Aging and skills

You have to consider age when you think about skills. Physical and cognitive skills have different perspectives about age. Physical skills like playing basketball have different characteristics than cognitive skills like playing chess. All the statistics about ages are from Michael Mauboussin´s book The Success Equation. It is a good book about skills and luck.

Physical skills

Different physical skills like sports have different optimal ages for peak performance. They are not the exact figures but small ranges of ages. Men and women have small differences between their peak ages depending on the sports. There are no specific ways to determine which physical skills have higher or lower peak ages. A simple answer is that skills that need more fast-twitch muscle fibers have lower peaks and skills that need more slow-twitch muscle fibers to have higher peaks. For example, running fast requires fast fibers, and endurance running requires slow fibers. Peak performance for running fast happens when you are 22-24-year-old male and 21-23 old female. Peak performance for endurance running is 26-28 for both genders.

There are also some other physical characteristics like the visual system and the body-eye-coordination that need to be considered. Visual acuity weakens when you age. Therefore, baseball batters lose their edge after a certain age. Basketball players need both, fast-twitch fibers and great body-eye-coordination, therefore their peak age (24-26) is lower than peak age for baseball (27-29). Athletes that rely only on their body-eye-coordination like golfers (30-35) have higher peak ages than other athletes.

Cognitive skills

Cognitive skills usually mean the ability to make decisions. If you want to make good decisions, you have to be able to understand the stimuli you confront, how it relies on the understanding you already had about the similar or relevant stimuli about the situation, to understand what stimuli to discard and what to use to make a decision and overcoming your intuition if it is needed. Aging has a much slower effect on your ability to use your cognitive skills than using your physical skills. Aging helps in a stable environment and when you have lots of time. Peak age is much lower in an unstable environment with the necessity to make fast decisions.

Cognitive skills can be divided into two different groups. The ability to solve new problems and the ability to solve problems that are related to your experiences. The first group is called fluid intelligence. It peaks around 20 and is in constant decline about one percentage point a year until you die or your brain has big damage like Alzheimers-disease. Your ability to resist your intuition when it is wrong declines when you get older so does your ability to plan for the future. In other words, you cannot change your patterns of thought as well as you were younger. Therefore, the faster speed of change in the modern world becomes harder as you become older. You also have to be younger to create new things.

You can grow your ability to use things you learned before grows until you die, but in your early forties, the growth slows. Your peak when you are old is not much higher than you were in your twenties. It is only about 25 percent higher. Your vocabulary, ability to understand historical events, and geography, all grow until you die. If the current situation is just one of those previous events, you probably understand it better than later generations, especially if you have time to think about it. Your creativity in putting together old information and/or being an experimental creator peak later.

The overall cognitive performance declines after a certain age. The peak age is about 45 years. You cannot fool yourself in any way. You have to accept this. Some things that combine novel and old things like personal finance have later peak ages. The peak in the ability to make good decisions on personal finance is about 53 years of age.

You can read more about aging and skills from Mauboussin´s book. Until next time!

-TT

Luck; Skill, or both?

Do you need luck, skill, or both to become successful? You can find many answers to this question. Some people say others have luck and they have great skills. Some people say you need both. The answer to this question starts with words ”It depends on.” and continues with ”what you are doing. Michael Mauboussin has written a great book, ”The Success Equation” which gives more answers to this question than I can give to you in this text.

Let's start with the definition of luck. It can be defined as ”A single unrelated event that gives you an advantage or a disadvantage.” Some people may say that you can work hard to be lucky. They say you can develop yourself to become luckier. These phrases do not apply to the definition of luck. What happens is that when you have better skills in what you do, luck strengthens your success. Skill can be defined as: ”An ability to use your understanding to execute an action or a decision.” The more skilled you are the better ability you have to do this on average. The last two words are the most essential ones. Single actions or decisions that give you a great result do not mean you are skilled. Great executions that you can deliver on an average day by day are the best symptoms of great skills.

Luck-skill-continuum

Different types of actions or decisions can be put into luck-skill-continuum. On one side of the continuum are actions or decisions that need only luck and on the other side are actions or decisions that need only luck. You can find most actions and decisions from the middle of the continuum. They are based on luck and skill. In the middle are the actions that are based on both luck and skill and from this point to the left luck becomes more important and from this point to the right skill becomes more important. Lottery and most games like roulette at the casino are completely on the left side of the continuum and games like chess are on the right side of the continuum. Ask yourself: ”Can you lose on purpose?” if you want to know about the position on the continuum. If you can lose on purpose, you are on the right side of the continuum. If you cannot, you are on the left side of the continuum. In the middle, you can find an author that sells lots of books. Shitty authors cannot sell any books, but good ones can still not sell if they are not lucky.

Three things tell you more about the actions or decisions and whether to put them to the left or right side of the continuum. The first one is the sample size. When you are on the right side of the continuum, even the small sample size of the results can tell you much about skills. For example, the time for a hundred-meter run can tell you whether the runner is a good or a bad one. In the lottery, you can put hundreds of coupons and how much you win tells you nothing. In other endeavors like playing poker, small samples tell you nothing about the skills of the player, but when you play hundreds or thousands of hands, more skilled players win and worse players lose much more.

The second one is the form of feedback you get. When you need to be skilled, the feedback you get is based on clear cause-effect relationships not random or complicated like on the left side of the continuum. In this side, the feedback you get will lead you to problems. You may think that you are skilled even though you are just lucky. This does not happen on the right side of the continuum.

The third one is the return to the average or to mean if you want to use the statistical word. When the endeavor is based on skill, the return to the average happens slowly. When the endeavor is based on luck, the return to the average happens fast. In the middle of the continuum, the speed of the return to the average is somewhere in between.

There is an interesting paradox about the role of luck in the middle of the continuum. The better the relative skills of the performers are, the more luck you need to perform better than average. What I mean with this is that when the average performance is closer to the best one, the more luck you need to succeed and vice versa. The bigger the difference between the average performer and the best performer there is, the less luck the best performers need. When this is the case, you have to be sure you are better than your opposition.

I kept this text short. Sorry for not publishing anything for a long time. Hopefully, I will get something published in the next two weeks after this.

-TT