When do we stop thinking only of ourselves?

You might think that the time when you stop thinking about yourself is when you become an adult or a parent. Culturally, these are the moments when society begins to have different expectations of people. When individuals turn 18 or 21, we grant them various rights and responsibilities, such as voting in elections, owning a car or a gun, drinking alcohol, having sex, being tried for crimes as an adult, or leaving education to support themselves independently from their parents.

Early adulthood is when people start to demonstrate social responsibility. But interestingly, this is NOT when most people start thinking about others. Psychologically, early adulthood is still a time for self-interest — it's the peak of egocentrism. You focus on yourself because you need to earn money, make a living, and begin relationships. When you start thinking about relationships, you become preoccupied with your appearance, identity, and how others see you. Even when you settle down to raise a family, the focus remains on intimacy and, to some degree, isolation — you care more about family unity and well-being than about the external world.

The caring paradox.

Caring about other people and society as a whole typically doesn’t emerge until middle age — usually in your late 40s and early 50s. The paradox of aging is that by the time you care less about what others think, you start caring more about the impact your life has on others. Akiko Busch's recent article in The Atlantic highlights this. She quotes psychologist Alison Carper, who describes the shift from seeking recognition from others to what she calls “interiority.”

"As humans, we all need recognition. But as we grow older, the type of recognition we seek changes. A ‘subject’ [versus an ‘object’] is someone who experiences her own agency, who is aware of how she impacts others, and who knows she is ultimately the author of her own life. She recognizes the responsibility that comes with this.” — Alison Carper.

The article further observes:

"A reduced sense of visibility does not necessarily constrain experience. Associated with greater empathy and compassion, invisibility directs us toward a more humanitarian view of the larger world. A diminished status can, in fact, sustain and inform—rather than limit—our lives. Going unrecognized can, paradoxically, help us recognize our place in the larger scheme of things.”

[An observation consistent with my previous posts that mention developmental psychologist Erik Erikson's who described the 50+ life stage as one of "generativity vs. stagnation," where a person’s psychological development centers on a “concern for establishing and guiding the next generation,” as well as a "commitment to preserving values that benefit society as a whole."]

The Invisibility Effect.

Whether it’s the societal invisibility of older adults or a universal developmental transition, it becomes clear that by age 50, there is an increased desire for meaning, purpose, and causes greater than oneself. While this is not universal, certain segments of the 50+ age group in our research exhibit a strongly generous and selfless outlook — most notably the “Caring Crusaders.” This segment comprises about 14% of the 50+ population (over 4.3 million people) and is the group most focused on making a difference, doing good, and leaving the world a better place for future generations.

Will ‘invisibles’ swing the US election?

With the U.S. presidential election so prominent in the news, this observation about both the invisibility and the strong social orientation of the 50+ demographic made me wonder if this older age group was once again being vastly underestimated in their potential to influence our election. If you read the coverage of this tight race, nearly all media commentators and political strategists seem to believe that the election will be decided by the youth vote.

Take, for instance, a recent The New York Times article on swing voters. The analysis, which cites polling data, asserts that the 18% of uncommitted voters are likely to “decide the presidential election”:

However, through the lens of older women's invisibility, it strikes me that the 52% of swing voters over 45 years and the 49% of female swing voters have a much greater chance of affecting the election than those focused on by the New York Times journalist.

Why? Simply because of their sheer numbers and dedication to showing up at the polls. According to Pew research , the voter profile in 2022 skewed much older than the general population, with 64% of those who voted being 50+. Young people are much less likely to register to vote, and only 36% of the electorate who were under-45 actually participated in the 2022 elections.

More fluid than society expects.

This recent AARP poll not only shows how the invisible over-50s are likely to be a driving force behind the election but also highlights how 'invisible women' are shifting their votes toward Kamala Harris. It’s tempting to assume that someone over 50, with a lifetime of political affiliation, is stuck in their ways, but the data suggests otherwise. In January, Democrats held only a three-point lead among older women. After the selection of Kamala Harris, this has shifted significantly, increasing by nine percentage points for a total lead of 12%.

This same effect is visible in some local races, such as in New York State , where 50+ female activists — arguably the “Caring Crusaders” — are particularly active in canvassing and making phone calls.

The lesson today: Don’t underestimate the power of invisible women!