Comments on: Template Aging Strategy (DRAFT/Consultation)

By: Sarah Lay

Sarah Lay — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 10:57:33 +0000

I think the six-month period could work. I will try to get funding in order to run a pilot so we have empirical data on which to base further recommendations.

By: Gary Miller

Gary Miller — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 09:21:41 +0000

Wow…err…have you been at the waccy baccy again…:)

By: JackP

JackP — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 09:15:21 +0000

Good point. I think perhaps for purposes of clarity you should not introduce a new method on an actual birthday – possibly method shifts should be allowed only in the six-month period immediately following a birthday — keeping a six-month protected period in advance of it in order to help ensure clarity?

By: Sarah Lay

Sarah Lay — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 08:55:49 +0000

This is an excellent proposal which covers many societal problems with ‘traditional’ methods of measuring age.
However, there may also be an educational / training issue which has not been addressed in this draft. While the specific method of measurement can be assessed and implemented by the individual *exactly* when changes between systems occurs should be clearer.
For example, if it were to be my thirtieth birthday tomorrow (as measured in the mono-chronological age determination model) but I were prepared to switch to the gravitationally-adjusted method should my birthday cards come with ‘You’re 30′ or ‘You’re 22′ badges?