please explain ageism to Rasco

[Rascolnikova]

I don't know if this is ok here, but I couldn't think of anywhere better. Anyone who can, please feel free to move it.

So, due to the gaffe I apparently committed here:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/desrumeaux-global-modship-t97114/index.html

I thought I'd try to get a better handle on things here.


Here's my argument: If a running coach is 30, healthy, and can't keep up with me, that indicates some incompetence and is a red flag I think I should be worried about, regardless of the other ways in which they might be competent. If they're 90, it only makes sense and I have nothing to worry about.

If someone changes their opinion very easily at new information at the age of 40, it makes me worry that they are not very bright or haven't bothered to form their opinions very carefully in the first place. In the first 5-10 years of adulthood, thought, it only makes sense and I have nothing to worry about; it simply takes time to encounter all that information the first time round.


For the record I'm only 24, and if somebody were to come out and say, "you young (or old, I guess) whipper snapper, shouldn't be doing __________" and the reason was directly related to something inseparable from my age, I don't believe I would consider that ageist, so if my standard or language are discriminatory I believe I at least apply them evenly, if that makes any sense.

Thanks. :)

[Holden Caulfield]

The fact you said she was young rather than saying something like inexperienced is what made me comment, i felt it was out of order, LZ, Bob Kindles, Random P are all around my age and they are (in my view) amongst the smartest most level headed guys on the forum.

It was hardly outrageous 'discrimination' but it was still wrong to say it,

anyhoo how old a user 'is' is irrelevant, this is the internet, Des could be a 50 year old man for all we know,

as for the running coach analogy, an old person would be discounted if they didnt have the fittness to keep up with you not because they were old, the 2 are not one and the same thing

[Rascolnikova]

The fact you said she was young rather than saying something like inexperienced is what made me comment, i felt it was out of order, LZ, Bob Kindles, Random P are all around my age and they are (in my view) amongst the smartest most level headed guys on the forum.

It was hardly outrageous 'discrimination' but it was still wrong to say it,

anyhoo how old a user 'is' is irrelevant, this is the internet, Des could be a 50 year old man for all we know

Young clearly implies inexperienced--and the kind of inexperience I was referring to is inextricably connected with age.

. . and also I'd bet everything I own that Des isn't a 50 year old man. The fact that it's easy to hide who you are online if you so choose doesn't magically give you the power to convincingly act roles far beyond your experience. Furthermore, I didn't and wouldn't say she wasn't smart or competent.

As for "the smartest and most level-headed guys on the forum," the only two people on that list who I know/have read much of are you and kindlet, and whatever else may be said for you (and there is a great deal I'd be willing to say for either of you) I wouldn't place either of you on a list of the more level-headed people I know--in fact, I might put Des ahead of either of you, because while her opinions tend to form and shift quickly, she's also aware enough to do a lot of self-correcting.

This is somewhat a forum of teenagers, I'd have to guess at least 40%, probably more, maybe much more. I'm cool with that; it's a forum of teenagers who are involved in things I find important, know more than I do about things I find important, and have created a space of discussion for which I am most grateful. Teenagers, and even children, are by and large far more competent than they are given credit for. I know that connotation often comes up in real life, but when I say someone's young I'm not saying they're incompetent, at all.

However, there are some characteristics that are very directly associated with age, or for that matter, with race or gender, and I don't see how it is ageist to mention this correlation. If someone said to me, "you're really white, maybe you should pack some sunscreen" I wouldn't be any more or less offended than if they said, "you're really old, maybe you should pack your arthritis medication to ballet class." (a real life example for me, btw) It's the same bag, directly correlated characteristics.

[Holden Caulfield]

I see it more stereotyping tbh, not on the same level as but in the vein as "your black you must be able to rap",

Bob is pretty level headed, LZ and RP also are, so is Des, i never included myself in that level headed list i am highly unstable,:lol:

i don't really care enough to debate, i've given my reasons,

regards
holden "level head" caulfield

[Le Libérer]

It seems to me at the age of 24, you should know that age shouldnt be included as criteria for or against a persons ability to accomplish a task. Why at 24 have you not learned that?

(Now, did that feel discrimitory towards you?)
This really is a simple concept. I'm not sure I feel up to babysitting this line of questioning either. ANd it definately doesnt belong in advanced discussion. I'm inclined to either close this thread or move to discrimination, or even better learning.

[Rascolnikova]

It seems to me at the age of 24, you should know that age shouldnt be included as criteria for or against a persons ability to accomplish a task. Why at 24 have you not learned that?

Maybe because I work at a prison for kids, and am constantly making the argument that various punishments are not age appropriate for them--for instance, that a ten year old who doesn't read well should not be expected to sit in a chair for several hours without being permitted to talk or move (having only a book for amusement)--while such a thing would be far less inexcusable to force upon a 16 year old.



(Now, did that feel discrimitory towards you?)

No. It doesn't feel discriminatory that you're more or less accusing me of bad faith when I ask a well intended question about a social situation, though on second though it probably should. It doesn't feel discriminatory towards me when my friends tell me to stay home from their hiking expeditions on the days I can't walk, either.

Just as certain abilities are inextricably connected to physical health, certain physiological, experiential, and neurological characteristics are extremely closely tied to age--and while age alone may not play into a person's abilities, other characteristics which are 100% connected with age often do.

This isn't like race, where "differences in ability" are pseudoscience at best. Developmental stages both exist and greatly effect a persons abledness.



This really is a simple concept. I'm not sure I feel up to babysitting this line of questioning either. ANd it definately doesnt belong in advanced discussion. I'm inclined to either close this thread or move to discrimination, or even better learning.

I agree that it may not belong in advanced discussion, but I really don't know where else to put it; in the general forum, the original issue that sparked it wont be available for reading, though if you really feel that's the only good way to handle it, I must defer to your judgment.

I am not being intentionally dense. I'm sorry if I'm slow to catch on at times, but I really would like to explore the nuances of this, as clearly I'm missing something or I wouldn't have made the comment in the first place.

[Sam_b]

Young clearly implies inexperienced--and the kind of inexperience I was referring to is inextricably connected with age.


I don't think it does, and similarly I don't think its right.

I mean, I think i've done a lot for my age (20): i've been a full-time worker, been travelling, and am now in uni. And i've been involved in socialist politics for about six years now. Experience and inexperience don't know age boundaries and limitations: i'm more experienced, say, in worker's struggle and being on strikes compared to a new member just coming into the left and trade union movement whose older myself; yet much more inexperienced than say the comrade in my branch whose been a union organiser for 30 years. Age doesn't stop me giving a meeting on Marx as i've read a lot of his work and seen these theories put into practice in the struggle. When nominating someone for say, the National Committee of the SWP, I take into account their experience in the struggle, their theory, their dedication: one such comrade on the NC is a student at my uni, and I would say more capable than some comrades twice his age.

Des has been around in the left for a long amount of time that makes her capable, for example (IMO). So has Holden, and has been involved in the struggle for longer than his age would suggest. So these things can not be barriers to capability or responsibility. Of course this was not what you were getting at at all and I understand this completely, but the way it was phrased could leave suggestions open to that.

[Holden Caulfield]

So has Holden, and has been involved in the struggle for longer than his age would suggest.just to clarify i am 19, i am aware due to the fact i dont use grammar and act like a child some think i am around 13, but not young, just stupid

[F9]

so what would you characterized a 16-years old "kid"?Inexperienced and not cable of full understanding on some issues?Maybe too immature?
Describe "me", a 16 old kid!Just say what you would say for a 16 year old kid, not me!

[Module]

I do see where you are coming from, Rascolnikova, and obviously age will tell you something about a person's ability, but only very vaguely. Somebody does not have more or less credibility simply because of their age. I remember the first 'exchange' we had you brought up the fact that you had 7 years more life experience that I had. That is true, you do have 7 years more life experience but that does not necessarily make you more learned on whatever topic you are discussing, or me less. I know, frankly, a lot more, generally, than most 20-5 year olds I've met, regardless of their greater 'life experience' (not to sound up myself, of course) and the arguments that I put forward in political discussion should be judged only on their own merits.
Life experience shouldn't be looked at quantitavely, but qualitively.
But I don't change my opinions that easily. I'd like to think my core 'goals' stay somewhat constant, it is just the methods that I would think were most effective in achieving my goals change as new evidence is discovered. Obviously with something like political theory, new evidence is crucial to judging the validity of theories.
Unlike you, if somebody much older than me didn't change their views with new evidence (and I think it's unfair to say that changes with new evidence are 'easy', or shallow) I would consider that more of an indication that they're not very bright, or at least aren't thinking too deeply about the opinions they hold, and that would be the same for somebody of any age.

[Le Libérer]

Maybe because I work at a prison for kids, and am constantly making the argument that various punishments are not age appropriate for them--for instance, that a ten year old who doesn't read well should not be expected to sit in a chair for several hours without being permitted to talk or move (having only a book for amusement)--while such a thing would be far less inexcusable to force upon a 16 year old. I too worked with children as a child protection investigator, where it was my job to evaluate a childs physical and intellectual development, but it never occured to me to apply that to a 20 year old woman on a message board. So I dont think ones personal experiences of childrens growth development should be applied to members of this board, especially Des.



doesn't feel discriminatory that you're more or less accusing me of bad faith when I ask a well intended question about a social situation, though on second though it probably should. It doesn't feel discriminatory towards me when my friends tell me to stay home from their hiking expeditions on the days I can't walk, either. Still, hiking or running doesnt apply here. Des has proven she is capable of being a global mod, by her posts. And this bit about someone being too old to teach or too old to keep up, someone of the best teachers are older, as well as coaches, didnt you ever see the movie Rocky? :p


certain abilities are inextricably connected to physical health, certain physiological, experiential, and neurological characteristics are extremely closely tied to age--and while age alone may not play into a person's abilities, other characteristics which are 100% connected with age often do. Still that doesnt apply here.



t being intentionally dense. I'm sorry if I'm slow to catch on at times, but I really would like to explore the nuances of this, as clearly I'm missing something or I wouldn't have made the comment in the first place.I suggest googling or reading past threads on ageism. This really shouldnt be a topic here. But I will say this, before bringing someones age as a possible fault on this board, please think of it as you would that persons race or sexual identity or gender, because the next time could result in a warning, now that it has been explained.

[Rascolnikova]

I do see where you are coming from, Rascolnikova, and obviously age will tell you something about a person's ability, but only very vaguely. Somebody does not have more or less credibility simply because of their age.

So--a 30 year old healthy person who can't outrun me should be considered the same a a 95 year old healthy person who can't outrun me, if I'm looking at track coaches? All other credentials the same? I should just flip a coin?

Edit: to be clear, let's say they run the exact same speed, whether or not they can outrun me. . .



I remember the first 'exchange' we had you brought up the fact that you had 7 years more life experience that I had. That is true, you do have 7 years more life experience but that does not necessarily make you more learned on whatever topic you are discussing, or me less. Absolutely. I'd guess you're more qualified than me to comment on almost all of the topics in this forum. My range of expertise here is pretty slim, and I think I've taken you to task for most of it. :D

If you'll recall the context in which I brought that up, you'll notice that I was highlighting the absurdity of your assumption that a more developed life was necessarily more valuable than a less developed one, with regards to abortion.



I know, frankly, a lot more, generally, than most 20-5 year olds I've met, regardless of their greater 'life experience' (not to sound up myself, of course) and the arguments that I put forward in political discussion should be judged only on their own merits.
Life experience shouldn't be looked at quantitavely, but qualitively.Here I neither disagree nor doubt you in the slightest, except on one point; I don't see anything wrong with looking at both quality and quantity.



But I don't change my opinions that easily. I'd like to think my core 'goals' stay somewhat constant, it is just the methods that I would think were most effective in achieving my goals change as new evidence is discovered. Obviously with something like political theory, new evidence is crucial to judging the validity of theories.
Unlike you, if somebody much older than me didn't change their views with new evidence (and I think it's unfair to say that changes with new evidence are 'easy', or shallow) I would consider that more of an indication that they're not very bright, or at least aren't thinking too deeply about the opinions they hold, and that would be the same for somebody of any age.If the person older than you has had that qualitative experience you're so adamant about, they should have met much more of the evidence that is out there already; therefore, their opinions should have a lot of evidence behind them, and it should take something larger to shake them. For people your--our--age, we haven't had half a century to collect information. We all have to go on the best we've seen so far. Nothing wrong with that, it's just a bit of a limited system.

Age is not a central factor, but it is a factor. I don't see why the validity of developmental stages should be discarded at any point, if it directly applies. I didn't say a bit young for anything--I just said, a bit young--a phrase I'm content to also have applied to myself--which describes/explains behavior I would otherwise find less understandable. Youth isn't the only valid explanation there might be for it, it just happened to fit here.


I believe I would define ageism as any practice in which one allows generalizations or pre-suppositions about age to interfere with one's understanding of, description of, or action on a person's actual competence.

If we are to have science, we must be able to reference correlations between things. I am interested in understanding in what cases you find it discriminatory to reference these kinds of correlations, and in which you do not.