I just finished reading/skimming the book title in the thread title: summary is as follows:
The author (PhD Prof of Psychology, Fairleigh S. Dickinson Jr Professor in Public Policy and founding director of the Stanford Center on Longevity) posits there are five myths of aging:
1) Older people are miserable - not true, in fact as a demographic are happier than all others. The aging process allows the sum of experiences to be a better balance from which to adjust one's temperamental state. In other words, we get better at remembering the good times and ignoring the bad ones, in addition, we get better at picking and choosing our battles.
2) DNA is destiny - not true - is one variable which with environment can determine one's life - she reiterates the healthy lifestyle - no smoking, regular exercise, keep weight in check, maintain social interactions
3) Work Hard, Retire Harder - her she posits the current model is broken (retire at 65) and states we should work longer - but do it a la "Work Less, Live More" model
4) Older people drain our resources - she doesn't truly refute this but proposes ways to change the current US social safety net to adjust better to the different resource needs of the elderly
5) We age alone - she breaks the demographic into two: rich and poor, who have very different aging experiences. We tend to value fewer closer relationships as we age.
The author then goes on to describe a 'slowing down' of the life cycle based on the historical lengthening of human lives due to increased preventive health discoveries (food, vaccines, etc). She proposes that the 'adolescent stage' start in the teens and last until 25, the young adult stage from 25-40, the middle age from 40-80 - with retirement being a gradual phase-out at 80.
The author has a socialistic/collectivist bias in her solution set - more governmental or 'outside' assistance in determining what is best. However, her basis for her proposal in terms of the increased longevity is valid. The implementation of her solution set may not be what I would desire, however, she makes some good points. And, some of the cohort here have done just what she advises individually.
I give the book a C - I enjoyed the reading more when she discussed the research results and less when she recited anecdotes and/or her obvious world view infected her proposed solution set. This book might be worth a skim, but not a full, sit-down read.
Why I post this here is that the ideas she has may be anathema to many here in terms of the lifecycle map she has proposed - or it may not be an anathema. Generally, people wish to be productive in one way or another, it's who decides what is productive and how it is done that is in question (i.e. you may believe you are productive golfing, while someone else may not believe that is productive - the key being that is a personal choice and not one that is forced upon you, as can be in a 'work' situation)
The author (PhD Prof of Psychology, Fairleigh S. Dickinson Jr Professor in Public Policy and founding director of the Stanford Center on Longevity) posits there are five myths of aging:
1) Older people are miserable - not true, in fact as a demographic are happier than all others. The aging process allows the sum of experiences to be a better balance from which to adjust one's temperamental state. In other words, we get better at remembering the good times and ignoring the bad ones, in addition, we get better at picking and choosing our battles.
2) DNA is destiny - not true - is one variable which with environment can determine one's life - she reiterates the healthy lifestyle - no smoking, regular exercise, keep weight in check, maintain social interactions
3) Work Hard, Retire Harder - her she posits the current model is broken (retire at 65) and states we should work longer - but do it a la "Work Less, Live More" model
4) Older people drain our resources - she doesn't truly refute this but proposes ways to change the current US social safety net to adjust better to the different resource needs of the elderly
5) We age alone - she breaks the demographic into two: rich and poor, who have very different aging experiences. We tend to value fewer closer relationships as we age.
The author then goes on to describe a 'slowing down' of the life cycle based on the historical lengthening of human lives due to increased preventive health discoveries (food, vaccines, etc). She proposes that the 'adolescent stage' start in the teens and last until 25, the young adult stage from 25-40, the middle age from 40-80 - with retirement being a gradual phase-out at 80.
The author has a socialistic/collectivist bias in her solution set - more governmental or 'outside' assistance in determining what is best. However, her basis for her proposal in terms of the increased longevity is valid. The implementation of her solution set may not be what I would desire, however, she makes some good points. And, some of the cohort here have done just what she advises individually.
I give the book a C - I enjoyed the reading more when she discussed the research results and less when she recited anecdotes and/or her obvious world view infected her proposed solution set. This book might be worth a skim, but not a full, sit-down read.
Why I post this here is that the ideas she has may be anathema to many here in terms of the lifecycle map she has proposed - or it may not be an anathema. Generally, people wish to be productive in one way or another, it's who decides what is productive and how it is done that is in question (i.e. you may believe you are productive golfing, while someone else may not believe that is productive - the key being that is a personal choice and not one that is forced upon you, as can be in a 'work' situation)
