2
-2

[–] xenoPsychologist 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago 

he opened his mouth to type, and proved his username accurate.

0
0

[–] chintappingretard ago 

You are wrong :

Wikipedia has this exact sentence : "Based on Early Neolithic data, total life expectancy at 15 would be 28–33 years"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

So if you lived to age 15, then 50% of the time you would die before age 33.

0
0

[–] xenoPsychologist ago 

The following information is derived from the 1961 Encyclopædia Britannica and other sources, some with questionable accuracy.

you didnt forget something, did you?

0
1

[–] chintappingretard 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

You obviously have ZERO science education, and it shows!

Also average life expectancy For initial Homo Sapiens sapiens (two "sapiens") with modern final mix of neanderthal, from 4,500 years ago : 20 YEAR LIFE EXPECTANCY average, but if you made it to 20 you have good chance of living to 33 years life: Neolithic :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

Wikipedia says the average life expectancy was 33 tops. Some lived to 80, but half that lived to age 15 died before age 33.

Wikipedia has this exact sentence : "Based on Early Neolithic data, total life expectancy at 15 would be 28–33 years"

So if you lived to age 15, then 50% of the time you would die before age 33.

here it is again :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

You only had a 50% chance of making it to age 34 if you made it to age 20, for all humans, 5,400 years ago. You had a chance to live up to probably 80s, as an oddity.

Cite some studies dude. Cite something. Right now what you're doing is arguing agreed upon science with your personal unfounded opinions that aren't rooted anywhere in science. I provided links to links, you provided jew lies about 60s and 70s AVERAGE , when even merely 4,500 years ago 20 YEAR LIFE EXPECTANCY average (all cause mortality, age 33, if you lived to 15 prior).

The ages of skeletons show the ave ages. Actually the definition of "average" is precisely what is being discussed and is not false. If you cherry pick for wealthy suburban estate people with access to all vitamins and all proteins occaiionally you get a few people that live to 80s thousands of years ago.

Its called AVERAGE life expectancy, all people everywhere, all live births. And its dramatically low due to infectious disease and poor nutrition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

So if you reach adulthood (age 15) you only have a 50% chance of living past 33!!! (28 for some researchers)

NOT 60!!!

Some lived to 80 of course, but we are talking about averages.

The words "average life expectancy" require an above 84 IQ and some science education to understand.

Its shockingly apparent to me that you and @xenoPsychologist have ZERO education in established introductory anthropological science, medicine, history, or anything if you think science facts based on well measured data is all a lie.

I cannot converse with you any further to cross this "intellectual chasm" between us. Entire large books are written about the sad effect of trying to converse across an "intellectual chasm" when two parties IQs differ by more than one standard deviation. Its laborious and near futile if the issue being argued are SCIENCE FACTS, because to cross the "intellectual chasm" frequires weeks of science primer education prior to the lower IQ party finally understanding the issue.

I cannot explain the science definitions of mean, mode, median, and the layperson's "AVERAGE".

Mean, mode, median, range are what you are trying to ask (the three most common averages). I was syntactically wholly correct and now provided wikipedia reference to "average life expectancy if age 15 reached prior". I was using "average" which in shorthand science paper english , always meant to be "mean" not mode, and not "median".

If you want to ask the mean, mode, median, range for human life expectancy 4,500 years ago you can probably locate a variety of science papers.

First though you might need to either take a short course in statistics , or else read up on the terms "mean, mode, median, & range" , a pablum primer :

https://www.inchcalculator.com/mean-median-mode-calculator/

The "mean" is the "average" you're used to, where you add up all the numbers and then divide by the number of numbers.

I was not incorrect using the word "average". I provided citation meant for laypeople on wikipedia.

Some scientists use a further classification where only skeletons above age 2 are tallied. But then you might also complain that you want it above age 3! I mentioned that if you lived to 20 you can live to 33 on average. That is pretty fair statement.

If you want mean, mode, median, or even range, there are papers.

There are books, papers, thesis papers, and more written on the "intellectual chasm" when two people differ too much in IQ. I cannot help you surmount it. I tried baby talk with you. I doubt I got very far explaining how averages work in life expectancy to you.

A pop-science book that mentions the "intellectual chasm" causing our debate in this thread, and my inability to communicate with you, is a good book by Aaron Clarey entitled "The Curse of the High IQ"

TL/DR: ...

"Based on Early Neolithic data, total life expectancy at 15 would be 28–33 years"!

0
0

[–] xenoPsychologist ago 

ZERO science education

thats all i needed to read to know you really are well represented by your user name. you try really hard to sound super smart. i think something is showing and its not what you think.

[–] [deleted] ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] chintappingretard ago 

I am sorry for your low IQ, I have seen your kind in the past that deny established well proven science facts with the tenacity of a Flat Earther. Thousands of overlapping science papers concur that 4,500 years ago if you made it to age 15, life expectancy was only 33. You provide nothing to counter this fact, but attacking the messenger. Your IQ is showing.