Jane Barratt, a fellow Substacker, has coined the phrase “honest ageing”. This is a powerful concept.(See The Arc of Ageing: The Stories we tell) It holds those of us writing about ageing to task

Being Honest About Ageing.

Jane makes two important arguments about the lack of honesty in the narrative about ageing. The first is individual. Much of the material written about ageing talks about the “golden age”. About the expansion of healthy ageing. About the extended period of good health that has emerged.

In a naïve “four age” life, the first age is about education and preparation for life. Age Two is about building, creating and working. Laslett, a British historian, created this framework. He defines the start of Age Three as “retirement” and portrays it as a golden age. Age Four starts when the process of ageing starts to interfere with life. There are no hard definitions of when the different ages start. It is however a useful framework that avoids chronological age.

The extension of life expectancy and healthy ageing has had a major impact on The Third Age. Being honest about this stage is a balancing act. The problem is the “Ageing Stereotype” that we all have. What we should look and feel like at different ages. The stereotypes have not moved with the increase in healthy ageing. The Fourth Age stereotype often forms part of our own “script” for ageing. It may or may not be accurate. It is certainly being applied at too young an age.

Those stereotypes are negative and potentially harmful, if they become self- fulfilling. This Newsletter and many others aim to challenge that stereotype. We aim to demonstrate the opportunity provided by such an extended third age. The danger is that we paint an unrealistic picture. A picture too optimistic for the average person. A picture of a golden age and successful ageing. A picture that sets a standard which cannot be met.

Honesty also means accepting variability. Variability in how the those Third and Fourth Ages are experienced. The average author may not know what ageing can be like if you short of money. In many societies there are huge variations between the bottom and the top deciles of deprivation or income. We tend to focus on Western Societies which are more affluent. Recognizing those geographic and deprivation differences is key to policy setting. If policy makers are not honest about the variation, then their solutions will not work.

As I mentioned in last week’s Newsletter, being honest about the Fourth Age is different (See Newsletter #248 Overdiagnosis and Over Medicalisation). Individuals are learning to cope with a one-way journey to frailty. Many will remain positive to the end of their lives. The final years of life are unlikely to be graceful. We may take longer to get to our Fourth Age, but we had better be ready for it.

Longevity Literacy

My objective going forward is to be more honest but not give up on being inspirational. We first need to understand what people know about the process of ageing and dying. Longevity Literacy is a term originally coined in financial planning. However, it should be expanded to cover all facets of longevity. “The things that people should know to prepare for their Third and Fourth ages”.

A 2023 study highlighted the scale of the longevity literacy problem. The TIAA Institute found, even at the most basic level, people are not prepared. They do not have the facts on how long they are likely to live. They asked a simple set of questions:

Each question had a correct answer. They could score each individual. They surveyed a representative sample of ages.

Many American adults lack a basic understanding of how long people tend to live after 65. Only 35% of survey respondents correctly answered the first question. (The average 65-year-old would live to 84 for a man and 87 for a woman at the time of the study). Perhaps we should include the 10% of people who over estimated. However, 31% underestimated the number significantly. They expected people to die younger. A significant number also said that they did not know.

The scale of underestimation is obvious from the answers to the other two questions. When asked the odds of someone dying before the age of 70, 20% of people over estimate the odds. In fact, they are 5-10% for men and less than 5% for women. Similarly, 29% underestimated the odds of living to 90. Only 42% got it right or over estimated.

Do Different Groups get it right and wrong?

Being wrong on your life expectancy has a different impact at different ages. The TIAA stress the need to plan financially for longevity. The survey suggests that people will underestimate their needs. The earlier you start the better. At other ages longevity has different meanings for lifestyle.

As we might expect longevity literacy increases with age. They analysed the differences between different cohorts. GenZ had the lowest scores and the Baby Boomers the highest. Even then only 13% of Baby Boomers got all three answers correct. Women tend to be more longevity literate. That is surprising. Men tend to have higher financial literacy. Perhaps it is because women live longer.

The Asian and White groups have higher longevity literacy than Black and Hispanic. This could be the level of financial literacy or to economic prosperity.

How to build Longevity Literacy

I have talked in other Newsletters about the confusion around “life expectancy”. (See Newsletter #132 Life Expectancy is not a Forecast). What it actually means. The difference between period and cohort measures. The TIAA study probed peoples understanding of these key concepts. The results showed respondents did not understand the measures. It seems that promoting existing metrics is not going to work.

Separately, we authors must ask how many people want to become longevity literate? Since 1990, Gallup suggests that only half of Americans had a will. This rises to 75% for the over 65’s but what about the other 25%? Are they just ignoring death?

We are all afraid of death, do we want to see the trailer?