GeniesLoki

hm, hold on your reaction suggest the number is not just off, it's far off I guess it would make perfect sense to define "midlife" such that it's centered around half the life expectancy, right? at least it wouldn't be a "bad take" so let's round it to 40…

I mean honestly the take is pretty bad at any age point - I can't think of a single point in my life to date where I wouldn't be envious of my life as it is now - but the "midlife starts at 30" is just the icing on a beautiful young-people-having-terrible-opinions cake.

I'd be fine with a labelling of "midlife" as like 30-50 or whatever (though I think traditionally midlife crises start after 40), but coupled to "everyone in midlife is lame" it becomes funny as hell.

I see, I thought you were reacting to the number alone proceed

I am a little bit. I think of 30 as the age when people start to have shit a bit more figured out and a lot of the interesting stuff really starts happening, so I'd be kinda reluctant to consider it midlife and would probably think of that as more like 40-60, but I care less.

it seems common enough that people feel 'more boring' as they get older, right? not to mention biological decline possibly if one is very career/ambition inclined, or had signif psychological problems, 30+ can seem more interesting, but that isn't vast maj of people!

I think most people's 30s are pretty good and almost everyone I know had/is having a more interesting time in their 30s than their 20s. Most people's 20s are the period where everything is a bit shit because they're in the real world but can't deal with it.

i think many people are happier in their 30s than teens/20s, but that seem to come at the cost of emotional/intellectual intensity/curiousity?