Less extremely, there is the adage that science progresses one funeral at a time
Paul Abramson, Ronald Inglehart, and others, have similarly suggested that value changes largely occur via generational replacement. See discussion here.
I think this is really difficult to truly assess because there is a huge confounder. The more you age the worse your memory gets, your creativity decreases, your ability to focus decreases, etc., etc.
If all of that was fixed with anti-aging it may not be true that science progresses one funeral at a time because the people at the top of their game can keep producing great work instead of becoming geriatric while still holding status/power in the system.
Also, it could be a subconscious thing: “why bother truly investigating my beliefs at age 70, I’m going to die soon anyway, let me just continue with the inertia until I retire soon”
Also, this seems possible to fix with better institutional structures/incentives. Academia is broken in many ways, this is just one of them.
My comment wasn’t about science but about political and moral values. I doubt that the reason people don’t change them more is cognitive decline, since it seems that slowness to change them sets in long before cognitive decline sets in.
The same comment also applies to:
“why bother truly investigating my beliefs at age 70, I’m going to die soon anyway, let me just continue with the inertia until I retire soon”
It’s not just people who are 70+ who are slow to change their moral and political views.
Paul Abramson, Ronald Inglehart, and others, have similarly suggested that value changes largely occur via generational replacement. See discussion here.
I think this is really difficult to truly assess because there is a huge confounder. The more you age the worse your memory gets, your creativity decreases, your ability to focus decreases, etc., etc.
If all of that was fixed with anti-aging it may not be true that science progresses one funeral at a time because the people at the top of their game can keep producing great work instead of becoming geriatric while still holding status/power in the system.
Also, it could be a subconscious thing: “why bother truly investigating my beliefs at age 70, I’m going to die soon anyway, let me just continue with the inertia until I retire soon”
Also, this seems possible to fix with better institutional structures/incentives. Academia is broken in many ways, this is just one of them.
My comment wasn’t about science but about political and moral values. I doubt that the reason people don’t change them more is cognitive decline, since it seems that slowness to change them sets in long before cognitive decline sets in.
The same comment also applies to:
It’s not just people who are 70+ who are slow to change their moral and political views.
I don’t think this is a dominant factor, but my impression is that cognitive decline sets in very early. (e.g. reaction speed peaks in mid-20s).
There was a recent paper that challenged that view. And crystallised intelligence likely peaks later than fluid intelligence. But yeah even if it turned out to be a non-trivial factor it’s likely not a dominant one until quite late.