With a President-elect who regularly blows off steam via ill-advised 3 a.m. tweetstorms, self-control may appear to be in short supply these days. But the ability to delay gratification remains an important skill. Every time you walk away from an argument that you know will lead to a fight, or put away your credit card because you won’t have the money to pay it off for quite some time, you’re resisting immediate rewards in exchange for potentially bigger future rewards. And it turns out that people with stronger self-control are better able to empathize with others—including their future selves—according to new research published in Science Advances.


European researchers at the University of Zurich and the University of Düsseldorf who study self-control and impulse control, investigated a brain region called the temporoparietal juncture (TPJ) that becomes active when taking the perspective of another person. In short, the TPJ is the area of the brain dedicated to selflessness. The larger the region, the more generous you’re likely to be, while electric stimulation there has been shown to lead to more empathy. The Zurich-Düsseldorf team was surprised to find that the same brain region lights up when one exhibits self-control of any kind, leading to an unusual conclusion that, “The future self is kind of like another person,” says Alexander Soutschek, lead author of the study and professor of economics at the University of Zurich.

[quote position=”full” is_quote=”true”]Those who have better self-control abilities are happier in later life, less overweight, and perform better in their jobs.[/quote]

In other words, when you exhibit self-control, you’re essentially relating to your future self the way you would another person—and thinking more on that future self’s behalf than that of your present self. Being able to take on another’s perspective is associated with stronger social behavior, Soutschek says, adding, “Those who have better self-control abilities are happier in later life, less overweight, and perform better in their jobs.”

To see if their findings held up, researchers administered two rounds of “classical self-control tasks to link perspective-taking with the ability to exert self-control,” he says. Mirroring the famous marshmallow test—in which children were seated before a tasty treat and asked to resist eating it so that they could receive a later reward of two marshmallows—these subjects could “choose between 80 francs today, or 160 francs in one month,” Soutschek says of the first task. The subjects really did receive the money after the test. Next, they also had to choose between a payoff they would personally benefit from, or a payoff in which they benefited slightly less in order for another person to benefit.

The team then disrupted the TPJ region using non-invasive transcranial stimulation. Rather than boosting empathy, people tended to act more impulsively (choosing the immediate payoff), as well as acting more selfishly (choosing more money for themselves over sharing the benefits with others). Messing with the brain’s empathy center turns you into a jerk—to your future self and others.

Psychoanalyst Scott Von, Ph.D, director of the New Clinic in New York City, believes this research is particularly relevant, given America’s particular political climate. “We are no longer in the ‘culture of narcissism’ that the baby boomers talked about, but what I call a ‘culture of egoism,’ where we care even more about our status and reputation than our selfish pleasures or self-control,” he says. American society right now “may reflect a set of false selves and pretense to civility—while hate, fear, resentment, and selfish manipulation lie under the surface,” which Von sees as “more evident during the recent election and surrounding events.”

[quote position=”full” is_quote=”true”]It’s well-known that addiction patients are suffering self-control deficits.[/quote]

While the self-control research will have many implications, one of the most potentially important will involve how we treat addiction, says Soutschek. “It’s well-known that addiction patients are suffering self-control deficits,” he says. While the focus in the treatment of addiction has primarily been on impulse control, “our idea is if there’s a second self-control mechanism in the TPJ, then self-control deficits may (also stem) from deficits in perspective-taking.” He envisions new approaches to addiction treatment, such as cognitive training “that could direct attention to the future consequences of your behavior,” and stimulation of the TPJ.

So the next time you find yourself baited for a fight, tempted to slap down cash you don’t have, or about to indulge in a calorie-laden snack you really shouldn’t, practice holding back. Even if delaying gratification doesn’t come naturally to you, you’ll benefit from an arguably less delicious, but much more valuable reward—in the form of physical, mental, and social health.

  • Why does your brain mix up memories? A new study examines how memories are misplaced in your brain’s filing cabinets
    Photo credit: LWA/Stone via Getty Images – Older people may confuse memories rather than forgetting them altogether.
    ,

    Why does your brain mix up memories? A new study examines how memories are misplaced in your brain’s filing cabinets

    A new study explores how aging changes the way our brains store and retrieve experiences.

    Associate Professor of Psychology, Binghamton University, State University of New York

    Old age and forgetfulness seem to go hand in hand. But my colleagues and I found that memories actually becomes less precise, not entirely forgotten. Our study, published in the journal Cerebral Cortex, shows how the brain blends related experiences as you age rather than replaying the exact one you need.

    Memory is a complicated process. Even when everything’s working as it should, the way people remember specific events has many parts.

    Say you have a conversation with a friend. The first stage of memory is when you’re experiencing, feeling and perceiving details of an event as it happens. The second stage involves storing these details in your brain’s file cabinet. The third stage covers when you need to search that file cabinet for just the right file when, a week later, you want to remember that conversation with your friend. This last retrieval stage is what many people think of as memory.

    Imagine that when your brain was retrieving information from that conversation with your friend, it accidentally combined details from that conversation with one you had with your spouse that morning. When you then try to remember the conversation with your friend, you actually pull the file for the conversation with your spouse instead. This kind of mix-up might be an example of what happens with the aging brain.

    Why it matters

    Remembering people and events is important for many social activities. Confusing people’s names can be embarrassing. The fear of confusing memories can even lead to social isolation.

    Scientists already know that confusing memories happens more often than forgetting them altogether. What’s less clear is how the brain gets confused.

    My team’s study tried to understand when in the memory process these mix-ups happen and how the brain’s memory center, called the hippocampus, plays a role.

    The hippocampus is involved in all stages of memory. The patterns of neural firing that occur during the first stage of memory – the initial experience of talking with your friend – often recur while your brain is filing that memory away and later when retrieving it.

    Watch on  YouTube
    The hippocampus is critical to memory.

    For our study, we scanned the brains of young, middle-aged and older adults while they went through those same three stages of memory. While in the scanner, they briefly saw images of a face at the top of the screen and an image of either a scene or an object, such as a forest or an apple, on the bottom of the screen.

    We told participants to imagine the person at the top interacting in the scene or with the object. Each image pair served as a separate “event.”

    They then relaxed for 20 minutes while we continued to record their brain activity. Finally, they took a memory test in which a face they had previously seen reappeared on top with four images below. Participants had to remember which of those images had previously been paired with the face. We repeated this test several times to gauge how well people remembered links between faces and scenes and objects across events.

    We found that older people had more memory mix-ups than young adults. For instance, they were more likely to falsely remember a face that was initially paired with an apple as having been paired with a forest. Older people were also less likely to repeat the same brain activity patterns seen when they first experienced, stored and retrieved a specific memory. Surprisingly, even when older adults did repeat the original brain patterns, they were even more likely to confuse their memories.

    Our study provides new evidence that the hippocampus is inappropriately changing memories between different memory phases as one gets older.

    What still isn’t known

    Research in young adults, including those in our study, suggests that the hippocampus is supposed to engage in the same neural firing patterns when remembering an event as when first experiencing it.

    But the older adults who made more memory mix-ups than younger participants showed these same neural patterns. So what is the brain signature when older adults get a memory right? Are other brain regions outside the hippocampus helping? We did not get a good answer for these questions from our study.

    What’s next

    Researchers are still learning how different brain regions talk to one another. One of the next frontiers in neuroscience is understanding how electrically stimulating the hippocampus prevents memory loss or restores lost memories.

    Future interventions might try to strengthen the hippocampus to prevent it from changing a memory after it’s stored. Researchers already have some ideas for this: intensive exercise, mindfulness training, brain stimulation and even recording memory cues on smartphones.

    But researchers still need to investigate whether changing the hippocampus can lead to stable, consistent memories over time.

    The Research Brief is a short take about interesting academic work.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.
  • Getting outside despite your 9‑to‑5 job can improve your mental health – here’s how to spend time in nature during and around working hours
    Photo credit: Todd Lookingbill – Urban parks are great places to soak in the outdoors without planning an elaborate trip.

    The modern workday unfolds largely indoors. Long hours spent commuting, sitting in meetings and staring at screens can make time outdoors feel like a luxury. Finding time for nature in an already packed workday can feel impossible, especially if you think nature only “counts” when it involves hiking boots and camping gear.

    But a growing body of research suggests that nature’s benefits don’t require an exotic vacation getaway or weekend adventure. Even brief, routine interactions with green space can reduce stress, improve mood and promote overall well-being.

    I spent the spring of 2026 teaching and studying urban landscapes in Denmark, a country consistently ranked among the happiest in the world. I expected to find thoughtfully designed parks, courtyards and bicycle paths. I did see those things. But what surprised me was how seamlessly people moved through those spaces as part of their ordinary lives.

    These green spaces weren’t aspirational destinations, reserved for special occasions. They were places to eat lunch, meet friends, walk through on the way home from work, or just pause for a few quiet moments. Getting outside seemed a part of the natural rhythm of the day.

    Denmark‘s outdoor culture stemmed not only from the creation of a meticulously planned network of parks, but also from the way green spaces were fundamentally woven into the routines of everyday life.

    A wooden bench in an outdoor park
    A wooden bench in one of Copenhagen’s forest therapy parks invites people to sit and soak in their surroundings. Todd Lookingbill

    Everyday parks, everyday benefits

    Evidence linking time spent in nature with health benefits has increasingly shaped public policy. In the U.S., for example, the National Park Service’s Healthy Parks Healthy People and ParkRx initiatives reflect a growing recognition that access to parks contributes to well-being.

    For many Americans, however, the word “park” brings to mind iconic national parks such as Yellowstone, Yosemite or the Grand Canyon. Yet visiting parks of all kinds can improve your overall health. The greatest public health value may come not from the parks people visit once in a lifetime but from those close enough to visit again and again.

    My own research on Civil War battlefield parks illustrates this point. These are parks that were established to commemorate historic conflicts that were frequently fought on the fringes of major metropolitan areas. Consequently, many of these landscapes preserve forests, grasslands and trails within easy reach of millions of Americans.

    Because they’re accessible without extensive travel or planning, they can become places people return to repeatedly – such as during a lunch break or after work. Reframing the notion of “park” opens up millions of acres of land for everyday uses.

    Designing for everyday nature

    At the University of Richmond, where I work, a stream restoration projects became an opportunity to rethink how nature fits into campus life. Landscape architects designed an Eco-Corridor, as the project became known. It has walking paths, gathering spaces and seating areas for quiet reflection alongside flowing streams and native vegetation.

    The result was a landscape that supports biodiversity and improves water quality while also creating places for students, faculty and staff to walk between meetings, eat lunch alfresco or spend a few quiet moments outside during the workday. Its ongoing care depends on an army of volunteers who spread mulch, remove invasive plants and tend the community garden. For these volunteers, stewardship between classes and meetings meant another opportunity to interact with nature.

    A group of young people walking along a concrete path lined with trees and shrubbery.
    Students walk through the ‘Eco-Corridor’ at the University of Richmond. Haley Herrmann

    What we learned was that nature doesn’t have to compete with work, studying or everyday responsibilities. Thoughtful landscape design can make spending time outdoors, even if only for a few short minutes, feel like a normal part of the day.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

  • New Russian research suggests that the human lifespan could be up to 156 years
    Photo credit: Canva – Researchers found what's preventing us from living longer.
    ,

    New Russian research suggests that the human lifespan could be up to 156 years

    Humans can live much longer if certain barriers are addressed.

    According to the Guinness Book of World Records, the oldest person lived to the ripe age of 122 years old. Such a lifespan is an incredible feat, but what if the average person could beat that record by 34 years? Recent research done in Russia has led scientists to believe that the average human lifespan could be up to 156 years.

    The researchers at Skoltech Biomed Technologies Center developed a mathematical model that allowed them to “switch on” a variety of aging mechanisms. This allowed them to calculate a human’s lifespan where mortality risk never increased with age. After experimenting with different scenarios and conditions, they found the biggest barriers to longevity were caused by non-renewable tissues and somatic mutations.

    What are these barriers against longer life?

    Somatic mutations are DNA changes within a cell. They accumulate over time during a human’s life and cannot be reversed with any existing therapy. These DNA errors that pile up in our cells contribute to the aging process.

    Many human organs like the liver and skin continually replace cells and regrow damaged portions of themselves. However, there are two organs that can’t do this: the brain and the heart. Brain tissue (neurons) and heart tissue (cardiomyocytes) cannot regenerate. This proves to be the most prominent biological limit that shortens our lifespans. This explains why issues like dementia and heart disease are prominent causes of death and morbidity later in life. Since those organs’ tissues don’t replace damaged cells, they’re prone to irrevocably decline over time.

    “The key finding of the study is the discovery of substantial differences between tissue types. Neurons and cardiomyocytes, which lack the ability to divide, turned out to be the main limiting factors: when all other causes of aging are eliminated, somatic mutations alone reduce the theoretical median lifespan from 1,759 years (for a hypothetical non-aging human organism) to 156 years,” said Evgeny Efimov, a research intern at the Skoltech Biomed Technologies Center, researcher at AIRI, and one of the key authors of the study.

    This suggests that somatic mutations and DNA damage is what ultimately prevents humans from living indefinitely, even if our brains and hearts regenerated cells like other organs.

    So what’s next?

    Now knowing these biological limitations, the researchers hope to study other areas of aging impacting the human lifespan that could plausibly be reversed. This includes mitochondrial dysfunction, telomere shortening, epigenetic drift, and loss of proteostasis. 

    The hope is to have a clearer priority list of issues for future therapies to tackle. This is not just to possibly extend life, but to improve lives in general. By developing a fully comprehensive theory of aging, Skoltech hopes to pinpoint which aspects of aging are within our scope to address. After all, thoroughly studying each puzzle piece that makes up human life gives us a better understanding of the whole.

    Of course, other impactful factors in a person’s lifespan can be addressed today. As most know, things like diet, sleep, and exercise are among them. A person’s living environment can also negatively impact their lifespan if it doesn’t have clean air, access to clean water, and so on.

    For now, the best method for living long is to follow instructions from your physician. Whether you make it to 156 years or not, living well is best for whatever time you’re given.

Explore More Health Stories

Health

Getting outside despite your 9‑to‑5 job can improve your mental health – here’s how to spend time in nature during and around working hours

Research

New Russian research suggests that the human lifespan could be up to 156 years

Health

Screen time guidelines for kids and adolescents have shifted as research paints a more nuanced picture

Care

ER doctor and mom sets the record straight for parents of kids with e-bikes and e-scooters