This was all 20-30 year ago. I think that is still true for the CSU system but not sure about UC system.
I had some interesting conversation with some individuals. One used to work for engineers in the Navy and wanted to understand more of what they did. Another was involved in some early work on lithium battery technologies and wanted to understand software engineering.
Maybe it was just a question, and maybe they were fine with the simple answer.
What if the answer was "I'm gathering data so that I can go back and get congress to close all schools" ?
Not likely to ever be his particular angle, but in fact he is gathering understanding at least in part to inform his policy role, and his being a congressman does make his presense validly noteworthy in a way that his merely being 74 years old or any other property does not.
Maybe it was asked in a challenging disparaging unwelcoming way, but I see nothing in here to lead to that assumption.
As I said, I could read it multiple ways. But what's the most likely immediate perception of the person who is putting themselves out there, somewhere they're obviously underrepresented? I think probably they'll feel discouraged and excluded. That's the problem.
It’s obviously because the proctor recognized Rep. Don Beyer, who is well-known in the area, and wondered why a sitting U.S. Congressman was taking an undergraduate college course.
I am 61 and did Andy Ngo's specialization Machine Learning course through Courser and Stanford (Which I loved).
If you are lucky enough to have your health as you get older it is a privilege and an honour to be able to study and continue your education.
141 comments
[ 1.8 ms ] story [ 210 ms ] threadFor example from a Jungian-oriented perspective on "the afternoon of life," you could say that the tension between opposites is reduced, so you can finally start to look at combining opposites that you had previously thought were required to work separately. Putting the weapons down and putting ideals back in the front seat.
One might explore becoming a Windows + Linux person for example.
Or becoming more aware of intertwining logical and emotional perspectives on a given topic...maybe one "just likes" using Photoshop even though it is the only thing keeping them on their old Mac. Still, logically it doesn't make sense in some ways, so they pick up a Chromebook for the day-to-day web stuff.
This can be related back to everything in one's life, from learning about relationships to programming language dynamics to new fitness skills. The old opposites want to make war. But how can they work together to create a new, improved, third point of progress?
And that's just one of thousands of different techniques relevant to aging...for this reason it can help to look at broader surveys on aging, be they books, Youtube videos, blogs, etc., and kind of mentally check off techniques that can apply to learning as you come across them. The best techniques for a given individual are generally found spread across many sources, and sometimes those sources are surprisingly not at all "about" learning.
IMO it's a great idea to keep a log of one's aging process, as well.
We have known for a long time that various stuff will be learned by you whether you prefer it or not, depending on your past and barely mitigated by even a generally conscious developmental bent.
If you can move it into the conscious zone you can control future outcomes to some extent and possibly control the upside and downside factors through a process of reconciliation.
And as a general developing body / organism, we are all experiencing this together as well, with even less conscious control. Species as individual with separate personality characteristics.
(and, come to think of it, I've finally convinced my spouse of the value of letting me have 4-hour blocks of focus time)
Time isn't as available as it used to be when I was a kid. My brain still works the same though. Learning is learning.
There will be a new norm of politician who is less of a laughingstock and more of a quality leader who looks into things in a qualitative way. It'll still be a politician who will need to know the game though.
In a post-Trump world you can generally expect the return of subjective quality in government. This will be good in a lot of ways, but it will also generally lead to some other unwanted factors coming back into style.
Diehards will be way more awkward and will fade as attention moves away from them. These were never quality positions in the first place though.
You'll probably see new silent generation(s) come about, and conspiracies in government will return to their archetypally stable form, as tacit agreements to preserve a given form of stability.
(The recent wacky-conspiracy-theory trend provided wonderful cover for the boring way conspiracies actually form and operate, being mostly without much conscious control and generally in favor of more-of-desired-brand-of-stability rather than chaos)
It will take unity to accomplish what's ahead, just as it took diversity to accomplish the most recent changes in culture and fight the accompanying battles. It will take persistent unity to take on government corruption. Waste there will become a bigger issue than we know now. And not along old party lines. The old ways of making noise will no longer work as well, but the new ways will work in favor of smart people and loud people getting together.
This will all develop in waves, it's not a one-and-done but rather a trending vein or wave process.
The biggest challenges will be centered around questions of who we want to be as humans, and whether we really believe in the desired-unknown as a body, or if we still think we are suckers for believing in developmental progress. If the latter we will get more of the undesired-unknown (recent chaos) in disguise as the desired-known (icons of the past).
Anecdotally one will still be able to see whatever one needs to see in government to reflect preferred perspectives, mask one's own blindspots, etc. But more objectively speaking there should be clear, solid trends like these that can probably be charted or tracked in a reliable way.
(This is subjective-probabilistic speculation based on my professional background with individual and group archetypes & personality development. There's always a chance I'm 150% wrong)
Perhaps the mechanism for a new one would be avoiding repeats of the various disasters of the last five years. Except to me it seems like whoever delivers that will want to get paid for it, so that seems to point in the opposite direction from an anti-corruption campaign.
What?
I read your post several times until I realized you're saying nothing with a huge amount of fluff
This means you'll tend to look for reflections of your _personal_ gifts / lack of them, within government. "Gifts" is synonymous with your preferred perspectives on things. E.g. if you are attuned to watching for moral quality, you'll naturally develop gifts in that area and look for matching gifts/blindspots in that area on the part of your government.
Or if you are yourself a deep thinker, you'll bias yourself toward pointing out fluff--this phenomenon is generally independent of, and out of proportion to, others' perspectives, like even if they say "hey let's ask for clarity before throwing out critique" or whatever, you may tend to go "nah I just got a feeling" and make a judgment call because this feels right to you.
So to develop a circumspect (higher quality) POV on government & processees, you'll want to cover that blind spot by looking at objective measurements, for example. That could look like asking "how could I measure that," rather than rewarding subjective bias.
Then with subjective bias, working in parallel to the objective improvements, you also want to integrate subjective means for raising the quality level.
Please see profile--I lean toward not giving specifics / examples for this stuff anymore because it's a waste of my time & experience. I stare at relevant 3rd party data/charts which connect back to archetype (housing charts, broader national/intl economy, and so on) and make charts all day, and broader 1Y+ charts speak for themselves in a lot of cases (long-term cyclical reversion to mean for example). Accordingly, broader comments are intentionally broad and such comments will naturally seem fluffier.
We ruin the talent, economic value, and freedom and opportunity of a very large portion of the population by dimissing the growth of anyone in late middle-age or later. 72 years old shouldn't be remarkable, but the norm.
It might be fair to say, as a sibling comment does, that one needs younger politicians so they can better represent one's constituents.
But to dismiss them just because they're old amounts to shutting off an economically productive segment of the population. More importantly, by discriminating against individuals because of their class membership rather than because of their abilities amounts to prejudice, no?
It’s also factual that wealth greatly impacts education, but we wouldn’t want to suggest poor people are unfit for office due to this disadvantage right?
My parents are into their 70s and I have yet to detect even the slightest mental degradation.
Humans memorize the information relative to them. If politicians memorize racism they’ll make racist policy.
I don’t want people who think in 100 year old social terms alone deciding my fate.
Society that never retires old ideas, demands speech stay on specific rails is hardly free. That type of governance is the basis of a police state.
Discriminating against someone on the basis of age is anti-social behavior.
? Does my comment read otherwise?
So for example in my area, given that as much as 40% of the population is hispanic / latino, I'd really like to see more people from that demographic get elected. Likewise, about 50% of the population is female, therefore I want to see more women elected. I even want to see fewer lawyers and more laborers, teachers, etc in elected positions. I'm not convinced that politician should be a career and it definitely should not be the sole domain of old, white, rich lawyers the way that it has been historically. And, regardless of who is elected, I want them to be mentally adept and aim to be educated and informed rather than complacent.
So even someone in their 70s might start an MS and then have a decade or more to make use of it. That's not what's happening here, but it could be.
Really puts all those times I thought it was too late for this or that in perspective.
Following that, he started a Masters of Aeronautical Engineering. Until my mum suggested he spends more time with her at home.
Now he does gym circuit training with a group half his age, at 6am three mornings a week.
Hope I have that energy when I am his age...
Having neither of my parents even make it to 72, I’m pessimistic. I hope I will be lucky that my health allows me to keep learning and doing cool stuff at that age (and that I’m actually alive), but the sad reality is that health and genetics can be against us, and being in a healthy thriving state at 72 is more an exception than the norm.
If I make it for a few more years than that and I feel like studying, then why not? I mean, I probably won't want to, but if that guy want to study then good on him!
Is that the definition of a mid-life crisis?
I'll see you in a decade and a half, I guess. :)
On the bright side however, life expectancy is growing worldwide. In Spain, where I live, average expectancy before Covid peaked at 84 years old. In the US it was 79. The difference is irrelevant to my point (I have no clue what the cause is); the fact is in both cases the stat has grwon explosively in the last 50 years [1] [2]
Likewise there is dramatic progress being made against cancer [3] and other deadly diseases.
Down to everyday life, I am constantly amazed by what some 70 year olds look like nowadays.
I don't lead a perfect lifestyle, but the idea of being able to get a degree on a complex topic like AI in the 70's definitely inspires me to at least try and tilt the odds in my favor to get to that age in good standing. The amount of information and inexpensive tools at our disposal today is staggering.
[1] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.IN?location...
[2] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.IN?location...
[3] https://ourworldindata.org/cancer#is-the-world-making-progre...
We like these type of stories because it reinforces all our denial about old age and death.
We worry about cancer and disease but the real problem is plain old falling. Fall, hurt your leg and then a spiral starts that you don't come back from.
I think there's a valid "why?" here. Obviously it comes down to some people being driven to knowledge purely for knowledge sake, and that's wonderful. That's what makes them happy.
I think for a lot of us though, knowledge is a more practical commodity. It's just one of a number of tools that allow us to build better.
Now that I'm older, I increasingly value the last category of continuous learning. It's one of the greatest privileges of being in a developed Society with access to information. It is one of the cheapest and most enjoyable forms of entertainment available to human beings, and something that it seems that people the frequently undervalue.
I'm a little frustrated with how many people seem to treat learning like an activity exclusive to schools. Self-guided learning is extremely valuable.
Attending a formal educational institution, on the other hand, has proven very effective at getting people to knuckle down and study calculus (or whatever their “blocker” discipline is) so that they can move on to studying what they’re really interested in.
I hate to be "pedantic guy", but FWIW there are absolutely 72 year old competitive athletes. They may not be competitive against folks 20+ years younger than themselves, but many people continue to compete in "masters" divisions of various competitive sports until pretty much the day they keel over. Heck, there are folks who are 70+ competing in ultra-marathons.
that's kind of my point. Of course they can compete against other 72 year olds.
80 year olds with a desire can still contribute. It doesn't have to be in competition with 20 years.
I agree with the first statement, but more of a function of accumulated metabolic and cognitive dysfunction than merely age.
I don't think the second statement necessarily follows. Time spent fully engrossed in a subject, where the learner is able to put away their ego and learn as a child would, is what is conducive to good learning. That can happen at any age, but in practice, seldom does due to the demanding structure of adult life.
That's what I'm talking about, but don't blame some external force for that outcome. It's a choice; it's about priorities. If you give yourself time for a little growth, I think you'll net much greater productivity overall - including emotional presence for your family.
My claim, which admittedly is hard to substantiate, is that growth (a general term) will offset aging to a much greater degree than people imagine. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if psychological and physiological aging of the brain is mostly due to lack of growth.
> To keep the muscle analogy, you won’t compete as an athlete at 72 no matter how fit you remain.
I think the muscle analogy can be a useful one, but that it misleads here: Muscles start deteriorating at age 20 or 25; our brains do not on balance (they do in some ways, and improve in others). Peak mental performance is, IIRC, in our 40s and 50s.
And for the neuroplasticity and are the dopaminergic system differences, how much is cause and how much is effect? Our actions affect our brains and the rest of our bodies, and vice versa. If I chose to lift heavy weights every day, after ten years you wouldn't say, 'they do that because they have extra muscle'.
What's wrong with retiring and living out your last years peacefully relaxing with your hobbies and family? There's absolutely no reason why people have to continually grow until they're in the ground.
You're applying an adage about companies to people, but companies need to fight against inflation, and people don't.
To me it feels like society virtually throws seniors away and I don't believe we treat them well at all.
Personally I think once you stop learning and growing it's the start of a 'faster' downward spiral. If you don't use it you lose it. I intend to keep active and continually growing as long as I have the desire, not because society says you're old, out of date and couldn't possibly contribute any more.
The need is to smash, or more gently explore and master, new frontiers for you.
(And to the extent you desire it, that's what really leads to new frontiers for society - personal passion and growth, leads to projects, leads to a revelation for everyone.)
> You're applying an adage about companies to people, but companies need to fight against inflation, and people don't.
It's interesting that multiple people read 'grow' as economic growth, when we know it means much more. (Also, companies don't grow to overcome inflation, but to provide ROI to their owners.)
in reality it's a lot less enticing than it sounds. Younger family tends to move on with their own life, and spouses and older relatives tend to die once you get old.
Working in older age gives you a wide social circle, stimulation and purpose that is desperately needed if you want to stay healthy and especially mentally fit. I've seen it so often that as soon as people retire they decline like crazy. Hobbies don't sustain anyone.
Even the mentality of "my last days" already sounds like you're clocking out. Every day might be your last day, even when you're not old.
This is far from universal, and I can personally name quite a few people who have absolutely avoiding rotting in old age through participation in local community - makerspaces, bridge clubs, Rotary and more.
The family moving away and leaving the older generation to rot is also far from the global norm. Even in Western countries, Asians, Islanders and Africans (among other groups) maintain strong familial bonds until the day they die.
But hobbies are still learning. But as soon as my mom stopped with hobbies and learning she started a steep mental decline. So "get busy living or get busy dying" does seem to apply.
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Normativity of growth also gives all sorts of inefficiencies, diseases and economic problems.
> Not only does the world change under your feet, you need that stimulation just to stay healthy.
I partially agree with this. You need to keep updating your model of the world not only because the world is changing under your feet, but also your priors are always guaranteed to suck due to inherent limitedness of human computation. That gives us the normativity of self-transendence, which is not the same thing as growth. It also includes shedding dead weight, deconstructing the not-so-useful, or mere re-organization of the existing. A mere appetite for acquiring stuff, even knowledge, does not make it.
The second problem is limiting the framing of the growth within the unit of an individual. Individuals' betterment doesn't sum to the same amount of betterment of the society, in fact it creates tons of waste. A wiser old person's transfer of their skills and perspectives (not propositions, or knowledge) to a younger person would not register with your notion of "personal growth" but nonetheless is a superior betterment at the group level, and thus has a much scalable adaptive value.
Also, that growth (in the sense I mean) is necessary for people to function. They deteriorate without it, like a tree without enough water and sun.
> A wiser old person's transfer of their skills and perspectives (not propositions, or knowledge) to a younger person would not register with your notion of "personal growth" but nonetheless is a superior betterment at the group level, and thus has a much scalable adaptive value.
I see the claim but don't see support for it, or why it's mutually exclusive with growth (in any sense).
I'd say the same for your premise. Your framework was "growth == better", I tried to demonstrate why that is not adequate, and in certain cases harmful.
> They deteriorate without it, like a tree without enough water and sun
And anyone with house plants know that too much of any is equally deadly as too little.
> why it's mutually exclusive with growth (in any sense).
Simple opportunity cost. An elderly doing a cultural transfer of skills, perspectives and knowledge to their grandkids, neighborhood, junior professionals etc vs. doing their own personal growth things. Don't get me wrong, in this case maybe getting a master's in AI and combining all that with their existing competencies and then doing a culture transfer could be the optimal choice here, but the time and energy cost of the activities pursued has to occupy disparate spaces either way.
So no, personal growth at all costs is not the most optimal thing at all times.
And let’s not mistake, one’s mental faculties are lesser as you age. It’s biological. It is remarkable in that aspect as well. Let’s not pretend like one retains a youthful brain, in terms of processing power, throughout one’s entire life. At 72, he is at the life expectancy for men in the U.S. Implying it’s just beyond late middle age is a little strange.
In summary, I think getting a master’s at that age is sort of pointless aside from a certain ceremonial and logistical challenge. It’d be more efficient to take specific classes from good professors. Taking classes from poor professors was a waste of time in my 20s. I can’t imagine doing it in my 70s.
My father is in his mid 70s and has been boarded in pathology and emergency medicine for most of his adult life. Recently he decided to get boarded in genetic medicine and start a new medical career.
I don't think it's too late for anything, within reason, but I also don't think it's a massive problem in society that the congressman's late age is mentioned.
I play poker with some 90 year old's, and they are damn sharp. Some people get dimmer with age, many continue to shine.
Getting a degree is a more traditional route, which older people tend to pursue. But he might be doing it for show partly since he is a politician.
https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news...
I'm getting older too, and I understand the change comment. But I do sense a decrease in "oomph", so to speak, particularly when it comes to recollection of things I used to recall instantly.
Maybe this better belongs in another comment, but in a way, it's nice the age is included in the article as maybe it could inspire others of similar age to do similar things. I have been trying to get my mom to take some online classes.
> Getting a degree is a more traditional route, which older people tend to pursue. But he might be doing it for show partly since he is a politician.
That might be part of it. Saying "I got a degree" has more impact I suppose to politicians than "I took some classes".
My overall opinion is more of: getting the master's degree is just not worth it over taking classes unless he has a need for the degree, and I have the same opinion for myself and others at a much younger age.
But regardless I'm very curious how the internet generation will be later in life. I hope I have less anxiety and pressure!
We are emotional creatures: Emotion, much more than anything else, is our experience of the world, and it is a major input in our perception, decisions, and actions.
Many people reject their emotions or are ignorant of them. And life experiences often cause a lot of emotional injury, to the point where older people reach their limits (I suspect you have a good sense of that at your age) and shut down.
The effect of that shut down - well see the first paragraph; that all deteriorates significantly. It cripples experience and ability, including good judgment, and it causes people to avoid new experiences - the experiences might be traumatic, and the skill of learning and exploring atrophes. Also, shutting down doesn't actually do away with the emotions; they come out and people become angry and cruel.
Instead, we need to learn to be resiliant, to build our emotinonal capacity, and to experience life and use our well-honed emotional insincts as hard-earned wisdom. That includes exploring and learning new things.
I turn 71 next month, and I am grateful that the congressman's age is mentioned in the headline. I think it's awesome!
As someone who also works in "AI" (the scare quotes are deliberate, as the specific work I do is more about keeping our code easy to maintain and well tested and reliable, and dealing with the outside systems we work with), I am glad that I am not the only "older" person working in the field.
I'm not saying this to disagree with you, but to agree. It should be the norm that people the age of Congressman Beyer and myself can contribute, just like anyone else.
Being a Congressman not only means attending to his local issues and policies.
It also means helping create federal and state policies, regulations, being member of national committees, etc.
And there are going to be more such bodies in the near future centered around technology and AI.
It's laudable that he is keeping himself updated and informed.
Remember the judge who learned Java? It's like that.
I had some interesting conversation with some individuals. One used to work for engineers in the Navy and wanted to understand more of what they did. Another was involved in some early work on lithium battery technologies and wanted to understand software engineering.
I could read that multiple ways, but it doesn't sound good, not when we should already be sensitized not to discourage people.
Imagine saying that to a more familiar kind of less-represented student.
The next time someone asks why a university needs initiatives in diversity and inclusion, this is one argument for why: it's an unsolved problem.
What if the answer was "I'm gathering data so that I can go back and get congress to close all schools" ?
Not likely to ever be his particular angle, but in fact he is gathering understanding at least in part to inform his policy role, and his being a congressman does make his presense validly noteworthy in a way that his merely being 74 years old or any other property does not.
Maybe it was asked in a challenging disparaging unwelcoming way, but I see nothing in here to lead to that assumption.
I wonder if people that age manage to get passing grades in competitive master programs, when evaluated with the same criterias as any other students.