I wanted to like this book. I ended up with mixed feelings.
Leland’s mother had a DNR.
On p 19, he writes: “Her DNR said to withhold care if she had no reasonable chance of regaining a meaningful life. But this was more like bringing in a hose if the drapes in her room caught fire. Afterward she would return to the life she had in her neat apartment. She had friends and grandchildren she loved; she had matinee concerts at the Philharmonic. People with much less enjoy great lives. It seemed ungrateful to reject that life as not worth living. If she wanted to starve to death she could do it without our help. We approved the tube.”
This is cruel and heartless. Leland seems to be judging his mother and her quality of life. And starving to death isn’t as easy as it seems. One sip of water and it’s over.
He’s able to be more dispassionate with his interview subject, John Sorensen: “None of us really wants immortality on other people’s terms; it’s no kindness to wish a scaled-down version of it on the people who want it least.”
Some quotes:
p 22: “The elders all knew something you can’t get on the Internet, which is how to be old, and how the world looks from the perspective of someone who has lived in it for awhile and who will soon be leaving it.”
And he quotes Monika Ardelt, associate professor of University of Florida … “Older people still have a lot to offer us, even if only how to die and age gracefully.”
How valuable is that information? Most of the time people aren’t preparing to die. They want ordinary conversation about ordinary tings.
p 29: His interviewee Fred describes happiness as “a view from old age — taking satisfaction in what was available right now, not hitching it to the future.” Sounds more like prison than happiness to me!
On the other hand, more people need to be aware of this (p 33): “At eighty-five and up, only 11 percent live in a nursing home or similar facility, and almost two-thirds say they don’t have trouble caring for themselves…It’s just that the least healthy get the most attention–no one gets a grant to remedy the happiness of old people.”
Bg problem of cohort effect… selective memory of happiness.
This is simply bizarre (p 42): “Imagine that: to be free of the future, meaning the sum of all things that probably won’t happen, minus the one that will, which is one’s death. Even if just for a minute, the feeling is like that of first flight, weightless and free. Most of us live with this future every day, laboring under its weight. To think like an old person is to journey unencumbered.”
Ardelt’s study — pp 43-44 – doesn’t have a citation. He summarizes, “Those who scored higher for wisdom were more content with their lives [in nursing homes] — as content as people their age living independently.” I’d really like to see that research.
Quotes Ardelt, “Older people are more …afraid of the dying process. Wise people are more accepting of the dying process.” p 44
p 77 – “It is a received wisdom in our time that married people live longer.” He cites research showing that it just applies to oemen; but Bella DePaulo found that this research is generally flawed. Marriage isn’t associated with happiness or other positive outcomes.
p 91: “Loss is one of life’s great instillers of wisdom, including the wisdom that finds compensation for the capacities we think we can’t live without. Only people in California want it to be sunny every day.”
That’s absurd. There often are no compensations. Giving up things that hold meaning — independence, intellectual stimulation, choices — isn’t the same as wanting sun every day. The remark about California is condescending and should have been edited out.
He notes that decline “is more a relationship of negotiation, with some variation and wiggle room, than a fixed path.” p 91
Older people, he says, “now have statins to keep their hearts ticking, cataract surgery to keep the lights on, artificial hips and knees to keep them walking, and swanky scooters to keep them mobile when the new knees go south.”
Sorry, it’s not that simple. Statins have horrific side effects. Cataract surgery doesn’t always turn out well. Artificial hips aren’t always available. And “swanky scooters?” Would anyone choose them voluntarily?
Even over one year he noticed a decline among those he interviewed.
p 114: “If you believe you are in control of your life, steering it in a course of your choosing, then old age is an affront, because it is a destination you didn’t choose. But if you think of life instead as an improvisation in response to the stream of events coming at you — that is, a response to the world as it is– then old age is more another chapter in a long-running story.”
That’s a way to say, “Accept the bad stuff and be humble.” It’s the same advice you’d give to a prisoner of war. Escape is honorable.
Paul Westhead was 68 years old when he coached the Phoenix Mercury to a WNBA championship.
Marynell Meadors coached the Atlanta Dream while she was 64 to 69 years old (including playoff appearances).
Bernie Sanders runs for president of the United States at 74.
Donald Trump and Hilly Clinton run for president at 69.
Joan Rivers won The Apprentice at 75.
Nobody would hire people of their ages for a corporate management or academic professorial job.
But it’s important to realize that in some ways these people are outliers. They benefit from a combination of genes and opportunities – seeds sown before they reached their sixties.
When looking at age, it’s about the variance, not the mean.
This article from PBS News says it all: age discrimination starts as early as 35. Researchers sent around resumes, changing only the birth date of the applicant. Older applicants got fewer invitations.
When companies were asked why this was happening, the a”reasons given include worries that they’re not good at technology, that they don’t have computer skills. There’s worries that they’re not active, that they’re slow, that they’re not willing to embrace change. There’s worries that they’re just going to leave…” And these reasons just aren’t true.
And AARP’s recommendations, it turns out, aren’t helpful. Why are we not surprised?
According to this article, AARP told people to write, “I’m willing to embrace change.” People who followed this advice got fewer callbacks.
I’m not surprised. I once told a client to remove the phrase, “Maintain an active lifestyle” from his resume. You’re calling attention to age – and emphasizing that you define yourself by age.
So what can you do?
They suggest, “Volunteer and take classes.”
I’d beg to differ.
I’d say to position yourself away from entry level jobs; you’ll still get discrimination but not as much.
And go back to school to study entrepreneurship. Get the entrepreneurial mindset going earlier rather than later.
The social aspects of aging are by far the most difficult, in my experience, and the least understood. Often we experience altercasting – the way we’re pushed into roles and respond to those involuntary roles through a social interaction.
The brief video on social aspects of aging underestimated the cruelty associated with aging, which can be experienced any time after 35 or 40. It is true that some cultures treat older people better than the US does. However, it’s not clear what roles are appropriate or why special roles should be reserved for people over 60.
I do many things that are not age-appropriate – in my late sixties, I wear shorts, work on the Internet, take classes, workout – and every so often someone will say something that reminds me I’m older than most of the group. I’ve also found that any quirk or unusual quality is attributed to aging, even though it’s something that hasn’t changed for years. Age is the strongest signifier of status – even stronger than gender, sexual preference or (usually) race.
Another social phenomena is the toleration of negative stereotypes of aging. I remember watching a TV morning show years ago, where an “older” women was being interviewed because she did skydiving. The anchor was smiling in a patronizing way, as if to say, “That is so cute.” Similarly we see thousands of Youtube videos showing older women dancing, which is supposed to be amusing. One movie reviewer (wish I’d kept the clipping) wrote that, “It is funny to see older people enjoying themselves.” Can you imagine saying that about black people or disabled people?
Vernon Jordan wrote a book about growing up black. In one episode he was sitting at a table reading a book in a home his mother was cleaning. The lady of the house exclaimed, “Why, Vernon can read!” Most of us would be horrified, yet we tolerate a similar view from social and public media. We see a video of an elderly woman dancing and say, “Why, this old lady can shake her butt!”
I have never liked children and have no interest in activities that would put me around children. I’m not getting mellower; I’ve always been direct and outspoken and I’m still that way. The difference is that many people (especially medical people) expect to deal with sweet, docile old people; it has been necessary to use some colorful language to get them to pay attention, especially when I’m there alone. I don’t necessarily want “respect.” I just want to be treated like an adult who’s paying the bills; I deserve respect as a customer, not for my age.
Moreover, while other cultures treat the elderly with respect, preliterate tribes would leave elders behind when they were too weak to go on the tribal journeys. Some would kill and eat the elders. If you asked, I think many people would rather experience those customs than be locked up home with extreme pain, no meaningful life and the high probability of abuse.
