this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2023
694 points (97.8% liked)
People Twitter
5070 readers
1835 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a tweet or similar
- No bullying.
- Be excellent to each other.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What's the cutoff? My instinct is 1975 but then that gives a 50 year period for 'mid' and only 25 each for 'early'/'late'. So is the cutoff between mid and late 1966?
I feel like early, middle and late aren't continuous, and there's gaps.
I don't think 1932 is early or mid 1900s.
Kinda like how young, old and middle aged don't have an immediate cutoff. A 31 year old is neither young nor middle aged, and a 54 year old is past middle aged, but they aren't old yet.
Funny how you see gaps. I feel they overlap. For decades Like 31-34 is early 30s, 33-37 is mid, and 38 39 are late. (Late being a smaller interval because everyone likes it that way.)
I think the about the same proportions work for centuries.
But I definitely see gaps in being young, old, and middle-age.
I've always gone 30-33 is early, 34-36 is mid, and 37-39 is late myself.
I agree here. This is what I go by
Hmm, I normally say (since I turned 30) that 0-29 are young, 30-59 is middle aged, and 60-89 is old (90+ is super old/ancient 😆).
This hurts nearly as much as the OP.
Middle-aged starts at 30?! Fuck I’m old. At 53, middle-age didn’t start til 45, 75-89 is old, and I’d put super old at 95+.
Then again, I may be skewed a bit since my 88 year old dad is sharper than most people I know, still works his regular job in aerospace, and drives Uber in his spare time to keep himself young. He may live to 120 at this rate.
The problem with your scale is it's all over the place. If middle age doesn't start until 45 then is 44 young? Why are there 44 years of young, 30 years of middle age, and only 15 years of old?
Is this some imperial age measurement?
Because human life, aging, and experience aren’t linear, they’re logarithmic.
Yeah, 66 is about right, assuming you split the century into three 33 year chunks.