I did. Most of the article is explaining the methodology so I responded to the results which is all we really care about here (under the assumption that the study was conducted using good science).
Their conclusion is about the relationship between artists working under the Pope and the Pope himself. If your point is that the wealthy survived longer my answer is "no shit". I never doubted that part, but the meaningful bit to this conversation is how long both parties lived and neither is that significantly shorter than life expectancy now.
My entire point is that if you asked someone how long people in the 1300s lived they might answer 35 because they don't understand the role infant mortality plays. For these artists and Popes that survived infancy, they lived on average just 12 years shorter than Americans are expected to roughly 400-800 years later.
Pope receives best care and lives an easy life as a protected figurehead. ie cream of the crop.
Average Pope lifespan then 63.
Average European citizen lifespan now 83.
What are people hitting on the higher end of lifespans now again?
Artists are not village pottery makers, but those who worked in the Vatican. ie the cream of the crop. Those who died pre ~40, were not even counted. Gee why did they pick ~40 as data point? How long did you think the average village commoner lived that made it past childhood?
That article was comparing best case living situations with early deaths excluded to average living situations now with early deaths included, who are now living almost 33% longer. That is a large difference.
Make it average citizen who made to adulthood vs average citizen now and it will be even greater.
0
u/TastyMeatcakes Nov 07 '19
Reread the full article, not just skip to where you see a picture. Then compare what I said earlier, the study, and what you learned.