Mitchell Stevens. You can't jump higher than the ceiling

The years, needless to say, take their toll. You don’t have that strength in your hands, your reaction becomes slower, you want to read a newspaper - you reach for your glasses, the hair on your head keeps getting thinner and thinner, and the ability to comprehend the depths of rock poetry disappears somewhere. And finally, the main question, fundamentally important for those of us who value their brains no less than others value their pumped up abs: the question is whether a person’s thinking abilities fall into the sad list announced above. Perhaps the best evidence for an affirmative answer comes from those whose careers directly depend on being in good intellectual shape: chess players, poets, inventors, mathematicians or, to take a classic example, physicists.

Paul Dyrek, who received the Nobel Prize in Physics at age thirty-one for work he completed at age twenty-five, expressed his feelings in poetry:

For a physicist there is no worse misfortune,
Than age is a disease over which the mind has no control.
It’s better to hide in the fatal grave,
Why vegetate among those over thirty. 1

Newton developed the basis of his laws of dynamics and his theory of gravity before he was twenty-five (although he did not complete his famous work Principia Mathematica until he was forty-four). Although the general theory of relativity was not published until Einstein was thirty-six, its original version was published (along with his work on photoelectron emission, for which, incidentally, the scientist was awarded the Nobel Prize) by him at the age of twenty-six. “A person who has not made a significant contribution to science before he is thirty, ” the author of the theory of relativity himself once stated bluntly, “ will never make one again . ” Heisenberg came up with quantum mechanics at the age of twenty-three and the uncertainty principle at twenty-five.

Fortunately, people achieve great achievements even at a later age, but only in those areas of intellectual activity where work proceeds more slowly and success is not so dependent on sudden flashes of genius. This happens, for example, in history, geology or in the literary field. Tolstoy finished the novels War and Peace and Anna Karenina when he was already over forty. Dostoevsky completed work on The Brothers Karamazov at fifty-one. Although Goethe published “The Sorrows of Young Werther” in his twenties, he finished the second part of “Faust” only when he was already in his ninth decade.

But in other areas of scientific endeavor, in which - such as physics - the mind must be prepared to handle a large variety of facts and concepts, one cannot help but notice the detrimental effect of age on the ability to make discoveries. Bobby Fischer became the world chess champion when he was twenty-nine years old and remained at the top until he was thirty-three, when he was defeated by twenty-four-year-old Anatoly Karpov, who in turn lost the champion title to twenty-two-year-old Garry Kasparov. (Kasparov himself was thirty-four when he lost embarrassingly to IBM’s young computer.)

Ideas for new technologies also tend to arise in the minds of young people. Thomas Edison invented the phonograph at the age of thirty, and the notorious electric light bulb at thirty-two. Guillemo Marconi built the first "wireless telegraph" when he was twenty-one; Philo Farnsworth was the same age when he assembled the first working electronic television. Alan Turing suggested that a machine could perform logical operations (that is, he actually predicted the possibility of a computer) at the age of twenty-five.

Robert Kenigel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, author of a wonderful biography of a mathematician called The Man Who Knew Infinity, believes that in this field of activity “ it is part of the culture. It almost goes without saying that later in life - after thirty or forty years - the mathematician is losing ground . " The feeling that we seem to be hitting a chronological cognitive “ceiling” is, without a doubt, “part of the culture” also in theoretical physics, despite the fact that among physicists who are not inclined to succumb to various kinds of phobias, it is quite difficult to find anyone willing to admit This fact.

“Nobody wants to admit that their creative powers are past their prime ,” says Alan Lightman, a Harvard astrophysicist who just found the courage to make such a confession in the pages of the New York Times . “ It’s a very unpleasant feeling. Physicists are like gymnasts: they "are superior to the average citizen in some specific parameter. And their self-identification depends on this special parameter. That is why it is so difficult to accept that you are no longer the same person as before . " (Lightman himself “shifted” in time to another field of activity, where age is not an obstacle to creative achievements: in 1993, a critically acclaimed novel called “Einstein’s Dreams” came out of his pen, and recently the next one, “Diagnosis,” appeared. )

“Neither the dreams of a tender childhood, nor the encouraging parental instructions, nor lectures at the best universities in the country ,” Lightman wrote in the Times , “ prepared me for such an early old age, for the fact that at thirty-five it would be time for me to retire . ”

Of course, a university physics course does not include seminars devoted to overcoming premature intellectual stagnation. “No one talks about this openly, ” admits an elderly graduate student from Princeton University, “ but the mythology, according to which all great physicists made their discoveries in their early youth, creates a very specific atmosphere . ” His colleagues' uncertainty about the future increases as teenage graduate students increasingly begin to appear on the faculty.

Legends about brilliant insights that occur exclusively among twenty-year-old scientists, as well as the general feeling of stagnation after thirty or forty, still cannot be considered proof of the existence of an age ceiling. When studying such issues, it is worth first of all turning to statistical data. Perhaps the best "historiometric" work in this area was carried out by Keith Simonton, who examined the scientific activity of more than two hundred famous scientists. This study brings us as close as possible to answering the question: is there such a thing as a decline in intellectual abilities as we age; and if there is, then at what age exactly does our mind begin to weaken?

Dr. Simonton, widely regarded as the field's leading authority, concluded that physicists, mathematicians and technology developers tend to make their "biggest contributions" to their field before the age of forty, and their "last significant contributions" to science - on average in the mid-fifties. For biologists, as well as for representatives of other natural sciences, the “last significant contribution” usually occurs in the late fifties.

In stark contrast are humanities scholars who specialize in the study of history or philosophy. Simonton's research shows that, on average, they "do not reach the pinnacle of their scientific careers until they are sixty years old." (We dare say that individuals who write articles for online magazines also fall into this category.)

So, our ability to penetrate the mysteries of the behavior of subatomic particles, write equations and invent new machines, undoubtedly fades over time. And, as we have to admit, quite quickly. There is an age ceiling, although we do not encounter it at such an early age as Lightman, let alone Dyrek, believes.

But before leaving the scientific field, the “older” physicist should still remember that there is an exception to every rule: you can always count on the fact that your career will not be the average. Columbia University's Brian Greene, who at thirty-eight hopes his biggest work is yet to come, cites as an example the career of Edward Whitten, who is eleven years his senior and yet remains one of the leading researchers in his field. . There are more impressive exceptions. Physicist Sylvain Schweber points to the example of Hans Bethe of Cornwall University, who in his nineties is still at the forefront of science.

True, Schweber himself left physics at the age of fifty and began studying the history of science. “I felt that I was ceasing to be a creative physicist ,” he recalls. “ Age played a role in many ways here. New research and concepts began to appear in my field (quantum field theory), but for some reason I no longer saw them . ”

Why does the ability to “see” new things in physics and related sciences depend on age? Howard Gardner, a professor of cognition and education at Harvard University, is among the scientists who believe it's not our brains that are to blame, but rather the changing circumstances of our lives as we age. “I don’t think there is any age limit to the process of cognition itself that, strictly speaking, prevents physicists or mathematicians from making significant discoveries after the age of thirty ,” says Gardner, who recently wrote a book on the subject of intelligence. For those who want to become creative long-livers in the field of exact sciences, Gardner advises to refrain from the overly active activities of various kinds that aging people sometimes force themselves into: “Don’t try to get married; don’t try to take administrative positions; and finally, don’t try to give too many talks. post-Nobel speeches" .

One forty-five-year-old physics professor (who is still worried not about post-Nobel speeches, but about two children in the house, despite the fact that his wife is busy at work) said that he recently managed to make a breakthrough in his work thanks to two sleepless nights in a row. “I carefully chose these nights: so that the next day there would be no lecture or I wouldn’t have to take the children to school ,” explains the professor. “ And, frankly speaking, I don’t have very many such nights . ” And yet, the consequence of the middle-aged professor’s nightly vigils was “exhaustion, stress and irritability when communicating with children.” Meanwhile, everything was different before. “As a student or graduate student, ” the professor recalls, “ I often sat at work all night long. This happened even when almost everything had already been done. And the point here is not the desire to finish the work quickly - what is important is complete immersion in the problem.” .

Speaking about the physiological factor, we can assume that energy decreases with age - for example, physical strength no longer allows a person to stay up at night. “When I was in my twenties, I could work forty-eight hours without a break ,” says Lightman. “ And after thirty or forty, most of us simply don’t have enough strength for this anymore . ”

Another factor from the field of physiology is the speed of thinking. As we get older, we begin to move more slowly, and even speak more slowly than before. Is it surprising that over the years we begin to think a little slower than in our youth? But does the loss of mental speed really play such a fundamental role? “Let’s say you actually start to slow down a little ,” says creativity researcher Howard Gruber, who is seventy-seven and one of the oldest scientists I interviewed for this article. “You would n’t think it should.” will ultimately prevent you from doing your job . " Indeed: older grandmasters, for example, play quite well in matches without a timer.

There is another theory. Young people “are more prepared to embrace new things, ” says physicist and science historian Gerald Holton, 78, of Harvard, “ because their careers are not built on old achievements . ” Simonton, a specialist in historiometry, offers an interesting opinion on this matter. According to his observations, new ideas are born “from disparate mental elements.” As we age, Simonton believes, these disparate elements neatly formulate a clear picture of the world in our heads. In too clear a picture. New facts, new information that we receive from the outside no longer fall on uncultivated soil, but neatly fit into an already built scheme. We no longer have any opportunity to build a radically new scheme.

In addition, young people, according to law enforcement data, show a much greater tendency to act recklessly. In this regard, Professor Gardner gives one more piece of advice to scientists who do not want to grow old: “If you are in the hard sciences and want to remain creative after fifty, be prepared to take a big risk and fail. Even if this risky move could steal a decade from you of your remaining two or three decades . "

All of us, with the possible exception of some particularly frivolous youth, want to believe that our mind will retain its strength and power until old age. Considering our vital interest in this, all the above reasoning, which explains the decline in productivity among physicists and typologically related scientists, may seem not so pessimistic. Of course, we are no longer as attentive, a little less energetic, a little slower and more conservative. But all these factors, if desired, can be overcome (if, of course, you try hard) or at least compensate: you can decide to break the marital ties; you can drink more coffee; you can devote more time to mental work; You can finally try to become bolder. In a word, we can (if, of course, we are mentally prepared for this) regain our manic enthusiasm and, in every sense, uncertainty - the features of bygone youth.

However, some cognitive psychologists believe (and some honest physicists admit) that none of this is actually possible. There is indisputable evidence that over the years our brains lose one important quality. A better term for this quality is “working memory,” which is how Wendy Rogers (Georgia Polytechnic Institute), who studies cognitive aging, defines it as “everything you can hold in your head at the same time.” Using computer terminology, we can simply call this quality “RAM”. Physicists, chess grandmasters and inventors must be able to simultaneously think through a fairly large number of thoughts, keep in their heads quite a lot of “disparate mental elements”, from which something new is formed. In other words, RAM is the space where you can manipulate these elements.

What happens to our “working memory” over time? The answer to this question is not so simple, since it is difficult to find criteria for comparing and measuring memory properties. But, according to Rogers, it can definitely be said that it flourishes between twenty and thirty years, and then declines. Another expert in this field, Tim Salthouse from the University of Virginia, believes that the peak occurs around the age of thirty. The difference is small. And all this, frankly speaking, looks disappointing.

Over the years, our brain loses something important, just as our body loses reflexes. However, how significant this loss is is still unclear. Is it because Einstein did not give us any new brilliant theories that his “working memory” at thirty-six years old was no longer what it used to be? Or did the inevitable inertia of thinking prevent him from recognizing quantum mechanics? Unknown. Can we compensate for weakened RAM using a notebook or laptop? Unknown.

However, it is known - and here again we take an optimistic note - what cognitive advantages age gives us. “The basis of your knowledge—everything you know about the world—crystallizes as you age ,” Rogers says. This is encouraging, and in fact, it is a compelling argument in defense of old age. “The older a person is, the more choices he has—he has a lot to choose from ,” writes Holton, who, by my count, published six books after he turned sixty.

According to Hans Bethe, the oldest scientist interviewed for this article, "the main advantage of old age is that you already know a lot and have mastered many methods of knowledge . " Such knowledge is certainly an advantage in itself. Especially for those who are not going to fight in the fields of exact sciences. And the insight and experience that comes from extensive knowledge play a big role even for those who have dedicated their lives “merely” to studying the patterns on ancient Greek urns. These qualities also have a certain significance for theoretical physicists, although we, of course, do not have a sufficient number of examples on this topic.

There are, however, people like Bethe, a Nobel laureate who, in his time, took part in the creation of the atomic and hydrogen bombs, was an adviser to three presidents on weapons issues, and who, at ninety-four, continues to write works on theoretical physics. Therefore, perhaps, the last word in the discussion about the decline of human intelligence should be given to him.

“In a certain sense, I am no exception ,” explains Bethe. “ My best works were written at the ages of twenty-three, twenty-two and twenty-one. But I continue to work now, because I think science is the most interesting thing in the world.” " occupation in the world .

Feed Magazine

Translated by Ilya Kun

Translator's note:


1 My wife translated the poems.