23 - mid or early 20s?

[donnie_darko]

@polar_bear

Absolutely no logic to it, but for me it’s:

20
early twenties (21-23)
mid twneties (24-27)
late twenties (28-29)

Like I said… no real logic behind it.

That’s kind of like those people who think the year 2000 is numerically part of the 1990s.

[pulykamell]

Gut feeling, I’d still call it “early 20s”.

ETA: Actually, polar bear’s breakdown sounds about right to me.

[pulykamell]

@septimus

++. The whole point of a term like "mid 20’s is that you don’t know or remember the exact age.

On a sadder note, what does “middle-aged” mean? My friend laughed at me when I described myself that way; he claimed “middle-age” was the middle of the normal three-score-and-ten lifespan, i.e. 35 years old. :smack:

I’d consider 35 right about at the low end of what I can see being called as “middle aged.” I’m 38, for the record. I certainly consider myself “middle aged” or at least “early middle aged” by now.

[DSeid]

The arguments here that think of it less than as a mathematical division than as a sociologic construct have me pretty convinced. It’s similar to how what is old age has changed and how we now have a larger group of “young old” who by age in decades past would have been just plain “dang old.”

[Misnomer]

@DSeid

The arguments here that think of it less than as a mathematical division than as a sociologic construct have me pretty convinced.

I’m still in the “sociologic construct” group. Perhaps because I’m trying to deny being anywhere near middle-aged (I turn 42 tomorrow).

[Moonlitherial]

I would say it depends on the person you’re talking to and the image you want to project.

Trying to project maturity - mid 20’s
Trying to avoid sounding old to the cute young thing - early 20’s
If it’s 43 instead of 23 - early 40’s. Not mid 40’s until 45 at the earliest

[runningdude]

@StusBlues

So you are in your early 20s for four years, mid-20s for four years, and late 20s for two years? That hardly seems fair.

That, and when I date 23-year-olds, it sounds better if I can say they’re in their mid-20s, so that’s my vote.

At 22-23, I didn’t feel old; I worked in a school, and teenagers didn’t baffle me yet. At 24, I realized I had been out of college for 2 years, and that I didn’t understand how teenager thought anymore. I felt old.

Thus, age 24 seems a good start to “mid-twenties”.

[JustinC]

I think the correct term is ‘lucky’.

[Learjeff]

Either works for me; it’s in the gray area. Anyone saying either would not be wrong. But I’d probably wait for 24 to say “mid-20’s”. It’s not mathematically jusified, but I’d probably use, when speaking:

20-23 - early
24-26 - mid
27-29 - late

But on hearing the terms, I’d interpret it more loosely:

early - 20-25
mid - 23-27 – maybe even 28
late - 26-29

The other thing is, usually when someone says this, they don’t know exactly, and could be off by a couple years (or considerably more, especially for older decades).

[pulykamell]

@donnie_darko

That’s kind of like those people who think the year 2000 is numerically part of the 1990s.

Who are these people? I’ve honestly never heard of that. There’s the thing that 2000 is technically part of the 20th century, but I don’t think I’ve heard anyone insist that it’s part of the 90s. There might be an argument that the decade should be 1991-2000 instead of 1990-1999, but that wouldn’t be “the 90s” but rather the 200th decade, I guess.

Although, with further research, it appears that Cecil is one of these people. Sorry, but saying “the 80s” is 1981-1990 is dumb.(Although it seems to me Cecil kind of concedes the point at the end.)