Verified by 
Age is a funny thing. Most of us spend our childhoods and teens wishing we were older than we are, and then most of the rest of our lives wishing we were younger. Getting older is also rarely quite as we imagine. Right from our earliest days, it’s easy to think that people are different just because they are bigger or twice our age.
However, maybe one of the most important lessons of life is that even though we may learn new things, have different experiences, and accrue more aches and pains, we probably don’t ever change all that much. We’re likely to go on wanting to do the same sorts of things for as long as we can.
Our fundamental nature is indeed in many ways settled by the time of birth. The classic New York Longitudinal Study, carried out by Thomas, Chess, Birch, and colleagues, began in 1956 and followed up 141 children for some decades. Nine basic characteristics, including energy levels, adaptability, mood, distractibility, and persistence, that were identified shortly after birth showed considerable continuity over time. Individual identity was established very early on.
Armed with our basic personal characteristics, we then develop both physically and cognitively as we mature until we reach our peak when we then start on the process of decline. But the timetable and degree of change are different for everyone. Our genes are important, but so too are our experiences, our lifestyle, and the amount of wear and tear to our bodies. With all these differences, does it really make sense to judge what we could or should be doing by the number of birthdays we’ve had?
Nonetheless, chronological age is the most common basis for determining whether or not we are old and accordingly, in some people’s eyes, whether we are too old to be doing certain things or behaving in particular ways. It may be a convenient signpost for such things as our working lives, eligibility for pensions and discounts, and, currently in Britain at least, the speed at which we are likely to be offered vaccination against COVID-19, but it tells only part of the story.
So whereas physiologists and medics may be largely concerned with the process of aging and the onset of functional decline, and statisticians more focused on categorisation and cohort analysis, psychologists are interested in cognitive, social, and other capabilities as well as the determinants of more or less ‘successful' aging. Thus while the World Health Organisation might define an ‘older person’ as someone ‘whose age has passed the median life expectancy at birth,’ we would be more interested in the individual human dimension. ‘You are as old as you feel’ may be a cliché but it may also be true.
And indeed our years are no certain measure of how we feel and what we are capable of. The women over 60 years in my recent study were asked, "How old is old?" Perhaps not surprisingly, a very comment response was that it is 10 or 15 years older than they already were. They all felt active and productive and hardly anyone relished the idea of being deemed elderly. They hardly felt any different to how they’d been 10, 20, or 30 years earlier.
Similar objections to being written off in what might seem patronising terms were reported when The University of the Third Age charity in the U.K. asked 1,000 people aged at least 60 what the most demeaning terms they’ve been called. Worst of all was ‘geriatric’ followed by ‘past it’ and ‘fuddy duddy.’ Over two-thirds of the sample declared that such terms were completely inaccurate as a description of people their age today.
These respondents have a point as it is easy enough to find plenty of examples of politicians, actors, musicians, academics, and others in influential positions who may be at least in their 70s or 80s. Witness, for example, the recent election at 78 of Joe Biden in the United States, or the continued reign at 94 of Queen Elizabeth II in the United Kingdom. Or in the field of entertainment, think of Clint Eastwood, who is still making and acting in films at 90, or Judi Dench, who remains much in demand at 86. The list could go on.
OK, these may be exceptions rather than the rule, but they do clearly underline the fact that nobody should be deemed incapable just because they have passed some particular milestone. This is even more the case as the significance of chronological age is not static.
First of all, we are, on average, living longer. This may in part reflect change in the natural life span. But we are also better at looking after ourselves through diet, exercise, and mental stimulation, and there are more medicines and medical interventions than ever to keep us going when we need them. The aim for most of us is to keep old age free of disease or disability for as long as possible. And to carry on doing the things we want to.
These things will, of course, be very different for everyone and reflect personal interests and abilities. But the main point seems to be that if somebody has asked whether they are too old to do this or to do that, then they probably aren’t. In a much-repeated quote apparently misattributed to C.S. Lewis, ‘You are never too old to set another goal, or to dream a new dream.’ I for one admire this positive philosophy and hope I will never give up on it. Having ambitions, whether or not they are fulfilled, is sustaining. To fall back on another cliché, life is often about the journey rather than the destination. It seems to me that whether you get there or not doesn’t always matter. What really counts is to keep on going in the direction of choice. As far as is practicably possible, anyway.
References
Thomas, A., Chess, S., Birch, H. G., Hertzig, M. E., & Korn, S. (1963). Behavioural Individuality in Early Childhood. New York: New York University Press.
