From Depositphotos.
How often have we heard, in discussions of aging, “80 is the new 60.”
Or ,”These exercises (warnings, inspirations, ideas) are designed for people over 50.”
Or , “If you invest in something now, or make a certain sacrifice, you’ll have a big payoff later.”
These are examples of the New Math of Getting Older. It means you’re thinking about numbers in a new way – very different from other areas of life where we make calculations. The only thing is, they don’t always add up.
Example 1: New definition for numbers: : “80 is the new 60.”
You have a dentist appointment at 8 AM. You stroll in at noon, saying, “Noon is the new 8.” No way.
Or a cop stops you going 80 mph in a 60 mph zone. You smile sweetly and say, “Sorry, officer. 80 is the new 60.”
Or “Fourteen is the new dozen.”
Really?
The truth is, “the new 60” is meaningless. Sixty or eighty? Depends on the person. There’s a huge variance at any age and a famous saying among geriatricians, “If you’ve seen one 80-year-old, you’ve seen one 80-year-old.”
Example 2: The counting mistake: “For people over 50.”
In no other phase of life do we lump 30 years – even 10 or 20. Have you ever heard someone say, “For people over 6.”
Writing in the NY Times, geriatrics professor Gerontologst Louise Aronson points out that the Center for Disease control has established 17 subgroups for children from birth to age 18, for the purposes of medical decision-making.
“But,” she writes, “all Americans 65 and older — including the two fastest-growing segments of our population, the 80- to 90-year-olds and those over 100 — are lumped in a single group, as if bodies and behaviors don’t change over the last half-century of life. You don’t need to be a doctor to see that this is absurd.
There’s usually a big difference between 50-60 and 70-80 … even more for those over 85. Even worse, lumping them all together suggests that the 50-year-olds are likely to be as impaired as the 70 or 80 year olds.
In fact, lumping ny demographic groups together invites over-simplification. Think of all those studies that lump single people together whether they’re widowed, divorced, looking for love, or happily never married. Someone who just lost a spouse after 20 years is going to respond differently from someone who’s happily never married…and not missing anything.
Example 3: The compound interest error: “Investments will have a big payoff later.”
It’s true: most of the time, we get rewarded for deferred gratification. Invest $100 now at a measly 3% interest and it nearly doubles in 20 years.
But as you get older, the meaning of “deferred gratification” changes. Defer gratification and you may not live to see it.
I read about someone taking her 86 year old mother out for a walk on a particularly gorgeous fall day. Sure, there was a risk. The principle of compound interest suggested the mom’s risk of dying from Covid in future outweighed her immediate pleasure in the day.
But the mother might not live long enough to enjoy another day like this. She might contract a condition that keeps her from going out on a future gorgeous day.
That’s the same reasoning used when grueling tests are not recommended for older people: yes, they might let them live longer, but they also might cut short what is now an enjoyable life. It’s what happened when my 78 year old friend turned down chemotherapy and radiation after a bout with a certain type of cancer.
“I’m doing well now,” she said. “If I give up the time I’m enjoying now, I may not get it back in five years: I could be so miserable I’d wish I were dying.”
Forego something at 40 to enjoy life at 50? Probably a good choice.
Forego the same thing at 75 to enjoy life at 85? Who are we kidding?
Calculation ultimately is about the way we frame a question or solve a problem. The method we choose to calculate can make a huge difference in the result…which in turn can affect treatment, policy and outcomes.
