I almost didn't post this because it's (extremely) long, rambling, and sounds more dogmatic than intended. But if anyone can get anything at all from it, then I'll be glad I posted it, so I'm going to take that chance. I'm just trying to start a discussion, not convince anyone of anything.

First, no matter how much you press me, I'm not going to say I have a permanent age. I recognize far too much change in myself in just the last 5 years to assume that anything will stay constant for the next (hopefully) 50 or more.

More importantly, the comment that Scott Adams is trying to shove people into categories is missing something fundamental: People willingly assign themselves a permanent age all the time.

As a commenter on Scott Adams post hinted at, this question is really about our biases of particular ages and how we want to position ourselves relative to our chronological peers.

I think there is something narcissistic about saying you aren't really the age you are. You're saying that you're different. That you're really more mature (if you're claiming an older age) or that you've hung on to more of your youth (if you're claiming a younger age). Almost everyone feels that they're mature or youthful or both. Thinking you're different is perhaps the least different thing you can do. See: http://xkcd.com/610/

The article Advice For Young People linked by itmag resonates with me too, but...

"If I was young today, I’d commit to spending a couple hours every single day on building something."

No you wouldn't. If you were young today, you wouldn't know what you know now, so you'd probably spend your youth exactly as you spent it the first time.

And yet even with your misspent youth, you turned out fine. Apparently fine enough to offer advice on how to spend your youth. So why would others with misspent youths not turn out just as well as you did?

In fact, maybe not spending a couple hours every single day building something in your youth is what made you so passionate about building something now. Maybe, paradoxically, not building something in your youth is precisely why you're recommending building something in your youth.

See also, this post ( http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/12/whats_the_difference_... ):

"'Good' parenting, apparently, is trying techniques on your kid that were never used on you, even though you still turned out just fine. 'I think TV is bad, I won't let my kids watch it.' Outstanding. But how do you explain how you watched 5 hours of TV a day for thirteen years straight and still turned out ok? Think it over for a moment. You'll never admit the answer: because you're different. You succeeded despite the TV.

But look around: everyone you know over 30 also did fine despite the TV, no lawyer ever says, 'Your Honor, my client saw every episode of Bosom Buddies and McHale's Navy, I move for dismissal.' Which is why I am telling you: TV is bad for the kid, but that thinking is much worse.

So too: sugary cereals, bullying, Playboys. None of those things are good for kids, I am not saying to expose your kids to them. But thinking that they will be worse for your kids than they were for you is the fundamental, narcissistic error of parenting. 'My kids are weaker than me.' Then humanity is doomed."

No one likes making mistakes or missing opportunities, but even with your mistakes and missed opportunities, you're smart enough to recognize your mistakes and missed opportunities and learn from them. Maybe even because of your mistakes.

I've drifted from the original topic, but what I'm trying to say is that distancing yourself from your chronological peers because you feel you're different could be harmful.

If there is one universal truth I can recognize in my life, it is that assumptions I make about people are wrong. I assumed people who partied all the time in college were immature, but drunks and druggies (intentionally referring to them in the way I first thought about them) have often ended up being the people I relied on in one way or another.

People I've assumed would never fall have fallen. And then when I assumed they were actually bad people, they turned out to be good people just with faults.

People I've assumed would never get their act together have left me in the dust... and then fallen again and shown that they still have faults.

We all deal with balancing youth and maturity. We all have things about our past selves we regret and things we wish we could get back. We all have things we hope for the future and things we fear.

Think holistically about the claim of being 18 or 35 or 70 permanently. Those claiming to be 18 forever aren't claiming everything about 18. They're cherry-picking. It's just like what came up on HN before about why Europe sometimes seems to Americans to be better in every way. Because we cherry-pick. We take the best features of each country and ignore all the bad ones. People claiming a particular age are taking the best features and ignoring all the bad ones. But the good and the bad are equally part of being that age.

I guess what I want to leave with is this:

We have more in common that different. All of us. From a 4-year old Japanese kid to an 70-year old tribal leader in the Amazon.

And more importantly, we all have something to offer each other. If you give them a chance, most people will turn out to be better, or at least more interesting and nuanced, than you first imagined.