I doubt there are many cases of people starting to run at 25 and becoming Olympic sprinters either. And for the majority of us, that's ok. Learning when one is older is a quality of life issue. It's not about being the best at anything, but rather expanding one's horizons, keeping life fresh and interesting, finding something to challenge oneself and providing motivation and fulfillment. Those opportunities are available to almost anyone who is healthy regardless of age. Mastery is secondary, and it's a bit defeatist in my opinion to not start something new simply because it can't be mastered. Many activities can be enjoyed without achieving full proficiency.

> Let's take chess: There are no cases of a novice starting to learn at the age of 25 and becoming a grandmaster. You need to do some of that deliberate practice at an early age. I suspect the case is the same for math,programming, violin playing etc.

Most perfect information games are _extremely_ memorization biased. A huge part of gaining the initial skill to compete at a decent level is memorizing thousands of positions, openings, and mistakes by other players. It's only after that that the real play begins.

So it's no surprise that older people who don't have the time to invest into this cannot reach the upper echelons. At 25, over a third of your intellectual life is already gone. The raw time you have to learn the basics and experiment at the upper levels is cut in a third.

Bill Joy himself only started programming in graduate school.

It's true that as a general rule, if you haven't revolutionized (or greatly impacted) your field by age 30, you're likely not going to ever do it.

However, that doesn't mean that the mind of people over 30 doesn't work as well. It may just be that people have different personality types, some people don't care that much about revolutionizing the world, and those who do care do not require all that long to do it.

So by age 30 or so, you're left with two self-selected groups: those who passionately wished to change the world and those who focused on some other priority in life instead.

There's plenty of people who does revolutionary work after their 30s.

Look at current nobel prize winners in physics for example. Many of them weren't young when they did their most important work. I read an article about this some time ago, but I wasn't able to find it at the moment.

I don't know if you can surmise that older people can't become grandmasters. I doubt that older people have the time that younger people do to practice. Also, as the article talked about, older people are less likely to be vulnerable (ie temporarily look dumb) in order to get better.

So I think, there isn't enough data to conclude that someone older can't be a grandmaster. Though, most people won't be a grandmaster either way, so there aren't that many data points to go off of.

I think that becoming a "grandmaster" of anything is probably outside of the scope of this research as that is a whole other bucket of worms (probably).

And who knows how the prevailing wisdom that you can't teach an old dog new tricks affected the number of people who chose to try to become a grandmaster? Maybe your priorities change when you are older and it has nothing or less to do with raw ability?

Doesn't the level of grandmaster evolve over time - it is essentially a competition between players who are getting better and better?

That means you're not asking whether a 25 year old can achieve a static goal(e.g. read 50 books), but you're asking them to successfully compete with everyone else, which includes other 25 year olds but with 15+ years of experience.

> Yes you can learn things as you get older but the bar for your achievements gets lower and lower as you age.

Here's to hoping you aren't in a hiring position.