• Dave@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    1 year ago

    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?

    • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Ook the Librarian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • Dave@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        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 😆).

        • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • Dave@lemmy.nz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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?

            • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Because human life, aging, and experience aren’t linear, they’re logarithmic.

    • Anticorp
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, 66 is about right, assuming you split the century into three 33 year chunks.