Plain English with Derek Thompson - The Modern World Is Changing America’s Personality For the Worse

Episode Date: August 13, 2025

According to analysis by Financial Times writer John Burn-Murdoch, something extraordinary has happened to Americans’ personalities in the last decade. Longitudinal tests indicate that we’ve collectively become less extroverted, less agreeable, and more neurotic. The most significant thing Burn-Murdoch found is that measures of conscientiousness among young Americans appears to be in a kind of free fall. Today, John and I talk about his research. We discuss personality tests, the value of conscientiousness, and how the modern world might be scrambling our personalities by making us less interested in other people and more consumed with our own neurotic interiority. If you have questions, observations, or ideas for future episodes, email us at [e-mail]. Host: Derek Thompson Guest: John Burn-Murdoch Producer: Devon Baroldi Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

As the 21st century was getting underway, Hollywood released a series of films that were daring, entertaining, and absolutely unmissable. Films like, 25th Hour, Bring It On, Zodiac, and No Country for Old Men. They arrived during the George W. Bush era, a chaotic time in America. Think 9-11, Katrina, the mortgage crisis. After the Bush years, the country would never be the same, and neither would Hollywood. I'm Brian Rafter and in my new limited series Mission Accomplished

we're going to dive into some of the biggest movies of the bush years and look at what they said about the state of the nation but go behind the scenes with filmmakers and experts and relive some of your

favorite movies from the early 2000s from Donnie Darko to Michael Clayton from Anchorman to Iron Man so slip on your sketchers dig out your old Nokia and join me from Mission Accomplished

starting August 12 on the big picture feet Today, America's personality shift. Every few decades, it seems, the Western world seems to experience a social crisis in the face of new technology. 120 years ago, as I wrote in a recent substack essay, a nervous disorder first diagnosed in the U.S. gradually made its way across the Atlantic. The doctor George Miller Beard called it Nuresthenia, or Nervous Exhaustion. Europeans at the time in the 1900s sometimes referred to it as American nervousness or even New Yorkitis.

According to Beard, the affliction was most common among, quote, the indoor classes of civilized civilizations, end quote. That is to say, the illness mostly affected white-collar workers operating at the frontier of technology, handling new fast machines. And at the time, there were plenty of things in America that were fast and new. In 1875, there were no skyscrapers, no electric lighting, no Coca-Cola or basketball, few bicycles, no aspirin, no cars or sneakers, no cardboard boxes, no hamburgers or Kodak cameras or recorded music players. By 1905, just 30 years later, everything I just named from the skyscrapers to the Kodak cameras was invented. In one 30-year swoop of history, the modern world was conjured into being. And throughout the West, people lost their minds. In Germany, the number of patients in mental hospitals rose from 40,000 in 1870 to 220,000 by 1910.

Many of them suffered from this nervous disorder that contemporary doctors blamed on a world of vertiginous speed and nerve-shattering newness. as Virginia Woolf famously wrote at the time, quote, on or around December 1910, human character changed, end quote. The modern world changed our personality. 115 years later, it's changing us again. According to new analysis by the Financial Times writer John Byrne Murdoch, something extraordinary has happened to America's personalities in just the last decade. According to longitudinal tests that he'll describe in just a moment,

we have collectively become meaningfully less extroverted, less agreeable, and more neurotic. But the most important thing Byrne Murdoch found is that measures of conscientiousness among young Americans appear to be in a kind of freefall. Today's guest is John Byrne Murdoch. We talk about the value of conscientiousness, what it is, what kind of behavior it predict,

and how the modern world might be scrambling our personalities by making us less interested in other people and more consumed with our own neurotic interiority. I'm Derek Thompson. This is plain English. John Byrne Murdoch, welcome back to the show. Great to be here. You reported that in the last decade

there's been an important change in Americans' personalities. Tell us what you found. Right. So this one, I should say, say out of the gate that this is something I've been wanting to look into for ages. I'm fascinated by how the world changes. I'm also fascinated by how we within the world change in response to that. And one of the things I often come up against is how few studies actually track the same people or any people across time in terms of who we are. So what I wanted to

look at here was some of your listeners, I'm sure, are familiar with the concept of personality traits, and some people are more extroverted, introverted, that's the most common when people grasp that there are all these other traits. And I wanted to see how people's levels, prevalence of these traits have changed over time. I landed on this survey which has been tracking Americans for just over a decade now. And what I found was that across the population, but especially true of younger adults, so people in their 20s and their 30s, what we've seen is this decline in some of the most positive, valued traits that we would all consider to be good, good aspects of a character, so that someone being conscientious, discipline committed, extroversion, chatty, agreeableness,

that kind of thing. These have declined especially significantly among younger adults. Well, neuroticism, and that can feel like a loaded term, but what we mean by that is the extent to which people feel emotions particularly strongly, especially negative emotion, that has been significantly rising among those same age groups. So falling conscientiousness, rising neuroticism, falling agreeableness, and falling extroversion. Those were the big four of the big five findings that I saw in your paper. Before we dive into some of the details here, including the methodology, I want to scope up at a high level.

How unusual is it for a population's personality to change this suddenly? It was sort of my understanding, not being an expert in this field at all, that a population had a certain, like, stable personality genotype, if you will, that there was a certain amount of agreeableness and extroversion, and it didn't change much over time. And in fact, people don't change that much over time. That's part of why the Big Five personality test seems to be so respected is it captures something quite profound and unchanging about people. So how unusual is a change of this magnitude and this. suddenness? Yeah, it's a fascinating one because again, we can get into this down the line in terms of what we really mean when we talk about someone's personality. But the way these traits are typically measured is there's a large battery of agree, disagree statements that people are given, which describe the type of person, the type of behavior someone might have. So it's things like I am outgoing and talkative, or I am often distracted, I'm often careless, or I'm really someone who always makes plans and follows through with those plans. These are the sort of ingredients,

as it were, that go into the scores that define someone as being more or less conscientious, neurotic, etc. And so loads and loads and loads of people have studied this across all sorts of countries and over many, many decades. But it's relatively rare that someone has or that a study has tracked this repeatedly in the same, among the same people, same place over time. Now, what we do know, as you say, is that where there have been repeated studies, whether that's same place in time or different place in time, they are pretty consistent with one another. So, regardless of which culture, Western, East Asian, South Asian, you tend to get these distinct groups or distinct traits showing up in the data. They tend to have similar shapes of prevalence,

by which I mean things like younger people tend to be historically more extroverted than older people. Conscientiousness, which we're going to talk a lot about, has tended to be lower among teenagers, builds into adulthood. So there are these pretty consistent patterns. And then where people have tried to study the same people over time, they've tended to get pretty similar scores on those traits over time. And as I say, that's been one of the reasons that this has been accepted as a really valid instrument. If someone scores as pretty conscientious in one survey and then not conscientious at all in the next, that would mean, like, you know, what are we even doing here? But historically, across space and time, these things stand up pretty well.

So the fact that personality seems stable makes it all the more remarkable, I think, that your analysis showed this level of change among young people in the last few years. Let's talk about that change. You told me that people today are meaningfully less conscientious. What does that mean? And what kind of behavior does it predict? Like if you take my test scores and you tell me, Derek, you are the kind of person who has low conscientiousness. What kind of behavior would that predict in me?

Sure. So this is a good question because I think people often think that this is to do with someone's conscience and, you know, how sort of considerate and kind they are and everything. That's an element of this. But I think of it more and it helps to actually look at the survey questions that go into making up this trait. So it's things like people are asked whether they strongly agree, strongly disagree, etc, about whether they are someone who does a thorough job, whether they're someone who is reliable, whether there's someone who tends to be organized, are they easily distracted? Are they someone who makes plans regularly and follows through with those plans? Are they someone who's goal-oriented, high agency, that kind of thing? Do they persevere?

So it's, yeah, it's about, are you someone who goes out and gets things done? do you come up with goals in the first place and then do you make sure that you pursue those goals? Do you, your friends, your co-workers, can they rely on you to deliver essentially? When I reached out to Lisa DeMore, a childhood psychologist, she pointed me to a 2013 essay that she wrote for The New York Times that I want to quote from here because it's so relevant. Quote, when we look at the research on childhood precursors of adult well-being, the traits we see in children who go on to become happy adults, we find that the drive. Vriving factor is childhood conscientiousness, not childhood happiness.

Children who are industrious, orderly, and have good self-control are more likely than their careless or undisciplined peers to grow into happy adults. End quote. John, you just walk through some of the subtrades of conscientiousness where people are answering questions like, do you make plans and follow through? Do you persevere until finished? Are you easily distracted or careless? these are all questions that someone could lie about.

I mean, someone could just say, yeah, I love making plans. I'm incredible at following through. My focus is impeccable when underneath that they actually make no plans and are easily distracted all the time. How confident are we that we're getting a good read of people's conscientiousness or a good read of their personality, period, when there's all sorts of reasons for folks. to misrepresent who they actually are to some anonymous pollster? For sure.

So it's a great question. And there's not, again, annoyingly for me, there's not a completely watertight answer. The way I would talk about this is a couple of things. So one, if we're saying that what we think is happening here is that people have simply started being more down on their conscientiousness, as it were, maybe they've become more strict evaluators of their own traits. I think you had to come up with an explanation for why that suddenly started happening and why it's specifically happening among younger adults.

That's quite hypothetical, so let me give you a more direct answer, which is one of the reasons Lisa DeMor said what she said, is that we have decades of research, saying that people who are more conscientiousness, as evaluated by their responses to these questions, have better life outcomes, right? they earn more, they live longer, and it's less likely that their romantic relationships and in separation. So this is something that has real sort of external validity in terms of what it seems to be associated with.

And one of the things I did as part of my analysis here was to check exactly that. So the same survey that's been running for 11 years also captures income. And what it shows is that, A, conscientiousness is still positively associated with income. But B, that has only become more true. So if conscientiousness, as measured by these surveys, was actually more fuzzy and it wasn't clear exactly whether the most conscientious people in reality were giving the most conscientious replies, as it were, then we wouldn't have seen that pattern. So again, ultimately, this is a survey like any survey, and we can't know how sort of really

true to someone their answer is. We also can't really know how that's changed over time. But all of the sort of related data, both within the same survey and outside it, would suggest that there's no reason to doubt these responses, these personality measurements anymore today than we did 15 years ago. One of your other pieces that I absolutely adore is about the possibility that we've passed human peak brainpower. You found that data across several countries, especially industrialized countries that I was

looking at, show that adults and young people, people are struggling to concentrate, that there's declining verbal scores and numerical reasoning scores. How might that finding that education assessment scores are declining in the U.S. and throughout, I suppose, the industrialized world match up with the finding that conscientiousness, at least in the U.S., in this most recent paper of yours, is also falling? Sure. So the way I tie these two together is that I've been thinking about this and I've come up with a catchy way of describing how the internet or specifically ubiquitous mobile internet, smartphones and so on, how they impact us. And I think of it as the two Ds, which are distraction and displacement. So distraction, I think doesn't need a huge amount of explanation. We have these devices now which are always competing for our attention. And, you know, we are what we give our attention to. I know you've done a huge amount of work on this space, but being conscientious is about delivering on the goals you made for yourself. And distraction

is almost by definition is taking you away from what you thought, what you meant to be doing. Similarly, when it comes to intelligence, the way I've been thinking about, whether it's intelligence or conscientiousness, is we have an innate capacity and then we have the deployment of that capacity. And so someone might be super smart. people might be as smart today as ever, even smarter. But if our ability to express those smarts, as it were, keeps getting out competed, displaced by or distracted by devices, technology, then we're just not able to bring that to bear in the same way.

So I think it's possible that similar things are going on there. And again, on displacement, these people like the analogy of muscles, you have your attention muscles, you have your focus muscles, your conscientiousness muscles. and if digital technologies, digital distractions, start pushing aside our sort of conscientiousness workouts or intellect workouts, those things could atrophy. So that's the framework that I think is maybe useful for understanding what could be happening with both of these. So you have this finding of declining conscientiousness at a time when we're also seeing

declining education scores. The other findings that you have, neuroticism up, agreeableness down, extroversion down. These also seem to me to have what you called external validity, neuroticism up. Well, I look around the internet and I certainly see, not just the internet, but also surveys, and I see not only as negativity through the roof, but also self-reports of anxiety and depression are up. When I see extroversion down, I think, well, I spent all this time writing the antisocial century about how we're spending less time around each other. And in many cases, this is chosen aloneness. It's people who could go out and see their friends who are

choosing day after day and week after week to spend more time on their couch, watching television, on their phones. I wonder what you think it means. Don't necessarily draw from what I just said. What you think it would mean for a population, especially of young people, to have lower conscientiousness, higher neuroticism, less agreeableness, and significantly less extroversion. Like, what kind of a population would this describe? Yeah, I mean, I think we can just think about this quite mechanistically, right? So the extraversion is related to one's capacity to make new friends or relationships, right? I think about all this just as a funnel.

You put less goes into the funnel, less comes out of the funnel. So if people are spending less time going out either physically or just going up to other people and talking to them, that is going to reduce the sides of friendship groups. It can be playing a role in the decline of relationship formation that we've seen. Conscientiousness similarly, if people become less reliable, less dependable, they're going to find that those friendships start getting weaker. Maybe people talk about this a lot with the internet, right? It can be better at getting you more sort of shallow friendships,

but it might not be brilliant at making or certainly maintaining those strong ones. So those two you can see going in that way. Again, neuroticism, anxiety, social anxiety. People might be all ready to go for that night out, go to that house party, and at the last minute they think, I don't know, what if this happens, what if that happens? But overthinking that worrying, again, can erode that social connectedness. So, you know, to the extent that we are a social species, to the extent that people get meaning from their shared experiences with other people,

and this is, you know, a very well-supported framework for thinking about things. more anxiety, people being less reliable, people being less likely to go out and make friendships in the first place, you're going to get more atomization, you're going to get more loneliness. And again, these things are all very well established that loneliness, more social isolation leads to measurably worse outcomes. So we've established the what here. I want to talk now a little bit about the why. What is the strongest case that the most obvious, usual.

suspect here, the internet and smartphones, are significantly to blame for these personality changes that you've described? I think there's two ways of looking at this. So in terms of the data we have, again, the slightly frustrating thing here is that the data starts in 2014. And that is already, you know, a couple years into this period where we've had ubiquitous internet in our pockets. But one thing would be that timing is that when studies have been done over the decades and decades and decades. We haven't seen this data. Now we have a period where we know that we've had this technological change, which has enormous impacts on social relationships, and we start to see these changes. So the timings, while we don't have enough data to say they're

absolutely perfect, the timings do seem to line up relatively well with that. The other, again, I think, is just thinking on a very basic level about what conscientiousness is and what distraction is. and if conscientiousness is doing what we intended to do and distraction is being pulled away from that, then they are essentially opposites or they feed off each other. And we know whether we're looking at data on the number of push notifications people get, the number of times people pick up their device actual screen time itself. We know that there is more distraction or there are more individual distractions than there were a generation ago. that all else being equal would mean less conscientiousness.

So it's that combination of the timing and the mechanism that I think lines up really well. A couple of other things I've been thinking about are just some of these concepts that have only really come into existence in the online era. So things like people being ghosted or one that always brings to mind for me is the people sending messages that end with no worries if not. and that the idea that you would always be giving people an outs like no worries if you don't want to do this in a message sure like on the one hand it is polite but in a society where everything is face to face you weren't constantly saying to people like don't worry if you want

to flake or bail at the last minute and now that seems to become a thing as people have realized that flaking and bailing seems to be more of a thing yeah the TikTok trend that my wife pointed me to when I was writing my future story was what some folks call cancellation. The idea that people would record themselves dancing when someone canceled

a plan with them. They would essentially be like, oh, it's absolutely fantastic that it's a Friday night and I can just stay at home and don't have to go out. I wanted to stay at home and watch Netflix anyway. And it's really interesting to think that you're looking at a generation that is spending more time alone

than any generation on record, and they're also celebrating when their social plans are canceled, right? This speaks to not just a loneliness crisis. I think that's misdiagnosed, but a phenomenon of chosen aloneness, which seems very different, and speaks to exactly what you found in this piece, not just maybe rising neuroticism, but certainly declining extroversion, right? Less motivation to even put yourself out there in the first place. So I, again, asked the psychologist, Lisa D'Amour, what do you think is causing this, right? Like, it's easy to say blame the phones. Maybe the phones are to blame, but it's certainly common to say just blame the phones. So what does an actual child psychologist think about this? Here's what she told me, quote,

in terms of what's causing this, here's an unsexy answer. When it comes to a trend that is observed at the population level, I think we should assume there are many factors at work. Some contenders. One, the pandemic for the extroversion finding. Two, the rise of a wellness industry that is often heavily focused on the self as opposed to being focused on others, three algorithmically driven digital environments that readily create psychological silos. So number three, I think we've covered. Number one, I think it's important to say here, and correct me if I'm wrong, the changes that you're observing might have been accelerated by the pandemic, but the beginning of those

changes predate the pandemic. This is a common phrase in lots of psychological and mental health changes that we've seen in the US. Before I ask my actual question, is that right that these changes both predated the pandemic and were mildly accelerated by them? That's true, yes. So actually, with conscientiousness, it's pretty much a straight diagonal line through the 2010s up to the last couple of years. With neuroticism, agreeableness, and extroversion, you've got a slight decline pre-pandemic, a slight decline post-pandemic, but a sort of acceleration of that trend in 2040s. 2020.

So let's focus on the second idea that Lisa suggested, which I think is really interesting and surprised me. But it's one that I just started to think about a little bit more. Again, quote, the rise of a wellness industry that is often heavily focused on the self as opposed to being focused on others, end quote. So small spoiler alert, John, I am working on a piece right now about wellness and exercise.

It's incredibly interesting to me that by all accounts, exercise rates and that, the number of people who say they participate in exercise or working out is rising across the population in the U.S. at the same time that socializing is falling. That's a really interesting juxtaposition. And I don't want to say that one is to blame for the other, right? That, like, if someone enjoys running three miles a day, that means they're antisocial. That's not my claim. But the juxtaposition of a rising wellness industry and declining sociality, that is an interesting one. And I wonder if there's anything that you want to pick up on there.

100%. And I'm looking forward to reading your piece. One thing, I'll give you for free. You might already have this. But the really interesting wrinkle in the exercise data is that rates of team sport participation among people from sort of 16 up seem to be declining. But it's that individual you talked about running. Running gym workouts, those kinds of things are on the rise. So like you say, even with a healthy behavior, it has become more antisocial. you know, it's everyone's in listening to this podcast right now, probably on their run. So it's the individualization of everything. It's about, you know, setting those personal bests, which is a wonderful thing.

Self-improvement is a wonderful thing. And exercise is a wonderful thing. Right, exactly. Yeah, exactly. These can all be good things, but it's significant, as you say, the shift from doing something that is more casual and social, like playing soccer or, you know, I'm sure, well, basketball was reaching there for a US spot. the switch from that to running or lifting weights.

So yeah, I think that's super interesting. And yeah, I also think it's interesting how much of the wellness conversation often doesn't even talk about physical fitness. It is often that the self-care, the sort of therapy speak, that kind of thing, rather than saying, like, get out and go play ball with your mates. You mean, you said physical fitness. You mean social fitness, I suppose, that the exercise industry doesn't talk about, doesn't emphasize the social dynamic of it?

All right. I would even say both. As in, sure, specifically, it doesn't tend to be emphasizing go do your team sports. It's more about personal improvement. But I think often a huge amount of wellness is not even about the physical at all. It's the focus on the mentor, which as you've done,

showing in your reporting, ignoring or at least de-emphasizing the physical, when we know how dramatic the positive impacts of that can be, I think is quite striking. I want to pull in AI here. I wonder whether the introduction of chatbots to young people's lives will create what I guess you could call conscientiousness polarization, which is too many syllables to ever catch on,

but let me unpack it in a second. So like someone with high conscientiousness might use deep research, chat TBT, like a personal tutor to make them smarter, to find research they wouldn't otherwise discover. But I could imagine someone with low conscientiousness using this exact same technology to just write all their essays for them, right, essentially to outsource the act of thinking entirely. So the same technology could interact with people with totally different conscientiousness scores in a way that would deepen that personality trait.

Have you thought a little bit about how large language models could play a role in furthering the trends that you've identified here? Yeah, I mean, that's exactly the framing I've been thinking about as well. So I saw someone, I think, talking about how, um, do you, GPP, LLMs in general, could be like, you can have this Socratic dialogue where you're constantly being pushed and guided through the topic, the academic topic that you're working on. The boundaries of your knowledge are constantly being pushed and you've got this sort of, it's like, you know, like a strenuous workout for your brain where you're with a personal trainer that you're really being pushed to do your best.

And I can totally, you can instantly see the types of people, either of their own violation or because of being pushed in that direction by their parents who would end up using LLMs like that. And then at the other end of the spectrum, and I think this is probably a much larger slice of the population, you've got people who were asked to write an essay about the book that they supposedly read, but they haven't because they were distracted by TikTok. Well, why not just get the LLM to write that essay, and sure, remove the M dashes. But that's the thing.

And, you know, we don't want to get ahead of ourselves. This isn't happening, or there's no evidence that this is happening yet. but it does feel like a tool which can simultaneously or could could equally be used to enhance your knowledge or to sidestep the need to acquire knowledge. That is just a sort of conscientiousness multiplier that could really widen the inequalities and outcomes between high and low conscientious people. It's obviously hard to separate this research from the popularly known finding that young people in the US, the very same group that you found, you know, plummeting conscientiousness and declining extroversion are also self-reporting less life satisfaction, more depression, more anxiety.

Now, I think that when I read about these trends, I typically see them associated with smartphone use. Sometimes they're associated with parenting, a rise of accommodative parenting. You recently offered a really interesting case that it is English-speaking countries that seem to have the largest declines in use. life satisfaction. And we cannot forget the fact that in English-speaking countries, throughout the Anglosphere, the U.S., Canada, the U.K., Australia, New Zealand, they all have very similar housing supply issues and thus skyrocketing housing costs. Can we pull a little bit of macroeconomics into this picture? Like how maybe begin by just restating the thesis of that piece, why you think housing might be an important ingredient.

in the anxiety crisis of the English-speaking world? Sure. So I'll say there's two parts to this as well, right? So I think one is the sort of anxiety, mental health, well-being bit, and the other is the extent to which people have this sort of ethic, this belief that if I work hard, I'm going to get results, I'm going to get rewarded, which is also both of these things and things where we see, young people in the English-speaking world

moving in a negative direction over the last 10, 15 years, which, as I say, lines up with housing. And the reason I think this is interesting and is plausible at least to be one significant factor for me is that I think so much in life is about the gap between expectations and achievement and reality. So someone who never expects much and their life doesn't amount to much, sure, you know, they're still not going to be the happiest people in the world. But there's no sort of sense of having been changed. heated, swindled along the way there. Whereas I think someone who starts out feeling that, right, this is how the system works. If I do my bit, I'll get what my parents got, what other generations have got.

And then they find out that despite putting the work and they don't get that, you can imagine how that can be particularly damaging to someone's psyche and certainly damaging to their sense of this sort of societal fairness that if you work hard, you get rewarded. So I think what you have here is English-speaking countries have, made home ownership the sort of go-to signal marker of having made it in life. And you've had generations that knew this was the case that climbed the ladder, worked hard, got a house, immediately that's a bit of anxiety or stress reduced from their lives. Sure, there's still a lot else going on, but they've now got a stable base to build from sense of security. And now you

have a generation or two generations come along who start out with that belief, they put the work in, and they don't get that result. So I think you can see how that could certainly shatter that sense that hard work is rewarded, but also can give that sense of constant insecurity that I'm still not there yet, I'm still scrabbling. Or even if that individual might have now got onto the housing ladder, there are enough people around them, whether online or offline, who are still putting this message out,

that you can see how there could be a material basis for a lot of what we're talking about here. I think it's interesting to think that the Anglosphere simultaneously values homeownership and values the ability to guard homeownership by establishing a set of rules that make it harder to add new homes in that area. And when you combine the two, what you get is a perfect storm where a generation might grow up, say this generation people up to 35, 40 years old, who have been instructed have been taught, have been led to believe that the ability to buy a home

is the singular ticket into a kind of adulthood freedom. And yet we've made it so difficult in the most high productive cities in some of the richest places to build homes precisely because of, or in part because of the same jealous guarding of home values

that leads to nimbism and reduces the ability to add to the housing supply. It is a very, it's a very interesting, I don't know how much stock I put into it. The phenomenon is inarguable. It is clear that English-speaking countries have a unique problem compared to Western Europe. I don't entirely know why, but I do think it might have to be this relationship that the, the Commonwealth has or former Commonwealth countries seem to have with the land of gentry, home ownership, and the ability to protect it. I want to move a little bit into solutions here. I personally have no idea what it would take to raise the conscientiousness of a generation

at scale, raise the agreeableness of a generation at scale. Do you have thoughts here? Did you hear from psychologists who said, you know, this is something where I think I have several ideas for how we can get back to baseline? Yeah, I think there's two ways of looking at this. one is that there is a decent amount of evidence that people's personalities can change. And this is where we could get into the weeds of what do we what even mean by personality. Now, for me, your personality is essentially like the accumulation of your behaviours.

And so even if you're born a certain way, you can change your behaviour. I'm sure most people listening to this have done this in one area of their life. And so there are some, there is in fact a wealth of evidence. that specific training courses, other interventions can be used to tweak one's innate self, to be a more conscientious or less neurotic version of yourself, for example. You know, everyone's familiar with, for example, cognitive behavioral therapy, which, of course, can help with neuroticism. There are similar types of exercises for conscientiousness. And the other thing here is a lot of this is about habit formation.

Someone could be innately, slightly less conscientious, but if you build, structures and habits into your life, that take away the need to sort of constantly be trying all the time to do something. If you instead turn that into a routine, that can help. So I think part of that is just that there is go-to evidence that there are strategies here that do work. The other thing I think about is that, again, if we believe that digital distraction is part of this, then there are a wealth of strategies as well there that people can use, right? So everyone talks about putting your smartphone in another room in another room when you go to bed. So your sleep quality improves that probably that simple at better sleep enables you to be better at delivering on your own goals.

If you put your phone more in Do Not Disturb mode, something as simple as that. Again, fewer distractions, you're more likely to deliver on your goals. And I have this at the moment is a sort of, it's a column in waiting, as it were, when I can find the data, but wondering whether we might soon start to see screen time coming down, certainly for a section of society, because there's so much discourse at the moment about the harms it might be causing. And I think if we saw that, again, to the extent that we think that's a key mechanism here, we could see simply through the reduction in distractions or reduction in displacement, conscientiousness on the rise. You know, more time interacting with people

in person, more need to really sort of deliver on goals. to show up, literally, I think could help. It's very difficult, I think, to engineer mass cultural change. Like, mass cultural change does happen, but it seems so spontaneous. It seems so sui generis. I remember I was writing a column a few weeks ago about the baby boom. And the baby boom is so interesting, because on the one hand, it's like the most famous sociological phenomenon in the last 100 years.

Like we named an entire generation after it. You walk down the street. You ask anybody. what's the baby boom? Like, everyone knows what it was. No one knows why it happened. Like, economy, like, if you look at the 200-year history

of fertility in the West, it's basically a flatter declining line for most of that 200 years, except for one 30-year period where, boop, it goes up dramatically. Why did that happen? You ask economists, they're like, hey, maybe it was housing policy here.

Maybe it was anti-bacterial drugs that reduced mortality rate of getting birth over here. Maybe it was household equipment, household electronics. that might have made it more efficient to take care of a home. Maybe it's this, maybe it's that.

No one has like a full skeleton key. But what you can't debate is it was a cultural phenomenon. Like you look at advertising for the 1940s, 1950s. Like, it's incredibly, it seems incredibly reactionary today. But this idea that the highest expression

of being a woman in America was being a housewife or this incredibly popular notion that you should, of course, have two, three, four kids. This is what a good American household does just seems to have emerged and then was quenched in the 1960s, 1970s.

I'm so interested in how these things happen, right? How these paroxysms of cultural revolutions happen. And it seems to me like we're in the middle of one right now with the smartphone, where the evidence is just so clear that it's changing our mental health, it's changing our ability to focus, it's changing our test scores in verbal and mathematics. It might even, to your point, be changing our personality,

making us less conscientious, less agreeable, less extroverted. But these things are very, very, very hard to turn around. That's why I'm glad that you're out there, popularizing the potential risks of the way that we're living, because I do think that's how it has to start, right? The flood has to start with a little trickle. Any final thoughts on how one jumpstarts a cultural revolution that takes on a cultural revolution? Because I do think that is to a certain extent what we're in the middle of.

Yeah, I mean, I think the particularly tricky thing we've got here is that the very device that is doing a lot of the distracting is the device that is also used to capture what people are doing with their lives. And so one of the problems we have is that if you are out there taking selfies or, making your fairly curated Instagram grid, you are not doing the big in-person deep tie social activities that we're talking about here, or at least you're doing less of them. And so the main technology, the main means through which people get a sense of sort of what the culture is and what other people are doing is almost excludes by default the much more deep social stuff, right? That sort of dinner around the table. with your mates is probably not on Instagram,

but the selfie or the sort of heavily curated Instagram boyfriend picture, that kind of thing is. And so there feels like something inherent in the way we document our lives at the moment, which just makes it really hard to see the actually really meaningful deeper stuff. And so the closest I've got to an answer at the moment on something that might change.

And this is just really just spitballing, and I don't think this will necessarily happen, but just imagine if we did end up pivoting from the current smartphone era to something more like the her earpiece, right from the sci-fi movie. So something where you've still got this device that is always on you, you're conversing with it,

you can see how AI would be fed into that, maybe it's got a tiny camera in it. But you are spending less time looking down at your phone, and just life, there's much less sort of interference between that device and a deep connected life. Now, again, the movie, Her is not exactly about deep connection between human beings. No. So, I could be going, this might just fail on its own terms. But I just wonder if something that changes us away from this sort of curated, photo-driven,

nose-to-screen world, some subtle change that is not. brought about by someone wanting to get rid of smartphones, but just some technological change that makes this a thing, that that could have these sort of socio-cultural trickle-down effects that weren't anticipated. It's tough. I like this being a solution show, but values are tricky. Value change is really tricky. Some people value reading and some people don't.

Some people value watching weird 1970s movies. Some people don't. Some people value making friends in adulthood. And some people don't. Changing values at a societal level, I think, is quite difficult. And my guess is that the most likely way that we begin to see these curves bent is that we see such overwhelming evidence, as we sort of saw in teen mental health, such overwhelming evidence that these things are damaging,

that the graphical evidence scares people into a kind of mass cultural change. But it's very, very hard to do. And I really appreciate, speaking of graphs, just the incredible work you do, making visual the most important trends in the world. So John Byrne Murdoch, thank you for coming on the show.

Great to see you. Thank you so much, having it.