Why The Time You Think You Have Left Is More Important Than Your Age

A lot of people think they want to live forever. But do they really? I tend to believe that most of us only want to stick around as long as we are reasonably fit, healthy and happy. However, there is only so much we can do that will guarantee that outcome. Instead, what most of us don’t know (and I didn’t know until recently) the length of time you believe you have left has more of an influence on your well-being than you probably know.  Just being aware of that and how it changes our goals and motivations going forward, might be the best strategy we can take for making the most of the time we have left.  Why?

A bulk of this view comes from the work of Dr. Laura L. Carstensen who is the director of the Stanford Center on Longevity, author of numerous books on aging and an undisputed leader in the psychology of aging.  A major focus of her work is in a field she calls socio-emotional selectivity theory. (SST) The core of SST is that a person’s “time-horizon” has a powerful influence on their goals and motivations.  In other words, if we think we are going to live for a much longer time, our goals for the future are different than if we think we are only going to be around for a short period.  It makes sense that if the end of our life (or the world) seems near, our motivations and goals shift.

What are the differences?  Through years of research and testing, the primary overview of goals that Carstensen focused on were:

• Goal #1: We spend time thinking and working towards possibilities for the future.
• Goal #2 We spend a lot of time learning, growing and enhancing our potential.
• Goal #3 We focus on solidifying and deepening our relationships and experiences.

Carstensen’s research showed her that when people’s ages are a variety of ranges, from young adult through middle age, their goals were across the spectrum—all of it them were important.  Then at a point when people retire and/or approach what they considered to be older age (with a shorter timespan), their goals begin to narrow and target the third motivation—focus more on meaningful things as well as deepening relationships with friends and family.  They clearly cared more for emotionally connected relationships and desires.

Carstensen discovered (as we might imagine) that younger people tend to think of the future as vast with unlimited potential.  As we get older, we become more and more aware that our time is limited and that endings are inevitable. When that happens, we start prioritizing in ways that we don’t normally do when we are younger. Instead of spending time preparing for what the future might bring and what we will do there, we focus on what is happening now and savoring what (and who) is most important to us in the present.  There is less exploration and variation.  Fortunately, the result is that we focus on the deepening quality of our relationships and experiences which boosts our overall wellbeing.

That boost of wellbeing for aging people at first confused researchers. That’s because from the looks of it (especially those much younger), people who are aging appear to lose a number of abilities including health, mobility and oftentimes relationships. That discrepancy became known as The Aging Paradox.  Because how can it possibility be reported over and over that older people are generally happier than younger people when their social status, physical health, broad and diverse friendship networks, and social engagement appear to be diminishing?  Again, it’s because their goals and motivations change. What seemed so important in youth gradually loses its attraction.  Carstensen says, “As time horizons grow shorter, as they typically do with age, emotional goals are prioritized over exploration. When time is limited, its value increases and people selectively invest in important activities with a focus on savoring experiences in the moments when they occur.”

Another thing I found fascinating to realize is the fact that until the mid-70s (I was just graduating from high school) old age was considered the unavoidable and pathological end of a person’s life.  In other words, we are all just destined to age, get sick, contact disease, be depressed and die.  Then in the mid-80’s (again, not so long ago), research by the National Institute of Mental health did a huge, conclusive study where the finding was clear: “Except for the dementias, older adults displayed less psychopathology of all forms than their middle-aged and younger counterparts.”  (In simple words psychopathology means the study of behavioral or mental disorder.)  This research proved that mental health does not decline with age and challenged the factors that we had previously presumed led to happiness.  Hence the paradox of aging.

Of course, Carstensen is quick to say that not all of us experience aging the same.  Some seniors do have a far more difficult time than others.  Her research shows that adults who did not complete high school are nearly three times as likely to be disabled by age 64 as college graduates. And high school graduates who never attended college are about twice as likely to experience physical ailments. It’s not entirely clear why disability is so prevalent among low-income people with little schooling, but research points to limited access to health care, higher stress levels, strenuous jobs, and less-healthy behaviors as possible causes. Disability rates are also higher for women than men and for African Americans and Hispanics than non-Hispanic whites.

But the big takeaway for me was that aging is not just one big downhill slog to dying.  Instead it is an ongoing journey filled with nuance and deepened emotional rewards. Carstensen states that while loneliness can be a problem for some older people, research is showing that it is actually more common among young people. And while our social worlds might be smaller than when in our youth, she says, “Social worlds did not simply narrow due to loss but were proactively shaped to support changing goals.”   Who among us hasn’t decided at some point to give up certain “friends” because they were never that supportive to begin with?  Once again, quality rules over quantity.

Of course, some of this research raises the question of whether this insight would allow us to extend our life by lengthening our “time-horizon?”  However, would we then sacrifice our immediate wellbeing by doing so?  Carstensen has done research showing when young people are faced with life threatening situations (terminal health challenges, 9/11 or COVID) they too focus more on immediate emotional goals.  And when older people were told a medical breakthrough offered them a 20-year pass to good health—they also altered their goals to include more growth, learning and potential than otherwise.  Where this knowledge leads remains to be seen.

Perhaps it is time we recognize that in the last 50 years the value, the possibility and the potential of aging has changed dramatically—and most of us are the beneficiaries. The SMART approach just might be to change the narrative about aging with those younger than us and share the gifts of aging rather than the downsides.  After all, as Carstensen says, “…findings suggest that the approach to endings turns happiness into savoring, with a tinge of sadness that may increase gratitude.”  And perhaps the best question we can ask each other as we age is not how old are you? But what do you plan to do with your precious life in the days ahead?

https://academic.oup.com/gerontologist/article/61/8/1188/6412643