The oldest millennials are 45! This tool helps plan for longevity 91%

By Allison Aubrey0%

5/4/2026, 2:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 31 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Negativity Bias, and Indoctrination, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 18% saturation with 186 hits. Analysis detected 1,479 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,034 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 85.4% and a BS Rank of 91% (1,961 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 91.00% of the article peer group.

If you're planning for the future, you've likely been advised to track your retirement savings. 
But Joe Coughlin, director of the MIT AgeLab, says there's more to the equation when it comes to navigating a long life. 
Given the number of centenarians is expected to quadruple by 2054, Coughlin and his collaborators developed a comprehensive way to plan for aging. 
It's called the Longevity Preparedness Index. 
"Unlike one more survey or index out there about how much money you've saved, we want to look at all those big and little things that we take for granted in life," Coughlin says. 
"We may expect things won't change, but when a big life transition comes along  whether it's retiring from a profession, a death or unexpected sickness  many people have unintentionally ignored some of the very decisions that could help us thrive," he says. 
The quiz is free online and takes about 15 minutes to complete. 
A score is determined by answers across eight domains, including relationships with family, friends and community, health and daily activities. 
Awareness is the first step 
MIT AgeLab researcher Katie Warren walks financial planner Matt Hudack through the survey at a John Hancock longevity conference, where the tool was introduced in April. 
John Hancock, a financial services company that provides life insurance, partnered with MIT AgeLab to develop the index and has launched an initiative to help its customers live longer, healthier lives. 
Hudack, who is in his early 60s and based in Orange County, California, clicks through questions about his neighborhood. 
"Does my neighborhood have good sidewalks and places for walking?" 
he reads aloud. 
"Agree." 
He continues: "My neighborhood has many places for social gatherings and activities that I would enjoy? 
Agree." 
Hudack seems healthy and fit, so it's hard to imagine a day when he couldn't drive to a pharmacy or would need help getting around. 
But the survey includes uncomfortable questions designed to prompt exactly that kind of thinking such as: In the event you were to need a care provider, do you know who that would be? 
"Watching my 88-year-old dad and my 93-year-old father-in-law, it gives you pause for thought," Hudack says, recognizing that needs change with age. 
Keeping people in their homes often means modifying entrances to minimize steps, installing handrails, or relocating a bedroom and shower to the main floor. 
These are changes that can be anticipated in advance. 
"Better to have your eyes wide open than to dig your head in the sand," Hudack says. 
He completed the survey and tallied his score: 89 out of 100. 
The average is 60. 
John Hancock CEO Brooks Tingle says awareness is the first step toward change and that taking the quiz himself shifted his own thinking. 
"People may make decisions about where they're going to move in, quote unquote, retirement," without thinking through some of the essential domains, he says. 
"For me, that might have been driven by how good the fishing was." 
But taking the longevity index survey helped him realize he should be thinking more holistically as he looked decades down the road: What about the quality of health care? 
Would I have friends if I moved to a new town? 
"The general lack of preparedness struck me," he says, reflecting on that average score of 60. 
Answering questions about life transitions, community, care and home can "help reveal both the challenges and opportunities," Coughlin says. 
Savings is still important 
Among the harder challenges: What happens if people can no longer afford to stay in their homes, or need help with daily living but can't pay for it? 
Data from the Pew Research Center finds most older adults who live at home would prefer to age in place with caregiving support, if given the choice. 
But non-medical caregiving  like meal preparation, housekeeping and personal hygiene assistance  costs on average $80,000 a year. 
"None of us know how long our savings have to last or what our life, health and ability is going to look like," says Samara Scheckler of Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. 
"The cost of care becomes a huge chunk of the picture when added to housing. 
We call that the dual burden of housing and care," she says, pointing out that these are insurmountable costs for many families. 
Financial security is top of mind for most people entering the post-paycheck years. 
"We did a survey where we asked people what their aspirations were for living to 100," says psychologist Laura Carstensen, director of the Stanford Center on Longevity. 
"The most common responses were: I hope I don't have dementia, and I hope I haven't run out of money." 
Practical concerns matter, of course, but Carstensen says the risk is that they crowd out any ability to see the upsides of a longer life. 
"If we only have this white-knuckled approach, we're never going to realize the potential opportunities," she says. 
Planning ahead can help reframe aging 
Taking steps to anticipate and adapt to the inevitable physical changes that arise as we age can open up space to imagine the possibilities. 
"We really need to raise the bar and begin to daydream about what it means to be 100 and doing really well," Carstenen says. 
Life expectancy in the U.S. is 30 years longer than it was in 1900 at 47 years old. 
And Carstensen says, when it comes to maximizing these decades, individual planning is important indeed, but we can't go it alone. 
Our communities shape our health outcomes as do social norms. 
She and her collaborators have created The New Map of Life to reexamine how societal and educational structures can support lifelong learning and thriving. 
"This is about starting the conversation and then moving into preparedness and then taking action," Coughlin says. 
He says in the longevity space, there's an entire industry of businesses and influencers focused on extending lifespan. 
But what are you going to do with those years? 
Coughlin says the goal of the Longevity Preparedness Index is to help people think through how to design those years. 
The goal is not just to live longer, but live better. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 3.1%Allison Aubrey: 4.1%KUOW: 2.6%Confirmation Bias3.1%This article: 1.9%Allison Aubrey: 2.0%KUOW: 1.3%Anchoring Bias1.9%This article: 8.1%Allison Aubrey: 4.4%KUOW: 3.4%Availability Heuristic8.1%This article: 1.8%Allison Aubrey: 1.1%KUOW: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic1.8%This article: 0.0%Allison Aubrey: 1.0%KUOW: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Allison Aubrey: 3.4%KUOW: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 3.2%Allison Aubrey: 9.3%KUOW: 7.4%Framing Effect3.2%This article: 1.6%Allison Aubrey: 1.4%KUOW: 1.0%Loss Aversion1.6%This article: 2.4%Allison Aubrey: 1.5%KUOW: 1.0%Status Quo Bias2.4%This article: 0.0%Allison Aubrey: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 5.5%Allison Aubrey: 5.8%KUOW: 3.8%Optimism Bias5.5%This article: 4.9%Allison Aubrey: 1.7%KUOW: 1.8%Pessimism Bias4.9%This article: 11.5%Allison Aubrey: 4.1%KUOW: 8.0%Negativity Bias11.5%This article: 1.3%Allison Aubrey: 0.5%KUOW: 2.0%Self-Serving Bias1.3%This article: 0.0%Allison Aubrey: 0.6%KUOW: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Allison Aubrey: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 1.7%Allison Aubrey: 1.6%KUOW: 2.0%In-Group Bias1.7%This article: 0.0%Allison Aubrey: 0.0%KUOW: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 5.3%Allison Aubrey: 2.3%KUOW: 2.7%Halo Effect5.3%This article: 0.0%Allison Aubrey: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Allison Aubrey: 0.0%KUOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.7%Allison Aubrey: 0.1%KUOW: 1.1%Recency Bias1.7%This article: 0.0%Allison Aubrey: 0.3%KUOW: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Allison Aubrey: 0.0%KUOW: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Allison Aubrey: 0.0%KUOW: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Allison Aubrey: 0.8%KUOW: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 18.0%Allison Aubrey: 10.3%KUOW: 4.3%Appeal to Authority18.0%This article: 3.8%Allison Aubrey: 1.7%KUOW: 1.4%False Dilemma3.8%This article: 1.6%Allison Aubrey: 0.3%KUOW: 0.9%Slippery Slope1.6%This article: 1.6%Allison Aubrey: 0.1%KUOW: 0.1%Circular Reasoning1.6%This article: 15.8%Allison Aubrey: 4.3%KUOW: 4.1%Hasty Generalization15.8%This article: 0.0%Allison Aubrey: 0.0%KUOW: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Allison Aubrey: 1.7%KUOW: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Allison Aubrey: 2.1%KUOW: 6.1%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Allison Aubrey: 0.1%KUOW: 0.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 5.0%Allison Aubrey: 1.5%KUOW: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.0%This article: 0.0%Allison Aubrey: 0.0%KUOW: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.3%Allison Aubrey: 0.2%KUOW: 0.3%Burden of Proof2.3%This article: 1.7%Allison Aubrey: 0.9%KUOW: 0.2%Appeal to Nature1.7%This article: 1.0%Allison Aubrey: 0.2%KUOW: 0.2%Composition/Division1.0%This article: 5.6%Allison Aubrey: 6.2%KUOW: 3.3%Anecdotal5.6%This article: 0.0%Allison Aubrey: 0.1%KUOW: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 1.1%Allison Aubrey: 5.0%KUOW: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)1.1%This article: 0.0%Allison Aubrey: 0.0%KUOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.0%Allison Aubrey: 1.0%KUOW: 0.1%Middle Ground2.0%This article: 2.4%Allison Aubrey: 0.2%KUOW: 0.1%Personal Incredulity2.4%This article: 0.0%Allison Aubrey: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Allison Aubrey: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Allison Aubrey: 0.3%KUOW: 1.0%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 3.3%Allison Aubrey: 0.4%KUOW: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection3.3%This article: 6.4%Allison Aubrey: 2.1%KUOW: 3.2%Biased Writer Voice6.4%This article: 10.4%Allison Aubrey: 7.0%KUOW: 1.5%Indoctrination10.4%This article: 0.0%Allison Aubrey: 0.0%KUOW: 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Allison Aubrey: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 6.7%Allison Aubrey: 3.2%KUOW: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…6.7%

1034 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers55%attributed speech462writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageJoe Coughlin • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageJoe Coughlin • 34 words • 100.0% coverageJoe Coughlin • 44 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageMatt Hudack • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageMatt Hudack • 1 words • 0.0% coverageMatt Hudack • 16 words • 0.0% coverageMatt Hudack • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageMatt Hudack • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageMatt Hudack • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageBrooks Tingle • 23 words • 0.0% coverageBrooks Tingle • 24 words • 0.0% coverageBrooks Tingle • 13 words • 0.0% coverageBrooks Tingle • 29 words • 0.0% coverageBrooks Tingle • 11 words • 0.0% coverageBrooks Tingle • 16 words • 0.0% coverageJoe Coughlin • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageSamara Scheckler • 34 words • 0.0% coverageSamara Scheckler • 15 words • 0.0% coverageSamara Scheckler • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageLaura Carstensen • 27 words • 0.0% coverageLaura Carstensen • 20 words • 0.0% coverageLaura Carstensen • 25 words • 0.0% coverageLaura Carstensen • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageCarstenen • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageLaura Carstensen • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageJoe Coughlin • 17 words • 100.0% coverageJoe Coughlin • 18 words • 0.0% coverageJoe Coughlin • 10 words • 0.0% coverageJoe Coughlin • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Joe Coughlin

100%flagged-word coverage
184 attributed words32% of attributed speech79% writer coverage
0%20.0%40.0%Biased Writer Voice+35.9 ptsWriter: 0.0%Joe Coughlin: 35.9%35.9%Indoctrination+20.6 ptsWriter: 7.1%Joe Coughlin: 27.7%27.7%Quote-first Misdirection+18.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Joe Coughlin: 18.5%18.5%Attempt to Sell a Product +0.3 ptsWriter: 10.6%Joe Coughlin: 10.9%10.9%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.