Do older men have greater potential than young?

Do you think that older men - at least when speaking about superior races - have greater potential than younger men? Or to put it differently, is it in superior races that the success comes of later age on average? The full potential is harnessed in older age? So in superior races, the developing takes more time, but the final potential is higher?

At least samurais thought that.

Yamamoto Tsunetomo wrote:

According to the priest at the Ryūtaiji Temple, "In the Kamigata region a diviner once said it is futile for a man, even if he is a priest, to find success before 40. He is likely to make mistakes thereafter. Confucius was not the only man to be 'liberated from the shackles of confusion at 40.' Both wise and foolish men accrue enough life experience by the time they are 40 not to be perplexed any longer. After reaching 40, all men know their limitations, and how realistic their aspirations are."

Also, Richard Dawkins presents an interesting possibility in The Selfish Gene of why women go for older men. Sure, Richard Dawkins admits that this is by no means the whole story and longevity alone is not prima facie evidence of virility. But we know that many women go for older men. Or at least they used to.

Richard Dawkins wrote:

From the point of view of a female trying to pick good genes with which to ally her own, what is she looking for? One thing she wants is evidence of ability to survive. Obviously any potential mate who is courting her has proved his ability to survive at least into adulthood, but he has not necessarily proved that he can survive much longer. Quite a good policy for a female might be to go for old men. Whatever their shortcomings, they have at least proved they can survive, and she is likely to be allying her genes with genes for longevity.

I think that makes some sense, since many congenital diseases and tendencies to diseases are revealed as we age. Of course today many diseases that would be fatal in natural environments, can be fixed by modern medicine. But maybe women know by nature that longevity correlates with health, at least to some degree.

Even in physical performance there are sports where it tends to be that older men triumph more than younger men. Such is powerlifting. Look for example how Andrey Malanichev made a world record in total score in powerlifting at the age of 39.

But sure, there are sports where it is required that you are young in order to succeed, but those are usually the types of sports where there is a need to generate very explosive-kind-of force. Such as olympic weightlifting or running 100 meters. But in endurance (like marathon) and basic strength (powerlifting) men can succeed even in their 40's.

Also I think Steven Pinker said somewhere, that blacks develop quicker than white people. For example black children learn to walk when they are 11 months on average, while white children learn to walk when they are 12 months on average. So blacks are developing faster on average (in many other things than learning to walk as well), but do they have the potential of white people, when white people finally grow to their full potential?

Males reach their physical and mental height in their thirties.
They reach their socioeconomic status later in life, increasing as they age.
So there's a balance between descending physical/mental potentials, after a male's thirties and his ascending socioeconomic social status as he ages. This height in physical/mental power is in regards to endurance, rather than a youth's more explosive power.
Wealth  = resources...attractive to females who will become dépendent during gestation and the child's weening years up until age seven.

A female reaches her "prime" - CNN's Lemon also agrees, and he's gay - in her twenties. Her socioeconomic status is tied to her reproductive prime.
Younger females are les experienced and less self-aware and self-disciplined, so they tend to be attracted by physical/mental fitness, whereas older females are more pragmatic sacrificing their physical/mental preferences in males for his social, socioeconomic status.
Money compensates for any male genetic inferiorities, and so humans males use wealth to attract females they cannot attract physically/mentally.

************
Simpler species mature faster than complex species, because complexity has to mature ex-utero. Big brains necessitating big skulls, which cannot pas through a woman's birthing canal, without killing her.
Evolving larger birthing canal's would require a further sacrifice in independence, already vident in females.
Such a female would be unable to fend for herself.
Natural selection has established a balance in the 7/10 hip to waist ration, in females. In males this is the waist to chest ratio, signalling strength and respiratory potentials.  
Symmetry/Proportionality.
Beauty = symmetry.
Proportionality =  functionality.
Symmetry is sacrificed for the sake of functionality.
We find this 7/10 ratio in females seductive - indicating reproductive potentials, health. In males it indicates protective/provider potentials.
Genetic markers of fitness.

As I said, wealth compensates for a genetic deficiency. Signaling shifts to self-handicapping: expensive toys, homes, adornments signalling how much a male can waste and remain competitive.
Throughout all of this, on both sides, pretence is a factor. Pretending to be more than you are, using language, ro clothing, or surgery, or makeup, or expensive cars, exotic travels, displays of contentment, indifference, joy...lifestyle, etc.

************
In the gene/meme balance morality is another factor.
A 'good man' signals an adherence to group welfare - a benefactor of collective health and prosperity.
Morality evolves to preserve a cooperative group.
Collective appreciation may lead to status and wealth - attracting more mature pragmatic females - higher IQ, less dominated by their impulses.


Countering it the 'bad boy' signals his up and coming potentials, ro his ability o survive on the periphery of group dynamics - another kind of self-handicapping - usually attracting younger, less experienced, lower IQ or more impulsive females who are, themselves competing with other females.

Another factor are the unfit, less attractive, inheriting less genetic potentials males and females who usually turn against their own group, seeking allies in other groups, ro groups that challenge their group.
Here a inferior member of a group may find a member of another group to use them as a signal of that groups superiority.
See how blacks sometimes go with unattractive white females.
An element of vindictiveness, of seeking a way into another group is all in play.
A black male is screwing white males via the white female....and if an offspring comes of it then it is his way into the group he despises and feels excluded from; the white female is also avenging herself towards those males that rejected her from within her group.
Codependency.

Satyr wrote:

Nature is about cycles.
Remember the truism "hard times create hard men; hard men create good times; good times create soft men"...?
Yes...well apply this to genetics?
Beauty, genetic markers make sex easy for men. This means they need not cultivate any other trait, even if they may have a higher potential, whereas a male with lower potentials will cultivate them to their fullest, gaining an advantage.

In this video it states that talented people don't always develop character nor strong mindset.


In this video Khabib Nurmagomedov says: "You talk about talent and hard worker... Most of the talent people, they lazy."

...and here we have yet another great quote about this matter. A direct quote from Hagakure:

Quote :

A man who is succesful when he is too young will not be useful for long. Even though he may be gifted at birth, young men lack maturity in terms of disposition and ability, and will not receive the confidence of others. Success is best secured from around the age of 50. It is actually propitious if people believe that your success is late in coming. Also, even if his house is waning because of some blunder, a man with willpower can quickly overcome any setback because it was not triggered by selfish desires.

So could we say that this era is pernicious for talented people, since there is no external pressure to succeed and live up to their fullest potential?

The types of natural selection are these:
disintegrating natural selection
balancing natural selection
directional natural selection

Could we say that in this modern era in humans, we experience balancing natural selection? Or maybe directional natural selection, but the direction is towards decay?

But there have been times where having the genetic potential was absolutely necessary to triumph?

Natural selection is being replaced by social selection, using an ideal as the evaluating standard.
The ideal determines the standard and consequently the type of man that will be idealized, and what traits will be considered socially ideal.
Through the indoctrination of females these traits will be filtered in, and those that contradict them will be filtered out.

But since evolution has its own standards and these are ingrained in female judgements, these social standards are like a covering, usually dominating a female's conscious mind, whereas her natural inclinations govern her instincts, her intuitions.
So, females are confused....they are consciously indoctrinated into a society that tells them to value certain social traits, whilst being genetically compelled to find other traits desirable.
Body/Mind dissonance.

Therefore, in their youth females tend to be more genetically compelled and as they age, and hormones subside, or they learn to control themselves, their pragmatism makes them more socially compelled.

One thing I still wonder is this...

Satyr wrote:

Beauty, genetic markers make sex easy for men. This means they need not cultivate any other trait, even if they may have a higher potential, whereas a male with lower potentials will cultivate them to their fullest, gaining an advantage.

Khabib Nurmagomedov wrote:

You talk about talent and hard worker... Most of the talent people, they lazy. - - When you don't have talent, you have to work so hard. When you work so hard and sacrifice your time, dedicate like... sacrifice, you become more disciplined

Is this somewhat an universal truth or does this only apply in the modern era?

If we wanted to start practicing straightforward eugenics like they did in Sparta, where newborns were examined and if they didn't have the potential they were killed, the descriptions I quoted, would not apply, right?

In the modern era, being talented might not offer any kind of advantage, because like you said, nature goes in cycles and like Nurmagomedov said, talented people are lazy. So the genetic potential doesn't matter so much today... if at all... But it absolutely mattered in places where eugenics was practiced like in Sparta?

The fact that the non-gifted can succeed, is a sign that we are experiencing a decay?

Illiterate wrote:

Is this somewhat an universal truth or does this only apply in the modern era?

Discipline is a multiplier.
It doesn't produce certainty, it increases probability.
If the probability has low, to begin with, it simply increase the odds.

Illiterate wrote:

If we wanted to start practicing straightforward eugenics like they did in Sparta, where newborns were examined and if they didn't have the potential they were killed, the descriptions I quoted, would not apply, right?

It would.

We are practicing eugenics in the west....but they don't want to admit it.
Social engineering can be conspicuous or inconspicuous.
When you teach children you are transferring system ideals into their minds. these effect their future judgements, determining their choices.

ALL value-judgements are triangulations.
The ideal is one of the points. The objective.
The ideal determines the standard for EVALUATING all judgements and the consequences of choices - both intentional and unintentional.
The standard is often called 'ethics.'

The ideal/objective focuses the will - intentionality.
Intentional and unintentional consequences determine the accuracy of the act/choice, the performance of the actor, and the quality of the objective.
The objective may be unrealizable, or may be more negative - producing negative consequences relative to the real - than it was considered to be, in theory.
Reality is always the deciding factor - nature.
All ideals/objective remain 'perfect' if they remain theoretical, unrealizable.

Good/Bad refers to these consequences of an applied ideal - movement towards an objective.
A man evaluates the consequences relative to his expectations, his intentions, and to the degree that he is an objective thinker will determine the degree to which he can accurately evaluate the discrepancies between actual and intentional consequences.

There is no universal good/bad....all value-judgements are good/bad relative to an objective, within a shared world.

Social systems also exist within the real world - nature - and may fabricate a cocooning, a sheltering, but they still remain in nature.
Nihilistic ideals, dismissing or contradicting nature, may evade the negative consequences for a short time, or may be able to absorb them within itself, evenly disseminating them so as to reduce their impact...but they cannot escape them forever.

Quote :

In the modern era, being talented might not offer any kind of advantage, because like you said, nature goes in cycles and like Nurmagomedov said, talented people are lazy.

Talented is a vague term .....talented at what?
All talent - inherited ability above a median - if applied has consequences.

Quote :

So the genetic potential doesn't matter so much today... if at all... But it absolutely mattered in places where eugenics was practiced like in Sparta?

Physical, strength, speed, power, warrior traits, are not.
The metal attributes of a warrior still have an impact: courage, determination, endurance....
The physical attributes are manifestation of them.
Body is a manifestation of will.
Others perceive and intuitively interpret it.
Social ideals may contradict their instinctive appreciations, but they cannot erase them.
The perceiving mind's qualities determine how it will react to these evaluations.

But, no, in sheltering systems physical markers are reduced in importance; technologies compensate for any deficiencies, reducing the impact of negative consequences...but they cannot completely eliminate them.

Quote :

The fact that the non-gifted can succeed, is a sign that we are experiencing a decay?

Ah, so 'gifted' means genetically, physically.
Some minds compensate by developing their mental gifts.

Of those, most dedicate them towards social ambitions, collecting socioeconomic markers of quality, compensating for the absence of physical markers.
Depending on the underlying ideals of the system, such compensations necessitate feminine traits. Biological males, raised in such systems, will adopt feminine methods for attracting attention, because masculine methods are criminalized or deemed to be unethical, or ridiculed as primal etc.
Masculine traits, under such circumstances, may prove to be detrimental to acquiring socioeconomic markers, attracting females that have been indoctrinated into its ideals.
So, even if such females might be instinctively attracted to such males, they will consciously find them unworthy of their submissions.

Satyr wrote:

Talented is a vague term .....talented at what?

Satyr wrote:

Ah, so 'gifted' means genetically, physically.
Some minds compensate by developing their mental gifts.

Yes, I mean by talent or genetic potential, mainly physical features. But I always assumed that beauty and intelligence were strongly correlated, so I thought physical features would tell us a lot about an individual's mental abilities as well. So my ideal is like mens sana in corpore sano.

So I always thought that when Spartans killed the physically unfit, they didn't accidentally kill the intelligent or bright ones... since the stupid and dull ones were also physically unfit ones... that was my thought.

I did some research now, and found this kind of study which states that IQ and beauty are not correlated (though there are there are studies that show otherwise)
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

So I don't know. Maybe my assumption was somewhat wrong here. Didn't consider things through.

Thanks for the profound post Satyr.

Illiterate wrote:

Yes, I mean by talent or genetic potential, mainly physical features. But I always assumed that beauty and intelligence were strongly correlated, so I thought physical features would tell us a lot about an individual's mental abilities as well. So my ideal is like mens sana in corpore sano.

Physical beauty is powerful. The individual need not develop whatever intellectual potentials they've inherited.
Intelligence is cultivated by those compensating.
Just as those who may be simple may focus on cultivating themselves physically to compensate.

Quote :

So I always thought that when Spartans killed the physically unfit, they didn't accidentally kill the intelligent or bright ones... since the stupid and dull ones were also physically unfit ones... that was my thought.

Not necessarily.
The Spartans consider it a sacrifice worthy of the outcome. their objective was not brilliance but physical fitness and mental discipline.

Quote :

So I don't know. Maybe my assumption was somewhat wrong here. Didn't consider things through.

Physical and mental traits corelate.
Nature = sum of all nurturing.
Nurture = environmental circumstances.

Necessity = determining factor. Environmental stressors.

A child that inherits wealth will not be stressed to the degree the parent that made the wealth had been, and so the child may not nurture its talents.