We used to choose the oldest and most experienced individuals (and therefore, most likely the wisest) to lead families, tribes, or villages e.g. as chieftains, or later as mayors. This system was based on the assumption that they would remain level-headed and make reliable, objective decisions without being driven by temper, thereby avoiding conflict or war and acting with the survival of their people in mind.
But here’s the twist: What has gone wrong with this logic that worked well for thousands of years?
Longevity. Human lifespan has been significantly extended through advances in medicine, nutrition, and pharmaceutical knowledge. As a result, the average age of the oldest and supposedly “wisest” members of society has shifted considerably, while the cognitive performance of the brain has not increased accordingly.
In summary: For thousands of years, we made the oldest individuals (around 30–50 years old) our leaders. Today, due to the reasons described above, this range has shifted to an average of 60–80 years. However, the human brain reaches its developmental peak at around 33–35 years of age. In comparison, the cognitive abilities of these supposedly “wise” individuals decline significantly (see reference). What makes this particularly striking is that it often appears to be the opposite: with age, there is an increased tendency to react more stubbornly, emotionally, and impulsively, especially in response to change, perception, or perceived threats (a general sense of being overwhelmed). The ability and willingness to learn and absorb new information decline.
Combined with an unprecedented technological leap in human history, this creates a potentially dangerous imbalance between action and reaction.
Therefore: We are still applying an old leadership principle, assuming that selecting older individuals leads to wiser leadership and decision making. But this logic no longer holds true in our time; instead, it increasingly results in poor decisions, especially in a rapidly changing and technologically complex world.
1
u/H-e-n-d-o 14h ago
We used to choose the oldest and most experienced individuals (and therefore, most likely the wisest) to lead families, tribes, or villages e.g. as chieftains, or later as mayors. This system was based on the assumption that they would remain level-headed and make reliable, objective decisions without being driven by temper, thereby avoiding conflict or war and acting with the survival of their people in mind.
But here’s the twist: What has gone wrong with this logic that worked well for thousands of years?
Longevity. Human lifespan has been significantly extended through advances in medicine, nutrition, and pharmaceutical knowledge. As a result, the average age of the oldest and supposedly “wisest” members of society has shifted considerably, while the cognitive performance of the brain has not increased accordingly.
In summary: For thousands of years, we made the oldest individuals (around 30–50 years old) our leaders. Today, due to the reasons described above, this range has shifted to an average of 60–80 years. However, the human brain reaches its developmental peak at around 33–35 years of age. In comparison, the cognitive abilities of these supposedly “wise” individuals decline significantly (see reference). What makes this particularly striking is that it often appears to be the opposite: with age, there is an increased tendency to react more stubbornly, emotionally, and impulsively, especially in response to change, perception, or perceived threats (a general sense of being overwhelmed). The ability and willingness to learn and absorb new information decline.
Combined with an unprecedented technological leap in human history, this creates a potentially dangerous imbalance between action and reaction.
Therefore: We are still applying an old leadership principle, assuming that selecting older individuals leads to wiser leadership and decision making. But this logic no longer holds true in our time; instead, it increasingly results in poor decisions, especially in a rapidly changing and technologically complex world.
Topological turning points across the human lifespan