We Should Discuss Age and Performance…And Here’s Why

Age-Related Bias Will Never Change if We Prohibit the Very Conversations That Allow People to Ask and Learn

When the winds of change blow, some people build walls and others build windmills.
— Chinese Proverb

President Biden's decision to seek reelection has once again sparked some debate about age and performance.

Debate is perhaps a generous word. Looking at America from the outside-in, Biden’s announcement appears to have triggered a desire for confirmation that one perspective or another is right. It isn’t a discussion, at least not yet.

I would welcome such a public conversation.

Our world is reorganizing (in both a material and intellectual sense). Increased longevity, 100-year lives, and healthy people staying at the top of their game for longer means that entire populations need an opportunity to understand the changes, think for themselves, and hopefully re-examine our inherited views about the relationship between age and performance.

Let’s be frank. We all will hit that day will the inevitable decline begins. Additionally, that day cannot be reduced to a single number. So, I think a public discussion about what increased longevity means for jobs and leadership is perfectly fair regardless of the news event that triggers it.

Unfortunately, I am seeing responses that I can only describe as tribal.

People respond to announcements and media coverage or write online posts that primarily seek confirmation that their tribe is right. I am 100% certain many of these responses are rooted in a genuine desire to change the world for the better. The rhetorical approach being taken, however, is divisive and pushes away the very people whose views we hope to change.

The pursuit of a merit-based society where age isn’t a big concern will only be delayed when our rhetorical approach hardens our views.

A Conversation Begins Where the Audience is At

In my first career I taught corporate reputation and one of the key tenants was — reality is what your audience says it is.

To illustrate, I often ask my executive audiences, “At what age is your brain at its peak? The point across your lifespan when you are at your very best?” Overwhelming the answers range from 25–45. You get a few who point out that teens can have a great memory, or that a young child can learn at a stunning pace and scale. I even occasionally get a few answers claiming during our 50s or even early 60s.

To be fair, the question is intentionally misleading.

As David Eagleman and many other neuroscientists have pointed out, different cognitive abilities will peak at different times across the lifespan. Eagleman is particularly elegant in his metaphor that as one door begins to close and an ability slows down, another door is opens and a ability is on the rise.

My point here is that many people seem to think that we are at our best between the ages of 25–45. That’s the reality we must begin with.

Science may say otherwise, but publics don’t yet know the latest science. That’s precisely why a public conversation is needed. Unfortunately, so much of our rhetorical output today is, in my professional opinion, designed to shut off such a conversation.

The Shape Public Discourse in the 2020s

“Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants” — Louis Brandeis

In a word, so much of our discourse today is Trumpian.

Donald Trump was famous for spending hours on Twitter, browbeating people into submission through ad hominem attacks, and engaging his base by enraging them. It’s a rhetorical style based on exhibiting dominance and shutting off any counter perspective. It’s not a conversation; it’s preaching to the choir.

How does this relate to a discussion about age and performance?

Following Biden’s announcement I noticed the tribes going into action.

• On the critical side, and for the record none of these are my words, I saw ad hominems like fogey, geezer, senile, and demented. For years Trump referred to sleepy Joe. And let’s not forget the labels of OK Boomer or having a brain fart.

The point of these personal attacks is to end a conversation (Sloane, Encyclopedia of Rhetoric, 2001). The assertion is that another person’s character is so flawed, in terms of ageing that means mental faculties are irrevocably lost, that we need not pay attention to or engage that party.

The other tribe, by my observations this past week, is little different. Their labels are grandiose. Replacing ad hominems with labels of praise that strive for the same rhetorical goal— to close off discussion.

The tribes build walls when faced with winds of change, not windmills. Here’s how.

• Numerous voices this past week categorically stated that even asking about age is wrong — it’s ageist to do so.
• Some take the attack even further and criticise the media for not fully and accurately reporting an entire discipline of knowledge about the ageing mind — a standard that mass media has never met. It’s a facially ridiculous standard to expect so much of one newspaper article written by a journalist with no particular expertise in the matter.
• Following the initial ad hominem attack with new and laudatory terms (this is an aggregation of what I read). Biden is a Superager, Modern Elder, or Super Senior.
• The rhetorical structure and goal remained unchanged; derogatory words were replaced with praise.

Rhetorically speaking, the two tribes are little different. They choose different labels with either negative or positive connotations, but the rhetorical style and structures are virtually identical.

What impact does such rhetoric have?

Very Little Change Will Come from Tribal Discourse

“A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still” — Dale Carnegie

Ageism is real and pervasive.

If we want to see that change, then knowledge must first find its way into the public domain. Only then can beliefs change. As people live longer and face the very real prospect of 100-year lives, we need business and HR leaders, governmental leaders, and even ordinary citizens to adopt a more modern-science-backed story about ageing.

Modern science is certainly rewriting the story, especially neuroscience, but common knowledge and beliefs lag behind science. Such a lag is perfectly normal. Meanwhile, nobody benefits from the latest insights.

For now, does tribal ping pong with labels change minds? I doubt it.

Like Trump's rhetorical approach and his effort to establish dominance, the only people who usually respond to this approach are those who share the same views or those who relish having a strong man for a leader.

It’s called preaching to the choir. It’s about getting more yes responses from people who have already and repeatedly said yes. In politics, it’s called shoring up your base. On social media, it’s the search for likes.

And in the other tribe, replacing ad hominems with acclamation, also rhetorically known as laudatio in classical rhetoric, will have the same effect. Those who see value in the adult mind will cheer loudly and side with their tribe. This, too, is preaching to the choir.

A few people remaining in the middle may change their mind, or perhaps more accurately choose a side, but I suspect not many. A tribal approach will not move the masses. See the quote above from Dale Carnegie.

Both sides are acting in a rhetorical manner that, sadly, protects the status quo because there is too little actual dialogue with the audiences who can change things.

I Want to See a Real Public Discussion About Ageing and Performance

Absolutely. I do not see it as categorically ageist to ask the question.

I see such a conversation as essential given the changes in our world.

Each day as I listen to fellow citizens through brain health coaching and executive coaching, I hear the stress and worry that people live with. These are sharp minds, well aware of their circumstances, and they are fully capable of navigating their challenging circumstances.

The behaviours and ideas that I discuss with these coachees are fuelled by so much more than just experience or crystallized intelligence (I will discuss my dislike of Cattell’s research in a different post).

These are fully capable and intelligent people using higher-order reasoning every day to do the best they can. Reasoning + experience is powerful, and adults in the 50s, 60s, and 70s can excel in this regard (note: it does require science-backed training methods and some sustained hard work).

Furthermore, I have come to believe that these coachees would be even more successful if shared belief systems surrounding them— ageism, in this case — did not add significantly and unnecessarily to the challenge.

These are good, hard-working people whose:

• strengths are under-utilised or even unseen (the neuroscience here is simply amazing and offers a huge step forward from Cattell)
• retraining and upskilling programmes treat them like they are 25 and not 55 or 65, making a transition and reinvention even harder (i.e., skills alone are not enough).
• brains and bodies remain sharp and leave these good people with unique and critical skills to apply if only employers, managers, and HR saw the opportunity (and the science).

So, Yes. Actually, Hell yes! I want a real public conversation about age and performance.

Such a public debate may not always be perfect and meet the idealised standards of one tribe or another, but honestly who cares. The tribes are already wedded to their view and it seems to me that societal progress will come largely from outside the tribes.

Change happens when ordinary and non-tribalised people say, “Wow, I never noticed that before. Maybe we could do better.” That demands a very different rhetorical style than what we see today.

So, let’s have a real talk.