Even though Americans are increasingly using AI, they are growing more negative about this technology. Most say they are more concerned than excited about the increased use of AI in daily life and believe AI will lead to job loss. Many worry about misinformation and privacy. A majority even fear that AI could pose a threat to humanity’s survival.

Human extinction is the ultimate existential threat. But even people who don’t think that AI will kill us might still view it as existentially threatening. That’s because humans don’t just strive to survive. We also strive for significance. If AI can do many of the things we once believed were distinctly human, people may start to wonder what their place in the world will be.

In our latest Progress Pulse survey, conducted with The Harris Poll among over 2,000 American adults, we explored whether people believe AI will support or undermine meaning. We also looked at whether these beliefs are related to how people think about the nature of AI.

There is an active debate about what kind of technology AI is. On one side are those who see it as a powerful but normal technology, like electricity or the internet. They expect it to change work and daily life, but they believe it will remain a tool that people build, direct, and control. They have concerns, but they see the risks as depending on human choices, as with past technologies. On the other side are those who see AI as something fundamentally different. Some of the people building AI are in this camp. They believe AI will soon surpass humans at nearly everything, improve itself, and make decisions faster than we can follow. In their view, AI itself will help determine what happens, not just the people using it.

We call these the human-directed view and the autonomous view. This is an oversimplification of a complex issue but it captures a real divide in how AI is being discussed. We asked Americans which of these two views they agree with most.

We also gave them two views on how AI might affect people’s ability to live meaningful lives. One view is that AI will help people put more of themselves into the things that give their lives meaning, like their relationships, careers, creative projects, and spiritual pursuits. People will still do their own thinking and deciding, and with AI supporting their efforts, they will feel more capable and more confident that what they do matters. The other view is that AI will increasingly do people’s thinking and deciding for them. As a result, people will put less of themselves into these pursuits and feel less capable and less confident that what they do matters. Again, we asked Americans which view they agree with most.

We suspected that how people view the nature of AI might be related to whether they think it will support or undermine meaning. Specifically, we thought that those who view AI as human-directed would be more inclined to see it as a technology that can support people’s efforts to live meaningful lives. Those who view AI as autonomous, on the other hand, would be more inclined to see it as a technology that will replace those efforts and undermine meaning.

Americans are almost evenly split on the nature of AI. About half (48%) see it as a normal technology that humans will direct, and about half (52%) see it as a fundamentally new technology that will act autonomously. On meaning, Americans lean a bit more negative. Fifty-six percent believe AI will undermine people’s ability to live meaningful lives, compared to 44% who believe it will support it.

There are some interesting group differences. Women and older Americans are more likely to see AI as autonomous and more likely to believe it will undermine meaning. Younger Americans lean toward seeing AI as human-directed and are fairly evenly divided on meaning. You can find the full breakdown by gender, age, education, income, and political party in the Progress Pulse report.

But of all the findings, the most important is the link between how people view the nature of AI and whether they think it will support or undermine meaning. This relationship is larger than any of the demographic differences. Among Americans who see AI as a normal, human-directed technology, 63% believe it will support people’s ability to live meaningful lives, and 37% believe it will undermine it. Among those who see AI as a fundamentally new, autonomous technology, the pattern flips. Just 27% believe AI will support meaning, and 73% believe it will undermine it. This relationship held across every demographic group we looked at (see figure here).

It is important to emphasize that this is a survey, so we can’t say that how people view the nature of AI causes them to believe it will support or undermine meaning. My colleagues and I are currently conducting experimental studies to explore this question further.

Regardless of how AI develops, it is crucial to remember that meaning is not something technology can simply give us or take away from us. It comes from the effort we put into the relationships, projects, and pursuits we care about. And the choice to keep making that effort remains ours.

Have a great weekend!

Clay

This week I am in Berkeley, California for the Progress Conference. This is my first time attending, and I am pumped to be part of an event that brings together people from many different fields who share an interest in understanding and advancing human progress.

My colleague Dr. Josh Hicks and I are leading a session titled “The Good Life in the Age of Artificial Intelligence.” In this session, we are going to introduce a new research initiative at the Human Flourishing Lab on AI and the human quest for meaning and discuss some new Progress Pulse data on how Americans think AI will affect their ability to live meaningful lives. I will share more about those findings in an upcoming newsletter.

This week, though, I want to highlight a new piece in Profectus. It is an excerpt from Chelsea Follett’s new book, The Grim Old Days: An Introduction to the Preindustrial Past. Some people think the Industrial Revolution made life worse. Chelsea describes how poverty, terrible working conditions, and a lack of freedom were part of everyday life long before factories came along. She also explains how industrialization brought higher living standards. And I really appreciated her point that these changes did more than make people’s lives materially better. Over time, freedom and equal rights expanded to more people. Family life became more about love than survival. More people had the time and opportunity for creative expression. People became better able to exercise their distinctly human agency. They could pursue their talents and interests and work toward reaching their full potential. I highly recommend reading the full piece and ordering Chelsea’s excellent book.

Chelsea’s piece is an important reminder of how much life has improved. We often take for granted things like modern medicine, everyday comforts, and the many freedoms that give us more control over our own lives. But for most of human history, people did not have these things. And I believe that being aware of this progress helps cultivate the kind of mindset we need to solve the problems of our time.

Our research at the Human Flourishing Lab offers some support for this idea. In one of our Progress Pulse surveys, we asked people whether they believe life in America is better today than it was 50 years ago. We also asked whether they expect life to be better 50 years from now. Among Americans who believe life has improved over the past 50 years, 73% expect it to be better 50 years in the future. Among those who do not see improvement over the past 50 years, only 33% expect a better future. This pattern held across gender, age, education, income, and political affiliation.

These data are correlational. But I believe there is good reason to think appreciating past progress makes people more hopeful about the future and motivated to improve it. Learning how earlier generations made life better reminds us of our own agency. If they could improve the world in their time, we can improve it in ours.

Knowledge of past progress should also encourage gratitude, which helps drive future progress. Many of the scientific, technological and medical advances, freedoms, and opportunities we enjoy today are the result of hard work by previous generations. Scientists, inventors, entrepreneurs, artists, civil rights activists, and ordinary workers all contributed to the world we now live in. And studies find that gratitude increases optimism and the motivation to make positive contributions to society.

We face big challenges today and questions about how new technologies like AI will affect our future. But history shows that humans have faced major problems and uncertain futures many times before and found ways to make life better. Appreciating how far we have come can give us both the hope and the gratitude we need to keep advancing the cause of human progress.

Have a great weekend!

Clay

Pessimism about the future is growing in many parts of the world. A global survey of nearly 34,000 people across 28 countries found that only about a third believe the next generation will be better off than people are today. In some countries, optimism has nearly disappeared. Just 6% of people in France and 8% in Germany expect the next generation to be better off.

Though we are not as pessimistic as France or Germany, things aren’t looking great in our country. Only 21% of Americans believe the next generation will be better off, down 9 points from the year before.

Our work at the Human Flourishing Lab also documents a pessimism problem. Across a number of surveys, we have found that only around half of Americans are hopeful about the future of the country, and even fewer are hopeful about human progress. At the same time, it is worth noting that we have found most Americans are hopeful about their own lives, grateful for the progress made by previous generations, and believe our nation still has an important role to play in solving global challenges.

In this newsletter, I regularly discuss the importance of a positive, future-oriented mindset. Optimism is the expectation that good things will happen, and hope adds the belief that we can help make them happen. The two often work together to build a positive outlook on the future. And this outlook is not just a pleasant feeling. Research finds that it promotes social trust, creativity, and motivation to work on solving problems. In other words, building a better future starts with believing it is possible and that we have the power to help make it happen.

A big part of the problem is that we have a distorted picture of our fellow humans. The global survey I mentioned earlier, the Edelman Trust Barometer, found that 7 in 10 people are unwilling or hesitant to trust someone who sees the world differently than they do. As discussed in a previous newsletter, research consistently shows that we overestimate how selfish and dishonest others are and underestimate how kind and helpful they will be.

We also overestimate how many people behave badly online. In another newsletter, I discussed research showing that Americans believe a much larger share of people post harmful content online than actually do.

When I write about these issues, I usually focus on what each of us can do as individuals to push back against this distorted picture of humanity. For instance, in this newsletter, I offered three ways to resist declinism, which is the belief that things were better in the past and will keep getting worse in the future.

But organizations also play an important role in informing how we see the world and each other. This includes brands, which have a big impact on culture. They reach people every day through advertising, products, stores, and social media. And the Edelman survey found that people around the world trust business more than government, the media, or nonprofits. That means brands may be distinctly positioned to tell more positive (and more accurate) stories about humanity that can help inspire broader trust, optimism, and hope.

There is a real hunger for these kinds of stories. Americans are growing tired of the constant stream of fear and outrage in our information ecosystem. Younger generations report the highest levels of distress, distrust, and pessimism, yet they are also leading the search for something better. As I discussed in numerous previous newsletters and in essays for The New York Times and Big Think, many young people are stepping back from the digital platforms that traffic in doom and gloom and are looking for more real-world connection.

When brands help tell a more accurate and positive story about people, everyone wins. It is good for society, and it is also good for business. Cynicism makes consumers more guarded and less willing to try new things. A more trusting, optimistic, and energized culture is a better environment for brands to grow.

This is why I was excited to partner with ONE Strategy Studio, a Radius company, on a new brief titled Perception Creates Reality: Winning With Optimism. I wrote the foreword and advised the team on behavioral science research used in the brief.

The brief highlights the gap between how kind people actually are to each other and how much we trust each other. This matters because expectations influence behavior. If we expect a stranger to be unfriendly, we are less likely to start a conversation. If we expect people to be selfish, we are less likely to trust them. When enough people lower their expectations at the same time, our cynicism about each other can become self-fulfilling.

The brief offers several ideas for how brands can use their influence to help people see each other more accurately, without preaching or taking on a big social cause. You can read the full brief here. Even if you don’t work for a major brand or in marketing, I think you will find it offers useful insights into how the stories we tell inform what we believe about each other and how we engage with the world around us.

The good news is that most people are better than we think. Brands can help remind us of that.

Have a great weekend!

Clay

This week I want to share a new Profectus article from my Head Out colleague, Dr. Camilo Ortiz.

More people have therapists than ever before. But rates of depression and anxiety have not fallen. Not only do we have more mental health professionals, but we also have more awareness campaigns, more educational initiatives, more therapy and wellness apps, and more movies, television shows, podcasts, and even video games bringing attention to mental illness.

As I discussed in my latest New York Times essay, over the past several decades, the mental health of Americans appears to have gotten worse even though our culture has become much more focused on it.

This is why our team at the Archbridge Institute’s Human Flourishing Lab launched Head Out, a public education initiative that offers a different approach to mental health. As I discussed in a previous newsletter, Head Out is not anti-therapy. Individuals who need professional help should get it, and we should continue working to remove barriers to accessing treatment. But people have more power to help themselves than they often realize. The Head Out resources we have published, including the article I am sharing today from Dr. Ortiz, are aimed at helping people actualize that power.

Dr. Ortiz is a board-certified clinical psychologist, psychology professor, Human Flourishing Lab fellow, and author of the Head Out toolkit, How Do You Know If It Is Time For Therapy? In this new article, Therapy Is Not For Everyone, Dr. Ortiz expands on his Head Out toolkit to help people better understand when it is time to seek professional help, how therapy can sometimes make things worse, what individuals can do for themselves before seeking help or while waiting for their first session, and how to get the most out of therapy.

It is an excellent article, and I think anyone considering therapy would benefit from reading it. Even if you are not seeking professional help, it is a useful read because it discusses issues that affect the broader cultural conversation around mental health.

I want to highlight what I believe is one of the most important points in Dr. Ortiz’s article. Whether you see a therapist or not, improving your mental health is going to take hard work. Therapy can guide that work, but it can’t replace it.

I made a similar argument in a previous newsletter about how a meaningful life takes work. Scientific and technological progress has made our lives easier and more comfortable, and we should be grateful for that. But ease and comfort don’t generate meaning. We have to roll up our sleeves and do the work of developing our talents, strengthening our character, and finding ways to contribute to the world around us. This applies to every aspect of human flourishing.

You can read Dr. Ortiz’s article here. And you can learn more about Head Out here.

Have a great weekend!

Clay

Lately, I’ve been seeing a lot of concern among technology enthusiasts that Americans are turning against progress. One specific issue driving this worry is the growing skepticism about artificial intelligence, and especially the backlash against data centers.

I think it’s a mistake to read Americans’ AI concerns or even their broader negative outlook about the future as anti-progress. People are anxious about what lies ahead, and our nation does have a pessimism problem. Not to mention the individuals developing AI are themselves suggesting that it will cause mass unemployment and possibly human extinction. Despite all of this, Americans still possess the fundamentals of a progress-oriented mindset.

Most Americans oppose the construction of data centers in their local communities. A recent poll found that 75% don’t want data centers built in their area. Notably, though this sentiment is a little stronger on the left, it is largely bipartisan. Majorities of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans oppose data centers that power AI technology being built near them. Who said Americans can’t find common ground across political divides?

Americans also appear to be growing skeptical about AI in general. Pew surveys show that starting around 2023, there was a significant increase in the percentage of Americans who report that the use of AI in daily life makes them more concerned than excited. In 2022, 38% indicated they were more concerned than excited. This shot up to 52% in 2023 and has hovered around that number since.

I predict that the backlash against AI will grow stronger. A Politico poll conducted this week found that nearly two-thirds of Americans think there is a real risk that AI will destroy humanity.

But this isn’t just about AI. In our research at the Archbridge Institute’s Human Flourishing Lab, we find that Americans are evenly split on their general outlook for the future. In one survey, we found that just 52% of Americans believe that humans will make significant progress on major societal and global challenges in the coming decades, and life will be better for future generations. The other half has a more pessimistic outlook. They believe we will fail to make progress on major issues and think life will be worse in the future.

These statistics seem to support the assertion that Americans are losing faith in progress, but they are only part of the story. Other results from our research paint a more encouraging picture.

Start with the personal agency that is fundamental to building and sustaining a free and flourishing society. Ninety percent of Americans believe they have the ability to exercise meaningful control over their own lives. And strong majorities believe they have the responsibility (79%) and power (74%) to make the kinds of contributions that improve the world. A smaller percentage (64%) think they are currently using their abilities, talents, or skills to improve the world. Even though Americans are worried about the future, most believe they can have a positive impact on it.

This mindset extends beyond the belief in personal agency that mobilizes individuals to help build a better world. Nearly 90% of Americans feel grateful for the efforts and accomplishments of past generations that gave them the quality of life they enjoy today. Three-fourths or more agree that America’s global leadership (75%), cultural emphasis on optimism and possibility (76%), business achievements (78%), and scientific research (84%) have been crucial for advancing progress.

This isn’t merely a sentiment about the past. Eighty-five percent believe that historical examples of major breakthroughs give us good reason to think we can solve today’s problems and build a better future, and 83% report that the efforts and accomplishments of previous generations inspire them to make contributions that will make life better for future generations. In addition, 79% believe that going forward, America’s contributions will remain vital for human progress.

In short, a more complete analysis reveals that Americans have serious concerns about the future and the specific emerging technologies that are helping shape it, worries that are increasingly voiced by the very people who are building these technologies. Yet most Americans still believe progress is real, that it can continue, and that they, as individuals and as a nation, have a role to play in ensuring it does.

There is a lot of doom and gloom in our media and public discourse, and we certainly have real psychological, cultural, and economic challenges. But underneath the fears and frustrations that get so much attention, you can still find a country that hasn’t given up on the future.

Have a great weekend!

Clay

I am stoked to share a new Human Flourishing Lab report from Dr. Andrew Abeyta, a professor of psychology at Rutgers University and a social psychology fellow at the Archbridge Institute. The report provides a review of research on how work contributes to meaning in life and offers recommendations for organizations and individuals.

Meaning is a critical ingredient of human flourishing. When people perceive their lives as meaningful, they are more satisfied with their lives, more resilient when facing life’s difficulties, and at lower risk of anxiety, depression, substance abuse, and suicide. Meaning also promotes good physical health and longevity, as well as educational and professional success.

This is because of meaning’s self-regulatory and motivational power. Meaning supports self-control, helping us make decisions that ultimately improve our lives and the lives of others. It helps us look beyond immediate gratification and focus on longer-term aspirations. When we have a strong sense of meaning, a belief that our lives matter, we are inspired to take care of ourselves, strive for personal growth, pursue ambitious goals, and engage in prosocial behavior.

The report identifies five pathways through which work can provide meaning. Happiness captures how positive emotions contribute to meaningful work. Social connection reflects the belonging, support, and competence we build through relationships with coworkers and mentors. Coherence comes from the routines, financial stability, and shared values that help our work lives make sense. Self-actualization involves the growth, autonomy, and authenticity that let us become fuller versions of ourselves through our careers. And self-transcendence captures the sense that our work helps others or connects us to something larger. Dr. Abeyta reviews the research behind each of these pathways and shows how they come together to shape the extent to which a job provides meaning in our lives.

The report also offers practical recommendations. For organizations, Dr. Abeyta discusses strategies for supporting employee wellbeing, fostering a meaning-promoting organizational culture, and training leaders to build and sustain such a culture. For individuals, he emphasizes the importance of finding roles that fit your values, building strong relationships at work, and developing a resilient meaning-making mindset. Meaning at work is something organizations and individuals have to build together.

I encourage you to read the full report. Whether you are an organizational leader looking to improve employee wellbeing, retention, or productivity, an individual seeking to make your work more existentially fulfilling, or simply someone interested in the relationship between work and meaning, the report offers an accessible review of the relevant research.

This topic feels especially important right now. Some technologists and futurists predict, and in some cases welcome, a future where AI makes most human work unnecessary. On the surface, this may seem like an appealing vision. But this vision misunderstands something fundamental about our existential nature. We are a species driven to create, compete, collaborate, and contribute. We don’t feel our lives matter because circumstances are comfortable or because our needs are passively met. We feel our lives matter when we are actively using our talents and effort to make something happen in the world. As I discussed in a previous newsletter, a meaningful life takes work.

A future in which everything is provided for us, and nothing is asked of us, is not one that we would find meaningful. Technological advances can support meaningful work but they cannot replace the existential need to use our agency in ways that allow us to actively direct our lives and make significant contributions to our families and communities.

The good news is that it appears that most Americans appreciate the importance of meaningful work and are finding it. In the American Psychological Association’s 2025 Work in America survey, 95% of workers indicated that it is important for them to have a job that is meaningful and 92% reported that the work they do is meaningful. And as I detailed in another newsletter, most Americans are also proud of their work and believe it has a positive impact on society.

Our goal should not be to eliminate the need for human work. It should be to create more opportunities for people to pursue meaningful work.

Have a great weekend!

Clay

Remember all the stories about the death of movie theaters? I do. I also remember Gen Z receiving a good chunk of the blame. But it turns out, the generation accused of killing the movies might be the ones who end up keeping the old school cinema experience alive.

A survey of over 5,000 U.S. adults conducted by Fandango found that 87% of Gen Z saw at least one movie in theaters in 2025, compared to 82% of Millennials, 78% of Gen X, and 58% of Baby Boomers. Gen Z also went to the movies more frequently than older generations, an average of seven times. Many of the most financially successful films in recent years owe a big part of their success to younger generations showing up en masse, and sometimes for multiple viewings.

Movie theaters may never reclaim the place they once held in American life. We have a lot more entertainment options now. Yet even with all that competition, the generation supposedly incapable of sitting through anything longer than a fifteen second video is going to movies that can run as long as three hours.

So what is going on? Why does Gen Z love going to the movies?

Let’s start with the most obvious answer. Regardless of generation, the quality of content matters, especially given the cost of a movie ticket. Home viewing keeps getting better too, with bigger screens, better sound systems, and a seemingly endless list of streaming options. If filmmakers want people to leave the house and pay for a ticket, they need to make something worth the trip. Indeed, in the Fandango survey, Gen Z respondents indicated that having a good selection of films is a big reason they go to the movies.

But where the story gets interesting, in my opinion, is the more psychological and social motivations inspiring young moviegoers. Specifically, getting out of the house and having more social activities were the other two primary factors Gen Z respondents pointed to when explaining why they are going to the movies. Consistent with this, Gen Z were more likely than other groups to indicate that they combine moviegoing with other social activities such as going out to eat.

Further indicating that getting out and gathering with others is a main motivator, nearly 90% of Gen Z respondents expressed a strong interest in watching alternative content in theaters such as movie re-releases, sporting events, concert films, and TV show premieres or finales. Gen Z might have grown up in the era of computer-mediated life but like previous generations of young people they are hungry for opportunities to leave the house and hang out with their friends.

This is where nostalgia becomes relevant. Nostalgia is universal, not confined to any particular age group. But younger generations are especially nostalgic for eras that predate them, what is called historical nostalgia. In research my team at the Human Flourishing Lab has conducted, most Gen Z adults report feeling drawn to the media, styles, and traditions of decades they never lived through, and most say revisiting these eras helps them manage current stress and anxiety about the future.

Gen Z is not alone in this. Millennials and Gen X also report high levels of historical nostalgia. But Gen Z, as digital natives, may be especially motivated to actually act on it. Most Gen Z adults say they are worried about social media’s effect on mental and social health, and that they feel too dependent on technology. Gen Z is also the generation most actively cutting back, taking breaks from social media and setting limits on their screen use.

This is driving what I have described in previous newsletters and in outlets like the New York Times and Big Think as the real-world renaissance, the return to in-person, analog experiences at a time when so much of daily life is mediated by screens.

A movie theater still involves a screen, but the experience is a lot different than scrolling on your phone. You choose what to watch ahead of time, put your phone away, and give it your full attention alongside everyone else in the room. It is a planned outing, one where you and your friends or family sit down together and share something from start to finish.

Given Gen Z’s sentimentality toward eras before their time, it should come as no surprise that many of the movies they love lean into that same retro feel. Backrooms is set in an earlier decade and looks the part. Obsession centers on a cursed artifact straight out of an earlier era, and its score has an 80s-style synth sound.

Gen Z’s growing love of moviegoing is also a good reminder that we are often wrong about how new technology will ultimately change our lives. For years, the prevailing assumption was that social media and streaming would finish off the theatrical experience for good. Instead, these platforms are now a big part of what is bringing people back to the movies.

According to the Fandango data, social media is the number one way Gen Z and Millennial moviegoers discover new films, ahead of trailers, clips, and posters. Apps like Letterboxd, where people log and review what they watch, have grown into popular online communities, especially among younger moviegoers. Obsession and Backrooms were made by young creators, Curry Barker and Kane Parsons, who built their audiences on YouTube before making a feature film.

Social media is typically characterized as a barrier to in-person social life but it doesn’t have to be. People regularly use these platforms to organize and promote real life events.

Maybe we will not always come together in movie theaters. But we will always feel the need to gather. We may forget that from time to time, but nostalgia has a way of reminding us.

Have a great weekend!

Clay

It’s been a busy week!

First, I am pumped to share my latest piece for the New York Times, Stop Pathologizing Ordinary Life. In it, I make the case that our culture has become overly preoccupied with mental health. The more we broaden what counts as a disorder, the more we start seeing normal unpleasant psychological states as mental illness, and this can become a self-fulfilling prophecy, making us more distressed and less resilient.

Regular readers will be familiar with this argument, as it is the same case I have been building through Head Out, which I announced here a few weeks ago. You can learn more about Head Out here, and access our first toolkit here.

The response to the NYT piece has been overwhelmingly positive. Many psychologists and educators have reached out to voice their agreement and share some of their own concerns about issues such as therapy culture, mental health misinformation, interventions that aren’t evidence-based, and overdiagnosis. This gives me hope that we can think about mental health more productively, without giving up the real progress we have made.

I also have a new podcast to share. The Atlantic just released the first episode of a new series called How to Touch Grass, and I am the guest. We talked about why so many people, especially Gen Z, feel nostalgic for a time before smartphones, how this reflects a desire for a healthier relationship with technology, how nostalgia can actually help us get there, the distinction between nostalgia and declinism, why I am optimistic about Gen Z, and other topics.

Speaking of nostalgia and the desire for more analog living, I was also interviewed for a CBC article that came out this week on the rise of snail-mail clubs. People are paying to receive handwritten letters, art, and other small tangible things in the mail. It is a fun article and a great illustration of the retro renaissance I have written about in this newsletter and for outlets like the New York Times and Big Think.

On a related note, I’m the nostalgia expert for NBC, and I’ve made a number of appearances on their programming. Most of them have focused on Gen Z nostalgia trends, such as the iPhone 5c comeback. But last week I got to talk about my own generation! NBC Today did a segment on the wave of ‘80s and ‘90s nostalgia showing up on store shelves, like Costco’s Esprit sweatshirts selling out among Gen Xers. I talked about how nostalgia is a useful psychological resource for all generations and how reconnecting with these old brands and styles can make middle-aged and older adults feel young at heart, which is good for us.

Finally, I just got back in town from Napa. I was there for the Zoë conference, where I was on a panel about declining birth rates. I was invited to talk about what existential psychology can add to that conversation. Economics and policy matter, but I think the psychological and cultural dimensions deserve more attention. In surveys, many Americans say marriage and children are not important for living a fulfilling life, even though most of them identify family as the greatest source of meaning in their own lives. For more of my thoughts, here is an article I wrote on the topic.

One last thing. I have a couple of big projects I want to spend more time on, so Flourishing Friday is going to be less frequent for a while. I also turn 50 in August, so I plan to take some vacation time and put some of my own nostalgia research to use, doing a few things that help me feel young at heart.

Have a great weekend!

Clay

A recent Pew Research Center survey found that 59% of Americans say the country’s best years are behind us. This attitude is an example of declinism, the belief that things were better before and will keep getting worse. And declinism is bad for our own wellbeing and for society.

People who adopt a positive attitude about the future experience better mental and physical health, greater meaning in their lives, and more success in their relationships and careers. Declinism works against all of this. It also stops people from asking what they can do to make things better, and it orients them away from others. If you believe things are falling apart, it is easy to see other people as part of the problem rather than as partners in the solution.

So how do we resist the pull of declinism? Here are three strategies.

The first strategy is to transcend the political partisanship that fuels declinism. Pew’s data shows that Democrats are currently more likely than Republicans to say the country’s best years are behind us. But this is not a fixed belief of either party. Pew asked a similar question back in 2014, when Democrats controlled the White House and Senate, and found that Republicans were more likely to have a declinist outlook. Other research has found a similar pattern, with outlook shifting based on which party holds the White House rather than any real change in circumstances. A lot of what feels like settled pessimism about the future is really more dissatisfaction with politics in the present.

Recognizing this can help you step outside the moment and see the bigger picture. Politics is only one part of life, and a great deal of what actually improves our communities and our world often has little to do with what happens in Washington D.C. Discoveries, innovations, and positive cultural shifts can happen regardless of which party is in power. Not to mention a lot of important policy work occurs at the state and local level, which rarely makes national headlines but can have a more direct impact on our lives. And no side of the political aisle has a monopoly on good or bad ideas. Letting politics become all consuming can blind us to everything else that is possible.

The second strategy is to improve your media diet. Research shows that news headlines have grown more negative over time, and that we are reinforcing this trend, since negative headlines get more clicks than positive ones. Social media makes this worse. The posts most likely to spread are the ones that provoke outrage or anger. A steady diet of this kind of content skews our picture of humanity. When negativity dominates our feeds, it becomes easy to conclude that people are worse than they actually are, and that the world is in a state of decline. As I discussed in previous newsletters, people are more honest, kind, and trustworthy than we assume they will be. And most people online are not spreading toxic content. That behavior comes from a small and vocal minority, but because we see so much of it, we assume it reflects how most people actually behave.

Becoming more aware of how negative content pulls at our attention is the first step. The next is to actively seek out stories of what is going right. There are plenty of fascinating and inspiring ones out there, even if they take a little more effort to find.

The third strategy is to foster a better appreciation for the progress we enjoy today. In research from our team at the Human Flourishing Lab, we found that Americans who believe life has gotten better over the last 50 years are far more likely to expect continued progress over the next 50 years. This pattern held true across demographic groups, including age, gender, income, and political party.

Declinism treats the current moment as if it exists in isolation, disconnected from the long record of improvements previous generations made. Taking the time to recognize what previous generations have built, discovered, and overcome can foster the kind of gratitude and inspiration needed to keep that progress going.

None of these strategies require ignoring the challenges of our time. They simply ask us to be more intentional, using our own agency to cultivate a hopeful mindset. Believing our best days are behind us is not just an attitude about the past and present. It is a mindset for the future. We are far better off choosing to believe that the best is still ahead, and that we each have a role to play in making that vision a reality.

Have a great weekend!

Clay

Share

Leave a comment

I frequently come across the claim that America is experiencing a loneliness epidemic. When the evidence is presented, it usually focuses on how much time people are spending alone, treated as inherently bad for them. But encouraging people to believe time alone is harmful may actually be contributing to rising rates of loneliness.

To be clear, loneliness is a real problem. It is a major risk factor for depression, anxiety, self harm and suicide, and it also raises the risk of heart disease, dementia, and other illness. Humans are a social species. From infancy we depend on parents, caregivers, and later mentors and peers, to survive and grow into capable adults. As adults, we partner up, cooperate, and collaborate to build and sustain families, businesses, institutions, and communities. And we just like being together. For instance, research finds that most everyday activities are more enjoyable when we do them with other people than when we do them alone.

However, being alone and feeling lonely are not the same thing. Loneliness is the psychological distress that comes from feeling a lack of meaningful connection or belonging. That is different from simply being by yourself. We do not always feel lonely just because we are not interacting with or in the presence of others. And we often choose to spend time alone doing things we find restful or absorbing, or working on personal projects and goals. Even when we would rather be with others, spending time by ourselves does not automatically make us feel lonely. In addition, people can be surrounded by others and still feel lonely if they do not feel like they truly belong or matter to the people around them. All of this helps explain why the correlation between being alone and loneliness is fairly weak.

So spending time alone does not automatically make us lonely, but it turns out how we think about that time can. Across a series of studies, researchers examined how our beliefs about the time we spend by ourselves influence loneliness. First, they examined coverage in the most widely read newspapers in the country and found that stories about being alone were ten times more likely to frame it as bad for us than good for us, despite the fact that time alone is not inherently harmful and can be beneficial.

The researchers then tested whether that kind of negative framing actually changes attitudes about alone time. In an experiment, people who read a short article about the risks of being alone came away believing time alone was more harmful than people who read about its benefits.

They then conducted a study in which they recruited young adults, measured their existing beliefs about being alone, and subsequently tracked them over two weeks, checking in several times a day to ask how much time they had spent alone and how lonely they felt. Individuals who held negative beliefs about being alone felt considerably lonelier after time by themselves. Those who held more positive beliefs felt less lonely after the same stretches of time by themselves. In further studies, the researchers found that this pattern held up across many different countries and cultures.

I think this points to something bigger than just loneliness. As a culture, we have become increasingly fixated on and worried about psychological suffering. In some ways this is a good thing. It has reduced stigma around mental illness and made more people willing to seek help when they need it. But the more preoccupied we become with our psychological states, constantly monitoring our stress, our sadness, our sense of connection, the more we appear to be making ourselves worse off.

Our team created a project called Head Out to make the case for a different approach, one built on outward-directed action rather than inward-directed fixation. Loneliness was not part of the original thinking behind Head Out, but I think it fits. Our mental and social health does not improve by turning inward and constantly monitoring how we feel. It improves when we turn outward and engage in activities that better our own lives and the lives of others.

This is where meaning comes in. True loneliness is, I believe, ultimately an existential issue. It is about a lack of meaning-providing social engagement. Meaning is tied to social connection, but not simply to being around other people. It comes from playing a significant role in their lives. This further highlights how fixating on how much time we spend alone or in the presence of others is not especially useful for addressing the problem of loneliness.

There is real value in paying attention to loneliness as a society. But treating being alone as inherently harmful, and acting like every trend toward more solitary living is evidence of a loneliness crisis, might be making the problem worse. Instead of worrying so much about how much time people spend alone, maybe we should spend more time promoting the aspirations and activities that give our lives meaning, which will inevitably increase the amount of time we spend with others and make that time more fulfilling.

Have a great weekend!

Clay

I am stoked to share a new piece I wrote for ! I have done some videos with them before, but this is my first time writing for them. I have long been a fan though, so I am excited to be in their pages.

The piece is called Why Gen Z Is Nostalgic For a World It Never Knew, and it is part of their new special issue, The Opt-Out Nation. The issue looks at a very American instinct, the urge to opt out and do things differently, whether that means leaving an institution, changing careers, or just deciding to do things your own way. There are a bunch of fascinating stories in the issue, so definitely check it out.

In my piece, I focus on what I think is driving Gen Z’s growing nostalgia, even for eras they never lived through, and why I think it is helping fuel a real world renaissance against always online life. I argue that Gen Z is not opting out of modernity. It is opting out of the assumption that the digital world must consume the analog one.

One of the retro things Gen Z is into is print media. Which is why I think it is so cool that Big Think puts out a print magazine, and my new piece is featured in the latest issue. I love the internet and digital content, but there is something about a physical magazine, something you can hold, flip through, and leave out on a table, that a website just cannot replicate. I am glad Gen Z is helping bring physical media back.

If you want to start getting physical copies of the magazine in the mail or want access to all the great content Big Think offers, become a member here.

Have a great weekend!

Clay

Tomorrow is the Fourth of July, and this year it carries extra meaning. We are marking 250 years since the signing of the Declaration of Independence. A milestone like this is a time to celebrate, and it is also a time to reflect on what binds such a diverse, dynamic, and divided country together. So this week I want to explore the positive power of patriotism and share some new findings on what Americans think about patriotism.

Last week I attended a World Cup match between Austria and Algeria in Kansas City. I do not know much about soccer (fútbol). But I do know a lot about nostalgia and group psychology, and that is why I was there, taking part in a documentary being filmed at the event. I am not much of a sports fan in general, but I have always enjoyed international competitions like the Olympics because I like watching different nations come together in one place to showcase and test their athletic talent.

This was the first World Cup game I had ever attended, so I did not really know what to expect. I was instantly struck by how many devoted fans of Austria and Algeria had turned out in a Midwestern American city, wearing their national colors and cheering on their teams. It was a vivid reminder of how powerfully a shared identity can move people, and of the deep human pull toward group belonging.

Patriotism is one of the clearest expressions of that pull. Some people are skeptical of it because they associate it with a divisive nationalism. But as someone who has been studying group psychology for some time, I believe healthy patriotism is good for us, both as individuals and as a society.

Humans are a group-oriented species. Much of the discourse about our tribal nature focuses on its dark side, and for understandable reasons. Our instinct to sort ourselves into groups can lead to prejudice, discrimination, violence, and war. But this is only part of the story. That same social nature is what makes cooperation, trust, shared sacrifice, and large-scale progress possible.

Patriotism is often an important component of the constructive side of our group nature. It helps build what social and behavioral scientists call a superordinate group identity, a larger sense of belonging that unites smaller groups, even ones in strong disagreement. For example, Republicans and Democrats disagree on many things, but they are part of a larger national group. They are all Americans. Patriotism is one of the most powerful ways to cultivate that broader identity and a sense of national belonging that does not require us to set our disagreements aside but does help us find common ground and live together peacefully.

A positive national identity does more than reduce division. Our research at the Human Flourishing Lab finds that people who are proud of their country tend to be more hopeful about its future. For instance, in a previous survey, we found that 64% of people who are proud to be American are hopeful for the future of the nation, compared to 27% of those who are not proud to be American. This positive association between national pride and national hope holds across political ideology and age groups.

This matters because hope is a critical ingredient of progress. Hopeful people are more goal-focused, more persistent, more cooperative, and more motivated to serve their communities. When people believe a better tomorrow is possible, they are far more likely to help build it.

Fortunately, we are not stuck choosing between the costs and the benefits of our group nature. We can dampen the destructive side of our tribal instincts while drawing out the constructive side. A big part of that is promoting a healthy patriotism over an unhealthy nationalism, a distinction I have written about before in outlets such as Fortune. As Arthur Brooks puts it, patriotism reflects civic pride in our shared culture and institutions, while nationalism is a sense of superiority rooted in identity markers like race, religion, or language. Patriotism makes room for a diverse and dynamic America. Nationalism demands a narrow and uniform one.

So where do Americans actually stand today? This week, the Archbridge Institute released The American Dream at 250: A Special Edition of the American Dream Snapshot, authored by our CEO, Gonzalo Schwarz. The report covers a wide range of attitudes related to the American Dream, including opportunity, equality, technology, immigration, and the future of the country, and it is well worth reading in full. The findings on patriotism tell an encouraging story.

Most Americans embrace a healthy, inclusive patriotism. Nearly three-quarters of Americans say they are proud to be American, and a similar share say their patriotism motivates them to work for a better future. Large majorities also say people with different religious or political beliefs can be patriotic, that you can criticize America and still be a patriot, and that patriotism helps Americans find common cause despite their differences. High agreement on all of these points is exactly what we would expect if patriotism supports trust, cooperation, and progress.

Americans are not describing loyalty tests or demands for conformity. They are describing a shared identity that makes room for disagreement and pushes them to improve the country.

A healthy patriotism also has to be balanced against one of America’s defining traditions, our commitment to the individual. It is important to judge people on their own merits, and the benefits of group belonging should never come at the expense of that. We have to protect the liberties that allow each person to exercise their agency, develop their unique talents, and pursue their own goals and their own vision of a good life. This balance is part of what makes our nation thrive. We have a shared identity strong enough to unite us, alongside a deep respect for the freedom that lets each of us define our own path and pursue it.

Across the lines that so often divide us, most Americans are still proud of this country, believe it can bring us together, and feel called to make it better. That is something worth celebrating tomorrow, and something worth protecting and building on for the next 250 years.

Have a great Fourth of July weekend!

Clay

Greetings from the Road! I have spent the week at the Aspen Ideas Health Festival. This was a great opportunity to see what conversations are happening around health and wellness. I had the good fortune of sharing the stage with Dr. Kate Bowler, a bestselling New York Times author, and Steve Burns, who is best known for his role on Blue’s Clues. We discussed nostalgia and the role it plays in showing us how the past can pave the way for a brighter future. You can see our conversation here:

Back to the Future: The Power of Nostalgia

I want to thank Kate for her enthusiastic moderating and Steve for his honest commentary on being the subject of nostalgia. You can follow Kate’s Substack, Everything Happens here. Follow Steve’s podcast, Alive with Steve Burns here.

It was great being in Aspen, CO and I’m so grateful for the opportunity to explore ideas on the power of nostalgia. I will also have a podcast to share soon which was recorded at Aspen with Dr. Jason Arora from The Health Curve where we discussed a range of topics, including meaning in life and nostalgia.

I’m off to Kansas City tomorrow for a World Cup game. I will be appearing in a documentary about nostalgia and its impact on soccer (I mean fútbol). Flourishing Friday will be back next week.

Have a great weekend!

Clay

I am excited to share our first toolkit from Head Out, the Human Flourishing Lab’s public education mental health initiative. As I discussed in a previous newsletter, Head Out is built on the ideas that getting out of our heads and into the world is one of the most powerful but overlooked paths to better mental health, and that people have more power to help themselves than our culture gives them credit for.

The toolkit is called How to Know If It Is Time for Therapy, and it was written by Dr. Camilo Ortiz, a board-certified clinical psychologist who has been treating adults, teens, and kids for 30 years, a professor of psychology, and a fellow at the Human Flourishing Lab.

As a professional therapist, Dr. Ortiz understands the value of therapy. But he is also clear about its limits. In the current climate, it is common to hear people claim that everyone can use therapy and that there is nothing to lose by trying it. Dr. Ortiz pushes back on these ideas, because they are not actually supported by the research. He notes that therapy does not help everyone, and in some situations it can even do harm.

This toolkit is a very useful resource for anyone who is wondering whether they should seek professional help. It does not push people toward therapy or away from it. It helps them figure out what makes sense for their situation. Specifically, it offers a simple way to weigh the risks and rewards of any approach, a short self-assessment to gauge how serious a situation is, practical self-management steps, and a step-by-step plan for finding the right provider if professional help makes sense. It also points to free and low-cost resources and crisis support.

I want to emphasize how much of the guide is devoted to self-management, because it gets at the heart of what Head Out is about. Dr. Ortiz shows that for many common concerns, there is a lot people can do on their own. This includes giving mild symptoms a chance to improve on their own, strengthening the basics like sleep, movement, and connection, and borrowing simple techniques that therapists use. People often have more capacity to improve their own mental health than they realize.

You can find the toolkit here. Even if you do not think you need it for yourself, it is worth reading and sharing, because so much of what people hear and read about mental health is not grounded in good evidence. The more we can get clear, research-based guidance into people’s hands, the better.

On a separate note, there will be no Flourishing Friday next week. I will be at the Aspen Ideas Health Festival for a conversation about the power of nostalgia with Steve Burns, the original host of Blue’s Clues and host of the podcast Alive with Steve Burns, moderated by NYT bestselling author and host of the Everything Happens podcast, Kate Bowler. Our session is called Back to the Future: The Power of Nostalgia, and we will be talking about how thoughtful nostalgia works as a psychological resource that fosters optimism, builds belonging, and helps us move forward. If you have been reading this newsletter for a while, you know this is a major focus of my work, and I could not be more excited about this opportunity. You can learn more about the session here.

Have a great weekend!

Clay

A few months ago, I wrote about what we get wrong about online toxicity. The hostile and misleading content we see on social media comes from a much smaller group of people than we assume, and this misperception makes us more cynical about people in general. Unfortunately, this cynicism is not confined to the digital world.

As one example, a just published series of studies looked at how honest people are when they have a chance to lie without getting caught, and at how honest they assume others to be. The researchers used several paradigms to measure dishonesty. In one of them, people privately guessed the outcome of a die roll and then reported whether they had guessed right, earning a small bonus if they did. Because no one could check their guess, anyone could claim a win. And since only about one in six guesses should be correct by chance, the researchers could estimate how many people had lied. Across the studies, most people told the truth. But when asked to guess how many people would lie, participants overestimated dishonesty by about fourteen percentage points.

This new research is part of a much larger body of work showing that we misjudge other people in all sorts of ways, typically in the pessimistic direction. We overestimate how untrustworthy and selfish people are. We also underestimate the kindness of others, assuming that far fewer people will say yes to a request for help than actually do. This dark view of humanity also appears to be deepening over time. For instance, the share of Americans who say most people can be trusted has decreased in recent decades.

Why are we so prone to thinking the worst of one another? There are probably many reasons, but I think our information ecosystem is a big part of the problem. The news has grown steadily more negative, trading more and more in anger, fear, disgust, and sadness, and we reward that coverage with our clicks and attention.

Fortunately, we can correct these misperceptions. When people learn the facts, they often update their beliefs. For example, in the honesty research previously discussed, participants who were told how honest people actually are became more trusting and more likely to see others as fair and helpful. And in the online toxicity research, when people learned that harmful content comes from a small and unrepresentative minority, they felt more positive about their fellow citizens and recognized that most people share their desire for something better.

This has important implications for our wellbeing. How we see other people informs how we see the world, and our beliefs about the world shape how we feel and function. As I discussed in a previous newsletter, people who see the world as dangerous and other people as untrustworthy tend to fare worse across a wide range of outcomes, from life satisfaction to physical health.

But the implications extend beyond our individual wellbeing. Our beliefs about our fellow humans affect the health of our society and our ability to advance human progress because our attitudes about other people influence our motivational orientation. That orientation can be thought of as a balance between defense and growth. Defensive motivation is about protecting ourselves from threats and avoiding loss. Growth motivation is about expanding the self, exploring, creating, and striving for improvement. Both are essential. We need defense to protect ourselves and to preserve what we have built. But we need growth to build something new, adapt to changing circumstances, innovate, and advance progress.

When we feel threatened, we shift toward defense, becoming more vigilant, cautious, and risk averse, which often serves us well when the threat is real. But when we feel threatened based on a distorted view of the world, we privilege defense for no good reason, and that defensive posture can act as a barrier to growth-oriented attitudes, goals, and behaviors.

I am hopeful because I believe Americans are growing weary of the negativity and pessimism. Most of us do not want to go through life assuming the worst about people. And the good news is that the worst is not the truth. Now we just need to do a better job spreading a more accurate and hopeful picture of humanity.

Have a great weekend!

Clay

Flourishing Friday is back!

I took the month of May off to work on some big projects, and I am super stoked to share one of them with you today. Our team at the Archbridge Institute’s Human Flourishing Lab has launched a new mental health public education initiative called Head Out.

Head Out is based on the idea that getting out of our heads and into the world is one of the most powerful but overlooked paths to better mental health. It is also grounded in the belief that people have more power to help themselves than our culture is giving them credit for. Individuals who need professional help should get it, and we should continue working to remove barriers to accessing mental health services. But we also need a culture that empowers people to take an active role in their own psychological wellbeing, and to do so by spending less time fixated on their mental states and more time engaged with the world around them.

I have been making this case for a long time and in a lot of places, including the Wall Street Journal, Harvard Business Review, Business Insider, and Profectus.

Here is the basic argument. Human beings have a remarkable ability no other species shares. We can turn our attention inward, reflect on our own thoughts and feelings, run mental simulations, learn from the past, and plan for the future. This capacity for self-consciousness is one of our greatest cognitive assets. It is what makes human progress possible. And it is what makes us an existential species driven to find meaning in life. But it also makes us uniquely vulnerable to psychological distress.

We can replay our failures on a loop, catastrophize about a future that hasn’t happened, and get stuck in cycles of self-doubt and despair.

This vulnerability is not new, but modern life has introduced new challenges. Technological progress has delivered enormous benefits, but the way our digital devices have come to dominate daily life has meant more time alone, more time passively consuming content, and more time in our own heads. And into this environment came a well-intentioned cultural movement to raise mental health awareness.

In important ways it worked. Stigma around mental illness has declined and more people feel comfortable seeking help. But the movement also encouraged people to spend more time monitoring their emotional states and to interpret normal stress, anxiety, or sadness as signs of mental illness. That pushes people further inward, fueling the rumination and passive self-preoccupation that makes psychological distress worse.

If you have been reading this newsletter for a while, the alternative I propose will probably be familiar. I call it the outward action approach, and Head Out builds a public education initiative around it. The initiative is organized around five domains of outward engagement that research connects to psychological health: physical movement, purposeful work, creative expression, social connection, and self-transcendence.

Many of the ideas are timeless, the kinds of things humans have always needed to thrive. Modern behavioral science now gives us strong empirical evidence that they work.

You can explore the initiative at headoutworld.org. We are currently working on our first Head Out mental health toolkit, which we plan to release in the coming weeks. If you are new to these ideas or want to go deeper, there is a lot to explore both here in the Flourishing Friday archives and over at headoutworld.org.

I want to close by connecting Head Out to another theme I have been researching and writing about a lot lately. Young people are driving a real-world renaissance, rediscovering physical media, analog technology, hands-on hobbies, and in-person gathering spaces.

In our research at the Human Flourishing Lab, we find that large majorities of Gen Z report feeling nostalgic for eras before their lifetime and say they are drawn to media, styles, hobbies, or traditions from earlier periods.

This is a topic I have covered extensively in this newsletter, in outlets like the New York Times, in several appearances on NBC Today and NBC News, and in podcasts like Apple News In Conversation. And I will also be speaking on it later this month at the Aspen Ideas Festival.

I started researching Gen Z nostalgia and developing the outward action framework behind Head Out as separate projects, but I increasingly see them as deeply interconnected. Gen Z is the generation most affected by our current mental health crisis and the primary target of our culture’s well-intentioned but counterproductive approach to psychological wellbeing. And yet many of them seem to sense something is off, and they are doing something about it. By seeking out more tangible, in-person, and meaningful ways of engaging with the world, they are instinctively pushing back against an inward-focused culture.

What Gen Z is nostalgically reaching for is ultimately what Head Out is built on. This is a hopeful sign. It tells me that this generation is ready for a more outward-oriented approach, and I believe Head Out can help them get there.

Have a great weekend!

Clay

A new NBC News poll finding that nearly half of young Americans would choose to live in the past is getting a lot of attention. Gen Z nostalgia for an era that predates them is a topic I have been discussing a lot with NBC lately, including in several appearances on NBC Today and a recent interview with Gadi Schwartz for NBC News, so I want to share some thoughts on how I think we should interpret findings like this one.

First, let’s consider some other results from the same poll. Over 60% of Gen Z respondents said they expect life will be worse for them compared to previous generations, and 80% said the country is on the wrong track, the highest share of any age group surveyed. These are young people carrying a lot of anxiety and frustration about the present and where things are headed, and those feelings are inspiring their sentimentality toward the past. But I do not see this as unhealthy escapism.

Nostalgia functions as a psychological resource, especially during times of uncertainty and disruption. It helps people step out of the current moment and find comfort, inspiration, and guidance from their own cherished memories or the broader shared stories of earlier eras. Research shows that nostalgia increases positive mood, a sense of belongingness, meaning in life, self-confidence, goal motivation, optimism about the future, creative problem-solving, prosocial behavior, and other mental states and actions that advance human progress and flourishing. This is not escapism. This is using the past to approach the future with agency, purpose, and determination.

It is worth pausing here on the distinction between nostalgia and declinism, because they are often confused. Declinism is the belief that society is deteriorating and the best days are behind us. Nostalgia is something quite different, a warm sentimentality toward the past. Whereas nostalgia helps people approach the future with an open and positive mindset, declinism does the opposite.

Looking at the poll numbers, it is fair to say that Gen Z is showing some signs of declinist thinking. Large majorities believe life will be worse for them than for previous generations and that the country is going in the wrong direction. That is worth taking seriously. But it is important to remember that nostalgia is often triggered by negative feelings about the present and future, and that it helps people work through those feelings and approach what lies ahead with renewed purpose and hope.

We should be careful about making broad generalizations across an entire generation, but the research our team at the Human Flourishing Lab has done on Gen Z nostalgia, as well as other work I have been involved in on this topic, leads me to believe that most young adults are using their nostalgia for earlier eras constructively, as a way to resist the pull of declinism and restore a sense of hope and possibility. There will always be those whose yearning for the past tips into something less healthy, but that does not appear to be the dominant pattern.

The NBC poll and interviews they conducted give us useful clues about what Gen Z is specifically nostalgic for and what that says about the future they want to build. Among the nearly half of young Americans who said they would prefer to live in the past, the majority chose a period less than 50 years ago, essentially the world of the 1990s and early 2000s, right before the smartphone and social media became central organizing features of daily life. In interviews, young adults explained that this longing is shaped by their uneasy relationship with always-on technology, and that looking back to an earlier era offers them a sense of community and comfort amid anxieties about where technology and the broader world are headed.

Gen Z is not anti-technology. Our research at the Human Flourishing Lab finds that Gen Z recognizes both the benefits and the downsides of modern digital life. In our surveys, 86% say they are interested in learning about new technologies, 88% are motivated to use them, and 84% find it important to keep an open mind about technological advances. At the same time, 80% worry their generation is too dependent on technology, 74% are concerned about social media’s impact on mental health, and 58% believe new technologies are more likely to drive people apart than bring them together. They value what these platforms offer, but they also believe they are contributing to real mental health struggles and making it harder for people to trust and connect with each other.

Digital and real-world life do not have to be at war with each other, and I believe Gen Z is working hard to figure out that balance. They are not throwing their smartphones away. They are buying vinyl records and film cameras and physical books while still using social media to discover and organize offline experiences. What they are pushing back against is the feeling of being controlled by technology rather than in control of it. That desire for a more intentional and human-centered relationship with the digital world is also showing up in how they think about mental health. Many of them are drawing a direct line between their anxiety and the way modern technology has come to dominate their attention and social lives. Rather than accepting this as their fate, they are actively looking for ways to rebalance.

Every era has its challenges, and advances that help solve one problem can contribute to others. Digital technologies have connected us in remarkable ways and created new opportunities for creativity and commerce, but they have also created real pressures on our attention, psychological health, and social lives.

I think we sometimes lose sight of the human component of human progress. Nostalgia, I would argue, helps keep us anchored to it. It reminds us of the importance of deep relationships, real-world experiences, and a sense of meaning and purpose. And it helps us carry those things forward as we navigate whatever comes next. That is what I believe Gen Z is doing right now, and I think they are going to lead the rest of us toward a healthier relationship with these technologies and, ultimately, with each other.

If you are interested in hearing more of my thoughts on these themes, I recently sat down with Apple News In Conversation to discuss them at length. You can listen here.

Before I sign off, I wanted to let you know that I will be taking the rest of May off from Flourishing Friday. I have some big things in the works that I look forward to sharing here when I am back in June.

Have a great weekend!

Clay

The live music industry is booming. Even as ticket prices have climbed sharply and consumers face real cost of living pressures, attendance at concerts, music festivals, and live events continues to grow with roughly seven in ten eventgoers saying they prioritize experiences over material goods. As I have written about in previous newsletters, people across generations, and especially teens and young adults, are increasingly hungry for real-world experiences that connect them to others and to the physical world around them. Live music is one of the most powerful expressions of that impulse, and new research helps explain why.

Live music does something to us that recorded music, for all its accessibility and convenience, simply cannot replicate. It is not just about the music. It is about what happens when human beings gather together to share a musical experience. A recent paper published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin by Nicole Koefler and colleagues helps explain what that something is and why it matters for our psychological health.

Specifically, the researchers focused on a concept called collective effervescence, a term sociologist Emile Durkheim used to describe the psychological experience of group religious rituals. Collective effervescence refers to the simultaneous experience of feeling deeply connected to the people around you and sensing that something special, even sacred, is occurring.

In an initial study, participants were given a brief description of collective effervescence and asked to recall a group event where they experienced it, alongside a separate event where they felt nothing particularly special or sacred. The researchers asked participants to rate the degree to which music was present and central to each event. They found that music featured far more prominently in the collective effervescence events than in those where people felt nothing special or sacred.

In subsequent studies, the researchers recruited people who had recently attended live music events and assessed how their experiences related to their wellbeing. The pattern was consistent. Greater collective effervescence during the event was associated with a stronger sense of meaning in life in the moment and greater happiness a week after the show ended. It was also the strongest predictor of these outcomes, outperforming other intense concert experiences like awe. And when the researchers looked at what drove collective effervescence in the first place, feeling a bond with the artist, immersing yourself in the lyrics, and attending with friends all played a role.

As you might expect from an existential psychologist, I think it is crucial to emphasize the importance of the finding on meaning in life. Meaning is a fundamental psychological need, and people who have a strong sense of meaning in life report better mental and physical health, greater resilience, and higher life satisfaction. They are also more motivated to pursue their goals. Thus, attending a live music event where you feel that sense of shared connection with those around you can support your psychological wellbeing in ways that go far beyond a fun night out.

The real-world renaissance I mentioned at the outset is not just a random consumer trend. It is people seeking more authentic, tangible, in-person experiences to counterbalance the digital saturation of modern life. Live music is one powerful expression of that shift, alongside the growth of independent bookstores, boutique fitness studios, board game cafes, and crafting communities. To be clear, people are not abandoning digital technology. They are recognizing that technology alone cannot meet all of their psychological and social needs.

I think these findings also have important implications for mental health. Rather than turning inward and dwelling on our struggles, which our current culture too often encourages, we tend to do better psychologically when we direct our energy outward, into activities that connect us with others and with something larger than ourselves. This is what I call the outward action approach to mental health. Live music is a great example of outward action. It gets you out of your own head. It puts you in a physical space with other people who share your passion. It reminds you that you are part of something bigger.

This also matters at the societal level. One of the things I find most encouraging about the live music trend is that it creates spaces where people from different backgrounds, neighborhoods, and political persuasions can share something meaningful together. In a cultural moment defined by political polarization, digital fragmentation, and cultural pessimism, that kind of in-person shared experience is a vital resource. For example, research suggests that collective effervescence can help us build social cohesion and remind us of our common humanity.

We are fortunate to live in an era when so much music is available to us at the touch of a button. But no matter how technologically sophisticated our lives become, we remain physical, social, and spiritual creatures who need to gather together in person and share experiences that connect us to one another and to something that transcends the ordinary. So the next time your favorite artist comes to town, or a local band is playing at a nearby venue, go. Bring a friend. Lose yourself in the music. The science says it will do you good, and it just might do the world a little good too.

Have a great weekend!

Clay

Much of the current conversation about social media treats the digital world and the real world as if they are locked in a zero sum battle. Online life is cast as a retreat from real connection and community. And the growing interest in analog experiences and pre-digital culture is often read as a sign that people want to go backward, as if the only way to reclaim our wellbeing is to step away from digital life and return to how things used to be.

I understand the instinct. There are real concerns about how these platforms are designed, how they shape our attention, and how they can crowd out the people and experiences right in front of us. But digital and real-world engagement are not inherently in conflict. The two can work together, and each is often stronger when it does.

Consider how many real-world gatherings now begin with a digital connection. People discover local running clubs through Strava and Instagram. They find hobby groups through Reddit threads and Facebook communities. They organize neighborhood events through group chats. They learn about farmers markets, live music, and volunteer opportunities through posts someone shared. In each case, the digital world is doing exactly what a healthy social tool should do. It is helping people find each other and then meet up in person. The reverse is also true. When we meet people in person or show up at events in our community, social media can help us stay connected afterward. Used this way, digital and physical life reinforce rather than compete with each other.

Gen Z offers a great illustration of this. In a previous newsletter, I wrote about how the real world is making a comeback, with young people driving the resurgence of analog experiences like vinyl records, film cameras, board games, independent bookstores, live music, and in-person community events. Critics sometimes read this as a retreat from modern life, as if young people have given up on the present and want to go backward. But that is not what is happening. Gen Z is not rejecting the digital world. They are selectively and creatively borrowing from earlier eras to build something more balanced. You can buy physical media and still utilize streaming services, and that is what many are doing.

Social media is ironically helping drive these retro trends. It is how young people are learning about retro products, styles, and activities, sharing them with friends, and building communities around them. A vintage film photography account on Instagram inspires someone to pick up a used camera. An Instagram reel about sourdough inspires someone to start baking and then trade starters with a neighbor. A group chat turns a shared interest in board games into a standing Friday night. The digital and the analog are working together, not against each other.

And despite social media’s reputation for being toxic, research shows that only a small number of users are responsible for most of the harmful content we see. As I discussed in a previous newsletter, Americans dramatically overestimate how common harmful online behavior actually is. Participants in one study guessed that more than 40% of active Reddit users had posted toxic content. The real figure is 3%. And in our research at the Human Flourishing Lab, we find that most Americans report positive online experiences, feeling connected to communities, capable of civil discourse, and comfortable being themselves. These kinds of experiences can help inspire the openness and goodwill that motivate people to go out and connect with others offline.

None of this means that the concerns about social media are imagined. There are real problems to address. But the answer is not to treat digital and physical life as enemies, or to assume that a richer real-world life requires going backward. The answer is to recognize that our digital and physical lives can work together when we approach them that way.

This positive sum approach starts with us. It means using social media as a launchpad rather than a destination. It means letting what we find online motivate us to show up in the real world, and letting what we experience in the real world give us something meaningful to share online. It means being thoughtful about which platforms and accounts deserve our time, and which do not.

Social media companies would be wise to adopt this approach as well. In our research, we found that 58% of Gen Z believe new technologies are more likely to drive people apart than bring them together, and 75% are concerned about social media’s impact on mental health. If platforms come to feel like an assault on real-world life rather than a complement to it, people will eventually leave those platforms. Humans are physical beings. We need face-to-face connection, shared physical spaces, and hands-on experiences to thrive. In the long run, platforms that help us get more of those things are more likely to succeed. Platforms that try to replace them are more likely to fail.

The positive sum approach is not automatic. It depends on how we engage. So each of us should ask whether our social media engagement pushes us toward or away from other people. Does it support openness, trust, and hope, or defensiveness, suspicion, and cynicism? Does it inspire us to engage with the real world and the people in it, or does it leave us more isolated from both?

Digital and real life don’t need to be at war. They can work together to improve our wellbeing, relationships, and society. But only if we use them that way.

Have a great weekend!

Clay

I recently saw Project Hail Mary and loved it. I was a big fan of the book so I was excited to see it on the big screen, and it did not disappoint. It is science fiction but at its core it is an inspiring story driven by hope, resilience, and an unlikely friendship. And you do not need to be a sci-fi fan to be moved by it. If you haven’t seen the movie or read the book, I highly recommend both.

More than ever, I find myself drawn to stories of people overcoming barriers, beating the odds, and achieving something many thought was impossible. I am generally a pretty hopeful person to begin with, but given all the cynicism and pessimism that seems to dominate so much of our culture right now, I really appreciate it when I come across a story that recognizes human potential and what is possible when we put agency into action.

But stories like these are more than entertainment. As I have discussed in previous newsletters, inspiring media can motivate us to act. Research shows that the vast majority of Americans report being moved or inspired by films, and the more inspiring media people consume, the more inclined they are to engage in prosocial behavior. But this kind of media may not only help us do good for others. New research suggests it is also good for our own psychological health.

A new study published in Psychology of Popular Media tested what happens when people are assigned to watch short inspiring videos every day for a week. In a four-week experiment with over 1,000 U.S. adults, participants were randomly assigned to watch inspiring videos depicting people overcoming adversity, watch comedic videos, engage in guided meditation using a popular app, use their phones as they normally would during a break, or serve as a no-media control group. Each daily dose was only about five minutes. The researchers then measured stress levels up to ten days after the intervention ended.

Compared to a no-media control group, the inspiring videos reduced stress. So did meditation. Comedy did not have the same lasting effect. Neither did casual phone scrolling. Perhaps most notably, the inspiring media produced stress-relieving benefits comparable to meditation, a popular and well-supported strategy for managing stress.

Why did inspiring media work? The researchers were specifically interested in the role of hope. Previous research identifies hope as a psychological resource that helps people set goals, take action, and navigate difficult circumstances. The researchers selected inspiring videos featuring people overcoming adversity because these kinds of stories are most likely to evoke hope. And that is exactly what happened. Participants who watched the inspiring videos reported feeling more hopeful after each viewing, and that hope appears to have been the key mechanism driving the stress reduction. Meditation also reduced stress through hope, which is consistent with research finding that meditation can boost hope.

So inspiring media motivates us to engage with others and do good in the world. And it also reduces our own stress. Both of these findings are especially relevant right now given that a major source of stress in our country is the feeling that we are divided and disconnected from one another. The most recent Stress in America survey from the American Psychological Association found that 62% of U.S. adults say societal division is a significant source of stress and three quarters say they are more stressed about the future of the nation than they used to be. Research on hope finds that hopeful people are more trusting, more tolerant, more forgiving, and more motivated to serve their communities. Hope does not just reduce stress. It moves us to connect with others in ways that can help bridge the very divisions causing so much stress.

We need more inspiring stories in our culture. Not because they offer a feel-good escape from reality but because the evidence increasingly shows that they build the psychological resources that help us manage stress, take meaningful action, and contribute to the wellbeing of those around us.

Have a great weekend!

Clay