Latest news with #Flourishing
The Guardian
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
‘No smartphones before 14; no social media until 16': The Anxious Generation author on how to fight back against big tech
Jonathan Haidt is a man with a mission. You'll have to forgive the cliche, because it's literally true. The author of The Anxious Generation, an urgent warning about the effect of digital tech on young minds, is based at New York University's business school: 'I'm around all these corporate types and we're always talking about companies and their mission statements,' he tells me. So, he decided to make one for himself. 'It was very simple: 'My mission is to use my research in moral psychology and that of others to help people better understand each other, and to help important social institutions work well.'' This is characteristic of Haidt: there's the risk that writing your own brand manifesto might seem a bit, well, pompous. What comes across instead is the nerd's desire to be as effective as possible, combined with the positive psychologist's love of self-improvement (one of his signature undergraduate courses is called Flourishing, which sets students homework such as 'catch and analyse 10 automatic thoughts'). He is in London for a week or so and we meet in the deserted cocktail bar of a grand hotel off Whitehall at 8am (the early start makes me feel as if I'm being dragged into the orbit of a fearsome productivity routine). He speaks softly as a result of a vocal cord injury, which adds to an impression of scholarly courtesy – punctuated by bursts of excitement when he talks about, say, Socrates or the US constitution. It also belies the fact that he's written a monster bestseller, and is now a busy campaigner. The Anxious Generation, out in paperback, follows books on happiness, political polarisation and campus culture wars. It's an evidence-based but thoroughly mission-driven call to action: smartphones, he argues, are largely responsible for a collapse in young people's mental health since 2010. The gloomy picture takes in increased anxiety, depression, even self-harm and suicide (with hard indicators such as an uptick in emergency room admissions for self-inflicted injuries meaning that it can't be down to increased 'awareness' or diagnosis creep). There are ways out of the mess, Haidt says, but time is limited, particularly if we want to avert the even greater threat posed by AI. The book has sold 1.7m copies in 44 languages, capturing the attention of a different anxious generation – parents thankful they were born too early for the phone-based childhoods Haidt describes in dispiriting detail, but desperate for guidance now they have children of their own. His statement of the problem, and straightforward advice on what to do about it, has convinced policymakers, too. In Australia, where a ban on social media for under-16s will take effect later this year, his work has changed the law. The wife of the politician who helped design the legislation was reading The Anxious Generation in bed, Haidt told one interviewer, 'and she turns to him and says: 'You've got to read this book, and then you've got to effing do something about it.'' The day before we meet, he attended a session in parliament organised by the crossbench peer Beeban Kidron, whose rules to protect children's privacy on social media became part of the 2018 Data Protection Act ('she has been a force of nature'). And he's in touch with UK government ministers as well: 'I won't mention names. I will be talking to a couple by Zoom.' So what is his prescription to reverse, or at least treat, what he calls the Great Rewiring of children's lives? He sets out 'four norms' that parents, and society at large, should adopt: no smartphones before the age of 14; no social media until 16; phone-free schools; and far more unsupervised play and childhood independence. Although The Anxious Generation has largely been seen as a book about digital devices, it's as emphatic about that last point. Boomers, gen Xers and even millennials enjoyed plenty of free play outside when crime rates were much higher than they are now. Modern parents, exposed to a diet of constant bad news, are more paranoid. This stunts development, reducing the opportunity to learn skills such as cooperation and conflict resolution, to overcome fears and, well, to have fun. Essentially, he argues, we're guilty of overprotection in one place (the real world) and underprotection in another (online). 'I think that was one of the important points of Adolescence,' he says, referencing the Netflix show that dramatised the influence of the 'manosphere' on teenage boys. 'We all freaked out in the 90s about the outside world. We all thought our kids are in danger if they're not in our sight, and so we've stopped letting them out, and we thought: well, as long as they're on computers, that's good. They'll learn to program. They'll start a company. One of the poignant moments in [the show] was when the parents said: 'We thought he was safe. He was just up in his room.'' The four norms look simple enough on paper. But what about the fiendish reality of enforcing them, particularly if your children are already extremely online? 'What I found in the year since the book came out is that parents with young children love it,' Haidt says. 'They're excited, like: yes, we're going to do this. Whereas parents of teenagers have more mixed reactions, for exactly the reason that all of us are already so deeply into this.' Haidt has two children of his own with artist and photographer Jayne Riew: a girl of 15 and a boy of 18. 'The advice that I give to parents of teenagers is, if you recently gave your child a smartphone or social media, you can take it back. Give them a flip phone, a brick phone, a dumb phone. The key is you want your kids to be able to communicate with their friends, but you don't want to give them over to for-profit companies [whose] goal is to hook your child.' 'Now, if your kids are 15 or 16 and their entire social lives are on Instagram and Snapchat, it would be very painful to cut them off,' he says, 'because they'll experience that as social death. So the key strategy … is to help them take back their attention by creating large parts of the day where they're not on it.' Ban devices in the bedroom, push for phone-free schools, do everything you can to expand the window of time spent away from addictive tech. Back in 2019, when he was laying down ground rules for his own children, the evidence pointed to social media as the greater evil, particularly for girls. So he banned that, rather than phones per se. 'My daughter says she's the only person in her high school who doesn't have Snapchat.' Isn't he worried about her being left out? 'Her friends have compensated for it. They say when there's something important going on that she needs to know about, they'll text her so she's not entirely out of the loop, and it's been great, because she is really involved in the real world. She runs track, she does sewing and makes clothing.' Even so, he would do things slightly differently now: 'The rule I wish I had followed was no screens in the bedroom, ever. My kids seem to need their computers and their phones more than they would have if I'd had a better policy.' Haidt clearly loves his job, and sets great store by what he regards as the truth-telling function of academic research. But with the book's success, is there a risk he morphs into a kind of activist? Yes, he concedes, though he doesn't seem unhappy about it. 'Once I came to realise the full extent of what is happening to literally hundreds of millions of children – I mean, human consciousness is being changed at an industrial scale – and the fact that AI is not yet entangled in our world, but in two years it will be very hard to do anything – I [felt] a kind of a campaigner's zeal to get this done, to get the norms changed this year.' When I mention a colleague who hears from her kids that 'everyone does their homework using ChatGPT' he nods, and says 'this is a potentially unsolvable problem for education. Like all teachers, we're struggling to figure out what to do. It makes it easy for everyone to do their homework, but students need to learn how to do hard things.' Does his newfound zeal mean it's harder for him to admit he might be wrong? To give counterarguments their due? 'Oh, yeah, I suffer from confirmation bias like everyone else. I have a whole book on confirmation bias, practically [2012's The Righteous Mind]. And so that's why one thing that we've done from the very beginning is seek out contradictory views, talk to our critics, have them publish on the Substack.' Haidt, with researcher Zach Rausch, maintains a running commentary on the evidence base for the Great Rewiring at There, he posts 'responses to sceptics' who question the link between screens and declining mental health. Some claim there are better explanations, such as Covid (though indicators of wellbeing started declining in 2010) or the climate crisis (though preteens, rather than more politically aware adolescents, seem to be particularly affected – the opposite of what you'd expect if climate worries were responsible). In March 2024, psychologist Candice Odgers wrote a review of The Anxious Generation in Nature. She said: 'Hundreds of researchers, myself included, have searched for the kind of large effects suggested by Haidt. Our efforts have produced a mix of no, small and mixed associations,' adding that 'most data are correlative'. In other words: the problem may have coincided with the introduction of smartphones, but we can't say that there's a causal link. Odgers instead leans towards the idea that people with pre-existing problems use social media more, or in more destructive ways. Haidt comes out fighting, though, citing 'dozens' of papers, including, for example, a meta-analysis of 26 studies that found the risk of depression increased by 13% for each extra hour spent on social media. 'She accused me of not knowing the difference between correlation and causation. That has structured the debate ever since. And the strange thing about that review, I just looked back at it the other day, what I realised is there's not a single word that indicates that she read past chapter one.' This seems hard to believe, but, Haidt says, 'I had a long section in chapter six specifically titled 'correlation versus causation''. When I asked her to respond to this later, Odgers said: 'The issue is not a failure to understand the distinction between correlation versus causation, it is the failure to apply this understanding when making causal, and frankly damaging, claims about young people that will be heard by millions of people.' Our conversation starts to go down a rabbit hole as Haid attempts to show me a long rebuttal document he's writing on the five kinds of evidence of harm, with multiple subheadings, sections labelled 'Exhibit A' etc. 'I love debating and arguing, and that's what drew me to academic life … but the accusation that I don't understand the difference in correlation and causation, I guess that did get to me.' One important part of the puzzle, he says, is that companies have acknowledged that children are vulnerable in internal reports never intended for public consumption. He cites one by TikTok, for example, admitting that the app was 'popular with younger users who are particularly sensitive to reinforcement in the form of social reward and have minimal ability to self-regulate effectively'. When contacted by the Guardian, TikTok declined to comment. If the evidence is so strong, what does he think drives his critics? 'I think some of them seem to be motivated by an admirable desire to defend the kids, to say, 'Look, if this is what the kids are doing, we adults shouldn't criticise'.' He claims that 'some of the researchers are deep video gamers, and they went through this whole thing about 'Do violent video games cause violence?'. So they seem especially primed to see everything as just a replay of previous moral panics.' I also wonder whether he's got people's backs up through his interventions in academic life, railing against what he sees as progressive overreach. His 2018 book with Greg Lukianoff, The Coddling of the American Mind, was based on an Atlantic piece of the same name, though it's more careful and caveated than the title makes it seem (editor Don Peck zhuzhed it up from Arguing Towards Misery: How Campuses Teach Cognitive Distortions). The idea is that colleges have become highly risk-averse places, where students expect to be shielded from difficult ideas, and faculty and administrators live in fear of career-wrecking complaints based on offended sensibilities. There are many reasons for this turn, Haidt argues, some of which overlap with those set out in The Anxious Generation: overprotective parenting raising a generation of fragile, nervous kids, for one. He cites the expectation of good 'customer service' driven by high tuition fees, and an administrative culture of 'CYA' (cover your ass). But he also blames a lack of 'viewpoint diversity' among faculty, leading to a moribund, timid intellectual environment and a failure to push back against overly empowered students. This argument hits a little differently in 2025, with the Trump administration carrying out an unprecedented assault on universities, and using 'woke' culture on campus as its primary justification. A letter sent by officials menacing Harvard specifically demands 'viewpoint diversity in admissions and hiring'. Is it a case of be careful what you wish for? Or, more directly, did Haidt's championing of this issue provide ammunition for the current war against academic independence? 'I don't think the fact that I've been calling for reform since 2011 should be used against me when the fact that there wasn't reform became a trigger for Donald Trump,' he says. Haidt believes the progressive monoculture that produced calls to, among other things, defund the police and abolish standardised tests alienated 'normies' to the extent that Trump rode into office 'on a wave of revulsion about what's happening on campus and more broadly in society'. Surely inflation, the cost of living, played a larger role in voters' rejection of the Democratic candidate? Haidt concedes that 'it contributed', but otherwise sticks to his guns in a way that, to me, suggests he's a little too immersed in this particular debate to see the bigger picture. Which is not to say he isn't outraged by the way things have unfolded. Still speaking softly and precisely, he unleashes the Haidtian version of a tirade. 'Trump is a deeply unstable, narcissistic man who has a zero sum view of the world and a strong sense of vengeance. And now [he's] using the power of the federal government and the department of justice to harass and harm his enemies … this is the most shocking transformation of America I've ever heard of. So while I have been a critic of schools like Harvard that, you know, was ranked as the worst university for free speech in the country … now everything is reversed.' He adds that '[Trump] is especially using antisemitism as a cudgel. I don't think that's his real motivation. And while I have always stood for the value of viewpoint diversity, so I think President Trump is not wrong to call for it, I've also always stood against government micromanaging what universities do.' In The Coddling … Haidt declared himself 'a centrist who sides with the Democratic party on the great majority of issues' and said that he had never voted Republican for Congress or the presidency. More recently, he stated: 'I was always on the left. Now, I'm nothing. I'm not on any team.' Either way, he has undoubtedly annoyed progressives who take a more instinctively tribal approach. A contrarian by nature, he also sees that instinct as an essential part of any intellectual's toolkit. His postdoc supervisor, cultural anthropologist Richard Shweder, modelled 'an incredible playfulness with ideas and a joy in intellectual perversity, which means his dictum was: if someone asserts it, deny it and see how that goes. And if someone denies it, assert it and see how that goes.' Does that make him a bit irritating? 'Oh, yes, it does,' he says, without a trace of offence. That's the point: 'The founding story of the academic world is Socrates being a gadfly.' Does it ever bleed into his personal life? 'My wife and I have long had a conflict of truth versus beauty, and in my view, she is willing to sacrifice truth for beauty. I have to have a footnote for everything. There has to be a source for everything. And that sometimes makes me annoying to her.' 'Carried to excess it [has] the risk of know-it-allism, and I've been accused of that by my wife – and several ex-girlfriends. So yeah, I think my strengths are also my weaknesses. The same is true for everyone.' The Anxious Generation started life as a different book about the corrupting effects of social media on democracy. After he'd written one chapter, Haidt realised that the scale and urgency of the problem faced by children and teens meant it would have to be about them instead. He still has plans to go back to the first idea, but given everything that's happened, he's taking two or three years 'off' to support the movement he's started ('I don't have to drive it, I just have to help it along'). He says he's optimistic – 'very optimistic that we're going to, if not fully solve it, make enormous progress – we already are.' This is energising, but I note that, when discussing 'green shoots' of hope back in 2018, he welcomed the new, socially responsible approach taken by Facebook and Twitter, including the latter's commitment to 'increase the collective health, openness, and civility of public conversation'. 'Yeah, that died. That green shoot did not go very far,' he sighs. And in a follow-up exchange, he strikes an even darker note. I ask about the broader picture – as a student of societies, is he concerned about … the end of civilisation as we know it? Somewhat alarmingly for a man who first made his name in the Pollyanna-ish field of positive psychology, he really is. 'I am extremely worried about social collapse,' he emails. 'Technology always changes societies, and we are just beginning the biggest technological change in history. It will only speed up as AI becomes entangled in everything. So we are headed into very dangerous times, especially for liberal democracies that require some degree of shared facts, shared stories and trusted institutions. 'This is part of the reason I feel such urgency to protect kids now, this year, 2025. The next two generations may face challenges beyond anything we can imagine. They need to be strong, competent and in control of their attention.' The Anxious Generation by Jonathan Haidt is published by Penguin. To support the Guardian order your copy from Delivery charges may apply.
Scientific American
30-05-2025
- Health
- Scientific American
Global Flourishing Study Reflects Youth Struggles and Ripple Effects of Childhood Challenges
Rachel Feltman: For Scientific American 's Science Quickly, I'm Rachel Feltman. How are you doing today, listeners? Would you say you're flourishing? I'm guessing you probably wouldn't—unless you have a particularly florid vocabulary. But researchers are increasingly focused on the idea of 'human flourishing,' a multifaceted measurement that aims to take a holistic look at our collective well-being. Basically, humans who are flourishing aren't just happy. They have lives that are good across the board—and scientists want to get better at measuring that so they can figure out what factors contribute to this desirable state. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. Today's guest is Victor Counted, an associate professor of psychology at Regent University in Virginia. He is also a faculty affiliate at the Human Flourishing Program at Harvard University and part of the team behind the Global Flourishing Study, a five-year longitudinal survey of more than 200,000 individuals from 22 countries. Thank you so much for coming on to chat with us today. Victor Counted: Thank you. I'm really honored to, you know, be here. Feltman: So tell me about the concept of flourishing. What does it mean to researchers? Counted: I think it means kind of different things. In the past some people might call it our 'well-being,' some could also say it's our 'quality of life,' but I think it's kind of a construct that [has] been studied for centuries. But essentially I think it's about how aspects of a person's life [are] good, right? But the flourishing dimension emphasizes the need to think about a context, how aspects of our life are good in relation to our environment, and—which I think is very important. That extension or that definition allows us to think about flourishing as something that is multidimensional, that involves different things. Let's say with the PERMA model—positive emotion, engagement, [relationships], meaning and accomplishment—you could talk about flourishing from that lens, but also I think the current framework that we're using, the one from Tyler VanderWeele, I think it's more comprehensive in the sense that it goes beyond just positive emotions and, you know, the idea of [relationships] to touching things like our happiness and life satisfaction as a dimension, meaning and purpose as a dimension, character and virtue as a dimension, physical and mental health at—as a dimension, social relationships as a dimension, but also financial well-being and stability. And so when you take that multidimensional approach it allows you to think about flourishing as something that encompasses different aspects of life—you know, particularly the idea of meaning and purpose, which, really, it's not often talked about within the broader definition of flourishing. Feltman: Mm-hmm. Counted: You could talk about these dimensions of flourishing; it's also important to think about what some might even call, let's say, pillars of flourishing or pathways of flourishing. Currently one of the things we've done is to identify at least four pathways: one is work, the other is family, the other is education, and the last pathway would be religious communities. And when we think about it—and in each particular culture or context the pathways to flourishing would differ, you know—but, like, for example, the four pathways that I mentioned are at least ones that we think that are universally, you know, agreed-upon and almost in any cultural context people would identify with this, although they might, you know, look at it in different ways. And the same thing with the dimensions of human flourishing that I mentioned earlier that are universally desired and to some degree an end in themselves. Feltman: So how did you personally get interested in, in studying human flourishing? Counted: I did my Ph.D. I looked at adult attachment and health and quality of [life] outcomes, and when I did this, you know, I knew I was always interested in health and quality of life and well-being [constructs], and during the time that I was studying this I kind of got involved and started collaborating with a colleague that was a part of the Human Flourishing Program, and, you know, I kind of came to the realization that all the things that I've actually been studying, it's actually about human flourishing—that's really what drives it, what [is] the crux of my work—and of course, I started to rethink how I look at things like health and quality of life outcomes. And also I'm also interested in how our environment ultimately shapes us and the psychological processes that kind of undergirds that. And so I think human flourishing became that very—well, that captures that. Feltman: Mm-hmm, and you're involved in the Global Flourishing Study. How does it work? Counted: So essentially it's a five-year study, and we have almost—about over 200,000 participants from 22 countries, and the interesting thing about it, these are nationally representative samples across 22 countries, and the plan is, we're working with Gallup to collect this data. We've just collected Wave 1 data, and the papers for Wave 1 [are] already out. And we're currently, with the Wave 2 data as well, it's also out. And, you know, we have a team of about 40-plus researchers from different disciplines and cultures and institutions, but mostly the project is hosted by Baylor University and Harvard Human Flourishing Program. A team of scholars, the brightest [minds] from around the world, and just, you know, doing, I think, one of the biggest social science research [projects] in modern history—I think it's been wonderful. And of course, I would be remiss not to mention Tyler VanderWeele and Byron Johnson for their leadership in the project itself. So it's, it's been incredible, yeah. Feltman: And were there any surprising findings in your first wave of results? Counted: Yeah, we actually got some really interesting findings. One of them that really stuck out most would be the fact that young people are struggling ... Feltman: Mm. Counted: Especially when you compare that to the past. There's a U-shaped well-being curve that is often used to talk about well-being and how it develops or evolves over a lifespan, but one of the things that we found was that that is not really what is happening. We [found] that young people were not [flourishing as much] as we had anticipated or hoped. Of course, that could be due to a number of reasons. Either some would say that it's due to COVID-19, the impact of that. Some would also say the mental health challenges, even financial insecurity that came as a result of COVID, but also the loss of meaning as well, it's also a part of that, and most of the individual papers in the study would point to some of those things, you know? But I think that overall the disruption of the U-shaped traditional curve of well-being, it's one thing to pay attention to, and what that simply means now is the fact that the curve itself is flat until about 50 years old, and that has huge implications for the mental health of young people and policies that shape that. The other finding was also—you know, it's not necessarily surprising—the fact that married people and those that were in [relationships], they were flourishing better compared to those that were not. And of course, you know, we can get a sense of why that is the case: because of the fact that they're in supportive [relationships] and the social connection that they have in those relationships kind of, you know, helps [as well to] drive or sustain their well-being. The other finding that I think also is interesting to point to would be the area of employment. Flourishing somehow reflects the status of one's job. For example, people that are retired scored the highest in the flagship paper that we had compared to those that were not employed. Those that were also self-employed, you know, followed suit [with] those that were also employed by someone else. And it kind of tells you something: those that are—have some kind of stability in, in terms of their career or job stability tended to kind of feel more secure and happy compared to those that are maybe seeking for a job. But also [interesting] as well would be the area of religious-service attendance; remember I mentioned that religion is also an important construct when we talk about a flourishing life and the idea that it's not necessarily the fact that—and when we talk about religion most people will point to institutional religion ... Feltman: Mm-hmm. Counted: But [talking] about religion broadly, in terms of the psychological aspect of religion. In fact, some of my colleagues, we talk about this as the 'four Bs.' That religion helps us with the idea of belonging, right—when we form social support with people in our congregation that's very important for our well-being and flourishing. Also the bonding that comes with that as well ... Feltman: Mm. Counted: Whether it's through the spiritual connection with the divine or the sacred. The behaving component: the moral component, the cultivation of character and virtue through, whether it's religiouspractices or dogma or [theology], this engagement with one's life. And also the believing part as well: [meaning that] religion, in some sense, helps us to form or embrace things like hope or forgiveness, you know, have some kind of certain spiritual convictions that help us to believe that we can do the impossible. All those things become really fundamental, especially when we look at the results on religious attendance: that for most people that were frequently attending religious services ... they scored higher on flourishing compared to those that never did or maybe attended [a] few times in a year, but that weekly attendance was really very fundamental to their well-being. And interestingly, also, across all the studies, all the individual papers—I'm talking about almost 100 papers, individual papers—it's still pointing to the same thing, regardless of the culture, regardless of the context, even in secular contexts like Sweden. That was also very interesting. But I do wanna say this, though: because some people who actually attended religious services also reported more pain and suffering, which is ... Feltman: Mm. Counted: Kind of interesting as well. And, you know, we could think about why this is—might be the case. In some sense we know that religious communities would often provide support for people during hard times, and [many] people are drawn to ... a religious community or faith because they're seeking some kind of relief for their suffering or pain, but also, theologically, for most people, the way they conceptualize suffering, it's also very different as well. Suffering could be something that is part of an embodiment of one's faith, you know? So the fact that they are suffering doesn't necessarily mean they're not flourishing, if that makes sense. Feltman: Mm. Counted: So that, you know, kind of interesting. But beyond this we also try to look at some of the childhood predictors or experiences that kind of predispose one to a flourishing life when they're adults. Of course, people that had excellent health at a very young age, we noticed that they were flourishing as adults. Again, people that were attending religious services at a very young age—at the age of 12, for example—were flourishing as adults. People that had good relationships with their mother or their father, we saw them flourishing as adults. But interestingly, though, we noticed those [whose] parents were divorced were not [flourishing as much], you know, as adults. And the same thing with those that were exposed to abusive relationships, whether it's physical or sexual, were also really quite struggling to flourish. And also those that grew up in financially difficult [households], with families that were struggling financially, we saw them also struggling to flourish later as adults. Now what this tells us is that flourishing is a lifespan thing, right? And so the way we raise our kids, the early experiences that we have ultimately become the foundation that kind of shapes what a flourishing life would be, you know, and just have implications in many ways, I think. Feltman: Yeah, and how were the U.S.'s results in the beginning of the flourishing study? Counted: Yeah, I think we found some, particularly with most of the Western context, we found some sort of interesting findings. One of the surprising results was the fact that [the] U.S. [was] not flourishing ... as well as some others. For example, countries like Indonesia, Philippines, most of the non-Western countries, were really doing well across all the different dimensions. But for the U.S., for example, they were also doing well on financial stability, but unfortunately, the United States scored lower when it came to meaning and [relationships], right? And, and this has [implications], and it, it does, in some way, [tell] us that having more money doesn't necessarily mean people are happy or they're doing well in life, and hopefully that kind of shapes or challenges the way that we kind of understand what aflourishing life is. You know, it's not necessarily about success. It's not about money; it's not about material stuff. At the heart of that, it's meaning and [relationships]. And also you could think about, politically, how the political landscape or dynamics within the U.S. might also be contributing to the breakdown of [relationships], right, and also tension around meaning. It's very terrifying in many ways. Feltman: So you've talked about, you know, some of the factors that might be out of our control or might be systemic that impact flourishing ... Counted: Mm. Feltman: But to wrap us up, you know, what about things that we can control? You know, what are your takeaways in terms of what our listeners should learn from the flourishing study? Counted: One of the [challenges], I guess—or [limitations], rather—from the Global Flourishing Study, I think, is the fact that most of the things that we studied, you know, we did it from an etic lens, we took an etic approach, which it essentially meant that we were looking at it universally, right? One of the things that can help us to better understand some of these findings would be the need to kind of take a more emic, context-sensitive approach, where we're looking at individual cultures and societies to ask the question around: 'Why are they scoring this on that? What might be happening? What are the underlying contextual factors that might be shaping what is happening in this context?' But most importantly, also, I think it's important that we think about the different areas or contexts to which we see that most societies or people are suffering, particularly with young people, particularly around issues or questions around purpose and meaning and [relationships], especially in the Western context, not just the U.S., but also in Europe, even in Australia. [Thinking about questions] around meaning and purpose—how can we create initiatives or support research or ideas that can help us accelerate and promote, really, the pursuit of meaning and purpose—I, I think that will go a long way [in] helping people to flourish and do well. And really, also, I think this study is just a starting point. It's kind of opened a door for more studies to kind of engage some of these ideas and, and topics. And my hope is that, you know, somehow we can come to the point where we can start to think about: 'What would a flourishing goal look like for this community, for this context, or this particular continent or country?' Right? And as we start to talk about that it also means that we—it challenges the way that we look at: 'What does flourishing look like for us?' And to understand that it has to be context-sensitive; not just that—also it has to kind of focus on the values, the things that we value, and start from there to kind of make changes and define what really shapes us and [makes] us happy. Feltman: Well, thank you so much for coming on to chat today. This has been really interesting. Counted: Thank you so much. Feltman: That's all for today's episode. We'll be back with our usual news roundup on Monday. Before you log off for the weekend, we'd be super grateful if you could take a minute to fill out our listener survey. We're looking to find out more about our listeners so we can keep improving Science Quickly. If you fill it out during the month of May, you'll be eligible to win some awesome Scientific American swag. So head over to while there's still time! Thanks in advance. Science Quickly is produced by me, Rachel Feltman, along with Fonda Mwangi, Kelso Harper, Naeem Amarsy and Jeff DelViscio. This episode was edited by Alex Sugiura. Shayna Posses and Aaron Shattuck fact-check our show. Our theme music was composed by Dominic Smith. Subscribe to Scientific American for more up-to-date and in-depth science news.
Yahoo
12-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Gen Z Youth Is Totally Restructuring the Way Researchers Visualize Happiness — & It's Not Good
Happiness is a hard thing to quantify. How do you take a subjective feeling and make it a fact? It's something researchers have grappled with, and that subjectiveness is why most studies about happiness (or any emotion) have to be taken with a grain of salt. But for a long time, researchers have thought of the human experience of happiness as a U-shaped line graph. People are typically really happy in their youth (Oh, the joys of adolescence!), and that feeling dips as they reach middle age (Here comes that proverbial crisis!). And then, as adults get even older, they begin to feel as content as they were when they were young (Bring on the Golden Years!). More from SheKnows Gen Z Students Graduate College This Month - This Is What the Majority Are Thinking New research is quite literally squashing that idea. Instead of a 'U,' Gen Z is so unhappy that their early years are more in line with the happiness levels of middle age. What does that mean? Basically, researchers have to start thinking of happiness as more of a 'J' than a 'U.' This week, a collection of papers in Nature Mental Health, based on a collaboration between Harvard and Baylor University, and the findings are bleak. The data, which comprised of self-reported surveys of more than 200 thousand people in over 20 studies, found that people ages 18 to 29 were generally struggling with happiness, physical and mental health, perceptions of their own character, their ability to find meaning in life, the quality of their relationships, and their financial security. Like we said … bleak. These findings are part of the first wave of data from the 'Global Flourishing Study,' and, as you probably guessed, it found that most participants in Western countries had 'lower levels of flourishing' (AKA not living in a state where all aspects of life were good) until they hit the age of 50. 'It is a pretty stark picture,' said Tyler J. VanderWeele, the lead author of the study and director of Harvard's Human Flourishing Program, per The New York Times. And so the question becomes, as VanderWeele asked, 'Are we sufficiently investing in the well-being of youth?' So, how did we end up here? You probably have some theories (we know we do). There is an abundance of research showing how detrimental social media is to young people's mental health. And climate anxiety probably doesn't help. But perhaps there is more. Dr. VanderWeele said the Global Flourishing Study plans to collect data annually through 2027 to try and understand why so much of Gen Z is not flourishing. And we have to wonder, what does that mean for younger teens? If you ask Emiliana R. Simon-Thomas, the science director of the Greater Good Science Center at the University of California, Berkeley, she doesn't think it's great. 'Our welfare is dependent on the welfare of every other human,' she said, per NYT. 'We don't just get to be happy and put a fence around ourselves.' Meaning, if older teens and young adults are so miserable that researchers have to reevaluate what happiness looks like, their younger peers just might follow of SheKnows How 20+ Celebrity Parents Are Raising Their Kids to Be Good Humans Anna Nicole Smith's Daughter Dannielynn Birkhead & More Grown-Up Celebrity Kids Wearing Their Famous Mom's Outfits 35 Famous Daughters Who Look Just Like Their Celebrity Moms
Yahoo
30-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Gen Z's angst is dismantling the long-established happiness curve and confounding researchers
The happiness curve has been a relatively predictable U-shape for a long time: You are at your happiest when you're young, then happiness declines in midlife, only to rise once again in old age. But researchers have discovered that the curve is flattening, as happiness is dipping earlier in life than it used to. The results came out of the Global Flourishing Study, a collaboration between researchers at Harvard and Baylor University who analyzed data collected by Gallup from more than 200,000 people in 22 countries. They discovered that, on average, young adults ages 18 to 29 were unhappy, while grappling with poor mental and physical health, negative perceptions of their own character, finding meaning in life, financial security, and the quality of their relationships. Using Harvard's Flourishing Measure—a composite of happiness and life satisfaction, physical and mental health, meaning and purpose, character and virtue, and close social relationships—researchers determined how much each participant was flourishing in their life. Now, they found, the flourishing curve is flat until around age 50, when it begins to rise again. Researchers found this to be true across several countries, including the UK and Australia—but the well-being gap of younger and older adults was the widest in the U.S. 'It is a pretty stark picture,' Tyler J. VanderWeele, the lead author of the study and director of Harvard's Human Flourishing Program, told the New York Times. 'Are we sufficiently investing in the well-being of youth?' Recent research shows that life satisfaction and happiness have steadily been declining among young adults for the last decade. In the U.S., the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBSS) has reported a dramatic rise in anxiety and depression among American Gen Zers, especially young women. In 2023, 53% of female high school students reported persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness, compared with 28% of boys. 'Young people are not doing as well as they used to be,' the Global Flourishing Study authors wrote. 'While causes are likely diverse, mental health concerns with young adults are clearly on the rise.' A 2023 national survey from Harvard also found that young adults (ages 18 to 25), suffered from higher rates of anxiety and depression than younger teens. That study concluded the following factors were driving Gen Z's declining mental health: A lack of meaning and direction: The survey found that over half (58%) young adults reported that they lacked 'meaning or purpose' in their lives in the previous month, with half also reporting that their mental health was negatively influenced by 'not knowing what to do with my life.' Financial worries: 56% of young adults were concerned about their financial well-being. Pressure to achieve: Half of young adults expressed that achievement pressure was negatively influencing their mental health. Feeling that the world is falling apart: 45% of young adults reported that a general "sense that things are falling apart' caused their mental health to decline. Loneliness and social isolation: Nearly half (44%) of young adults reported a sense of not mattering to others, while 34% reported they were lonely. Social and political issues: Widespread issues such as climate change, gun violence in schools, and concerns about political leadership were among the topics weighing on Gen Z. For more on happiness: Researchers have followed over 700 people since 1938 to find the keys to happiness. Here's what they discovered Happier parents tap into this 1 emotion Americans under 30 are so miserable that the U.S. just fell to a historic low ranking in the annual World Happiness Report This story was originally featured on
Korea Herald
10-02-2025
- Entertainment
- Korea Herald
Competition heats up among female K-pop artists
Girl groups, female artists to lead K-pop for a while, says industry expert With multiple girl groups and female solo artists scheduled for new releases this month, the K-pop industry is bracing for intense competition. While male artists generally generate higher revenue overseas, industry insiders note that it has become increasingly difficult for them to achieve early success, causing K-pop agencies to shift their focus to female acts. Chungha is first up on Wednesday with the new EP "Alivio." This marks a return for her just two months after releasing the holiday-themed special single "Christmas Promises" in December last year. It is also her first EP in over five years, since "Flourishing," which was released June 24, 2019. Blackpink's Jisoo is set to drop her second mini album, 'Amortage,' on Friday, while Lisa will return with her first full-length album, 'Alter Ego,' on Feb. 28, marking her first new music in four months, since 'Moonlit Floor' last October. Among girl groups, SM Entertainment rookie act Hearts2Hearts will make its official debut with a full album release on Feb. 24. Meanwhile, NJZ, formerly known as NewJeans, announced via Instagram on Friday that it will release new music next month. An industry official highlighted a shift in market trends, explaining that despite lower profitability, girl groups now have a higher chance of achieving rapid recognition and a successful debut. 'There is no doubt that boy bands generate much more profit, especially overseas. However, the waning popularity of boy bands and male solo artists has recently led K-pop agencies to invest more in female artists,' the official said Monday. Music critic Lim Hee-yun pointed out that many loyal fans who previously supported male idols have shifted their attention to girl groups. 'In the past, agencies focused on building strong fandoms for boy bands, while girl groups aimed for mass appeal, ' Lim said. "However, this distinction has faded and girl groups are now leading in fandom-driven sales." Lim attributed this change to the growing influence of social media platforms like Instagram and short-form video content, which favor girl groups' viral dance challenges. 'If you look at the engagement and consumer behavior surrounding groups like NewJeans, aespa, Blackpink and Ive, you'll notice a significant presence of female fans. These groups have been at the forefront of K-pop's dominance in recent years,' Lim added.
