Some links
Rob Henderson on psychological sex differences; J. Sanilac on relationships and fertility; Megan McArdle on social fragmentation; Substack's AI use survey
Mental health does appear to influence political ideology more than the reverse. Researcher Zach Goldberg has shown that rising levels of psychological distress predict later increases in liberal attitudes among girls and among liberals of both sexes, as well as a rise in liberal self-identification. In a series of studies, Vicki Helgeson and Heidi Fritz explored sex differences in what they call “unmitigated communion”—defined as “an excessive concern with others and placing others’ needs before one’s own.” To measure it, they developed a simple scale where participants rated their agreement with statements such as “For me to be happy, I need others to be happy” and “I often worry about others’ problems.” Women consistently score higher than men. This may help explain why modern political activism is often so feminine in style—what Kay Hymowitz has described as “the new girl disorder,” rooted in concern for others.
The whole article is interesting.
the declining birthrate is downstream of declining relationship formation. I suppose "selfish couples who hate babies" are a more respectable topic than the death of romance (and sex)?
J. reproduces charts from John Burn-Murdoch at the FT. In January, Burn-Murdoch wrote,
in recent years most of the fall is coming not from the decisions made by couples, but from a marked fall in the number of couples. Had US rates of marriage and cohabitation remained constant over the past decade, America’s total fertility rate would be higher today than it was then.
Of course, causality is tricky to pin down. Are women having fewer children because they are not in relationships, or are they not in relationships because they have less interest in having children? (A commenter on Sanilac’s tweet also makes this point.)
Between 2003 and 2022, time spent at home rose by 1 hour 39 minutes a day. That’s a long-term trend, not just the result of the pandemic or the remote work revolution; we’re socializing less and spending more time alone, especially young people. And a lot of what we are doing is consuming tailored content, curated for us by a personal algorithm.
So a late-night television personality (Stephen Colbert) is no longer focal.
In some ways, the Colbert show was a symptom of that shift. The sharp leftward lurch that consumed American media companies was driven by social media algorithms that rewarded left-wing political hot takes with high engagement. Media companies followed those rewards precisely because they were no longer catering to a truly mass audience but to niche fandoms. Having come of age in the long shadow of truly mass media, many of the people in those institutions might have thought they were moving public opinion into the progressive future, but in fact it was fan service for a narrow demographic.
Of course, the Washington Post did the exact same thing. So did the Ivy League. And the universities weren’t chasing clicks.
Based on our results, a typical AI-using publisher is 45 or over, more likely to be a man, and tends to publish in categories like Technology and Business. He’s not using AI to generate full posts or images. Instead, he’s leaning on it for productivity, research, and to proofread his writing. Most who use AI do so daily or weekly and have been doing so for over six months.
It is interesting that the survey found that older writers use AI more. I am over 45, and my essays cover economics and other topics that are called social sciences. I have never used AI to write part of a substack essay for me. The most I have done is pose a question and quote the AI’s answer.
As you know, my Social Code Project relies heavily on Claude. I am more like the producer/director, and Claude is the screenwriter.
The essay on the survey has many other interesting tidbits.
substacks referenced above: @
"the declining birthrate is downstream of declining relationship formation. I suppose "selfish couples who hate babies" are a more respectable topic than the death of romance (and sex)?"
NO NO NO! Neither are about excessive selfishness or hate. They are both about the fact that it is now often easier not to initiate a relationship and not to have a baby than it is to go out and find someone or to take on the open-ended task that begins with nine months of pregnancy.
There are so many things one can do by oneself or with a small group that just aren't so emotionally freighted. And moderns seem to find it harder to make the emotional effort; they seem to be more afraid of emotional hurt; they seem to feel unsafe more easily and find it harder to take.
And there are so many things a married couple can do without children, many of which they will have to give up if they have a child. (This is often hidden as, "We can't afford to ..." while spending money on eating out, ordering in, streaming services, vacations that aren't cheap, etc.)
Opportunity cost, people. Opportunity cost.
If we could wave a magic wand and make both birth control and free unlimited Internet porn disappear for good, I suspect we'd be back to have lots of babies in no short order.
Of course, we can't wave a magic wand and do either of those two things, which makes it hard to see what the solution will be.