Today I read in the
New York Times that 'reverse mentoring' is the next big thing in
company networking. Basically, it means that younger employees
mentor older ones, teaching them technical skills, that sort of
thing.
Interesting
development. I have no need for that, of course, because I already
have two top notch mentors in the form of my splendid triplets, both
in their mid-20s, and sharp as needles. We 'mentor' each other, and
the exchange of knowledge and ideas goes both ways. This works best
when everyone involved is equally knowledgeable and keen to pass that
knowledge on, obviously. Too often mentoring is only one way, and
that can result in a hierarchical relationship which can easily be
resented.
I never quite
understood the tendency of the older generation (including my own age
group) to think in hierarchies, accompanied by the idea that younger
folk know less than they did at their age and are generally
degenerates, going down the drain fast. Rather a silly idea, I
think. In my experience everyone knows an awful lot, and it seems
futile to rank that knowledge in any ways whatsoever.
For example, I have
beautiful – and readable! - handwriting, but can't touch-type. For
most young people the opposite is the case. Similarly, I have a
grasp of history that surprises younger folk. But they have an
understanding of social network websites that astonishes me. Does
that make me superior or inferior to them? In my view neither; we
just have different skills, which are valuable in different contexts.
It is just too easy for both younger and older generations to
dismiss the skills, knowledge, and wisdom of the others, just because
they are different from their own and thus not understood.
The reason for this
is perhaps that there isn't enough meaningful contact on an equal
footing between the generations, instead of the hierarchical contact
that happens with family, teachers, and bosses. Older people
wouldn't resent and dismiss today's youth so much if they dealt with
them as equals, and didn't assume they always knew better just
because they were older. And younger people need to remember that it
is natural for older people to know more than they do – they simply
have more years worth of experience to draw upon.
My triplets have
been grown-ups for ten years; I have been a grown-up for forty years.
During those forty years I have watched, listened, discussed, and
thought about a huge amount of news, and accumulated and digested an
enormous amount of information. What kind of idiot would I be if I
didn't know more than people who only had one quarter of that time to
learn? Putting it the other way round, what sort of a genius must
the younger person be to accumulate the same amount of experience in
one quarter of the time?
Every generation,
nay every individual person, face their own unique circumstances, and
will develop ways to deal with these circumstances, resulting in
unique understanding and experience that will enrich and progress the
store of human knowledge.
Obviously, all other
things being equal, a fifteen year old will have contributed less
than a twenty-five year old, who will have contributed less than a
thirty-five year old. But that doesn't mean that fifteen year olds
don't have anything valuable to contribute, and aren't worth
listening to as equals – with regard to their unique experience,
they are the experts!
Of course, it is a
lot easier to achieve such mutual respect and appreciation among
triplets! That's one of the reasons why I am a great supporter of
the triplet concept, which might be summed up as follows.
Scare up a couple of
hopefuls you think you can jell with. Persons who are intelligent,
knowledgeable, sociable, genial, and generally worth spending time
with. Ideally people who differ from you in areas of experience,
age, and background – that will allow maximisation of mutual
experience-exchange. And then spend as much time with them as
possible. Simple, really.
Joseph and Ruby, I salute you! You are the best triplets ever!
Long may it last.
