9 ms·
If you didn't read the article - > These calculations were completed for cohorts of men born during 1895–1904, 1905–1914, 1915–1924, and 1925–1934 and the gap
by Brendinooo 1y ago
If you didn't read the article -
> These calculations were completed for cohorts of men born during 1895–1904, 1905–1914, 1915–1924, and 1925–1934
and the gap gradually closed with time. There was an 10-year difference in the first cohort which closed by about two years per cohort.
So, a four-year gap in the most recent cohort is notable, but the narrative's probably a little different than you might guess when looking at the headline alone.
- moralestapia 1y ago>the narrative's probably a little different than you might guess when looking at the headline alone Stop talking mysteries. What's A and what's B?
- Brendinooo 1y agoA and B are the first two letters of the Latin alphabet, though I don't see the relevance.
- moralestapia 1y agoSorry, I didn't know about your capabilities in particular. Please forget this interaction ever happened.
- Brendinooo 1y agoI appreciate the ambiguity in this comment and choose to interpret it to mean that you underestimated me. (fwiw I didn't appreciate your demand that I comment in a particular way - if you'd asked nicely I would have answered differently, or at least not at all!)
- robwwilliams 1y agoSmall sample size of about 1500 Amish men divided across 4 cohorts, all exposed to the great depression. Entry age minimum of 25 years. Sorry, but this is really marginal science. There are much stronger demographic and statistical studies of aging and mortality in humans. Here are some alternative examples of stronger studies to explore from PubMed. I keyed my search using the surnames of two well respected longevity demographers (Vaupel and Christensen): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=%20vaupel%20christensen&sort=date&page=2 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=%20vaupel%20christense...