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!

for instance i feel a lot of the stuff that people mention to me about careers/goals feels trite and unromantic - an extension of youthful exam striving which at the time cooler people avoided bc it was tiresome - and now people care about these things!

caring about getting drunk at parties is exactly as trite as caring about promotion at work, don't let beer ads install brainworms into your head