When John McCain had a birthday recently, a television talk show host told
the US presidential candidate that he had planned to get him a birthday
cake but that the local fire chief had objected, saying: “That many
candles?” Indeed, McCain, 72, is the oldest person in American history to
run for the presidency and his opponent, Barack Obama, 46, once accused him
of “losing his bearings”, a polite way of saying that McCain is becoming
senile.
Just last week the Republican contender was caught by photographers looking
unflatteringly off-balance as he headed the wrong way at the end of the
final televised presidential debate. McCain, in turn, sometimes refers to
Obama as “that young man with very little experience”.
In these days when leaders surround themselves with advisers, how much
difference does age make in competent leadership? Does cognitive ability
really decline as we age and, if so, by how much? While it's true that
presidents are surrounded by advisers, there's no doubt that a leader at the
forefront of the global political stage needs to possess intelligence, logic
and the ability to reason, all of which are affected by age.
The American public is predictably divided on this issue. Obama appears to
many to be short on experience and too young to assume such high office,
even though John F. Kennedy was 43 when he became president. McCain is
considered by others to be too old. After all, Ronald Reagan showed signs of
Alzheimer's disease during his second term in office, when he was in his
late seventies. Barely three years out of office, his cognitive impairment
had become severe. But could it be that Obama, at 46, is also declining?
When are we at our cognitive peak?
At 55, having been a research psychologist for 30 years, I decided to take a
dispassionate look at these issues. The process proved to be painful in some
respects, but when it comes to cognitive decline, knowing might also be the
best defence.
Decline of learning and reason
First, let's consider a rather basic ability, learning; a critical skill for
all of us, not least new presidents. Most middle-aged people are aware that
their elderly parents are mystified by the latest DVD players, PDAs and
iPods, and that the quickest way to solve a computer problem is to ask a
teenager. Research shows unequivocally that our ability to learn new things
peaks in our teens and declines steadily thereafter.
Our ability to acquire new knowledge declines in part because of a decline in
most basic memory functions. The deterioration of memory is best illustrated
by research on “incidental” memory-remembering, which occurs automatically
and without effort, such as remembering the plot of a book. Mnemonic
strategies (using patterns of letters or ideas to remember something)
mastered as we get older can mask memory's decline; when we look at what is
remembered accidentally, we get a clearer picture.
A simple but ingenious study in which researchers asked people emerging from a
cinema to give details about the film they had just seen proves the point;
teens performed best, while elderly people could barely remember the name of
the movie.
As you age, it becomes increasingly difficult to remember things unless you
make a concerted effort, a strain that US presidents clearly don't need.
Research suggests that both Obama and McCain are well past their memory
peaks, but Obama has the clear advantage.
The pattern is the same on classic intelligence tests, which measure basic
reasoning ability, an important ability for a nation's leaders. You may have
heard that “IQ” remains relatively stable throughout life, and indeed it
does. That's because IQ is a quotient (Intelligence Quotient), a relative
measure that expresses your test score in relation to test scores of people
your own age. Your IQ stays roughly the same because you stay in roughly the
same place with respect to your cohort; virtually everyone in your cohort is
deteriorating at about the same rate. The peak of raw scores on intelligence
tests occurs between ages 13 and 15.
What about brain size?
You may also have heard that brain size is a poor predictor of intelligence.
That's true when you compare species and this also applies to genders (no
one has figured out what human males use all that extra brain mass for). But
several studies in the past decade or so show that when it comes to
individuals, brain size is an excellent predictor of a variety of cognitive
abilities. Does brain size follow the pattern we see with intelligence and
memory?
Indeed it does. A recent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) study at the
University of California San Diego, shows that brain size in human beings
peaks at about 14 and declines gradually thereafter. Although at 70 the
brain has shrunk, this doesn't mean that a 70-year-old has the intelligence
of a child. It does mean, however, that although accrued knowledge and
wisdom remain roughly intact, the various cognitive abilities, and
especially the ability to acquire new knowledge, are in decline.
Although not central to the cognition issue, I would be remiss in failing to
point out that most of our perceptual and motor capabilities also fit this
disturbing pattern: our visual acuity, overall hearing ability, ability to
discriminate speech sounds (important during delicate meetings of state),
and so on. More to the point, reaction time - our ability to respond swiftly
to sudden events, which is undoubtedly an important competency for leaders -
also follows this pattern.
Now for the good news
Research suggests that we do become “wiser” as we get older, meaning that we
can make especially good decisions in areas in which we have accumulated a
great deal of specialised knowledge - as long as we don't need to acquire a
great deal of new knowledge quickly, that is. In a static world, wisdom has
great value, but in a rapidly changing one, research suggests that it's
prudent for the old to make way for the young.
As for the presidential candidates, Obama has likely started having trouble
finding his keys, and McCain is probably little more than a ghost of his
former cognitive self.
Robert Epstein is a visiting scholar at the University of California San
Diego and former editor-in-chief of Psychology Today magazine
Five things that influence how we vote for leaders
1. Attractiveness According to the results of a study published in the
European Journal of Political Research earlier this year, attractive
constituency candidates receive more votes, especially if standing against
someone less good-looking. However, those with baby-faced good looks are not
going to cut it with the voters. Researchers from Brandais University, near
Boston, showed that candidates with typical baby-faced features - rounder
faces, larger eyes, smaller noses, higher foreheads, and smaller chins - are
more likely to lose elections. When volunteers were shown images of Ronald
Reagan and John F.Kennedy that had been morphed to increase babyfacedness
the former US presidents were judged to be weaker and less clever.
2. Body language New research from Poland, published this year, has explored
the non-verbal cues projected by politicians and how they may affect our
vote. Volunteers were shown photographs of American and European politicians
in various postures. In support of other general studies on body language,
the research found that certain poses reinforce the image of a politician
and make them look confident. For example, sitting in a relaxed posture,
with one foot resting on the other knee, and standing tall with hands in
pockets, are good postures for a political candidate. Holding a hand in
front of the mouth makes a politician look untrustworthy.
3. Height Good things apparently don't come in small packages. A US study
found a trend in increased height for ten American presidents from 1948-96.
4. Hair Or rather, a lack of it, may affect the outcome of an election.
Scientists from the University of Arizona found that governors and members
of Congress are much more likely to have a fuller head of hair than would be
expected of men of their age. Interestingly, America has not had a bald
president since Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950s and Britain hasn't had a bald
prime minister since Winston Churchill.
5. Voice The voice of a politician can be an important factor in his or her
campaign. In a study carried out at Saint Anselm College, New Hampshire,
subjects rated hypothetical political candidates after seeing their
photographs and listening to their voices. They found that although
appearance played a more significant role in making an impression, a voice
that was too loud, too quiet, high-pitched, or thin reduced the ratings of a
highly attractive candidate. “Faster speech rate and a relative lack of
pauses and repetitions, and increased movement of the voice are associated
with higher ratings on competence and dominance,” the study leaders said.
LEONORA WEIL
Slowing the decline
So far, randomised controlled studies suggest that some drugs and compounds
that were thought to be promising fail to slow the decline in cognitive
ability, among them: vitamin B, painkillers and anti- inflammatories such as
naproxen, aspirin and celecoxib (Celebrex); raloxifene, an oestrogen-related
compound; and idebenone, an antioxidant in the quinine family. Interesting
but not entirely persuasive studies suggest that cognitive deterioration
might be slowed by:
Using drugs to restore sleep in abnormal sleepers.
Eating lots of veggies, but not lots of fruits, for reasons unknown.
Long-term consumption of betacarotene, which also can, alas, cause yellowing
of hands and feet.
Daily consumption of ginkgo biloba, at least in a small group of people
suffering from mild multiple sclerosis.
Drinking more than two cups of coffee a day, at least for women.
Consuming fish or omega-3 supplements, at least for people suffering from mild
Alzheimer's disease.
Getting lots of vigorous exercise, although the cognitive benefits shown in
this 2008 study were quite small.
Computer-based products such as Nintendo's Brain Age: some research shows that
training specific cognitive skills can produce gains that last years.
