From the abstract: ... This paper won an Ig Nobel prize.
From the abstract:
In the United States, supercentenarian status is predicted by the absence of vital registration. The state-specific introduction of birth certificates is associated with a 69-82% fall in the number of supercentenarian records.
...
In England and France, higher old-age poverty rates alone predict more than half of the regional variation in attaining a remarkable age. Only 18% of ‘exhaustively’ validated supercentenarians have a birth certificate, falling to zero percent in the USA, and supercentenarian birthdates are concentrated on days divisible by five: a pattern indicative of widespread fraud and error.
When people get to be 100 years old, 105, 110... They often get interviewed by local (and sometimes even national) media as a human interest story, and they're always asked the question: what's...
When people get to be 100 years old, 105, 110... They often get interviewed by local (and sometimes even national) media as a human interest story, and they're always asked the question: what's the secret to your longevity? Over the years I must've read dozens of interviews with people aged 90+ who were asked that question, and there's no pattern to their answers. Most of them have a theory, but none of the theories line up! Some are basic common sense, some are old fashioned "salt of the earth" type morals, some is random dietary advice, much of which doesn't line up with modern science based nutritional advice... I don't recall ever reading about anyone who said "honestly I just got lucky" or "I don't know."
Obviously, a single individual's life story can't possibly be enough evidence to uncover the secret of how to live a long life. But it strikes me that this paper might just have uncovered that kind of thinking writ large. I've seen a lot of speculation about why certain places tend to produce such long-lived individuals, but if it turns out the reason was just clerical error or plain fraud, maybe it's not so different from asking any random centenarian the question of why they think they're so old.
I suspect anyone who did during the interview ended up being pressed for a different answer until they gave in and picked something randomly, with the original answer being left on the cutting...
I don't recall ever reading about anyone who said "honestly I just got lucky" or "I don't know."
I suspect anyone who did during the interview ended up being pressed for a different answer until they gave in and picked something randomly, with the original answer being left on the cutting room floor. It would make for a much less interesting story, after all.
You'd think it would be interesting just for its novelty. I think I could relate to someone who says, "just got lucky, I guess," more than one old coot I knew who swore it was his habit of...
You'd think it would be interesting just for its novelty. I think I could relate to someone who says, "just got lucky, I guess," more than one old coot I knew who swore it was his habit of drinking buttermilk mixed with Clamato. He was a damn fool though, so I knew the real score.
My favourite was when the person said “smoking two cigarettes a day — everyone knows smoking too much can give you cancer, so the trick is to limit it without cutting it out altogether”
My favourite was when the person said “smoking two cigarettes a day — everyone knows smoking too much can give you cancer, so the trick is to limit it without cutting it out altogether”
Pending someone who's been part of the joke providing specific background: it's just an inside joke about pedantry and the use of "writ large". I can't find the origin point right now, but I'm...
Pending someone who's been part of the joke providing specific background: it's just an inside joke about pedantry and the use of "writ large". I can't find the origin point right now, but I'm sure someone involved could provide a link if you wanted.
Yeah, I didn't mean to implicitly attack or criticize you, and couldn't remember who in particular was the first to complain and who was just making jokes about it. Didn't want to point fingers...
Yeah, I didn't mean to implicitly attack or criticize you, and couldn't remember who in particular was the first to complain and who was just making jokes about it. Didn't want to point fingers without finding the original conversation as a result.
I like the jokes and understand your frustration, to clarify. Just also saw how thrown off imperialismus was without that context.
My great grandma was like this. She lived to 96 (I'm pretty sure) and kept telling us she had no idea how she lived to be so old, even to her death. Everyone in her family died much younger, with...
My great grandma was like this. She lived to 96 (I'm pretty sure) and kept telling us she had no idea how she lived to be so old, even to her death. Everyone in her family died much younger, with my grandfather (her son), died in his 60's or latest, early 70's (I'm sorry, I really can't remember rn).
I love that this paper has really uncovered something interesting, and it's also interesting to see that others think it's annoying when other old people attribute their long life to anything but luck.
Could we please just wait until stuff that's been posted to biorxiv has actually been peer-reviewed before spreading it around the internet like it's gospel? The *rxiv servers are for papers...
Could we please just wait until stuff that's been posted to biorxiv has actually been peer-reviewed before spreading it around the internet like it's gospel? The *rxiv servers are for papers waiting peer-review and publication; there's stuff that never makes it out of there and some stuff that's pretty flawed. One of the things I hate most about the pandemic is that the media and the general public have discovered the *rxiv servers and uncritically take stuff that's there as entirely sound.
I don't think that would be a good rule. Unfortunately, peer review doesn't actually tell us much. (See the replication crisis.) Also, in fast-moving fields, you would end up reporting only...
I don't think that would be a good rule. Unfortunately, peer review doesn't actually tell us much. (See the replication crisis.) Also, in fast-moving fields, you would end up reporting only year-old news. Scientists themselves do not wait; that's what these servers are for.
It might not be for many years until there's scientific consensus. In the meantime, I think we can still talk about current scientific controversies.
A good science reporter will interview scientists in the field to see if it's generally regarded as a solid paper. That's about the best we can do when we're not in a position to evaluate it ourselves.
In this case, I don't think you need to assume every supercentenarian is a fraud to be somewhat skeptical of such claims.
From the abstract:
...
This paper won an Ig Nobel prize.
When people get to be 100 years old, 105, 110... They often get interviewed by local (and sometimes even national) media as a human interest story, and they're always asked the question: what's the secret to your longevity? Over the years I must've read dozens of interviews with people aged 90+ who were asked that question, and there's no pattern to their answers. Most of them have a theory, but none of the theories line up! Some are basic common sense, some are old fashioned "salt of the earth" type morals, some is random dietary advice, much of which doesn't line up with modern science based nutritional advice... I don't recall ever reading about anyone who said "honestly I just got lucky" or "I don't know."
Obviously, a single individual's life story can't possibly be enough evidence to uncover the secret of how to live a long life. But it strikes me that this paper might just have uncovered that kind of thinking writ large. I've seen a lot of speculation about why certain places tend to produce such long-lived individuals, but if it turns out the reason was just clerical error or plain fraud, maybe it's not so different from asking any random centenarian the question of why they think they're so old.
I suspect anyone who did during the interview ended up being pressed for a different answer until they gave in and picked something randomly, with the original answer being left on the cutting room floor. It would make for a much less interesting story, after all.
You'd think it would be interesting just for its novelty. I think I could relate to someone who says, "just got lucky, I guess," more than one old coot I knew who swore it was his habit of drinking buttermilk mixed with Clamato. He was a damn fool though, so I knew the real score.
"Well, way back in 1924 the elder gods cursed me with immortality as a punishment for thwarting their return..."
Well fuck, that guy is owed a refund on that curse.
My favourite was when the person said “smoking two cigarettes a day — everyone knows smoking too much can give you cancer, so the trick is to limit it without cutting it out altogether”
I thought the answer was usually whisky and cigars.
CC: @Promonk
+1 writ large point confirmed
Lol! I thought about calling you, but I didn't want to beat the horse completely into paste.
It's part of the meta. We have lore now.
What's that supposed to mean?
Pending someone who's been part of the joke providing specific background: it's just an inside joke about pedantry and the use of "writ large". I can't find the origin point right now, but I'm sure someone involved could provide a link if you wanted.
It's just me hating how people misuse "writ large" to mean "at large." Glad to see somebody use it properly.
Yeah, I didn't mean to implicitly attack or criticize you, and couldn't remember who in particular was the first to complain and who was just making jokes about it. Didn't want to point fingers without finding the original conversation as a result.
I like the jokes and understand your frustration, to clarify. Just also saw how thrown off imperialismus was without that context.
It's ok. You did good.
I suggest using PMs next time. It's a bit uncomfortable to sit there wondering if people are mocking you in a cryptic way.
My great grandma was like this. She lived to 96 (I'm pretty sure) and kept telling us she had no idea how she lived to be so old, even to her death. Everyone in her family died much younger, with my grandfather (her son), died in his 60's or latest, early 70's (I'm sorry, I really can't remember rn).
I love that this paper has really uncovered something interesting, and it's also interesting to see that others think it's annoying when other old people attribute their long life to anything but luck.
Could we please just wait until stuff that's been posted to biorxiv has actually been peer-reviewed before spreading it around the internet like it's gospel? The *rxiv servers are for papers waiting peer-review and publication; there's stuff that never makes it out of there and some stuff that's pretty flawed. One of the things I hate most about the pandemic is that the media and the general public have discovered the *rxiv servers and uncritically take stuff that's there as entirely sound.
I don't think that would be a good rule. Unfortunately, peer review doesn't actually tell us much. (See the replication crisis.) Also, in fast-moving fields, you would end up reporting only year-old news. Scientists themselves do not wait; that's what these servers are for.
It might not be for many years until there's scientific consensus. In the meantime, I think we can still talk about current scientific controversies.
A good science reporter will interview scientists in the field to see if it's generally regarded as a solid paper. That's about the best we can do when we're not in a position to evaluate it ourselves.
In this case, I don't think you need to assume every supercentenarian is a fraud to be somewhat skeptical of such claims.
134-Year-Old Man Attributes Longevity To Typographical Error