Bu5@slatestarscratchpad recently posted this analysis of Trump’s declining speaking style in a link post on their off-tumblr blog.
There’s obviously some deeply concerning implications there, among them “holy shit this guy used to be able to speak compellingly, who would have guessed” and “oh god this is our president” and “what if I’ve been mocking someone for the symptoms of a disease for the past two years.” But I’m going to try to blow past all of that to talk about weird pie-in-the-sky speculation about societal structures and hope literally anyone is interested in following along.
(pictured: everybody leaving)
So the thing that seems weird to me about this is that my impression has always been that (a) most of the people making high-level decisions are closer to 70 than to 40 and (b) most people think that’s good because Experience, apart from maybe the risk of specific age-related factors (Alzheimer’s, dying outright). But this article suggests that it’s relatively clear that the same person will have better cognitive function at 40 than at 70. Assuming cognitive function matters at all, that would suggest to me that as a society, we want the People Making The Calls to be closer to 40 than to 70. Are they?
Well, in a word, no. Congresscritters average 57 for representatives and 61 for senators. The 11 presidents born after 1900 averaged 56 years old when entering office. The average supreme court justice is 67. The joint chiefs of staff average age is 59.The average Fortune 500 CEO is 58.
So despite the assertion that “research shows that virtually nobody is as sharp at age 70 as they are at age 40,” all three branches of US federal government, the military, and the heads of industry all average closer to 70 than to 40. The reasons for this are obvious - they’ve had more time to build up political capital, experience, institutional authority, and other things that are highly correlated with being in a position of power. But do these things actually make them sufficiently more effective that it balances out presumed decline since their cognitive peak? And if not, how could we adjust our selection criteria to counteract this inefficiency? Term limits for the government offices are a potential solution, as are age caps - after all, if “you can’t be elected president before you turn 35″ is reasonable, why isn’t “you can’t be elected president after you turn 70?”
The other possibility, of course (beyond the null hypothesis that cognitive decline between 40 and 70 doesn’t happen or isn’t significant), is that the actually practical decisionmaking doesn’t actually happen at the highest, most visible level. That city mayors actually have more effect on their citizens’ welfare than presidents, that political staffers have more effect on policy than elected officials, that middle management has more effect on corporate welfare than C-level executives. But if that’s true, why do we focus our attention and financial recompense disproportionately on the wrong people?