I had the same issue. I generated random numbers and still got over 60 years old. I had to dive deep into it, and it turns out that the original paper is shit.

They ask participants to make sequences that are as random as possible but they use Kolmogorov complexity as a measure, which (surprise) doesn't actually measure randomness but complexity. Random distributions tend to have lower complexity than what humans generate; see [1] Fig. 4. Here are the complexity scores for different sequences if you want to lose more sleep over this: [2]. At least the authors were nice enough to be open about their data, so props I guess.

[1]: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.3758/s13428-015-057...

[2]: https://github.com/algorithmicnaturelab/HumanBehavioralCompl...