Comment by readthenotes1

Two things that strike me about this study are:

1. Comparing the bottom 2.5% to the top 2.5% is a vast range and not really applicable to just about anybody who's able to read. So the effect may be real but irrelevant for 95%+ of humanity.

2. It doesn't look like they controlled the expected longevity to the actual longevity and instead compared it to projected longevity. It seems flawed.

0. Since it comes from sociology type research, odds are that it is pure bunk. I would like to see it replicated before it actually got any air time in any serious conversation.

(Yes, I know I have trouble counting but the last one is applicable to almost all modern research)