In article <6n5dgd$h8e at gap.cco.caltech.edu>, ravena at cco.caltech.edu (Karen
Allendoerfer) wrote:
> I would vote for getting rid of all age-based requirements, but I've
> heard a counter-argument, almost exclusively from men, that
> chronologically young scientists are the most creative. You especially
> hear this about mathematicians and physicists; they fret if they
> haven't made their major discoveries by age 30, they're washed up.
>> I find myself wondering if this is true or a myth, even for men (the
> examples cited in arguments like this are people like Mozart--not
> even a mathematician--and sometimes Einstein). And as far as I know,
> no one has even studied women in this regard at all. Female NObel
> Laureates weren't particularly young when they made their discoveries:
> how young was Barbara McClintock, how young was Rita Levi-Montalcini?
> I also have seen a number of women thriving scientifically in their
> 40's and 50's; finally getting the recognition they deserve after
> having labored in unfair obscurity for a long time. Until I see
> good evidence to the contrary, I find that the evidence points to this
> idea that chronologically young scientists are more creative being
> a myth, not a reality, at least for women.
>> Karen
>
I wonder whether this idea about being washed-out by age 30 has more to do
with sociology than with intellect? In the past, young male scientists
had plenty of freedom to obsess about research and spend 80 hours a week
in the lab; they had financial support and often a highly supportive wife
to nurture them. After the postdoc years (i.e. around age 30), they would
have had to start taking on faculty responsibilities, which can be a
_huge_ drain of energy. And heaven forbid, they might have become
interested in their children, further distracting themselves from the
bench. I suspect that a far more important contributor to creativity than
age is to have large chunks of uninterrupted time and a reasonably stable
financial and personal life, so that one is not distracted by various
worries. Sabbatical leaves may help senior scientists resume creativity.
Unfortunately senior scientists are likely to have a one- or two-semester
sabbatical leave at most, and that is rarely enough time to get the
creative juices flowing. So the myth of creativity ending by age 30 is
perpetuated -- in my view, this is an example of the fallacy of
correlation being equated with causation.
cheers,
Chris
