I know for a fact that researchers in their early 20s change their mind quite a lot, and so a cure to aging would also mean more of that.
As I wrote here, I think this could be due (in part) to biases accumulated by being in a field (and being alive) longer, not necessarily (just) brain aging. I’d guess that more neuroplasticity or neurogenesis is better than less, but I don’t think it’s the whole problem. You’d need people to lose strong connections, to “forget” more often.
Also, people’s brains up until their mid 20s are still developing and pruning connections.
There are some scientists who roamed around and never really crystallized (famous examples being Freeman Dyson and Francis Crick)
George Church is over 60 and I’ve heard some people refer to him as a “child”, given that he seems to not strongly identify with strongly held beliefs or connections (he’s also not especially attached to a certain identity). I talked to him—he cares more about regeneration/rejuvenation—or maintaining the continuity of consciousness and the basic gist of his personality/mode of being than about maintaining specific memories (regeneration/rejuvenation research may ultimately come down to replacing old parts of your brain or identity with new untrained tissue—this is where developmental biology/SCRB becomes especially relevant). In fact, he’s unironically bullish about anti-aging therapies coming in his lifetime
I think this could be due (in part) to biases accumulated by being in a field (and being alive) longer, not necessarily (just) brain aging.
I’m not convinced there is actually that much of a difference between long-term crystallization of habits and natural aging. I’m not qualified to say this with any sort of confidence. It’s also worth being cautious about confidently predicting the effects of something like this in either direction.