• ricecake@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    10 months 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
      9
      ·
      10 months 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
      2
      ·
      10 months 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
        1
        ·
        10 months 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.