Age is Not a One-Size-Fits-All Proposition

Two fairly notable events took place days apart within the past couple of weeks: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, 81, experienced a momentary inability to speak in the middle of a press briefing—and British rock icon Mitch Jagger turned 80. Reflecting on these two seemingly unrelated events, one social media influencer jokingly suggested (and I paraphrase) that rather than clean living, it appeared that “sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll” were the true keys to longevity.

To me, these events epitomized a far more consequential reality: that age—ANY age—is NOT a one-size-fits-all proposition.

In fact, I would go one step farther to argue that it is not age, but AGEISM that has planted the idea of what any given age looks like—and acts like—in the collective mind of society.

The truth is age is nothing more than a marker of time. Once a person has reached biological adulthood, age is not an indication of appearance. It is not an indication of ability. It is not an indication of intelligence or talent or skill. It is not even an indication of mental or physical well-being.

Not convinced? I urge you to return to the first paragraph of this article and compare our notable octogenarians of the moment, Mitch McConnell and Mick Jagger—or compare any two people who happen to be close in chronological age. I suspect—with very few exceptions (and, yes, there ARE sure to be exceptions)—you will be hard-pressed to find two people who are identical in appearance, ability, intelligence, or well-being.

The moral of this story: stop making assumptions about people based on their age. Just as each of us has a unique set of fingerprints and a unique DNA profile, so do we manifest our age in unique ways. As the saying goes, “Age is just a number.” Cliché, maybe. But also true.