> We feel time differently over our lives. As a toddler, an afternoon feels like an eternity. In middle age, “no matter how I try, those years just flow by, like a broken down dam.” For a 5 year old, a year was a fifth of their life, and feels like it. For a 40 year old, it is just another year.
I think this explanation is true but incomplete. I believe it's also related to Critical Flicker Fusion Frequency [0], the way I see it, if an organism is smaller it has a higher frequency, it sees more image per second, therefore perception of time is slower. (E.g. a fly sees you moving really slowly). Maybe it's related to the processing time of images, with smaller brains insect can process more of them per second.
Maybe humans process more images as children, therefore see the time time going slower.
It's been a while I didn't think about this, maybe some studies have been made in the past years.
That is largely true across a variety of sports. eSports like Starcraft typically peak between 18-22, and it's possible the real age is younger but minors are usually excluded from pro leagues because they can't sign contracts. Gymnastics seems to peak between age 13-16; it was enough of a problem that the FIG set an age limit of 16 so the sport wasn't dominated by prepubescent girls age 13-14 (18 for men because the events tend to be more strength-based than coordination-based). Top table tennis players usually tend to start between 4-6 [1] and win their championships around their early 20s. [2]
There's some lag between starting and being world-class simply because continued practice makes you better. Plus, you get much better at sustained focus and being able to connect disparate training experiences together as your consciousness develops in the teens.
Part of the gymnastics thing is flexibility of the young; if toddlers could be coordinated and strong enough they’d likely dominate as they can contort their bodies into positions impossible for adults.
IMO there is also muscle memory, strategy ect. Being able to process more information doesn't mean it's processed better, the contrary actually if you think about processing times
So before it was underreporting and after it was proper categorization? If that was the case we would have seen a more smooth curve before and after I think
It's more like the default is to be ranked near the bottom unless your comment gets traction during the brief window of time it is ranked first for being new. Seeing your comments go splat after that window expires is not some nefarious conspiracy..
Location: Europe (Turin, Italy)
Remote: Worldwide can adapt to timezone, can also travel if needed ofr hybrid.
Willing to relocate: Yes but in a July 2026!
Technologies: Python, Kubernetes, Asp.Net, React, ELK and many more
Résumé/CV: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RlscJr5Lv9oooa0hW14Xz_zoAQP...
Email: elias.thouant <at> gmail.com
I think this explanation is true but incomplete. I believe it's also related to Critical Flicker Fusion Frequency [0], the way I see it, if an organism is smaller it has a higher frequency, it sees more image per second, therefore perception of time is slower. (E.g. a fly sees you moving really slowly). Maybe it's related to the processing time of images, with smaller brains insect can process more of them per second.
Maybe humans process more images as children, therefore see the time time going slower.
It's been a while I didn't think about this, maybe some studies have been made in the past years.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flicker_fusion_threshold
reply