Many years ago, as a young undergrad, I ambushed Oliver Sacks right after he finished addressing a Music Therapy conference. I asked if I could run an idea by him, he said we could talk while he walked to his car. I explained my hypothesis of a potential cause of neurodegenerative diseases. He listened patiently then said "I have similar thoughts, the challenge is proving it". Then, just before stepping into his car, he said "If you are right, and can prove it, you would win the Nobel Prize. Good luck, young man." I doubt he remembers this conversation, but for me it was an amazing experience I will never forget. The lab I worked in wasn't equipped to study the idea, and I became the lab computer guy instead of a neuroscientist. But I am still grateful to the confidence given me in that short conversation.
No, I realized that as much as I really wanted to be a research scientist, my true love was computers. I ended up being the lab computer specialist. That led to a very rewarding career in software development. If they ever come up with a Nobel Prize for enterprise software development then maybe...
I worked for a while with a Turing Award winner. And indeed, he wasn't the type of person that had time to lose on a forum. He's been working a lot his whole life. But that being said, he wasn't the most interesting person in the world either. I had other colleagues who were far less accomplished professionally but with a much broader culture than him, including in computer science.
I wasn't trying to deprecate him. He was obviously super talented and it was a privilege for a nobody like me to work with someone of this caliber. But my point is that we should be careful with 'cults of personality'.
I think of Nobel Prize winners as what I will call "single function machines". That is, and this is purely speculative, they are focused on only typically one goal or area of interest maniacally.
The typical HN reader, by contrast, finds many things and almost everything and anything (as PG might say) interesting. [1]
"If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity. "
This is not to say that Nobel Prize winners aren't curious of course they are. But somehow I doubt they are all over the place. I find so many things interesting it's hard for me to stay focused some times with the distractions of what is available at your fingertips.
I have met a number of Nobel Prize winners in physics, and while it's dangerous to generalize, as a whole they seemed to me to actually be more interested in broader issues of physics and society. I can't say whether this changed after the prize thrust them into the limelight, but from my experience with Physics winners, your single-function hypothesis does not hold true. In fact, the Nobel laureate on my PhD reading committee is involved with a number of start ups and technologies and books all far afield of his Nobel research.
I've clarified my "single function hypothesis" to say that they would tend to not find "everything and anything" of interest which is what I thought I was saying in my original comment.
My point isn't that a Nobel Prize winner would be interested in "physics and society" or baseball or gardening or all three but they would not have a version of ADD (let's call it that for lack of a better diagnosis [1]) which caused them to continually fork on all sorts of things that just satisfied someone's curiosity so to speak. (I also noted in another comment that I found this as well in Physicians who I have known.)
[1] I don't have ADD but sometimes I wonder if there is a version of intellectual ADD.
Not sure if I agree with this (Linus Pauling comes to mind), but speaking anecdotally, I once had breakfast with a recent winner of a MacArthur grant (the so-called Genius Grant) expecting to be the recipient of untold wisdom. Instead he gave me a blow by blow explanation of the delayed burial of William the Conqueror, his pet topic. Seemingly unconcerned that describing a dead king's corpse exploding wasn't great breakfast conversation.
I've read a few counter comments here which indicate I may be off in my thinking.
That said I don't think your one example proves my theory wrong simply because I didn't say that someone couldn't have other interests what I believe I was trying to say is that they aren't "all over the place". The question really is "how many pet topics" do they have I guess. I would just think that that type of brain has to be more focused.
I've also noticed this with Physicians as well (anecdote of course). I've told them different things and they tend to react as if "wow who would know that or think of that" type of stuff. Because my brain (and I'm not even saying this is an advantage) tends to be all over the place in what I find interesting. So maybe it's a matter of degree not an absolute that can be measured.
For example "hey, do you know what kind of animal that foot on the front steps is from? There's a blood trail behind it but the cats aren't very interested."
Feynman did his Nobel work a long time ago and early in his long career. I suspect that achieving a science-Nobel-level breakthrough these days usually happens many years later in a career, because getting to the outer edge takes many more years of study than it used to. Breakthroughs requiring less study are more likely already to have been made, and each generation has to reach higher for the remaining fruit.
I also suspect that reaching a science-Nobel-worthy breakthrough requires not just more years but more-focused work. Feynman may simply have been an exception, but he might also represent something that was possible then but has become less possible with each passing year.
I don't know about Nobel Prize winners, but I remember an interview with Ian Thorpe at the height of his swimming career, and in response to the question "So, have you read any good books lately?" he said "I'm a swimmer, mate". Single function machine indeed.
> The typical HN reader, by contrast, finds many things and almost everything and anything (that PG might say) interesting.
FYP.
Seriously though, I expect you're true that most Nobel winners are highly focused. But I expect so are many (not most) regular readers of HN.
There are probably on the order of a thousand living Nobel Prize winners in the world, or one in seven million or so. In developed countries, where most of HN's readership would come from, the concentration should be higher. My understanding is that HN's regular usership is in the 6 figures, so most likely no Nobel Prize winners there. Not sure how many users have ever registered to HN though. Perhaps there is an HN account belonging to a Prize winner...
HN is, compared to the population of the West or even just the smartest 1% from which Nobelists would be drawn, a small place; on top of which, it skews young (Nobels are increasingly awarded to older people), and on top of that, I get the impression from media articles and other things that as soon as a top scientist become a Nobelist-with-a-capital-N, their already minimal free time shrinks to a size requiring an electron microscope to see.
It was my impression that the things the Nobel prize is awarded (at least the more famous ones) are one's that were discovered when the recipient wasn't that old, just that the prize is awarded a considerable time after the discovery. After all, the discovery has to prove its importance and stand the test of time.
Also, and it's pure speculation — if I were a Nobel prize laureate, I'd be able to discuss professionally interesting topics with more or less whomever I'd like, live, or in private or group correspondence, instead of a public forum.
> It was my impression that the things the Nobel prize is awarded (at least the more famous ones) are one's that were discovered when the recipient wasn't that old
It depends on the field, there's some analyses floating around about that. But the question wasn't, are there future Nobelists reading HN...
Depends on how you measure Nobel prizes and prize-winners :) .
If you include members of institutions that have won Nobel prizes (for instance the Nobel Peace Prize), then yes. If you mean one of the 860 individuals, I don't know, but I guess not.
That something, likely some kind of protein (not aluminum as was suspected back then), was blocking retrograde motion within axons, leading to reduced ability to support synaptic transmissions and causing ALS. I learned later that I was heading in the right direction, but that others were well ahead of me in the research. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurofibrillary_tangle
My father died from complications from ALS last year, 70 years old - he was only diagnosed with it a few months before he died, although his first symptoms appeared a little over a year before that.
Having been spared from most terminal illnesses, it was surprising that such an unknown and fast working illness exsited. I knew people could get sick and die, but I always imagined it would be something more ... well known, like cancer. Or perhaps a stroke or heart attack.
That we still have illnesses that we know so little about is surprising. What makes ALS so special?
We don't understand the brain well, and we understand how to make changes to it even less (at a very minimum, the blood-brain barrier makes things very difficult). As a result, all neurodegenerative diseases are extremely troublesome to fight.
Anyone who is even remotely interested in end of life issues, and anyone who is a physician, should really read Atul Gawandes Being Mortal. Many people are unable to live their lives out the way Dr Sacks hopes to, simply because the medical establishment as is doesn't really allow for it.
The best takeaway from this essay is that, in the end, you have to focus entirely on things that matter to you most. But you should also be clear on this with your treating providers - so at the end you are spending time with your loved ones, and not going in and out of the hospital.
Having not read the book and the viewpoint it presents I do feel like there's also a bit of responsibility - I hesitate to use "blame" or "fault" - on the patient or patient's family for keeping them alive on machines and treatment that cost way too much. Perhaps the establishment is an enabler in that sense but what would they be if they didn't respect the wishes of the dying?
"The hospital lawyer mentioned during orientation that it never fails that the family members who live in the area and have spent lots of time with their mother/father/grandparent over the past few years are willing to let them go, but someone from 2000 miles away flies in at the last second and makes ostentatious demands that EVERYTHING POSSIBLE must be done for the patient.
Your doctors will nod their heads and tell your family they respect their wishes. It will be a lie. Oh, sure, they will carry out the family’s wishes, in terms of continuing to provide the care. But respect? [...]"
> because the medical establishment as is doesn't really allow for it.
I have many relatives and friends in medicine. They will let you end your life the way you want to (for the most part) but you have to be firm about what you want. Doctors don't like telling people they're dying because it is a hard conversation to have. And most people, even those who are aware of the statistics, like to cling to the hope that they could be different.
Thatse why it is important to know that, statistically, hospice provides better and longer life than aggressive treatment of advanced cancer. Hospice patience enjoy more hours of non-treatment "real life" than agressive-care patients (who spend far more time in hospital beds or surgery instead of outside, with family, Etc)
I just finished this book a couple weeks ago. It was definitely a great one. Although, a difficult book to read, purely from the perspective of the topic. Growing old and/or dying are both topics people tend to ignore.
I also hadn't fully grasped the condition of growing old, itself. No one wants to die, but growing old and losing your independence is a disease all to its own, described in vivid detail in the book.
(I also appreciate that the author was so honest about mentioning taking antibiotics before drinking water from the Ganges [and still getting sick!]).
I heartily second this recommendation (Being Mortal). It is very well written and thoughtful.
In fact, when my wife gave it to me, I wasn't even interested in end of life issues - who wants to read about death in the middle of winter? But I was immediately sucked in and enjoyed it thoroughly.
This is one of the most honest and genuine observations I've ever heard; an observation that one can likely only fully appreciate in the face of mortality.
Please, if anyone else reading this has the same cancer, do not listen to any medical professional saying to lay back and die. Sacks was, lucky if it can be called that, to have the less aggressive strain of Ocular Melanoma that metastasized. The most aggressive usually results in death in 18 months, but there is progress being made to extend this to 4 years. Look up Dr Sato of Thomas Jefferson. He's the expert on this cancer. Your loved ones will be extremely grateful for an extra 2 years with you, and the best treatments barely degrade the quality of your life at all.
Eeking out an extra (potential) 2 years in exchange for the mental and physical torture of chemotherapy is not worthwhile for some people, particularly the elderly.
Chemotherapy does not work on this type of cancer. The best treatments, with the exception of one semi-annual treatment, give 2 days of fatigue and that's about it. The physical torture is not there, only the mental torture of having a terminal illness. Additionally, this cancer does not cause your health to degrade until the very end.
You're right about it depending on the person though. There is just a lot of misconception about this particular cancer, which is why I commented about it.
My mother was on chemo for years. Her only 'suffering' was tiredness, and she survived far beyond what was predicted for her. For others it is horrible and/or ineffective. You won't know if you don't try.
If you are reading that and discovering Oliver Sacks for the first time, or just haven't read any of his books, may I recommend that you get a copy of Uncle Tungsten? It's wonderful memoir of growing up in London and a history of chemistry.
I love all of his books, but for me Seeing Voices has been a life changer in how it shifted my perspective of the world and of how we should treat each other.
Not that I would consider myself a terrible person before reading it, but it made me aware of wrong ideas I had because I never gave them much thought because I did not need to think about them.
Basically the hearing equivalent of white or male privilege. Which kind of opened up the thoughts about other privileges I might have been unaware of.
May I recommend that you just read everything. Maybe I'm just a grief-stricken fan, but I'm pretty sure that Oliver Sacks hasn't written a sup-bar or un-interesting sentence in his entire life.
I feel intensely alive, and I want and hope in the time that remains to deepen my friendships, to say farewell to those I love, to write more, to travel if I have the strength, to achieve new levels of understanding and insight...I feel a sudden clear focus and perspective. There is no time for anything inessential. I must focus on myself, my work and my friends. I shall no longer look at “NewsHour” every night. I shall no longer pay any attention to politics or arguments about global warming.
Great advice for everyone. We are all dying. The magnitude of our vectors may be different, but the direction is always the same.
The first book I ever bought the woman who became my beautiful wife was Sacks's The Man who Mistook his Wife for a Hat. She had mentioned enjoying some Psychology studies, so it seemed relevant.
His writing then, as now, leaps off the page and dances with your mind. Sadly, we will soon lose any possible new writing, and joyously he leaves a lifetime of work as a legacy.
The Man who Mistook his Wife for a Hat is such a wonderful book - perhaps my favourite. The characters and ailments of each case are fascinating, but it's Sacks' empathy and understanding that really makes the books special.
Every few pages I would stop reading, stare into space and contemplate the unusual perspective that he has elucidated. Not many books have such an effect.
If you haven't read The Man who Mistook his Wife for a Hat, please add it to the top of your list.
This is also one of my favourite books of all time, and many of Dr Sacks' books are other top contenders. Quite apart from his wonderful human aspect, and the fascination and empathy he has with his patients, it's very thought provoking. I had never really considered how totally wonderful our perception and consciousness mechanisms are until I was forced to by reading his accounts of patients who for one reason or another are missing them. For example, the title story is a man whose vision is perfect, but totally lacks the ability to synthesise the forms he's perceiving into objects, so he has no idea what he's looking at. Truly fascinating. What amazing abilities we all take for granted.
I should write a note for my wife and children in case an accident happens, so I can express to them how happy a life I've had with them, even if I died before realizing my dreams.
I use a dead man switch to email my wife and eldest child in case something were to happen to me. Basically a good bye note and technical details of how to get into my password application. From there they can get into my email and any other accounts that need dealing with.
Better yet: record a video. It will be more personal than just a note.
Also you mentioned your children being young. You may want to record videos for their various birthdays and other life events in case you are no longer alive. I know I will do this when/if I have any children.
I vaguely recall a reddit comment recommending against that. It was along the lines of: The commenter knew someone whose father had done it, and the commenter thought that it made it a lot harder for that person to move on. Every year, on their birthday, they'd receive a fresh wound from someone they never even knew.
Is it really a choice though? I imagine most people would feel a fairly strong obligation to watch the video if they were told it was recorded as, say, a birthday present for them. The temptation would be very strong at least, and difficult for many to resist. I suppose after a few miserable experiences with it, some might be able to put the box of tapes away forever - but then they'd probably always carry some guilt.
I think it's better to do what one of my best friends (inadvertently) did when they died young - leave a good legacy of mementos for their loved ones. I, for my part, have a collection of musical recordings we made together that I can pull out when I feel like it. It's incredibly emotionally difficult to listen to (especially the parts where the tape was running between songs) but it helps at times. His girlfriend of the time has a lot of his writings/journals she can read to remember his thoughts on life or incidents that happened.
If you know ahead of time, record some memoirs and thoughts. Perhaps build something for them. Give a general message to your loved ones that you had a happy life, etc - whatever seems suitable for the situation and people involved.
...but the idea of recording "A message for my daughter on her 6th birthday from beyond the grave" is incredibly macabre to me and I personally would not want that.
There's much risk involved as well for the tiny little "cuteness" of the fact that the videos were recorded for specific life events. I for one wouldn't want to listen to a deceased parent go on about how proud they were I found a husband on my wedding day to my new wife for example. Or have to spend my whole life staring at a tape marked "for your wedding" and never watching it.
> There's much risk involved as well for the tiny little "cuteness" of the fact that the videos were recorded for specific life events. I for one wouldn't want to listen to a deceased parent go on about how proud they were I found a husband on my wedding day to my new wife for example. Or have to spend my whole life staring at a tape marked "for your wedding" and never watching it.
Expanding on this, I'm transgender, and I really wouldn't want to be repeatedly deadnamed on my birthday.
I have said as much to my wife, but my children are too young to really understand. Besides, it's meant to be a consolation to them when I'm no longer around.
If there's one thing I've learned as a parent (particularly around language but also around empathy) it's the kids understand much earlier than we often give them credit. Telling your 1 or 2-year old you love them is absolutely received because they know more language than they can project, but also because the tone conveys love more than the words. Tell them often! :)
I have been increasingly conscious, for the last 10 years or so, of deaths among my contemporaries.
I am about half the age of Oliver Sacks. In the past year I've gone to two funerals for people younger than I am. It's a very poignant reminder of your own mortality when people your age or younger pass away.
It's a beautiful essay, and I don't mean to undermine its gravity but one thing he mentioned has me curious. How does one conclude that two tumors are related? Might it be that the cancer that metastasized in his liver is independent of that that was in his eye?
He is a neurologist, I am not intending to challenge, just curious and I know there are people here that know much more than I do.
My mom died from this exact same (super rare) cancer. Ocular melanoma almost always metastasizes to the liver. For a ocular melanoma survivor, a liver check every 6 months is highly recommended. It seems his tumor in his eye had the mutation that makes it very unlikely for it to metastasize (5%), the other half of tumors have a much higher rate (66%). Either way the metastasize will usually happen within the first 10 years after discovering the original tumor.
That was my first post here, I want to watch my step.
Is an "ocular melanoma" any tumor discovered in the eye? Or is it mutated eye tissue that was subsequently discovered in his liver? Which would indeed be pretty definitive.
Melanoma in the eye is most commonly of a type called uveal melanoma. Ocular melanoma would be any melanoma in the eye, including the more common skin types (e.g. nodular, or superficial spreading, which is the most common subtype) which metastasized to the eye (very rare). Uveal melanoma confounds most of the effective melanoma treatments to date, even the most current and exciting treatments that have come on the market in the last few years. The reason (rather, one reason) is that it shares few of the same genetic targets that the more common subtypes have.
A primary tumor which metastasizes elsewhere in the body has characteristics of the primary tumor, including genetic markers, which is what allows a pathologist to determine a likely origin.
This seems like a perfect opportunity to share some more reflections on death from those who are often closest to it, doctors themselves. It appears that many (most?) doctors choose to spend their final days differently than most of their patients.
Anything that is related to death and uncertainty in general kindles lot of thought in one's mind. I for one, have always considered it to be a great interest to read about them. Here is a prose, written roughly 2000 years ago, dealing with death. It compares death to a sinking ship in a calm deserted ocean (contrast to violent shipwreck). Death engulfs the old ship very slowly.
Translation:
The bonds of friendship are broken, friends, relatives and wive have become cold in love, or few, the cords of love are loosened. Consider the matter well. What profit is there in the attached state? Oh, it is come, the wail of distress, as when a ship founders!
> This is not indifference but detachment — I still care deeply about the Middle East, about global warming, about growing inequality, but these are no longer my business; they belong to the future.
This quote sticks out to me, I feel everyone acts, by and large, like this towards these issues (or most issues) regardless of age or health. Probably my pessimistic view of the world, very interesting to read from him.
81 is a reasonably good innings, slightly above the average for the US, and just about the average for the UK (Sacks is British-American, I believe) - one wouldn't describe dying at that age as a particularly early or premature death.
I think it's hard to separate that intrinsic fact from his stoicism on the subject, impressive though it is. I'm sure it's not easy at any age to face your impending demise, but knowing you've led a pretty long and very successful life perhaps makes it an easier pill to swallow. And, to be a little cynical, we're reading this in a column in The Gray Lady - perhaps he's terrified on the inside but putting on a brave face for the public, either to keep up appearances or to be a source of inspiration for others.
Seems like this would be a good day to re-watch "Awakenings"...
One of the great sages of the world soon to leave us. I love his writing and the different perspectives that his work has offered me. He'll be missed and as bad as this sounds I'm excited to see what writings he comes up with as he takes the final steps of his journey.
Most of his reflections on how to live with terminal illness seem like a fulfilling way to embrace life at any time. Funny how our focus has to be retrained so often on the things we already know are the most important.
- Vincent Van Gogh: Never painted anything until he was 27
- Dave McClure: Angel investor, who did not invest in anything until he was 40
- Fauja Singh: Marathonist, who though marathons were 26km until he was 89(!)
- Joseph Conrad: Successful writer at 39, he learned English in his twenties.
- Stallone: If you discount soft porn star roles, he started acting in his mid twenties (ok, I concede this one, Stallone is not the ultimate actor :-P )
Naturally, these are anecdotal. But you should reconsider your hypothesis, and test for sample deviation. Naturally, most people will stick to what they are good at. Only a fraction will go out of their comfort zone. You must account for this bias.
If your hypothesis is that most people won't master anything new later in life, you are probably correct. If your hypothesis is that, out of those people who try to master something new later in life, most won't succeed, I believe you are wrong. You are falling prey to a wrong sample selection.
Out of those people who have put out the time, around me I see very good success rates. For a decent experiment, check out Ben Larcombe's table tennis expert in a year experiment: http://www.experttabletennis.com/expert-in-a-year/
While he did actually fail his goal, a look at his end of year videos makes me label him as having mastered the art of table tennis as much as a random child would do under training (i.e. age played no role in the result).
My apologies for not being factual enough and sounding too cynical without providing more detail.
Appreciate the responses with actual counterexamples:
- Van Gogh: was drawing as a child and continued to draw upon starting to paint. This is the solid foundation that I mentioned my OP. This is even closer than a shogi 9-dan becoming a chess master at 30.
- Dave McClure: hit lottery(even if you argue it was skill, it has nothing to do with my hypothesis) with Paypal, after that he has bought a lot (500+) of lottery tickets. Nothing wrong with that but I do not see mastery (ala Buffett) VC is a field where it is hard to measure mastery. I suppose one could take 10 year risk adjusted returns as some measure. Again, you can start doing anything at any age, but do not expect any great results.
- Fauja Singh: "As a young man, Fauja was an avid amateur runner, but he gave it up at the time of the 1947 India-Pakistan Partition." His records ar 90+ are fantastic for a 90 year old and probably 70-80 year olds but no more than that.
- Joseph Conrad , writers in general are a tricky to evaluate as most of us have had "some" writing in teenage years. Surely, Conrad wrote in Polish and French in his teen years.
One of my favorite writers Raymond Chandler did not really become a writer until age of 44, so does he disprove my hypothesis? If you look at his bio, he must have written/dictated quite a bit as an oil executive sober or not. Even more importantly he was a reporter for the Daily Express and the Bristol Western Gazette newspapers in his 20s.
- Stallone: nothing unusual in his career, he might have started acting a few years later than most aspiring Hollywood hopefuls. His success with Rocky does not really dis/prove his mastery of acting. He is decent at his craft.
- Ben Larcombe's table tennis experiment: his subject was his friend 24 year old Sam Priestley. Again this falls within my 25 year old rule. Besides that the experiment failed!
We'll have to agree to disagree. In every success case, you'll find a nitpick. Van Gogh was innovative in his use of color, a characteristic clearly developed as an adult, and yet you dismiss it because he drew as a child. McClure has no value because he hit the jackpot once and rode from there. Conrad must surely have written in Polish and French (yet published nothing and left no manuscripts), which surely undermines the excellent storytelling abilities and remarkable prose he developed after he stopped working a full time job. A really old man can only run the marathon in over 6h, three times the world record (I'm a third his age, and I can, maybe, do the marathon walking and beat the 7h mark).
If you do not understand the bias I have presented, central point in my argument that you sidestepped, at least understand this: You can choose to believe you can do anything, or you can choose not to. There's a chance of error in each choice. The loss in the error case, for each option, clearly favours choosing the optimist option. Even if all your steps forward are followed by backward steps, at least you are dancing Cha Cha, not moping your way down to a sad grave.
That's incredibly cynical. I took up private piloting at age 37, went on to multiple certifications including Single Pilot Multi-engine jet, about as high as you can go. I'm 50 now and continue to learn and study new things every day (including taking three Harvard Extension courses at this time). I certainly hope to master many more skills in the years I have left, while "raging against the dying of the light."
It's exceedingly cynical. Most people don't master anything after 40, but most people don't master anything before 40, either. The difference is that younger people can look forward to an imagined life with huge accomplishments and older people have to look back and admit they they didn't achieve the things they imagined. There's nothing stopping someone over 40 from achieving huge things, any more than there is something stopping someone 20 from doing the same.
It's true that most people who accomplish big things do so when they are young, but that seems to mostly be a reflection on the fact that people who are driven to do big things have generally the same drive when they are young. People who don't have that drive when younger don't typically discover it at middle age.
Another consideration is time, stamina, and commitments. A person fresh out of college doesn't necessarily have anything holding them back from devoting time and resources to learn and master something. A person who's even younger will have more time and possibly more family support/coercion (how many violin prodigies do you think picked up the violin entirely of their own volition?)
Someone in their 40s may have a time-consuming job and a family to support, which precludes ditching the time-consuming job in favor of putting in long hours to master something. Maybe they can only spare an hour or two a week, and maybe they're so exhausted from work that every now and then they can't even do that.
Older adults may be more risk-averse, but that doesn't mean they're incapable of mastering something, just that they're less likely to choose to do so.
On the other hand, unscrupulous employers tend to exploit younger employees by giving them more hours, for a few reasons (fortunately, I've never worked at a company like this, but I know I dodged a bullet).
"You don't have a family to go home to, so of course you won't object to working until 9pm every day."
"There are a gazillion fresh-out-of-college people with your exact skillset I can hire to replace you in a heartbeat, and you don't yet have the professional reputation to easily find another job."
"You don't have a nest egg built up yet, so if you quit on me or I fire you, enjoy defaulting on your lease and couch surfing until you find something else."
I guess it depends on the definition of mastering, and moreover, whether you compare your ability with others.
I would also like to believe that there are some things mature adults have more to bring to the table when mastering something, such as a language, story telling, musical instrument... above all, regardless of whether you truely master something or not, you need to believe that you can - and whilst your comment may be true, it may also take away someones opportunity to believe they can.
There are always exceptions to the rule. But for a majority of ordinary people, I agree with you. However, thinking this way can be a huge limiting factor.
