Some things probably shouldn’t make it to the Internet. Today someone posted on LinkedIn about turning 60. He wrote a whole LI article too for all the world to see. I’m sure he meant well so I’m reluctant to post a link here. But his post embodies many stereotypes of aging.
This guy writes: One thing that becoming an old guy gives me is the right to write an article about what I’ve learned along the pathway that constitutes my life.
Saying you get wise with age is just another way of saying that biological age is related to abilities and skills. I know a guy who’s 32 going on 45 and some people who are in their 60s going on 12. Saying that you now get the “right” to share your views is another way to differentiate yourself from others in a meaningless way. You’ll scare off potential friends, employees and clients.
So what if you’re 60? You’re an expert in some things but not others. Simply living a long time doesn’t mean anything. Just look at some of our politicians.
As it turns out, the wisdom he offers consists of a bunch of cliches and opinions that come out of left field. For instance, “A dog will mourn you when you die, a cat will eat you. Just sayin’.”
Sixty years of living to learn that?
Then there’s “Always take a leak in the other man’s toilet.” I have no idea what that means.
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.
There’s very little evidence that “preventive” actions make a difference, especially in those over 65.
Bone density scans also are highly recommended but other measures (e.g., muscle tone, ability to rise from a chair) predict fractures more and bone density doesn’t predict hip fractures, as discussed here. I’d like to see references to articles showing that people on meds for cholesterol, high blood pressure, etc., actually experience different end points than those who are not screened. Often when you actually read those articles you find the relative differences are huge but the actual differences are barely noticeable. When you start quoting journal articles to doctors the conversation changes.
Many people are decrying the advancement of Donald Trump to front-runner for US President. Some observers claim to be shocked by the number of voters who respond to his simple, hard-line solutions. Some claim he’s just acting, but
there’s a reason he’s chosen to play thi s role. It works.
If we wonder why we got Donald Trump, we can look to the way people accept modern medicine. The Amazon summary of a new book, Snowball in a Blizzard by Steven Hatch, says
“The key to good health might lie in the ability to recognize the hype created by so many medical reports, sense when to push a physician for more testing, or resist a physician’s enthusiasm when unnecessary tests or treatments are being offered.” In his book Overdiagnosed, Gilbert Welch questions the usefulness of diagnostic tests. Study after study shows that annual medical exams don’t affect mortality rates.
The truth is, “preventive medicine” (sometimes written as “preventative medicine,” as if the extra syllable lends authority to a nebulous concept) doesn’t exist. Scans, screening and exams rarely prevent anything. They sometimes reduce risk and allow early detection. Sometimes the risk reduction is on the order of 3% or less, which most scientists would agree isn’t clinically significant. Often early detection doesn’t affect outcomes. In his book Less Medicine, More Health, Gilbert Welch explains that cancer comes in at least three varieties: the “birds,” which grow so fast you’re doomed by the time you’re diagnosed; the “turtles,” which grow so slowly you might be dead before you can do anything; and the “rabbits,” which have an impact when caught and treated in the early stages. That’s why so many women get cancer despite annual mammograms. (more…)
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.
Responding to Abigail Zuger’s column in the New York Times. Zuger notes that today doctors spend most time prescribing for pre-illness, which means they try to predict the future.
I am amused by, “For people who feel fine… It is the patient … firmly planted in the here and now, while medical personnel spin wild tales of coming catastrophe…”
and
“In fact, our future of treating pre-illness will simply catapult us right back to a priestly past, as we offer up misty visions of the future and encourage the masses to see with us and act accordingly.”
Zuger’s image – emotional doctors versus patients demanding evidence – captures my experience perfectly. When I declined a mammogram, citing research in top journals, the doctor responded emotionally, literally throwing up her hands: “It must be better than nothing.”
Urging a bone density scan, she cited relative risk (50%) rather than absolute risk (3%). Outpatient surgical clinics require pre-op tests for despite published research consistently showing no difference in outcomes. Most doctors don’t know the Society for General Internal Medicine’s guidelines limit testing for asymptomatic adults.
Doctors eagerly embrace studies questioning the value of herbal or alternative options, but shrug off equally credible reports showing the low value of mainstream “preventive” medicine. In fact “preventive” really means “risk reduction” and often the reduction is so low as to be meaningless. Thus the line between science and magic become blurred, educated skeptics resist medical advice, and most doctors hate patients who know how to read statistics in the medical journals.
WSJ – April 22nd – A woman writes that her daughter is receiving her doctoral degree on the same day her son is getting married. Read the article here. They set the wedding date before they knew the exact date of “her event.” The daughter wasn’t consulted. And to add insult to injury, her role in the wedding involves tending the guest book.
Sue Shellenbarger, who has the job I’d love in my next life – writing about careers and family – consulted a family therapist and a wedding etiquette expert.
The etiquette expert says, essentially, let her vent and then “give her a hug and ask her what she thinks you should do. She may by this point be able to see that the wedding should go on as planned. If not, give her time.”
The expert does admit that “close siblings usually receive a bigger honor than tending the guest book.” (more…)
Stereotypes of aging got reinforced with this photo that got uploaded to Facebook today. I wrote :
“Another ageist stereotype. The man in the cartoon isn’t a 67-year old. Many – perhaps most – people in their late 60s do not need help. A lot of people in their 80s could dash up those steps. We don’t make fun of Asian, gay or black people. Why older folks?”
The response was predictable: “Perhaps we ought to have a sense of humor about our own health problems.”
So I wrote again:
“The danger of laughing at “our aches and pains” is that we tend to attribute health issues to aging when they’re more likely to be related to activity, food or side effects of medication.
“The problem is, when you encourage people to laugh at older people, then ALL older people won’t be taken seriously when they apply for a job or tell the doctors “No thanks, I don’t want that test.”
“The price of ‘cute’ is being treated like a child or a puppy.
“It’s like black people and watermelon jokes. Or jokes about women drivers, which used to be considered appropriate. It seems harmless till you realize the hidden message.”
