How Accent Discrimination Reinforces America’s Deepest Divides

[Author’s note: IPA stands for International Phonetic Alphabet. It is an alphabet of symbols, not entirely unlike the Latin alphabet, which is used to guide pronunciation. For more information about IPA, please visit this link.]

For as long as humans have existed, we have defined ourselves in contrast to an “other”—a person or group who possesses a characteristic that is perceived as different. This impulse has shaped our communities since the moment we began to form them. Across the ancient world, warring tribes treated differences as a threat. The Roman Empire labeled states throughout Europe, Africa, and the Middle East as enemies to be conquered, enslaved, or absorbed. When colonizers arrived in the Americas, they cast Indigenous peoples as savage and primitive, and placed themselves in the opposing position as the embodiment of sophistication and civility.

When othering those of foreign backgrounds became too conventional, societies began turning that impulse inward. Regency-era English nobility labeled themselves “the Ton,” using wealth to distinguish themselves from the lower class. India’s strict caste system has divided people of different class statuses for thousands of years. To this day, some Northern Italians turn their noses up at Southern Italians, while those in southern China extend similar treatment to their northern counterparts.

The seed of “othering” is also deeply rooted in religion. Catholics and Protestants in 16th- and 17th-century Europe warred for hundreds of years, with lasting effects evident in England and Northern Ireland even today. In Middle Eastern countries, tension between Sunni and Shia Muslims has resulted in regional rifts.

Tribes, empires, countries, and cities alike have upheld humanity’s tradition of othering like a torch in the night. The concept of “us versus them” has persisted throughout history and across the globe. As psychosocial rehabilitation specialist Kendra Cherry explains,

“Othering is a phenomenon in which some individuals or groups are defined and labeled as not fitting in within the norms of a social group… [it] is a way of negating another person’s humanity. Consequently, people who are othered are seen as less worthy of dignity and respect.”

Othering stems from a variety of attributes, such as skin color, gender, nationality, occupation, religion, class status, political affiliation, language, and more—characteristics by which we classify ourselves as belonging to a specific group and, therefore, place others into a different one. This phenomenon bleeds into every aspect of culture and community, and language communities are certainly not exempt. The subtlety of linguistic discrimination has allowed it to persist where other, more brazen forms of bias have been denounced, expelled, and unlearned. As one form of language bias, accent discrimination flies dangerously under the radar in conversations about implicit bias and creeps into even the most well-meaning and inclusive minds.

Labov’s Landmark Study

In 1962, American linguist William Labov conducted a landmark study on social class, employment, and dialect. His simple yet effective method involved visiting New York City department stores and speaking with employees across different job levels, from managers to clerks to janitors. By prompting them to say a specific word containing the /ɹ/ sound (as in “floor”), he tested—and proved—his theory: the higher an employee’s social class, the more likely they were to pronounce the /ɹ/ and adopt speech patterns associated with Standard American English.

Manual laborers, such as janitors, were more likely to drop the rhotic /ɹ/ from their speech, a common trait of metropolitan New York English. A classic example of this dialect is the popular phrase, “Hey, I’m walking here!” Or, spelled out in phonetic symbolization, with regard to the New York dialect: /eɪ aɪm wɑkɪn ijə/. The point of this study is to show that different occupations, even within a single company, develop unique cultures and can create distinct divides among roles.

Due to these cultural self-selections, people may perceive particular dialects and ways of speaking as good or bad, wise or stupid, friendly or unapproachable, and so on. Assumptions are made, prejudices form, and eventually, distinct “high” and “low” dialects are established, giving rise to linguistic societal discrimination.

American Southern Accent

In the same stroke, this kind of widespread language prejudice can occur nationally and globally. A prime example is the American Southern accent. The rest of the United States and the world have long slighted the Southern accent. People often mimic it to portray someone or something as unintelligent.

Movies, television, books, and media have reinforced this negative stereotype of the Southern accent. For example, the beloved titular character from the 1994 film Forrest Gump perfectly encapsulates the essence of a stereotypical Southerner: unintellectual, oblivious, undereducated, happy-go-lucky, and overtly friendly. Despite several other characters in the movie having Southern accents, Gump’s is dramatized and highly drawn out to emphasize his Southern roots.

If you pay attention, the portrayal (and lack thereof) of Southern accents across various media forms tells the story of the American South through the eyes (and ears) of those unfamiliar with it.

The popular sitcom “Young Sheldon” features a family from East Texas, particularly an erudite young boy. You may notice that Sheldon is the only person in his family who speaks Standard American English. This dialect is considered articulate, with a superfluous vocabulary that occasionally creates a communication barrier with his family, all of whom speak a general Southern dialect. Perhaps it’s purely a coincidence that Sheldon starts college at the age of 11, while the rest of his family shows little to no interest in higher education and sometimes struggles to understand his scholarly jargon.

Even more insidious than the stigmatization of the Southern accent is its erasure entirely. The popular Netflix series “Outer Banks” is set on a chain of islands off the coast of North Carolina. In this area, geographical isolation has given rise to a unique dialect known as “High Tider,” spoken by the locals. The people of this area claim ancestry from Scottish, Irish, and English settlers who rarely interacted with those on the mainland, thereby creating a language community independent of the rest of the continent. The characters on the show itself, however, have no trace of the High Tider dialect in their speech; instead, they use Standard American English.

Erasing the region’s local speech patterns reinforces stereotypes and deepens subconscious linguistic othering. Characters who defy the typical Southern stereotype are almost always written and performed without the accent—traits like intelligence, attractiveness, and wit are rarely associated with a Southern drawl because it doesn’t align with the audience’s expectations.

Southern Vowel Shift

In 2021, researchers Jon Forrest, Steve McDonald, and Robin Dodsworth published a paper in the journal Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World that examined variation in dialects of the American South across employment sectors. The researchers used data from the Raleigh Corpus, which comprises interviews with residents of Raleigh, North Carolina, who were born and raised in the area. By talking to people of various ages, genders, races, ethnic backgrounds, socioeconomic statuses, and employment paths, several features emerged regarding the intersection of accent and occupation.

The most notable observation was that, as demand and popularity for technology jobs increased, the use of pronunciation features that were characteristic of the Southern vowel shift declined dramatically. This pattern is the relaxation of vowels in the Southern accent; vowels can stray from their standard tenseness and laxness, and can also be “fronted” or pronounced further forward in the mouth. For example, a person from the South might pronounce the word “rice” as “rass” (/ɹæs/) and say the word “pen” as “pin” (/pɪn/). The Southern vowel shift is a staple feature of the Southern accent and is (or was) especially prominent in Raleigh. Following Raleigh’s emergence as a technology hub in the 1960s, the advent of modern technology, and the growing job market for employees in those fields, the Southern vowel shift began to diminish within that particular workforce.

One possible explanation for this phenomenon is that the language associated with technology leaves less room for individuality and personality. Therefore, those working in that industry would begin adopting a more standardized accent. Another reason is that the realm of technology is vastly more globally connected in terms of the types of people who work within that sphere. This means those speaking with a Southern accent are exposed to many other national and global accents. This melting pot of dialects can affect the way someone speaks and, as a result, may reduce the Southern accent they were raised with.

According to Dodsworth, the influx of workers and their families led to a “dialect contact situation” in Raleigh and its neighboring cities.

“Through her analysis of K-12 networks in Raleigh, Dodsworth found correlations between the increasing social diversity of the city and the slow ‘leveling’ of its traditional accents. It also helped to explain why rural areas—or even the parts of Raleigh that saw the least inward migration—remain the most Southern-sounding,” according to a National Science Foundation report on the study.

Several other observations from Forrest et al.’s 2021 study further explored the ties between employment and accent in Raleigh. As previously discussed, those in the technical field were less likely to maintain a Southern accent. Law and government workers experienced a similar decrease, but to a lesser extent. Service workers, also known as “blue-collar” workers, were the most likely to retain Southern accent features. Additionally, across all industries, research showed that the older an employee was, the more likely they were to have a Southern accent.

This is partially because, in simple terms, old habits die hard. Older people, those who established careers before the advent of the digital age, are more likely to retain their Southern accents because of the culture and heritage associated with it. Although young people may be connected to Southern culture, they have not lived as long as their predecessors and are more susceptible to subconscious linguistic adaptation. Additionally, with the increase in immigration and ease of movement, many people in Raleigh likely come from places outside the South and have brought different accents, dialects, and languages with them.

Globalization has transformed homogeneous language communities into more diverse places, both linguistically and in other respects. The increased ease of travel, trade, and the spread of ideas and knowledge have brought people and their accents from all over the world into communities that were previously relatively isolated, such as North Carolina’s Outer Banks.

Tracing the Roots: How History, Class, and Media Shaped Biases Against the Southern Accent

There are several reasons why a person might hear a Southern accent and subject the speaker to the typical stereotypes associated with it. As with many linguistic theories, there is rarely a single, straightforward answer to this question. The nature of this kind of research requires a deep understanding of psychology, history, sociology, linguistics (of course), and many other complex subjects to fully comprehend the scope of the topic.

One popular theory dates back to the American Civil War. Before the Civil War, the South did not have nearly as much linguistic variation as it does today. Back then, the Southern accent was heavily influenced by the “prestigious” accents of the English colonizers. Today’s Southern accent shares few similarities with the “original” dialect.

Walt Wolfram, co-author of Talkin’ Tar Heel: How Our Voices Tell the Story of North Carolina and professor at North Carolina State University, makes several points on the evolution of the American Southern accent. According to Wolfram, the South’s loss at the end of the Civil War, along with the prospect of a new life in the North, drove many Southerners to abandon the South. Many who remained did so because they did not have the means to leave or because of the institution of “Southern pride.” Additionally, the racial divide in the South (especially after the Civil War) drove the white and Black populations apart culturally and linguistically, causing both groups to develop certain aspects of speech that would further distinguish one from the other.

As we have seen before in many cases, ways of speaking associated with lower social classes are often vilified and disparaged. And in the case of the post-slavery South, that meant primarily newly freed slaves, who had little to no money or land, and had no other choice but to stay. The specificities of the Black Southern dialect, combined with the white dialect and the various creoles and dialects from the African and South American slave trades, began to merge.

Several factors were in play simultaneously, like the impending stress and uncertainty during the South’s Reconstruction era, the lack of people migrating to the South, and the millions of recently freed former slaves, many of whom used speech that was influenced by other languages. These social elements now had a significant influence on the formation of new dialects, and the Southern dialect underwent a complete transformation. Due to cultural and geographical differences, numerous variations of the “standard” Southern dialect emerged, resulting in the modern Southern accents we know today. Though no clear explanation exists for how these accents are discriminated against, several possibilities arise from this Civil War-based theory.

One possibility is that the war’s effects on the relationship between the North and the South caused non-Southerners to disdain the Southern accent due to the political divide. Another possibility is that the accent became embroiled in Northern classism against the poor in the South. A final possibility, with similar roots, is that with the large population of African Americans in the South, along with their use of the Southern accent, non-Southerners correlated their racism with the Southern accent. These possible explanations have been perpetuated across generations and are still successfully maintained today, demonstrating just how implicit and invalid language biases can be.

Another, more modern explanation for this bias exists. A 2012 study by Katherine D. Kinzler and Jasmine M. DeJesus presents two perspectives on Southerners: Children from non-Southern states generally held a bias against Southern accents and associated the “standard” dialect with greater education, intelligence, and so on, while children from the South did not prefer one accent over the other. As Southern children grew older and became more exposed to media, they, too, began to develop prejudices against their own dialect. While local news reporters and other adults in a child’s life sound like them, few national voices carry the same Southern accent; news reporters, television show hosts, celebrities, and political figures mostly have non-Southern accents.

Over time, these children were conditioned to think that, since they don’t hear many Southern voices in these spaces, individuals with a Northern accent must be smarter, more authoritative, and generally better. Non-Southern children, seeing the same national media, are rarely exposed to Southern accents and are used to people who sound like them being the ones in charge. Children naturally learn from observing the adults in their lives, which continues the cycle of self-deprecation regarding dialect.

Despite the lack of statistical correlation between Southern accents and intelligence or capability, the stereotype persists across the U.S. and beyond. Its roots are complex, shaped by centuries of historical prejudice, regional divisions, and systemic classism, and continually reinforced by media portrayals that favor standardized speech. These biases ripple outward, affecting not only workplace dynamics but also education, social interactions, and even self-perception among Southerners themselves. Recognizing and challenging accent discrimination is more than a matter of politeness—it is a step toward dismantling deep-seated assumptions about worth, ability, and identity. By listening carefully and valuing linguistic diversity, we can begin to unlearn these prejudices and create a society where a voice’s sound reflects individuality rather than judgment.

How Informal Caregivers Use Storytelling to Build Community and Influence Policy

Caregiving is often a silent act of devotion—unseen, unacknowledged, and isolating. Millions of informal caregivers in the United States spend their time and energy supporting loved ones with age-related limitations, chronic illnesses, disabilities, or mental health challenges, often without pay or training. Their work sustains families, lightens the burden on health care systems, and contributes billions of dollars to the national economy, yet their struggles remain largely invisible. Sharing these stories not only sheds light on the emotional, physical, and financial challenges caregivers face daily but also transforms silence into connection, fosters community, and helps build a stronger care infrastructure.

Caregiver Burden: A Growing Crisis

Caregiving in the U.S. has reached a crisis point, with millions of Americans providing intensive support to loved ones while facing overwhelming responsibilities. According to AARP and the National Alliance for Caregiving (NAC), a staggering 63 million individuals in the U.S. support another adult or child with a disability or medical condition. The 59 million caregivers who support adults spend an astonishing 27 hours per week providing care. In addition to helping with activities of daily living—such as bathing, eating, and toileting—a growing number of caregivers are also responsible for complex medical and nursing tasks. However, most caregivers do not receive training, which makes these responsibilities even more challenging. Caregivers also commonly assist with household chores, transportation, administrative tasks, and care coordination.

The study also found that 70 percent of caregivers work, and 29 percent raise children while caring for older adults. Unfortunately, many also face financial hardships due to work disruptions and rising caregiving costs.

The immense emotional, physical, and financial strain of caregiving can contribute significantly to caregivers’ stress levels and feelings of depression, anger, anxiety, guilt, and grief, with some even experiencing post-traumatic stress disorder. Many caregivers also suffer adverse health effects, including sleep disorders, weight fluctuations, and body pains. Moreover, caregivers often withdraw socially due to time constraints and exhaustion, which can exacerbate their health issues. Due to this considerable strain, caregivers of people with long-term illnesses and disabilities may experience suicidal ideation, and tragically, some may act on it.

Despite society’s dependence on caregivers, public support remains fragmented. For instance, public assistance programs can be complex and difficult to navigate. In fact, some caregivers may be eligible for tax credits, stipends, caregiver coaching, or respite care, but such programs often have confusing eligibility requirements. They are also dominated by complex bureaucratic processes that leave caregivers feeling overwhelmed, often resulting in unclaimed benefits. Moreover, workplace protections are improving but remain insufficient and unequally distributed, with hourly workers having less access than salaried workers to benefits such as paid sick days, paid and unpaid family leave, flexible work hours, caregiver assistance programs, and telecommuting.

Alarmingly, while older adults are living longer than ever before, they are also facing significant health issues, driving a sharp increase in the demand for caregivers. Furthermore, AARP predicts a long-term trend where the number of adults over 65 will consistently exceed the number of children under 18. The number of prospective caregivers will also shrink, while the number of those needing care will continue to rise, further exacerbating the care crisis. The demand for care will be compounded by the fact that professional home care workers are inaccessible to most families due to labor shortages and the high costs of paid care.

Because caregivers lack public and systemic recognition, many have turned to storytelling to speak out, earn validation, and fight a system that treats caregiving as a personal burden rather than a societal responsibility.

Storytelling: A Lifeline for Caregivers

Because the enormous pressures of caregiving often make it difficult for caregivers to keep their jobs, maintain friendships, and participate in recreational activities, many caregivers withdraw socially. However, sharing stories with other caregivers who can relate to and validate their emotional burden can help combat this isolation. Such storytelling can be done through writing, conversations, digital platforms, and support groups.

Moreover, according to narrative identity theory, people can discover purpose, meaning, and self-continuity by constructing internalized life stories that bridge their reconstructed past, perceived present, and envisioned future. By structuring experiences into coherent stories, caregivers can begin to make sense of them. They can also reframe their caregiving role by shifting their focus from burden to the meaningful aspects of care, such as personal growth and resilience. This reframing can help them process feelings like anger, sadness, and guilt, which may provide significant emotional relief.

Storytelling can also lead caregivers to experience an externalization of their narratives, which is the process by which distressing events become separate from the person’s identity. This can make it easier to cope with the burden and heal from grief.

One way to achieve healing through storytelling is to practice expressive writing, which involves writing deeply about difficult experiences. Many studies have shown that this type of writing can reduce anxiety, stress, and depression, while also improving physical health. Contextualizing experiences through such writing can empower caregivers to process painful events rather than suppress them.

Storytelling can also help caregivers reclaim and renegotiate their identities. According to role engulfment theory, people who have a specific, demanding role—such as caregivers—may become consumed by it. This can lead to a disruption in their sense of self if they start to define themselves solely by their caregiving role, which can result in burnout and reduced self-worth. However, storytelling can help caregivers see themselves beyond their care responsibilities: as people with histories, dreams, and relationships outside their caregiving role. This can help them preserve their sense of self and cope psychologically amid chaotic or overwhelming events.

Beyond individual coping, sharing stories has also led to the creation of caregiver communities. Social media platforms, online discussion forums, podcasts, and both online and in-person support groups have brought caregivers together, enabling them to connect and heal over common experiences while also sharing practical information.

In fact, a 2023 AARP article reported that the AARP Family Caregivers Discussion Group, which was launched on Facebook in 2019, helped prevent burnout and reduce stress among participants. It also provided members with a space to brainstorm ideas, share resources, seek validation, and offer one another emotional support. Moreover, a 2021 study showed that bereaved caregivers who shared their stories on Facebook with other caregivers by posting photos found social validation, experienced meaning-making, and had a decreased risk for prolonged grief disorder.

Sharing stories in such communities can enable caregivers to identify systemic issues, including a lack of support from employers, health care systems, and the government. This can contribute to collective meaning-making and awareness, which are instrumental in advancing the care movement.

Storytelling: A Catalyst for Cultural and Policy Change

Storytelling doesn’t only lead to healing and community; it can also be a force for cultural and policy reform. Although quantitative data is often used to convey key trends on caregiving, personal stories have the power to put faces to statistics, making it easier for people to emotionally connect with the information being shared. Stories, which are also much more memorable than statistics, have the power to illustrate the complexities of caregiving—the conflicting emotions, moral predicaments, and relational challenges—which statistics alone cannot.

Storytelling also counteracts the stigma around disability, illness, and caregiving. After all, care recipients are often subjected to negative stereotypes that depict them as pitiful, weak, or incompetent, instead of as inspirational beings with purposeful lives who are deserving of support, respect, and dignity.

There is also significant social stigma against caregivers. On one hand, they may be perceived as “unsung heroes.” Yet, their care efforts are commonly viewed as “not real work,” and they are therefore seen as undeserving of support and recognition. Caregiving is also commonly viewed as “women’s work” or associated with certain ethnic and cultural groups. Furthermore, caregivers who are employed are often perceived by their peers as less dependable and less committed to their careers. Sharing personal stories can combat such stigma and shift attitudes by humanizing and normalizing care while highlighting the unique challenges and remarkable resilience of both caregivers and their care recipients.

Moreover, stories that spotlight the emotional, physical, and financial strain associated with family caregiving and care work can reveal structural economic disparities, systemic failures in healthcare access, and flawed labor policies. As a result, the care movement uses storytelling not only to expose gaps in the care economy but to reconceptualize caregiving as essential labor and push for a reformed care infrastructure. Narratives are also a powerful tool for evoking compassion and understanding and rallying supporters.

A notable example of this approach to storytelling is the work of Ai-Jen Poo, one of the most well-known caregiver advocates in the U.S. As a leader of the nonprofits Caring Across Generations and National Domestic Workers Alliance, Poo has spent her career using stories to highlight the value of care and push for legislation that benefits the caregiving community.

For instance, she has pushed for investing in care infrastructure by passing progressive tax reform. She has also advocated for expanding Medicaid to include more home and community-based services. Furthermore, she has proposed implementing Universal Family Care, a social insurance model similar to Social Security, which would fund child care, long-term care, paid family and medical leave, and disability services.

Poo has advocated for such policy reform through grassroots campaigns, coalition efforts, media appearances, and Congressional hearings. In doing so, she has presented care stories as evidence of systemic challenges rooted in weak policies, labor issues, and cultural and social norms. This depiction of care stories turns storytelling into a galvanizing force that connects personal narratives to collective calls for policy change.

Many organizers, movement builders, and nonprofit advocacy groups use storytelling with the same purpose. For instance, following the 2018 passage of the Recognize, Assist, Include, Support, and Engage (RAISE) Family Caregivers Act, several nonprofits collaborated to develop a national, multi-sector strategy to support caregivers. To ensure the strategy’s recommendations would align with the diverse needs of the caregiving community, the federal Administration for Community Living worked with the NAC, the National Academy for State Health Policy, and Community Catalyst to collect and analyze caregiver stories. The narratives were gathered through public requests for information (RFIs), dedicated listening sessions, and interviews.

Overall, more than 1,600 caregivers and organizations responded to the RFIs, 150 organizations and 80 caregivers participated in listening sessions, and 26 caregivers shared their in-depth stories in interviews. The narratives—many of which centered on financial struggles, lack of support, the need for respite, and the frequency of burnout and depression—were compiled to develop the 2022 National Strategy to Support Family Caregivers. The strategy focuses on championing caregivers by expanding visibility and outreach, increasing services and resources, strengthening workplace policies, adopting more research-based practices, and recognizing caregivers as crucial members of healthcare teams.

The strategy mapped out 350 actions for federal agencies and 150 suggestions for states, local communities, and employers. The strategy is meant to be updated biennially based on caregiver needs.

Storytelling has played a significant role in the passage of many pieces of care legislation, helping to shed light on who caregivers are and how society should support them. In this way, storytelling is a powerful tool for inserting lived experience into theoretical discussions. Leaders like Poo have shown that care stories are central to policy reform, shaping political visions for a stronger care infrastructure.

Examples of Caregiver Storytelling in Action

One notable example of a caregiver who has made an impact through storytelling is Matt Cauli, a social media influencer who has shared his story in the PBS documentary Caregiving, made appearances on TV shows like Tamron Hall, and spoken at various panel discussions to advocate for caregivers.

In 2020, Matt became a caregiver for his wife, Kanlaya Cauli, when she suffered two strokes due to an undiagnosed form of ovarian cancer called clear cell carcinoma. The strokes caused brain damage and led to paralysis on the left side of her body. Matt has since been her primary caregiver, assisting with showering, eating, exercising, caring for wounds, and other activities of daily living. Because of the stressors of caregiving combined with the pressures of raising his and Kanlaya’s young son, Matt ultimately had to quit his job and become a full-time caregiver.

Once Matt started sharing his and Kanlaya’s story on TikTok and Instagram, his followers and online engagement soared. Although his content sometimes discusses the rewards of caregiving, including milestones in Kanlaya’s recovery, it more often highlights the emotional, physical, and financial toll on his family.

By recounting his experiences in an emotional and relatable way, Matt has increased public visibility of caregiving and used storytelling as a tool for informal advocacy. Specifically, he has called for government programs to be more accessible, advocated greater flexibility for working caregivers, and argued that home care should be more affordable. He has also spoken out against New York’s paid caregiver program because it excludes spouses and parents from qualifying as paid caregivers.

Matt’s social media pages have also become a safe space where other caregivers can find community and validation. His relatable posts have sparked passionate conversations among his followers about topics such as caregiver burden and the broken state of the American health care system. Followers often confide in each other about emotions like guilt, sadness, and resentment—feelings they may not feel comfortable discussing with non-caregivers. They frequently share their stories, offer each other advice, exchange resources, and empathize in ways only fellow caregivers can, because they understand each other’s pain firsthand.

Another example of a caregiver-turned-storyteller is Kate Washington, author of the critically acclaimed 2021 book Already Toast: Caregiving and Burnout in America, which offers a data-driven look at the invisibility of caregivers. She has also written articles for the New York Times and Time Magazine, and has recounted her story in various interviews and care podcasts.

Washington has shared her experience of unexpectedly becoming a caregiver for her husband, who was diagnosed with lymphoma and subsequently needed a stem-cell transplant that led to a severe infection, leaving him temporarily blind, immunocompromised, and too frail to walk on his own. As a result, he required intense, 24-hour home care, which consisted of 35 daily medications, intravenous nutrition, glucose tests, and help with toileting and bathing. The pressures of caregiving, in addition to working and raising her two daughters, soon led Washington to become burnt out and depressed.

In her book and personal essays, she calls for more structural support for caregivers, including tax credits, paid family and medical leave, and more access to home- and community-based long-term care and support resources. She also advocates for creating more jobs and work protections for home care workers.

Like Matt’s, her narrative resonates with caregivers, validates their experiences, and fosters a sense of community and recognition by rejecting the common “heroic” depiction of caregiving and instead disclosing the anguish, frustration, and sorrow associated with it. Because of her story’s relatability and honesty, her book has become a crucial voice for caregivers. It is commonly referenced as a resource for those seeking to transform policy on the care crisis.

Actor and filmmaker Seth Rogen and his wife, Lauren Miller Rogen, have also shared their caregiving story through various campaigns and multimedia projects. The Rogens became caregiver advocates after Lauren’s mother, Adele, was diagnosed with early-onset Alzheimer’s disease at the age of 55. She gradually forgot how to speak, feed herself, get dressed, and go to the bathroom on her own. When Lauren’s father—her primary caregiver—became burnt out, the family hired 24-hour professional care.

Inspired by their family’s caregiving experience, the Rogens started the nonprofit Hilarity for Charity in 2012. The organization shares Adele’s story and uses humor to humanize caregiving and raise awareness of Alzheimer’s disease. Storytelling is a critical part of their fundraising strategy, helping them raise millions of dollars through star-studded comedy events, peer-to-peer fundraising, digital campaigns, and corporate sponsorships. The funds have been allocated toward Alzheimer’s research and have granted hundreds of thousands of hours of paid in-home care to caregivers of people with Alzheimer’s and related dementias.

In 2014, Seth testified on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., before a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee. He shared Adele’s story and advocated for more federal funding and focus on Alzheimer’s disease. His testimony garnered significant public attention, prompting media coverage of the needs of caregivers and care recipients.

In 2021, the couple wrote an opinion piece for CNN announcing they had joined the Paid Leave Alliance for Dementia Caregivers. In the article, they advocated for paid family and medical leave. They called on Congress to provide more flexible workplace policies and greater financial support for caregivers who have had to leave their jobs or accept lower-income roles.

Moreover, the Rogens produced the critically acclaimed 2025 documentary Taking Care, which recounted Adele’s story, detailing the deterioration of her health until her passing in 2020. The purpose of the documentary is to reduce the stigma of the disease, raise visibility of the toll of caregiving, and advocate for policies that improve conditions for caregivers.

The Rogens have also created a community around caregiving by launching CareCon, a free, annual, virtual event that offers resources for caregivers. They also offer free, online caregiver support groups for those experiencing isolation. Moreover, they rally young people to unite and become advocates for care through their Youth Movement Against Alzheimer’s program.

Collectively, millions of caregivers like Matt, Washington, and the Rogens reshape public understanding of care and contribute to policy reform through their storytelling. At the movement level, leaders like Poo amplify these voices, using them to reframe care as essential and fight a system that devalues it. Together, the caregivers who share their stories and the movement leaders who spotlight them have become critical to the push for cultural, social, economic, and policy change.

Platforms, Trends, and the Future of Caregiver Storytelling

Although some caregivers still use traditional storytelling methods, such as writing grief memoirs or self-help books, the evolution of digital technologies has enabled caregivers to quickly and conveniently share their stories across geographic barriers. This expansion of digital platforms has played a critical role in normalizing candid conversations about care and creating a cultural shift that values care as essential work.

For instance, caregivers are increasingly turning to social media platforms like TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube. Many creators on these platforms use artificial intelligence to streamline content creation and produce relatable, meaningful narratives about the realities of caregiving. Online newsletters and blogs about caregiving are also growing in popularity, exposing the complexities of care while also fostering community.

Additionally, there has been a substantial move from in-person support groups to digital formats. These discussions may take place in Facebook groups or on video conferencing platforms like Zoom, providing caregivers with convenient ways to find validation, resources, and emotional support from home.

Furthermore, although some care advocacy organizations still host in-person gatherings, virtual events like CareCon and the Alzheimer’s Caregiver Summit are also on the rise. These events help raise awareness of systemic issues and enable guests to share solutions to the care crisis.

There has also been an increase in podcasts dedicated to caregiving. Some popular examples include the Happy Healthy Caregiver, The Caregiver Cup, and AARP’s Caring for Caregivers. These podcasts often invite legal experts, medical specialists, and caregivers to share their insights and champion stronger care policies.

Documentaries focusing on the care crisis, like Rogen’s Taking Care, are also gaining traction. One notable example is actor Bradley Cooper’s 2025 PBS documentary Caregiving, which explores the lives of informal and professional caregivers while calling for a shift in cultural attitudes and policy reform.

The proliferation of caregiver storytelling across various media has contributed to increased policy and academic conversations about the care economy, signaling a shift toward viewing caregiving as essential labor. As technology evolves and new trends emerge, these conversations and stories must continue to be amplified so they can shape a better, more equitable care system that serves everyone.

A Call to Recognize and Support Caregivers

Despite their invaluable contributions to their families, communities, health care systems, and the national economy, caregivers continue to lack the support and recognition they deserve. Caregiver stories shine a light on this “invisible army,” exposing the profound emotional, physical, and financial burden caregivers grapple with daily.

These narratives can also reduce isolation, restore identity, build community, and improve care systems. Listening to and amplifying these stories can transform personal pain into collective strength and build a world where caregiving is viewed as crucial work, deserving of respect, dignity, and support. Progress will become increasingly vital as the U.S. enters an era marked by an unprecedented care gap, with the senior population outpacing the number of available caregivers.

So whether you’re a caregiver, advocate, or ally, consider sharing your story. The care movement can only grow stronger if we let the health care industry, lawmakers, employers, community members, and fellow caregivers hear our voices. By stepping into the light, you can inspire change and pave the way for a better future for all those who provide care.

Criminalizing Childhood: When the Justice System Fails America’s Youth

[Editor’s Note: This article is the second installment of “Does Your Community Care About Children?”, a four-part series by Colin Greer and Reynard Loki that examines overlapping crises facing vulnerable youth in America—including poverty, child labor, juvenile justice, immigration enforcement, and foster care—and highlights how these systems can criminalize, exploit, or neglect children instead of supporting them. The first installment explored how systemic neglect and early childhood deprivation—through inadequate housing, limited access to healthcare, and under-resourced schools—affect children’s development and long-term well-being. This installment emphasizes poverty as the foundational condition shaping children’s experiences, explores how youth are treated as victims or blamed as criminals, and investigates the potential of communities to intervene through mentorship, structured work opportunities, and civic oversight. Subsequent articles examine health, education, and broader policy solutions. Together, the series connects structural failures with practical, values-driven strategies, offering a call to responsibility, attention, and collective action for a more just future.]

Introduction: When “Protection” Becomes Punishment

Does your community care about children? This deceptively simple question carries profound moral, social, and civic weight. Across the United States, children are too often treated not as developing citizens deserving care and opportunity, but as problems to be managed. Systems meant to safeguard youth—juvenile justice, labor laws, immigration enforcement, and foster care—can instead respond with punishment, neglect, or harm. Children bear the consequences of policies and practices they did not create, producing predictable cycles of disadvantage.

Poverty is the underlying condition shaping these outcomes. It is more than a statistic or isolated hardship—it is the framework under which children experience multiple forms of structural deprivation. Children growing up in economically marginalized neighborhoods face limited access to healthcare, gaps in educational opportunities, hazardous work conditions, and heightened interaction with punitive systems. Extreme poverty, in particular, dictates the parameters of possibility from the earliest years. While Black, Brown, and Indigenous children are disproportionately affected, poverty touches children of all races, showing that structural inequity—not race alone—drives risk.

Communities frequently fail children across five sectors of their lived experience: ages of criminal responsibility, juvenile detention, child labor, immigration enforcement, and foster care. Policies in each area combine with economic and social conditions to limit opportunity and perpetuate harm. Examining these systems side by side reveals a pattern: children most at risk are those whose families, schools, and communities cannot buffer against structural deprivation. International comparisons demonstrate that the U.S. approach is a policy choice, not an inevitability. Countries like Norway and Sweden prioritize education, family, and social services rather than criminalization, showing that alternative paths are possible, practical, and effective.

Caring for children requires coordinated action. Families, institutions, and communities must recognize that attention, guidance, and structured opportunity are among the most effective forms of protection. Adults—whether educators, mentors, neighbors, or civic leaders—can prevent childhood from being criminalized, exploited, or neglected.

Criminalization and Detention of Youth

Across much of the U.S., children are criminalized at shockingly young ages. In North Carolina, children as young as six can technically be held responsible for criminal behavior. In Rutherford County, Tennessee, elementary‑aged children—some as young as seven—were taken into custody after watching or being near a minor scuffle, with authorities charging them under a ‘criminal responsibility’ theory that did not reflect an actual crime, underscoring how early criminalization can reach children based on proximity rather than conduct. Arrests of young children signal a community that views youth not as developing citizens but as problems to control.

Racial and disability disparities exacerbate these effects. In 2017–18, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Black, and American Indian/Alaska Native students were arrested at rates two to three times higher than white students. In 2020, law enforcement agencies made an estimated 424,300 arrests of persons under 18. Children from impoverished neighborhoods are disproportionately caught in these systems, where families and schools often lack resources to intervene effectively.

By contrast, Finland sets the minimum age of criminal responsibility at 15, with younger children handled through social welfare. These international comparisons make clear that early criminalization is a policy choice rather than an inevitability. Communities that respond with punitive measures risk creating cycles of trauma and neglect.

When children make mistakes, communities can choose to provide guidance or impose confinement. U.S. juvenile detention leans toward punishment: children may be placed in secure facilities for minor offenses such as truancy, shoplifting, or skipping school. Solitary confinement, still legal in some states, inflicts lasting psychological harm. About 70 percent of youth in detention have mental health diagnoses, including trauma, anxiety, and depression.

The school-to-prison pipeline illustrates how disciplinary actions often funnel children into the criminal justice system. Once in the juvenile system, they may face detention and adult incarceration, compounding disadvantage—especially for youth from impoverished communities. Children with disabilities and Black, Indigenous, and Latinx youth are disproportionately represented.

Many youths arrested for minor offenses like truancy experience long hours of isolation, minimal educational programming, and insufficient counseling, which research links to anxiety, trauma responses, and reluctance to return to school. Research shows that extended juvenile detention disrupts education, limits access to meaningful schooling, and is associated with higher rates of anxiety, depression, and other mental health challenges. After release, many youths are more likely to disengage from school and struggle with psychological harms that can make returning feel daunting and traumatic.

Evidence-based interventions can improve outcomes dramatically. Programs such as Multisystemic Therapy and Functional Family Therapy provide family-centered approaches to reduce recidivism. Youth Advocate Programs and credible messenger mentoring pair at-risk youth with adult mentors, fostering guidance, trust, and accountability. Restorative justice interventions focus on repairing harm rather than imposing punishment and have been shown to reduce repeat offenses. Wraparound services provide individualized plans for education, mental health, and employment.

International examples show alternatives. Norway, the Netherlands, and Finland prioritize rehabilitation: secure facilities are rare, stays are short, and youth have access to robust social, educational, and psychological services. Children are treated as developing individuals, not criminals. Communities also intervene informally. Adults who mentor or provide structured work opportunities—restoring the legendary neighborhood “stoop”—offer protective oversight, preventing trajectories toward confinement. Early engagement, attention, and investment reduce reliance on punitive systems.

Exploitation and Neglect Across Work, Migration, and Foster Care

Despite federal laws, child labor persists in the U.S. In fiscal year 2024, the U.S. Department of Labor documented 736 cases of child labor violations, involving thousands of minors in hazardous work ranging from agriculture and meatpacking to domestic labor and industrial settings. In 2024, for example, the Department of Labor reported on federal investigations that found minors—including teens as young as 13—working overnight shifts cleaning meatpacking machinery, such as brisket saws and head splitters, exposing them to hazardous conditions and chemicals while compromising schooling and safety. These situations illustrate the tangible risks behind child labor violations uncovered by the Department of Labor.

Migrant children, often from economically marginalized households, are especially vulnerable. Families facing extreme poverty may rely on child earnings, perpetuating cycles where labor substitutes for education. Unsafe conditions, intimidation, and limited legal protections exacerbate risk.

International comparisons show alternatives. Germany and the Netherlands strictly regulate youth work: setting minimum ages, limiting tasks, establishing hours, and requiring supervision. These frameworks protect health, education, and development, demonstrating labor exploitation is a policy choice rather than an inevitability.

Communities can intervene through structured, education-compatible work programs offering safe employment, mentorship, and skill-building. These programs provide income, purpose, and guidance without exposure to hazards, thus fostering civic engagement and resilience.

Federal immigration enforcement often treats youth as security risks rather than children in need of protection. Border Patrol detention, harsh asylum procedures, and family separations expose minors to trauma.

In 2018, a joint ACLU–University of Chicago report found approximately 25 percent of unaccompanied children in Customs and Border Protection custody experienced physical abuse, including sexual assault, stress positions, and beatings. Thousands more were separated from parents, with minimal oversight or access to legal and emotional support.

Many migrant children come from economically marginalized communities, where families lack resources to buffer migration stress. Poverty, legal precarity, and institutional neglect increase exposure to exploitation, including trafficking.

Internationally, New Zealand and Canada prioritize family reunification and community-based support, providing supervised housing, education, and social integration. Local communities can provide legal aid, mentorship, and trauma-informed education, offering stability and opportunity even when federal systems fail.

Foster care often fails to provide stability. Youth average three to four placements, undermining attachment and emotional development. Trafficking within foster care illustrates systemic failure: about 40 percent of youth with trafficking experiences reported incidents before the age of 18, and nearly 80 percent occurred while in foster care.

Vulnerable children—including Black, Native American, and Latinx youth, children with disabilities, and low-income youth—are disproportionately affected. Many who age out at 18 or 21 face homelessness, unemployment, and limited resources.

Internationally, Sweden and Denmark maintain robust foster care systems with stable placements, trained caregivers, and wraparound services, reducing risk and promoting stability. Communities can supplement formal systems through mentorship, nonprofits, and structured guidance, reinforcing protections and improving youth outcomes.

From Punishment to Justice: Patterns and Solutions

Across juvenile justice, child labor, immigration enforcement, and foster care, children’s vulnerabilities are too often met with punishment rather than support. Austerity, underfunded schools, racial disparities, privatization, and political neglect converge to normalize punitive approaches. International models show that early intervention, family support, and rehabilitation prevent harm, underscoring that criminalization is a choice.

Community attention—the “stoop”—is critical. Volunteer programs, mentorship, civic engagement, and safe work opportunities provide oversight, guidance, and resilience where formal systems fail. For example, credible messenger and mentoring programs connect justice‑involved youth with adult mentors and career pathways—including structured employment, apprenticeships, and reentry support. These programs have been shown to improve engagement, reduce recidivism, and help young people build skills and confidence as they reintegrate into their communities.

State-supported youth employment programs, like New York’s Summer Youth Employment Program, place thousands of teens from low‑income families in paid, supervised jobs. Participants gain workplace skills and income without exposure to hazardous conditions, helping build confidence, job readiness, and connections to future opportunities.

Justice for children should mean support, opportunity, and rehabilitation. Evidence-based interventions—including restorative conferencing, family therapy, and mentorship programs—reduce recidivism and improve outcomes. In Alameda County, California, youth in restorative conferencing programs were 19.6 percent less likely to be adjudicated delinquent within 18 months—a 47 percent relative reduction. Oakland, California, schools using restorative practices saw African American suspensions drop approximately 40 percent, while New York City schools reported a 43 percent decline in suspensions alongside stronger student-staff relationships.

Community-based foster care programs, mentorship, and structured work opportunities provide continuity, guidance, and stability. Civic structures like local commissions can monitor policies, advocate, and provide systemic oversight, reinforcing protections and reducing systemic neglect. International lessons show that early, coordinated intervention, paired with social support, nurtures children rather than punishing them.

A Moral Test for Every Community

The question “Does your community care about children?” is neither rhetorical nor abstract. Across the United States, children face overlapping crises: they are criminalized at alarmingly young ages, exploited through labor, left vulnerable in foster care, and exposed to trauma in immigration enforcement. Poverty, systemic neglect, and under-resourced institutions create these outcomes, but communities are not powerless.

Active engagement—through mentorship, safe employment, trauma-informed services, and civic oversight—signals that children are valued, protected, and supported. Programs that pair youth with mentors, offer structured work, and implement restorative practices in schools show that guidance and support can replace punishment and neglect. Communities that invest in these strategies help prevent cycles of trauma and build pathways to education, employment, and civic participation.

Caring communities take responsibility not only for immediate safety but also for the long-term well-being of children. By acting collectively through volunteer initiatives, policy advocacy, and inclusive oversight, communities can ensure that every child has a chance to thrive. The question of whether children matter is a moral test for every neighborhood, city, and state; the answer lies in whether communities are willing to act, to protect, and to nurture their young and to protect them.

How Human Ecology Education Defuses the Roots of Terrorism

Terrorist attacks, whether by individuals or groups, are usually followed by attempts to explain the rationale and causes behind them. The core reasons, however, lie not in surface-level factors but in the deeper “machinery” of society: the values and worldviews that children absorb at home, in schools, and in their communities. This early socialization shapes the beliefs and perceptions that later guide adult behavior. Among the social mechanisms that can be changed to prevent such attacks in the future, education and community life are crucial.

The definition of terrorism provided by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights states that “As a minimum, terrorism involves the intimidation or coercion of populations or governments through the threat or perpetration of violence, causing death, serious injury, or the taking of hostages.”

However, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy provides a deeper understanding of terrorists:

“All direct victims of terrorism are treated as objects to be used—indeed, used up—by the terrorist. But in being treated as an object, the innocent victim is worse off than the (alleged) guilty victim. Insofar as the latter is judged to have done a wrong, he is thought of as a human. … For the terrorist, the innocent victim is neither a human in this judgmental sense nor a human in the sense of simply having value as a human being. Of course, the terrorist needs to pick a human being as a victim… because [that] brings about more terror… But this does not involve treating them as humans. Rather, they are victimized and thereby treated as objects because they are humans.” (Nicholas Fotion, “The Burdens of Terrorism.” In Values in Conflict, Burton M. Leiser (ed.). Macmillan, 1981.)

Nicholas Fotion, in War and Ethics: A New Just War Theory (2007), describes the inherent ambivalence in the analysis of ethical decisions, including in the case of terrorism. However, most cultures adhere to the principles of not killing others, minimizing suffering, helping others, and treating people fairly. Fotion questions whether these principles permit exceptions. Should one, be it a country or a lone wolf, kill to save others, and if so, when? And how do we account for the difference in individual rationalization? Given the variance in justifications for shocking terrorist attacks—which seemingly disregard the cruel act of killing innocents for no reason—there is a need to look at what shapes the personal lives of terrorists and the cultures that influence them to prevent such attacks from taking place in the future.

Confronted with frequent headlines of terrorist attacks, the public tends to associate terrorism as a political act and not a sexually violent one, since these acts are more integrated into cultural norms. But, in actuality, the two forms of terrorism that are most harmful to society are political terrorism and sexual terrorism, whether perpetuated by a group or an individual. A comparison of these two acts reveals an interesting moral hypocrisy that is deeply ingrained in American culture.

Let us first consider political terrorism. A 2017 report by the Investigative Fund and Reveal analyzed “domestic terrorism” incidents that occurred in the U.S. between 2008 and 2016. The investigation found 115 far-right-inspired terrorist incidents. This trend has only accelerated with each passing year, with the far-right extremists being responsible for initiating approximately 66 percent of all attacks and plots in 2019 and 90 percent of such acts in 2020, according to an analysis by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Meanwhile, terrorism by the far-left inspired 19 incidents, stated the 2017 report, which included acts relating to animal rights and violent environmental activism. Religious terrorism, post-9/11, led to 63 Islamist-inspired terrorist incidents.

For examining sexual terrorism cases, we look at the CNA Corporation’s “Domestic Terrorism Offender-Level Database (DTOLD): A Data-Driven Analysis of US Domestic Terrorists’ Life Histories,” and the National Sexual Violence Resource Center’s (2021) “Sexual Violence in Disasters.” Millions of people in the U.S. have experienced sexual violence during their lifetimes.

According to the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey 2010, “More than half (51.1 percent) of female victims of rape reported being raped by an intimate partner and 40.8 percent by an acquaintance; for male victims, more than half (52.4 percent) reported being raped by an acquaintance and 15.1 percent by a stranger.”

A 2023 study published in the Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics stated that 50 percent of intimate partner violence-related homicides in the U.S. involved guns. The possession of firearms in domestic violence situations increases the risk of homicide for women substantially. A 2019 study confirmed this and found that “a higher rate of firearm ownership is associated with a higher rate of domestic violence homicide in the United States, but that the same does not hold for other kinds of gun homicide,” stated the New York Times.

Yet the United States has not yet ratified the Equal Rights Amendment, first proposed in 1923, granting equal rights to all sexes under the law. In the absence of federal law, the level of protective legislation for women across states varies widely.

Here is how political and sexual terrorism are often linked. A study published in the journal Terrorism and Political Violence concludes that “adherence to misogynistic belief systems presents a pertinent risk factor underpinning different types of private and public male violence. This suggests misogyny and its violent manifestations that target women serve as an ‘ideological’ justification that aims to uphold men’s power and dominant status, not just at home but equally within society.” The normalization of violence against women by accepting gender stereotypes and inequality ingrained in society builds acceptance for using violence in other situations, such as supporting political and religious ideologies. The connection is critical, but how did it form?

In the United States, the initial division of labor necessitated by the practical hardships of settling in a new country, and the division within the state college system between home skills for women and work skills for men, led to the establishment of a cultural gender divide, which became normalized over time. It was even considered by many to be biologically natural. As capitalism and its markets became economically dominant, those who worked outside the home began to gain disproportionate power in many professional and personal spheres. Women were restricted to household chores and child-rearing and had no means to earn income or gain power. Thus, sexual domination became integrated within society even more, supporting the hypocrisy of using sexual violence to retain control and power over women and political violence to maintain or gain political power. The former was deemed culturally acceptable, while the latter became punishable by law.

Terror hypocrisy in which sexual terrorism is accepted, while political terrorism is condemned, cloaked as ideology, grants permission to terrorize “for a perceived good cause,” and maintains the status quo and tradition by groups or individuals. For a nationally systemic example of this hypocrisy, consider that even though the 1994 Violence Against Women Act allows women to seek civil rights remedies for gender-related crimes, in 2000, the male-dominated Supreme Court invalidated parts of the law that permitted victims of rape, domestic violence, etc., to sue their attackers in federal court.

For another example, the 2020 Boston Review report states, “Forms of gender-specific violence are baked into the structure of law enforcement. … This violence is possible in part because of the extreme power disparity that exists between targeted women and police, which at once enables such violence and shields officers from consequences.”

Nonetheless, violent influences, whether at the national or personal level, or through a group, can move from sexual terrorism to political and vice versa. A 2024 Sage Journals report supports this, stating that exposure to political violence seems to shape male adult behavior toward domestic violence. “[E]xposure to political violence at almost any point in male individuals’ life increases their likelihood to perpetrate sexual violence on their wives… it is the exposure of men to political violence that matters, but not the exposure of their wives.” The report cited “that the critical age bracket is between four and six years of age.” Unfortunately, we are living in an era in which children are seeing incidents of political violence in the media and in communities with troops in the streets. We are also witnessing frequent deportations, protests, and irresponsible gun ownership.

The Beginnings of Terrorism

Terroristic motivations, culminating in group or individual acts, begin at the individual level. The “lone wolf” terrorist appears to be the most difficult to understand. Often, benign demographic statistics obscure personal issues, extreme beliefs, prejudices, slights, or fixations; however, these psychosocial factors are more difficult to quantify statistically.

The composite violent extremism (CoVE) model provides an organized framework for understanding the lone wolf terrorist. The model was developed from initial efforts by law enforcement in the United Kingdom and Australia to prevent emerging forms of terrorism. It was created by Daveed Gartenstein-Ross and his team at Valens Global, in collaboration with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, to organize and expand those efforts into a framework for identifying the factors that prompt individuals to commit violent acts, thereby making it easier for more government agencies to recognize and prevent acts of terrorism.

The CoVE model shows that personal grievances are not merely isolated complaints, but ongoing narratives of unfairness that individuals replay and reinforce over time. They often involve three interlocking elements: the first two are perceived offense and blaming others for one’s pain, and then a grievance “story” organizes these feelings into a stable identity. Grievances, by themselves, do not automatically produce radicalization, but they create fertile psychological ground in which certain ideologies can take root. Ideology can then function as a cognitive and moral framework that organizes, amplifies, and legitimizes these underlying hurts. Exposure to grievance‑affirming narratives makes minor slights feel more significant, deepens alienation, and reframes ordinary frustrations as deliberate attacks by an out‑group. Terrorism begins to seem justified.

The CoVE model divides potential terrorists into four categories:

  • Ambiguous: People with undefined or “coherent” ideologies.
  • Mixed: Individuals with multiple extreme ideologies.
  • Fused: Those who have a single core ideology but also convey viewpoints associated with other ideologies.
  • Convergent: Individuals with different ideological beliefs who come together to follow “mutual interests.”

The CoVE model also divides the risk factors into four categories that have the potential to lead to grievance:

  • Mental health issues,
  • Individuals’ employment or educational prospects,
  • Positive relationships with non-extremist and non-delinquent peers,
  • Being a member of a marginalized group.

Beginning early in life, the model offers several personal risk factors that contribute to an individual’s developmental likelihood of engaging in terrorism:

Push Factors

  • Marginalization: Feelings of exclusion from society.
  • Social Inequality: Perceptions of unfair treatment or discrimination.
  • Limited access to education: Lack of opportunities for personal and professional growth.

Pull Factors

  • Material rewards: Incentives that attract individuals to extremist groups.
  • Cultural disillusionment: A sense of loss regarding cultural identity or significance.

A National Institute of Justice (NIJ) overview of how lone-wolf radicalization occurs most often in the United States outlines a path that also begins with grievances: First, an individual forms connections with online sympathizers or extremist groups; the potential terrorist then connects with an enabler who, whether unwittingly or intentionally, assists them; then, they broadcast their intent to act; next, a triggering event occurs, which may be personal or political in nature, and they carry out their intent through a terrorist act.

The NIJ report points to ways in which families and friends of a person experiencing radicalization may intervene and prevent this movement toward terrorism by reducing ideological and personal problems and grievances before they escalate. For instance, “prevention and intervention efforts may benefit by addressing beliefs that justify violence and helping individuals to develop identities in which these beliefs are not central,” stated the report.

The preventive approach focuses on two interrelated initiatives: Education and community programs. These measures have positive long-term effects. Over time, they have the greatest potential to reach more people worldwide and deliver exponential generational benefits—they last longer, thereby preventing many recurring costs associated with violent acts. The question is: What educational and community initiatives undertaken earlier in life prevent the eventual emergence of terrorist behavior before it escalates?

The Historical Precedent for Educational Prevention

To answer that question, we examine a single program that integrates both education and community engagement. They are combined and delivered as a single program through an ongoing educational curriculum in local public schools—besides some colleges that offer it—which teaches students how society functions and how human needs, both physical and social, are met in ways that promote health, safety, and social assimilation. This personal education for a higher quality of life, rather than professional education for income, has been successfully delivered for centuries as a single program across many European countries since the late 18th century.

The concept began in Northern Europe with Bildung education, a system of folk schools designed to improve the quality of life for the peasant class living under oppressive monarchies. It has since become an intrinsic part of the democratic socialist form of government in the Nordic countries. It is foundational to their consistently high global rankings in happiness and quality of life. The Bildung idea that personal life and living education are foundational to national success spread, and Lincoln embraced it early in his presidency with the Morrill Act of 1862. The act helped states to set up public colleges using funds from the “development or sale of associated federal land grants. … [t]he new land-grant institutions, which emphasized agriculture and mechanic arts, opened opportunities to thousands of farmers and working people previously excluded from higher education,” stated the National Archives.

The knowledge and skills were thus disseminated to settlers across all states and proved to be a significant benefit to national resilience during two world wars and the Great Depression. In the late 1930s, Myles Horton, an American, visited Denmark to study Bildung education and returned to found the Highlander Folk School in Tennessee. It was there, in their 20s, that many of the great civil rights leaders, such as Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks, studied and developed the principles and practices of nonviolent civil disobedience to advance their human and governmental rights.

During the 20th century, American high schools for many decades required girls to enroll in home economics (HE) courses, and boys in shop and vocational classes. However, in the 1970s and 1980s, as the Information Age approached, schools ceased teaching home economics, also known as family and consumer sciences (FCS), and many schools converted HE classrooms and labs into computer labs. Culturally, however, the gender gap in the division of labor continued. Women continued to assume household and child-rearing responsibilities. Men forged careers. As society became more complex and women developed professional interests and greater legal rights, practical child care and family life became more problematic; this unequal burden overwhelmed women, even those with advanced degrees, while men, without domestic skills, became even less able to live independently.

Today, as family and consumer sciences education programs shrink, fewer boys receive structured exposure to domestic and caregiving skills, which increases the likelihood that unpaid household labor and emotional management will remain feminized and fall disproportionately on women and girls. This disproportionate division of home labor, since the 1980s, has contributed to more marriages failing, more single mothers, more people living alone, and more children becoming alienated. The reality is that an urbanized transitional society that becomes overly complex, without the education to navigate it, is threatening and confusing to people.

Why Human Ecology Should Be an Integral Part of the Education System

Following the principles of family and consumer sciences, human ecology, without the gender stigma of previous titles, is the current personal education program focusing on the different sectors of our human ecosystem; Cornell University expanded and retitled FCS/home economics to human ecology, encompassing contemporary life challenges and needs. As home to one of the earliest home economics departments in the U.S., which began in 1903, Cornell continued its national leadership by setting a new standard for traditional state colleges still using titles from previous eras. Human ecology is a preventive community education program that offers healthy alternatives and practices to counter extreme beliefs and grievances that may take root early in life.

Research by Cassidy Wallace, in her 2020 thesis “Re-establishing the Value of Family and Consumer Science in the General Middle School Curriculum,” underscores the historical and institutional challenges of bringing human ecology into K–12 schools. Wallace notes that without collaboration between traditional FCS departments and other disciplines, preparing a new generation of educators to teach these life skills remains difficult.

By teaching mental health awareness, coping strategies, and emotional resilience, the human ecology program addresses psychological vulnerabilities. Through practical life skills and career-readiness education, it strengthens employment and educational prospects. Social integration lessons cultivate positive relationships with peers, and curriculum content on inclusion and diversity helps marginalized students navigate societal pressures, reducing the appeal of extremist ideologies. In this way, human ecology not only develops practical competencies but also creates a protective environment against grievance-driven radicalization. This approach directly targets the key personal grievances category identified by the CoVE model.

At the individual level, human ecology teaches the knowledge and skills necessary to manage life, navigate social systems, and cope with the rapidly changing physical, social, and political environments in which people of all ages live today. It is the fundamental personal, practical education required to meet basic human needs for physical and social well-being. No matter how economically developed a country is, its people still require significant formal and informal learning to understand and manage life.

However, in America’s competitive capitalist environment, which often serves employers, this universal public education to prevent violence is generally absent and ignored. While there is no direct, large‑scale study showing “FCS cuts can lead to extremism,” there is a plausible chain: the absence of such education reduces life skills and the ability to sustain relationship-building spaces such as improvement clubs, granges, or social clubs. That can heighten social alienation and leave gendered domestic burdens intact, removing an essential venue among members for critical discussion of identity, care, and responsibility.

Vocational training and education in soft life skills are an integral step in preventing “violent extremism,” according to a World Bank paper. “Policy makers see skills and vocational training programs as an important entry point for targeting youth and young adults for… [countering violent extremism]. … [Vocational Skills Development] encompasses basic education, technical and practical skills training and also soft and life skills. It contributes to empowering youth, enhancing their technical and analytical thinking and giving them a sense of purpose resulting not only in employability but also societal inclusion.”

Given that adolescence is a period of identity formation and heightened susceptibility to radical narratives, especially under conditions of exclusion and uncertainty, the erosion of FCS, without the inclusion of contemporary human ecology programs, means fewer universal institutions explicitly tasked with teaching students how to manage everyday life, relationships, and shared responsibilities in a pluralistic society.

Program Design

The design of the human ecology educational program follows Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, which posits that a human life path begins with physical and safety needs, progresses to social and professional needs in midlife, and culminates in maturity with self-actualization and the achievement of responsible personal agency. Maslow first addresses primal fears, such as fear of starvation or thirst, being too cold or too hot, or being attacked. These are deficiency needs and arise from the unmet basic human survival needs. These needs should be met early in life, particularly for children. Early fear of not having these needs met exerts some of the strongest influences later in life, on life choices and social integration. This is why a human ecology program begins with what are considered “home skills”: how to provide healthy food, clothing, shelter, safety, and comfort, both physical and psychological.

The middle range of the hierarchy addresses growth needs. Here, human ecology focuses on social integration and the study of the social systems that govern community and national life. At this mid-level, students develop skills that foster social and professional growth, thereby increasing their psychosocial sense of safety and acceptance within a complex society. As students near graduation and transition to adulthood, the focus shifts to the higher levels of the hierarchy that address self-actualization. Students begin to identify and value their personal interests and natural aptitudes, helping them choose a life path that is authentic and meaningful.

Offered at the K–12 level and progressing through grade-level stages that align with students’ maturation, human ecology programs empower students to transition to adulthood confidently with a sense of safety and acceptance, and, after graduation, to live independently—learning to take personal control and seeing the big picture while staying on course, becoming empowered to seek answers before reacting, resolving individual grievances, and not being easily influenced by extreme ideologies.

How Human Ecology Prevents Violence

One risk in the CoVE model concerns relationships. Quite simply, friends. By explicitly teaching students how to evaluate peer influence, recognize unhealthy social dynamics, and choose supportive communities, human ecology lessons strengthen one of the CoVE model’s critical protective factors: positive relationships with non-extremist peers. Students practice conflict resolution, empathy, and collaboration through role-playing, group projects, and discussion of real-world scenarios, giving them tools to resist radicalizing peer pressures. This practical application reinforces moral reasoning and social awareness, reducing the likelihood that grievances are amplified through unhealthy social networks.

The sexual ideology that justifies violence against women begins early. How girls are treated in schools, bullying, and similar actions become embedded behaviors if there are no counteracting lessons. Human ecology teaches young people to find positive values in others and to recognize that being a human being is, in itself, sufficient to entitle any person to dignity and respect. Individual birth characteristics, such as gender, ethnicity, religion, race, age, or income, do not define what it means to be a human being; they are natural and cultural differences.

School culture is a living laboratory, both conscious and subconscious, which offers opportunities to adopt healthy behaviors in a protected environment. Without the counterbalance of ethical education—like that provided by human ecology lessons—students may not learn to critically evaluate their choices or recognize the moral weight of seemingly small actions. In that vacuum, biases and harmful ideologies take root. Positive personal values, developed through human ecology lessons on ethics, cause and effect, and the power of cultural influences, build an early framework for life-long decision-making. This principle also extends beyond the psychosocial into the value of learning practical life skills. Lack of these skills predisposes a person toward violence by leaving everyday conflicts, stress, and social pressures to be handled with impulse, rather than with thought, communication, or empathy.

Consider how one example, a human ecology foods and nutrition lesson, illustrates the thought, empathy, and value choices embedded in preparing a meal for a group. The lesson begins by exploring which foods meet human nutritional needs and why. It covers the sources of the food, the production processes, and the ethics of the food industry, while also introducing mathematics and science of real-world applications. Field trips to grocery stores or farmers markets, interpreting labels, and what “organic” means form part of it. Students examine how climate change affects resource availability and the need for adaptation. They learn to be mindful of their class’s personal preferences, allergies, and religious practices. Students plan menus, ensure meals are shared equitably, and prepare the food. They learn to present it attractively, practice dining etiquette, and enjoy the camaraderie of sharing and caring. Cleaning up after themselves teaches them the importance of sanitation and proper food storage.

Beyond practical skills, these lessons explicitly integrate critical reflection on ideology and personal grievance, encouraging students to discuss how inequity, bias, and exclusion affect communities and connect the ethical reasoning from daily activities (like sharing a meal) to understanding how extremist ideologies exploit genuine social and personal grievances. The key takeaway is that with just one meal, students experience that serving everyone best serves their own interests—the enjoyment of a meal with classmates. That realization, discussed and examined in class, begins to permeate students’ relationships in the broader culture as they mature.

In a comprehensive human ecology program, personal value-setting and character development are similarly reinforced through lessons on housing, for example, which provide an understanding of safety, security, and privacy, as well as aesthetics. The lessons also include finance, the legal system, home management, child development, and consumer protection. Each practical life skill increases the quality of life in a complex society. Poor life skills mean that students cannot translate abstract values (dignity, respect, and equality) into concrete choices about friends, groups, and the daily interactions and transactions within the complex social systems of our country and communities.

In essence, it becomes unthinkable to terrorize those whom you have learned, in your formative years, to understand, protect, and provide for. Students see themselves in others because they have learned that every human being shares the same basic needs.

By embedding problem-solving exercises into the human ecology program, fostering peer collaboration, and encouraging reflection on personal and social obstacles, students practice coping strategies and empathy in safe, structured settings. This comprehensive approach ensures that the curriculum does not merely teach practical life skills but actively cultivates resilience, self-awareness, and critical thinking—the psychological and social competencies that can reduce vulnerability to extremist recruitment.

Research indicates that a large majority of interpersonal communication is nonverbal, with some estimates suggesting around 80 percent of communicative impact comes from nonverbal cues (such as facial expressions, posture, and tone) rather than words. Social mobility and professionalism are advanced by understanding how personal presentation, gestures, etiquette, social protocols, and cultural differences are perceived and practiced, fostering positive interactions.

To further illustrate the effectiveness of life skills education in violence prevention, international examples can be instructive. UNESCO, WHO, and OECD frameworks emphasize social and emotional learning, conflict resolution, and civic engagement as part of comprehensive life skills curricula. Pilot programs in countries like Finland, Denmark, and New Zealand have integrated personal and social skills development alongside academic subjects, resulting in measurable improvements in students’ resilience, empathy, and social cohesion. These examples demonstrate that having a human ecology program in schools is not only theoretically sound but also has practical precedent, reinforcing its potential as a preventive strategy against extremism across diverse educational contexts.

In conclusion, the CoVE model demonstrates that violent extremism emerges not from ideology alone but from the interaction of ideology with unresolved personal grievances. Human ecology programs directly address these vulnerabilities by equipping students with essential life skills, social and emotional learning, and practical knowledge for navigating complex personal and social environments. By fostering empathy, responsible decision-making, and resilience, human ecology reduces susceptibility to extremist narratives while supporting individual well-being.

If widely adopted in K–14 public schools, human ecology programs would make these psychosocial and practical competencies universal, helping cultivate a more equitable, connected, and resilient society. For this reason, life skills education must be as core to schooling as math, science, and history. In a world shaped by rapid social change and instability, education focused solely on professional training is no longer sufficient; preparing students for the complete realities of human life is essential to sustaining a healthy, stable, and democratic nation.

Spotting Conspiracy Talk: A Linguistic Guide for the Digital Age

Editor’s Note: This article, by nature of the topic, may include language that is considered sensitive and/or vulgar to some readers.

While we may be most familiar with modern-day conspiracy theories about government intelligence, unidentified flying objects, anti-vaccination, COVID-19, and more, conspiracy theories have existed for centuries.

In July of AD 64, the great fire of Rome destroyed two-thirds of the city-state—which had a population of around 2 million—resulting in widespread death and homelessness. Despite several contributing factors such as intense summer heat, dry winds, and the prevalence of wooden houses, various conspiracy theories emerged, ranging from Emperor Nero “deliberately” starting the fire to “blaming” the Christian community for it.

When the fire began, Nero was in a different city altogether, leading to claims that he had conspired to bring about the catastrophe to rebuild Rome. Coincidentally, the Domus Aurea, an extravagant palatial project, was constructed on a portion of the ruins, which fueled conspiracy theories about his alleged involvement, despite evidence that he also supported relief efforts. In turn, Nero placed the blame on Christians, resulting in the crucifixion and burning alive of many from the religious community. There is also evidence that some Christians believed in prophecies about a forthcoming catastrophic fire in Rome at the time.

While the actual cause of this infernal disaster remains unproven, it illustrates how conspiracy narratives can arise from social crises. Psychologically, fear and uncertainty can be strong motivators, and conspiracy theories empower people by filling a knowledge gap. Socially, tribalism and in-group/out-group tendencies may also contribute to the birth of such theories; a united front can foster a sense of control. These psychosocial explanations reveal that we want to feel in control, and information is power.

Conspiracy in the Digital Age

Unlike in Ancient Rome, our everyday interactions with cyberspace make it easy to access and spread information. Now, more than two decades into the rise of Web 2.0, it might be assumed that social media has led to an increase in conspiracy theories and in the number of people who believe in them, but this may not necessarily be the case. Although evidence is mixed on whether social media has caused a population-wide increase in conspiracy beliefs over time, multiple studies show that people who rely heavily on social media for news are more likely to endorse conspiracy theories than those who do not. A 2022 multi-study report in the journal PLOS One still cautions “not to dismiss the availability of conspiracy theories online, the large numbers of people who believe in some conspiracy theories, or the potential consequences of those beliefs.”

Researcher Keith Raymond Harris echoes this concern in a 2022 article in the Conversation, arguing that even with “very small numbers of true believers [in conspiracy theories], the high visibility of these false ideas can still make them dangerous.” Step Together, an Australian support service committed to ending violent extremism, cautions that the dangers of conspiracy theories include provoking social conflict, increasing prejudices, spreading fear, and eroding trust.

Given the accessibility and visibility of information that the internet affords us, we need to develop digital media literacy that empowers us with critical thinking tools to evaluate the credibility of information.

What Exactly is a Conspiracy Theory?

Before learning how to identify a conspiracy theory, it is important to understand what it is and is not. While the term “conspiracy theory” may sometimes be used in a generic sense to describe a false narrative that promotes misinformation or disinformation, such as fake news, this is an overgeneralized and inaccurate description.

For one, conspiracies can be real or unreal. The Watergate scandal is an oft-cited example of a government conspiracy that did take place.

Michael Shermer, science historian and educator, in distinguishing between conspiracy and conspiracy theory, defines a conspiracy as “two or more people plotting or acting in secret to gain an advantage or to harm others immorally or illegally” and a conspiracy theory as “a structured belief about a conspiracy, whether it’s real or not.”

A 2022 meta-analysis of conspiracy theories in online spaces characterizes these beliefs as “unique epistemological accounts that refute official accounts and instead propose alternative explanations of events or practices by referring to individuals or groups acting in secret.”

More broadly, conspiracy theories are a social phenomenon that uses narrative to explain events, often amid a societal crisis. As humans, we have a proclivity for narrative; we use stories to teach, inform, and explore—not just to entertain. Essentially, they are a device we use to understand ourselves, our experiences, and our surroundings. A 2018 study published in the journal Topics in Cognitive Science explains that “the specific adaptive value of storytelling lies in making sense of non‐routine, uncertain, or novel situations.” The team of researchers further posits that storytelling is not merely an adaptive activity but also a collective activity, “promoting social cohesion by strengthening intra‐group identity and clarifying intergroup relations.”

Expanding on this component of intergroup relations, Jan-Willem van Prooijen, a behavioral scientist, argues in an article for the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) that societal crises do not solely drive the spread of conspiracy theories. He reasons that it is easier to find an explanation in the midst of a crisis by identifying a scapegoat, such as an “antagonistic outgroup.”

Accordingly, conspiracy theories can be understood as a narrative genre that supports people’s attempts to make sense of an event, especially one shrouded in uncertainty, and often operates in parallel to strengthen social bonds.

Linguistic Features of Conspiracy Theories

Many academic disciplines, including political science, psychology, and sociology, study conspiracy theories to better understand why they are created, how they spread, and how they affect society. Concomitantly, linguistic research offers insight into the language characteristics of this phenomenon, examining a broad spectrum of features, from smaller units of language, such as words, to larger units, such as narrative and discursive patterns.

One tool that linguists use to study language is a corpus. This is a database of text, spoken or written, that is representative but not all-inclusive of naturally occurring language. An example in the context of conspiracy theories is the Language of Conspiracy (LOCO) corpus, an 88-million-word corpus developed by a group of scholars to aid researchers in studying features of conspiratorial language on the internet.

As LOCO’s creators explain in a 2022 article in the journal Behavior Research Methods, while the corpus is a collection of documents from conspiracy websites, “we do not yet know what the language of conspiracy is, i.e., to what extent conspiracy language differs from non-conspiracy language.” It’s important to keep in mind that we can’t make definitive claims that a theory is conspiratorial based on the presence of certain linguistic features. Still, we can use that information, which is heavily context-dependent, to say if it’s typically characteristic of conspiratorial language.

Recognizing Loaded Language

Perhaps one of the easiest linguistic features to spot in conspiracy theories is the presence of strong emotional or persuasive language, which researchers Emily Klein and James Hendler aptly call “loaded language.”

Studies of social media have found that conspiratorial language centers around negative emotions. Words that signal anger (e.g., “hate,” “kill,” and “annoyed”) and anxiety (e.g., “worried” and “fearful”) were shown to be significantly more prevalent in a 2024 study that analyzed a 4-million-word dataset of conspiracy discussions collected from Reddit and X, formerly known as Twitter. Similar results were found in Amos Fong et al.’s 2021 study, which analyzed data from influencers (conspiracists and scientists) and their followers on the X platform. Words representing anger (e.g., “damn” and “hell”) were used more often by conspiracy influencers and their followers. Words representing anxiety (e.g., “threat” and “horror”) were used more by conspiracy influencers, though this pattern did not extend to their followers.

Dysphemisms also reflect the intensity of loaded language. On a spectrum of offensiveness, euphemisms are considered more polite, while dysphemisms are ruder. Klein and Hendler exemplify this with the word “die.” Placing this neutral word in the middle of a spectrum, “pass away” is a common euphemism, and “drop dead” is an example of a dysphemism. Their 2022 study found that dysphemisms about death were used significantly more in anti-vaccination discussions compared to vaccination-neutral posts in online parenting platforms.

Klein and Hendler’s study distinguishes “thought-terminating clichés,” a type of reply that acts to stop any further discussion, as another prominent characteristic of conspiracy-focused language. These types of replies imply that the speaker wants to change the current topic of conversation or end it altogether. Some examples of thought-terminating clichés from their research are “anyway,” “agree to disagree,” “it is what it is,” and “everything happens for a reason.” In emotionally charged conspiracy theory contexts, these are used as a persuasive strategy to convince the listener that further analysis or discussion of the matter is unnecessary.

Identifying Themes of Power and Death

When we examine language at a broader level, we begin to identify discursive themes. These are overarching topics that permeate a text, and they can be interpreted through measures like word frequency and “keyness” (how unusual or unique a word is in certain types of discourse).

In the context of conspiracy language, themes of death and power come forward. Fong et al.’s 2021 study found themes of death (“dead,” “killed,” and “war”), religion (“God,” “Jesus,” and “Muslim”), and power (“government,” “military,” and “president”); both conspiracy influencers and their followers showed significantly higher use of words within these themes. As the team reasoned, these results are consistent with familiar themes of conspiracy theories: Many of these theories center around the killing of large numbers of people or the death of a well-known figure, and they place blame on powerful elites or religious groups.

Likewise, Cosgrove and Bahr’s 2024 study of conspiratorial language on the X platform and Reddit showed that conspiratorial discussions contained significantly higher rates of words that are related to death and power. However, their study found no significant differences in words associated with religion.

Of these themes, power is arguably the most important to watch for, as it is a cardinal element of conspiracy theorizing: a belief that a group in power has caused or acted in a harmful event.

Understanding Disorganized Narratives

Finally, in stepping out to yet another broader level of language, we can look at story- and argument-building: how themes and topics are woven together to create narratives. Logically speaking, we want narratives to be balanced and well-organized, with clear explanations and transitions so that the audience can follow along easily.

In a 2022 LOCO corpus study in Science Advances, led by Alessandro Miani et al., conspiracy narratives were shown to be less internally cohesive than non-conspiracy narratives. Specifically, the text from conspiracy documents was less cohesive within a document (more topics discussed and less word overlap among paragraphs), yet more cohesive with other conspiracy documents (more overlapping vocabulary patterns). That is, conspiratorial texts may appear denser because they assemble and discuss a greater number of topics, but are less cohesive in building a logical, easy-to-follow argument.

Miani continued research on conspiracy narratives in another study published in 2024. Using the same LOCO corpus, the team focused on creativity rather than cohesion, analyzing noun compounds (groups of two or more nouns). As a PsyPost article summarizing the study explains, noun compounds, such as “climate change” and “government surveillance,” “encapsulate broad concepts in a compact form.” This linguistic construction is creative and complex because it can convey a wide range of ideas in a relatively short space (a two- or three-word snippet compared to a sentence or a paragraph). While the study found no difference overall in the creativity of conspiracy texts compared to non-conspiracy texts, it did find that the noun compounds in conspiratorial narratives were more “semantically distant” but less topically diverse.

To summarize, some linguistic features of conspiracy theorizing include loaded language, themes of death and power, and disorganized narratives. But identifying conspiratorial language is no simple task. As such, research into this complex phenomenon is still unfolding.

A 2021 report by the RAND Corporation, a nonpartisan public policy research organization, highlights the complexity of conspiratorial language and offers one recommendation for future study: we need to look beyond semantics (what words mean) to the larger picture of rhetoric (overall persuasiveness). In addressing some of the current challenges in machine-learning identification of conspiracy theories, the report states that including analysis of rhetoric (what they refer to as linguistic stance, conveyed through variables such as certainty, reasoning, curiosity, etc.) is key in moving from the identification of “talk that opposes or simply addresses” to “talk that promotes conspiracy theories.”

Another finding of the RAND report addresses the complexity of research on in-group/out-group language. Following the earlier discussion that conspiracy theories can, in part, be driven by in-group/out-group social divides, we might hypothesize that “we/us” versus “they/them” language would indicate conspiracy. However, the report explains that these pronouns may not always be used in an antisocial way. In-group/out-group language patterns are more nuanced. The 2021 study, led by Fong, found no significant differences in out-group language (e.g., “they/them” pronouns) between conspiracy and science influencers, but it did find that conspiracy followers’ use of out-group language was significantly higher than that of science followers.

Building a Digital Media Literacy Tool Kit

So where do we go from here? With the proliferation of information in digital environments comes a greater need for building robust media literacy. It is not just conspiracy theories that demand healthy skepticism, but communication with the power to spread misinformation, disinformation, and fake news.

We rely on trustworthy information to make decisions and navigate our world, and in the 21st century, this means learning to evaluate digital media effectively. A 2024 article by the American Psychological Association recommends a four-part strategy: debunking (fact-checking), prebunking (preventive interventions), literacy training (media judgment education), and nudging (deterring people from spreading misinformation). While they acknowledge that this strategy sidesteps the responsibility of systems and institutions, its benefit lies in giving individuals the agency to consume, judge, and act upon information as they see fit.

Several organizations have published educational resources for assessing information in the digital age. In 2022, UNESCO published guidelines for educators as part of its “Pause” social media campaign responding to COVID-19 conspiracy theories. Libraries also offer guidance on information way-finding, from universities like the University of Toronto to local libraries like the Enoch Pratt Free Library in Baltimore, Maryland. Among these guidelines are resources for fact-checking, example questions for investigating author credibility and potential source bias, reminders to consider your own beliefs, and more.

The following are three acronymic strategies for evaluating the trustworthiness of information online. Consider choosing one that resonates with you most to add to your digital media literacy tool kit:

1. SIFT

The SIFT method was created by Mike Caulfield, an expert in digital literacy, as a four-step process for sifting through online information. Stop to consider your initial reaction as well as what you may (or may not) already know about the topic and source of the information before reading further. Investigate the source of the information by evaluating the author/poster/organization’s mission, authority, potential biases, and any vested interests. Find better coverage: do other sources corroborate or contradict the information? Trace information to its source. This includes checking links or consulting bibliographic references to see whether the information has been presented accurately per its original context. Caulfield points out that this strategy is vital not just for our own information-sifting but as an ethics-forward method to follow before sharing information with others (for example, reposting via social media).

2. CRAAP

The CRAAP test for assessing information was developed by librarian Sarah Blakeslee at California State University, Chico. In the words of Blakeslee, it’s a helpful mnemonic for asking, “Is this CRAAP?” In cases where events are evolving or unfolding in real time, information should be current: is it recent and up to date? Make sure the information is relevant to answering your question. The key here is to refine your search until you find information that is most applicable, instead of settling for close enough. Verify the source’s authority by checking credentials and expertise. Evaluate the accuracy of information; it should be both factual and correctly interpreted. And lastly, question the purpose of the information: Is it biased? What are the motives behind circulating this information?

3. IMVA/IN

The IMVA/IN method from Stony Brook University’s Center for News Literacy is designed for evaluating information from news media. Sources of information should be impartial; be wary of sources with a vested interest in the outcome. Review multiple sources to compare how they represent information. Look for verification of information rather than assertions that lack evidence. Authoritative/informed sources, such as an expert, are more reliable than their non-authoritative counterparts. Generally speaking, named sources foster more credibility than unnamed sources; however, this must be balanced with cases that require or call for anonymity.

When it comes to building a toolbox for recognizing conspiratorial language, it’s more about developing a critical approach rather than an impossibly perfect lie detector test. We can use our judgment of specific linguistic features, combined with their context, as a catalyst for further investigation. As Stephan Lewandowsky and John Cook state in The Conspiracy Theory Handbook, “conventional thinking that values healthy skepticism, evidence, and consistency are necessary ingredients to uncovering real attempts to deceive the public.” This is the same approach we should take with language that seems conspiratorial.

What Makes a Good Online Video Ad: How Brands Grab Your Attention

There is no escaping them. Brand videos follow us from our Instagram feed to Netflix queue, from elevator screens to gas pump displays. What was once confined to commercial breaks has now infiltrated every corner of our daily lives, turning every moment into a potential marketing opportunity.

As of January 2026, 91 percent of businesses use marketing videos, and it is expected to account for more than 82 percent of all online traffic for the year. This isn’t just about slick visuals—there’s a deliberate strategic process designed to make us watch, react, and absorb the message. Behind every brand video lie the tools of audience psychology, A/B testing, and research on a person’s viewing habits. Good marketers find an individual’s emotional triggers, learn when they are likely to skip, and know precisely how long they have to hook them. This is ​​engineered persuasion packaged as content, and it’s reshaping how we think and what we buy.

Every brand video is the product of a sophisticated assembly line that begins months or years before viewers see it. Creative teams brainstorm concepts while data scientists analyze a person’s demographic profile. Copywriters craft scripts, and algorithms determine the optimal video length for our attention span. Directors shoot multiple versions, while tech teams build the delivery infrastructure that serves the content directly to our devices.

Yet the real work starts only after the viewer hits the “play” button. After that, every second, every pause, and every replay are tracked and fed back into an intricate data system that shapes the next campaign. Did viewers click through to the website? Viewers’ behavior around that call to action becomes data points influencing how the brand targets similar viewers. A video isn’t just content—it’s a collection tool that will make the next video even more persuasive.

The Big Idea: From Marketing Goal to Video Concept

The modern brand video is a result of creativity and surveillance, both focused on turning our attention into action.

Defining the purpose involves clarifying whether the primary goal is to raise awareness about an issue, educate a particular audience on a topic or skills, or persuade them to take a specific action or adopt a particular viewpoint. This foundational decision will shape every aspect of a communication strategy, from the tone and depth of the content to the metrics that will measure success. Each purpose requires different approaches to effectively reach and resonate with the target audience.

A classic example of a company following this method is Dollar Shave Club’s viral launch video from 2012, in which former CEO Michael Dubin stated the company’s goal with humorous, no-nonsense messaging. It inspired immediate sign-ups by making buying simple and fun, proving that a company’s mission and personality can drive action better than traditional ads. The video shows the product’s benefits without jargon, and the call to action is simple and memorable, encouraging viewers to visit the website and sign up immediately.

The next step is developing the original brief for a video project. A creative brief serves as the essential bridge between marketing objectives and executable content. It distills strategic goals, target-audience insights, and key messaging into a clear, actionable document that guides the script and production teams. By translating abstract marketing goals into concrete creative directions—including tone, visual style, messaging priorities, and success metrics—the brief ensures that all stakeholders are aligned and empowers creative teams to develop content that serves both artistic vision and business objectives.

Even the shortest videos should be built on a structured narrative, with setup, conflict, and resolution. Stories create emotional engagement, transforming passive viewers into invested audiences who remember the message and act on it. Storyboarding, a series of drawings reflecting the visual narrative, ensures that every shot serves the emotional progression. By meticulously planning each shot, from camera angles to character blocking, creators ensure that every visual moment contributes to the story’s expressive journey. Such detailed foresight is vital for maintaining a consistent tone and pacing, allowing the filmmakers to control the audience’s experience and evoke specific feelings at precise moments. Instead of leaving the emotional impact to chance, storyboards rehearse and control the entire narrative.

This detailed planning process facilitates clear communication among the production team. When every team member can see and understand the intent of each frame, collaboration becomes more efficient. This shared vision prevents costly detours during production and postproduction by locking the flow in early. Ultimately, storyboarding ensures the development of a seamless final product where the visuals are not just decorative but essential narrative tools.

The Script and the Science of Storytelling

The science of marketing video scripts begins with the critical first five seconds, where successful campaigns deploy visuals to break through the noise and capture fleeting attention spans. Once viewers are hooked, the most effective videos leverage humanity’s neurological preference for plot over data. Our brains are inherently wired for narrative: they process and retain information within the context of a story far more effectively than when being fed isolated data points. This phenomenon is known as the “narrative bias.”

Statistics appeal to our analytical minds, requiring conscious effort to interpret and retain; however, a story taps directly into our emotions. When we hear about a real-life struggle, the discovery of a solution, and the ultimate resolution, our brains light up in ways that they simply do not when presented with a bar graph or a spreadsheet.

This engaging format makes the given information more relatable, memorable, and persuasive, turning the listener into an active participant in the story more than a passive recipient of data. According to the University of Utah Health, “Humans are hard-wired for stories. They tug at our hearts, capture our imaginations, and help us filter the flood of information that rains down on us daily—including all those conflicting accounts about the latest wonder drug or new dangers linked to our favorite foods.”

In the video format, brand values subtly shape the dialogue and marketing message by filtering all creative decisions. A brand that values environmental protection, for example, will incorporate natural color palettes, sustainable product imagery, and a tone of voice that is calm and respectful of nature, avoiding fast-paced, high-consumption messaging. In contrast, a brand centered on innovation might use dynamic editing, futuristic graphics, and language that emphasizes cutting-edge technology and speed. These consistent, value-driven choices create a cohesive narrative that resonates with the target audience on an emotional level, building trust and recognition long before a product’s features are discussed.

Lights, Camera, and Algorithms: The Production Phase

Production is where creative vision meets technical precision, and every choice shapes how a story resonates with its audience. While filming basics—such as well-placed lighting, crisp sound, and intentional set design—establishes the tone and professionalism of the content, the rise of motion graphics, animation, and mixed-media storytelling adds new layers of dynamism and visual appeal. At the same time, accessibility features such as captions, alternate text, and thoughtful sound mixing are no longer optional—they’re essential for inclusivity and audience reach.

Yet beneath the artistry lies a constant balancing act: weighing cost against quality, deciding where to invest for maximum impact, and using technology to stretch production budgets without compromising the integrity of the final product. High-production-value videos demand significant investment in professional equipment, skilled crews, and postproduction, which can enhance brand credibility and engagement for complex narratives or brand awareness campaigns.

Conversely, lower-budget, “raw” content (like user-generated material or behind-the-scenes clips) can be produced quickly and cost-effectively, often leveraging its authenticity to elicit a relatable connection with audiences on platforms like TikTok and Instagram. The optimal approach is not to blindly pursue the highest quality, but to align the chosen production style with the intended purpose, ensuring a good return on investment by prioritizing clear storytelling and message effectiveness over unnecessary bells and whistles.

The Invisible Layer: Data and Targeting

The foundation of any successful branded video campaign rests on understanding your audience through data-driven research. By analyzing viewer demographics, interests, behavior patterns, and engagement history, brands can determine precisely who will see their content and tailor their messaging accordingly. This isn’t guesswork—it’s strategic positioning based on real insights. Once a business has identified its target audience, the next step is optimizing for discoverability through search engine optimization (SEO). Video titles, descriptions, and metadata should incorporate relevant keywords that the audience searches for to improve visibility across platforms. Search engines and platforms reward content with clear, keyword-rich information. A well-crafted title and description can be the difference between your video reaching thousands and having zero views. AIO, short for artificial intelligence optimization, focuses on getting content summarized and cited in AI Overviews and featured snippets, which often appear at the top of search results. In today’s digital-first marketing landscape, AIO is just as critical as SEO in content searchability and authority.

However, creating one video and distributing it everywhere is a recipe for mediocre performance. What works as a full-length YouTube tutorial will not work as a frenetic Instagram reel, just as a 15-second TikTok clip requires completely different pacing and energy than a LinkedIn thought leadership post. Astute brands create platform-specific clips that are tailored to each channel’s format, audience expectations, and algorithmic preferences.

Beyond organic reach, microtargeting and retargeting ads amplify reach by following interested viewers as they move across the internet. When someone watches a branded video or visits a website, pixel-based tracking enables the delivery of customized ads to that specific user on other platforms. The ability to do this with a target audience is the key to a successful marketing campaign. This strategic persistence keeps a brand top-of-mind and converts casual viewers into engaged customers, turning a single video touchpoint into a multi-platform journey.

Ads follow a person online through remarketing, which uses cookies to track their browsing activity and show them targeted ads on other websites. An external server, such as an advertising network, creates this third-party cookie. It stores a unique, anonymous ID that allows advertisers to track the individual’s activity, such as the pages viewed or the products added to a cart.

Advertisers then use this cookie data to identify the person’s browser across different sites within the same ad network. When they visit one of these other sites, the ad network can read the cookie, recognize the anonymous ID, and serve a targeted ad for the products or services previously viewed. This strategy is highly effective because it reengages users who have already shown interest, encouraging them to return and complete a purchase.

Distribution: Getting the Video in Front of You

Reaching your target audience with branded video requires a balanced approach that combines paid and organic channels. While organic reach provides cost-effective exposure, paid strategies like boosted posts, pre-roll ads, and sponsored placements guarantee visibility to larger, more targeted audiences when time is limited. Knowledgeable marketers combine both approaches, using organic channels as their base, and paid amplification to break through the noise and reach viewers who haven’t yet discovered them. To extend reach beyond their own channels, many brands partner with influencers and media outlets whose audiences align with their target market. These partnerships lend credibility and tap into existing communities, allowing branded content to feel more authentic and integrated rather than overtly promotional.

Distribution strategies, particularly those powered by real-time analytics, create a dynamic feedback loop that enables budget allocation to high-performing versions. By continuously monitoring performance metrics across different ad creatives, product placements, or marketing channels, businesses can instantly identify the variations that yield the highest engagement and conversion rates. This approach enables the automated or manual reallocation of resources from underperforming to successful elements. This real-time optimization process ensures that every dollar spent is maximized for impact, thereby refining overall performance and regularly maximizing return on investment.

Distribution success requires ongoing attention and optimization, as market dynamics, customer behavior, and competitive landscapes will continue to evolve after the initial deployment. Continuous monitoring of performance metrics, gathering customer feedback, and adapting strategies are critical to maintaining relevance and effectiveness. A/B testing different video edits, thumbnails, audience segments, and headlines throughout a campaign allows brands to identify what resonates with their audience.

After the Click: Measuring Success

Some marketers will say that the real work of video promotion happens after viewers hit the play button. To understand whether your video really worked, focus on the metrics that matter most. Click-through and completion rates reveal how many people watched and for how long, engagement metrics show where audiences clicked, commented, or shared, and conversions demonstrate the ultimate business impact. Heat maps and retention graphs offer deeper insights into audience behavior, pinpointing the exact moments when viewers drop off or lean in closer, demonstrating essential viewer activity.

Using this data to drive continuous improvement allows an individual or business to refine their messaging, pacing, and storytelling for the following video. When analytics directly shape creative decisions, institutional knowledge starts to develop.

The Human Factor: Why Some Videos Resonate

In today’s digital landscape, the human factor is finding the delicate balance between creative authenticity and data-driven strategy. While data can provide valuable insights into audience demographics and engagement metrics, it is the genuine content that builds trust. Brands are increasingly finding that in an era of overproduced content, a more natural, less conventional approach helps establish a strong digital profile and create a deeper connection with viewers.

Brand videos that go viral for the “right” reasons typically feature emotional storytelling, humor, social utility, or an awe-inspiring concept that encourages positive sharing and strengthens brand image. The right content helps brands build a strong digital presence, offering a natural and low-cost way to establish brand reputation and engage with users. The combination of a strong message and a data-informed distribution strategy is essential for a video to not only capture attention but also maintain it by fostering a lasting relationship with its audience.

Hitting Play, Looking Ahead

The next time you engage with a compelling brand story, you will have a new appreciation for the comprehensive effort that goes into it. It is this shift in perspective that allows the audience to appreciate the authentic effort and creative process involved in video production, beyond the final polished product. By offering a peek into the process, such as through behind-the-scenes footage, brands can humanize their operations and build a stronger, more transparent connection with consumers.

This approach helps viewers see the passion, care, and technical skill that goes into the work, transforming a potentially transactional viewing experience into one that inspires trust and genuine engagement. Reframing can change the audience’s focus from a simple sales pitch to an appreciation of the brand’s personality, values, and the real people who bring its story to life. For videos to truly go viral for the right reasons, they must move beyond shock value to create impact. This can be achieved when content feels genuine and resonates with an audience on a human level.

Video marketing is a strategic discipline far beyond simple production. It effectively blends creativity and data to achieve its goals. The success of any video lies in this powerful mix of art, psychology, and technology—a combination that both captures attention and drives the fast-paced digital world forward.

The Hidden Crisis: How America Fails to Protect Its Children

[Editor’s Note: This article is the first installment of “Does Your Community Care About Children?”, a four-part series by Colin Greer and Reynard Loki. The series examines overlapping crises facing vulnerable youth in America—and the opportunities to create systems of care, safety, and empowerment. At its heart lies a moral and civic question: Does your community care about children? Subsequent articles will explore the juvenile justice system, health, and poverty, as well as solutions through coordinated public-private investment in education, employment, and care. Together, these pieces connect structural failures with practical, value-driven strategies, offering a call to responsibility, compassion, and collective action for a more just future.]

There’s an invisible emergency in America: children toil in slaughterhouses, factories, and fields—night and day, unseen, unprotected, and endangered. A century ago, reforms such as compulsory schooling and restrictions on child labor marked a historic advance, shielding children from exploitation—a model still emulated worldwide. Yet today, austerity budgets, systemic neglect, and the ideology of “rugged individualism” are eroding those protections.

Child labor violations surged 31 percent between 2019 and 2024, according to the Department of Labor. Millions of children rely on federal programs for basic sustenance. In 2023, around 15.6 million children participated in SNAP, which provides monthly food benefits to low-income households. It is a paltry sum: In 2025, SNAP participants got an estimated $187 per month (approximately $6.16 per day) in benefits. Additionally, 41 percent of the recipients of the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children were infants in 2024. This program protects the health of pregnant and postpartum women, infants, and children under 5 years of age who are at nutritional risk. Some children are literally without homes, sleeping in shelters, cars, or on the streets, making the invisible emergency painfully visible.

Politicians and the media routinely proclaim their devotion to “saving children,” yet much of this is merely moral theater. Underfunded government agencies, weak oversight, and patchwork enforcement mean institutions designed to protect youth often enable their greatest suffering. Across these systems, a typical pattern emerges: children are valued less than institutions, profits, or political convenience.

We therefore ask a simple yet urgent question: Does your community care about children? In this context, “community” is not an abstraction—it is the network of towns, cities, neighborhoods, and local organizations whose daily decisions determine whether children are protected or placed at risk. Communities can influence, and sometimes counteract, national and state policies through local action, oversight, and innovation. Their choices can shape the conditions of childhood as much as any federal law.

Institutional Abuse and Neglect

From foster care to immigration detention, systems meant to protect children often do the opposite. Foster care, religious institutions, immigration, the justice system, and other establishments commodify and criminalize childhood, showing patterns of systemic harm rather than isolated failures.

Foster care: Nearly 350,000 children were in state custody in 2024, according to the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System, yet many face instability instead of safety. Thousands experience repeated moves, with more than a third undergoing three or more placements annually. High foster family turnover, caregiver burnout, and resource gaps force many into specialized group homes.

Placing children in unsafe or unstable environments resulted in more than 20,000 foster youth being reported missing in 2022, according to a federal report. The “systemic failure” of the foster care system is apparent, with one out of five of those who ran away likely becoming victims of sex trafficking, according to a Forbes article.

Youth aging out of care are particularly vulnerable to homelessness. Supporting youth through these critical transitions helps prevent them from falling through the cracks in the system.

Religious and athletic institutions: Decades of reporting reveal widespread sexual abuse in the Catholic Church and USA Gymnastics, with victims silenced and perpetrators shielded to protect reputations. The systems meant to protect and nurture children instead allow the perpetuation of these crimes. When an organization’s public image outweighs its responsibility, children suffer the most.

Immigration detention: Policies such as family separations, poor record-keeping, and overcrowded facilities create trauma for those detained, demonstrating how the system’s design perpetuates harm. U.S. Government Accountability Office and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) reports document thousands of separations, with more than 2,500 children affected in 2018. A 2024 study conducted by Harvard FXB/Harvard Global Health, along with other organizations, revealed that of 165 children detained at Karnes County Family Residential Center between 2018 and 2020, who underwent prolonged detention—with a median duration of 43 days, often under unsafe and unsanitary conditions—experienced significant harm to their mental and physical health, including under-recognized chronic health conditions and trauma. Children are cataloged like property, their identities misplaced or erased.

Justice system inconsistencies: Criminal liability and statutory rape laws vary widely, demonstrating the arbitrary valuation of childhood. Several U.S. states, including Florida, Alaska, and Pennsylvania, have no minimum age for prosecuting children as adults—and in some documented cases, very young children have been sent to adult criminal court. Others fail to protect adolescents from sexual coercion.

Exposure to gun violence compounds these inequities: more than 2,500 children died from firearms in 2023, with tens of thousands injured. In fact, the 2024 Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health report states that firearms were the leading cause of death among children and teens, with such deaths increasing by 106 percent since 2013. Each mass shooting produces the same cycle of outrage and legislative inaction, with lobbying often outweighing concern for young lives.

Poverty-driven child labor: Economic desperation forces children into slaughterhouses, factories, and fields. Violations surged in 2021 and 2022, disproportionately affecting marginalized communities. Children are living evidence of institutional neglect: when survival becomes labor, innocence becomes a luxury.

These are not isolated failures—they form a single moral pattern: children are treated as expendable whenever profit, politics, or convenience demand it. Each institution tells the same story in a different language, reflecting a society that celebrates innocence while systematically eroding it.

Child Labor in the Shadows

Beyond institutional neglect, economic exploitation drives children into hazardous labor. Globally, millions face preventable risks. In the U.S., industries are increasingly relying on minors for low-wage work, particularly as immigration restrictions tighten. Florida lawmakers proposed lowering the minimum working age to 14 in 2025. Meanwhile, six states—Alabama, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, and West Virginia—enacted laws in 2024 weakening child labor protections.

Minors work in construction, meatpacking, agriculture, and domestic labor under grueling conditions, jeopardizing health, education, and long-term opportunity. Many work overnight or perform dangerous tasks, leaving them exhausted and vulnerable to accidents, exploitation, or trafficking. Homeless youth face amplified risk as the urgency to earn limits supervision and increases exposure to predators.

According to Human Rights Watch, child farmworkers such as the 15‑year-old pseudonymous ‘Ana Z.’ have described juggling school and working long hours harvesting on commercial farms. This burden often leaves them exhausted and undermines their education. Ana is not an exception; her circumstances reflect the gaps in protections for vulnerable youth nationwide.

Drivers of hidden child labor are complex: deregulation, weak enforcement, and corporate lobbying combine with family crises—poverty, unstable housing, or foster placements—pushing children into labor as a survival strategy. This cycle limits opportunities and perpetuates vulnerability.

Child labor in the shadows is a societal symptom: when children are treated as instruments of economic necessity rather than as humans with rights and potential, childhood becomes a commodity. Addressing these dangers requires more than enforcement; it demands a holistic approach integrating stable housing, educational support, and community-based oversight.

Paths to Protection

Preventing child harm requires sustained investment in prevention, stable placements, and systemic accountability. Community-based oversight—encompassing local review boards, youth councils, and family advocates—ensures that institutions cannot hide neglect or exploitation. Independent hotlines and watchdog agencies enable investigations to be conducted free from political interference.

Federal accountability and funding are essential. In 2023, Rebecca Jones Gaston, then-commissioner of the Administration on Children, Youth and Families at HHS, testified to the U.S. Senate:

“Our focus on prevention includes increasing supports and services, such as funding mental health programs and substance use treatment and recovery, for children, parents, and families before they are in crisis. I hear routinely from youth and families that have experienced the child welfare system that many of their families could have stayed safely together if support for their housing, child care, mental health, substance use services, and/or other concrete needs had been met.”

International examples highlight effective prevention: In Norway, the Family House model integrates education, health care, and counseling to keep families stable. New Zealand’s Oranga Tamariki combines oversight by the Māori people with state care, striking a balance between accountability and cultural autonomy.

Funding prevention requires innovation. Blended public-private investment can finance mentorship programs, mental health care, nutrition, and family support. School-based health coverage ensures access to medical care. Educational work opportunities complement schooling. Mentorship networks offer guidance, dignity, and a sense of belonging.

Government policies should protect children at transitional moments—aging out of foster care at 18, and after college, when support systems vanish. Free state college access for foster youth and low-income students can help sustain development. Local experiments often scale nationally; the New Deal began in states before being implemented federally. Even when imperfect, programs need time to evolve and improve; adaptation, not abandonment, is the goal. Welfare reform is about improving systems, not eliminating them. The purpose is enduring: ensuring every child has the conditions for a full, safe, and dignified childhood.

From Awareness to Action

Awareness is meaningful only if it sparks action. Stability, safety, and care are fundamental rights, not privileges. The 31 percent increase in child labor violations represents thousands of children whose potential is compromised—a societal pattern in which profit, politics, and convenience outweigh human life.

Communities should invest in prevention, oversight, and housing stability to support long-term well-being and overall health. Institutions responsible for child welfare need to be transparent, enforceable, and empowered. Effective protection encompasses cultural understanding and community leadership, offering universal school health coverage, supportive educational and work opportunities, mentorship and community support, resistance to austerity cuts, and support for foster youth during transitions. Programs should be improved when lacking, not rejected.

From children toiling in fields and factories to those without a safe place to sleep, the failure to protect youth reflects a moral crisis. Awareness is only the first step. Confronting this invisible emergency demands a sustained, community-wide commitment if a secure childhood is to be protected as a right, not a privilege. The guiding question remains urgent: Does your community care about children?

Declining Reading Habits Threaten U.S. Democracy and Social Connection

The United States is in the grip of a reading recession—nearly half of Americans didn’t read a single book in 2023, and fewer than half read even one, according to data from YouGov and the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). Since the early 2000s, leisure reading has plunged by nearly 40 percent, a decline mirrored in falling reading scores and broader academic performance. What is at stake is not merely how people spend their free time, but a deeper erosion of the habits that sustain knowledge, empathy, and democratic life.

Decades of research show that the advantages of reading are both wide-ranging and profound. Regular engagement with books strengthens cognition, vocabulary, emotional intelligence, and empathy. These cognitive and social gains are closely linked to higher academic achievement, improved career prospects, greater economic stability, and increased civic engagement. Reading is one of the few activities that consistently bridges social divides—strengthening communities, encouraging civic participation, and sustaining democracy.

“The most important contribution of the invention of written language to the species is a democratic foundation for critical, inferential reasoning and reflective capacities,” writes cognitive neuroscientist and reading researcher Maryanne Wolf in her 2018 book Reader, Come Home. “If we in the 21st century are to preserve a vital collective conscience, we must ensure that all members of our society are able to read and think both deeply and well. … And we will fail as a society if we do not recognize and acknowledge the capacity for reflective reasoning in those who disagree with us.”

Literacy at Its Peak

Understanding the stakes of deep literacy today invites a look back at a time when reading was more than a pastime. More than a century ago, American writer and minister Gerald Stanley Lee captured reading’s transformative power in The Lost Art of Reading (1904): “The novel which gives itself to one to be breathed and lived… is the one which ‘gets a man somewhere’ most of all.”

Often described as America’s “golden age of reading,” the mid-20th century was a period when print media dominated daily life and literacy was widely cultivated across generations, supported by robust libraries, vibrant print journalism, and school curricula that treated reading as a central pillar of cultural participation.

According to NEA surveys, in the late 1940s, roughly 56–57 percent of adults read novels, short stories, poetry, or plays for pleasure. Daily newspaper readership was high, with about 65 percent of adults subscribing to or regularly reading newspapers, according to historical data from the Pew Research Center, while magazines such as Life, Time, and Reader’s Digest reached tens of millions of households.

Children and adolescents also read frequently outside of school, with 60–70 percent engaging in daily or near-daily reading, sustained by libraries, schools, and family practices, according to the National Literacy Trust. The period also saw the rise of shared reading experiences—fueled by organizations like the Book-of-the-Month Club and the Literary Guild—which broadened access to new titles, shaped national reading tastes, and helped make communal reading a mainstream cultural pastime.

The Data of Decline

By the early 2000s, national surveys were already signaling a decline in leisure reading in the United States. The NEA’s 2007 report “Reading at Risk: To Read or Not to Read: A Question of National Consequence” found that only 46.7 percent of adults read literature for pleasure, down from 54 percent a decade earlier.

Subsequent NEA surveys confirmed that the proportion of adults reading 12 or more books per year continued to fall. Gallup polls also reported a decline in the number of books read per year, from an average of 15.6 in 2016 to 12.6 in 2021. Time-use data from the American Academy of Arts & Sciences also shows that the share of Americans reading more than 20 minutes a day for personal interest dropped from 22.3 percent in 2003 to 14.6 percent in 2023.

Reading habits in the U.S. vary sharply by community type, income, and education. According to Pew (2021) and Library Research Service (2022), adults with higher education and income levels are far more likely to read regularly, while a 2011 Pew survey shows that rural residents lag behind urban and suburban peers, with fewer adults reporting reading for pleasure in the past year. Pew’s 2011 research found that 80 percent of urban and suburban adults read at least one book in the prior year, compared with 71 percent of rural adults, with significantly higher reading rates among college-educated and higher-income Americans than among less-educated and lower-income groups, revealing unequal cultural divides.

A landmark 2025 study published in iScience underscores the cultural shift reflected in declining reading habits. Tracking 236,270 individuals over two decades (2003–2023), the study examined both personal reading and reading with children and found that the share of U.S. adults reading for personal interest on an average day fell from roughly 28 percent in 2004 to 16 percent in 2023—a drop of about 12 percentage points.

“This is not just a small dip—it’s a sustained, steady decline of about 3 percent per year. It’s significant and it’s deeply concerning,” Jill Sonke, PhD, study co-author and director of research initiatives at the University of Florida Center for Arts in Medicine, said in a release about the study.

The research reveals a measurable, persistent, and accelerating trend in specific communities. In many of these households, children also have limited exposure to shared reading at home, further compounding early literacy gaps.

“Reading has always been one of the more accessible ways to support well-being,” said Daisy Fancourt, Ph.D., study co-author and professor of psychology and epidemiology at University College London. “To see this kind of decline is concerning because the research is clear: Reading is a vital health-enhancing behavior for every group within society, with benefits across the life-course.”

Lifelong Reading, Lifelong Benefits

Reading is a powerful tool for brain health, supporting cognitive function and emotional well-being throughout life. A 2009 study by the University of Sussex found that just six minutes of reading a day can reduce stress levels by up to 68 percent—more than listening to music or taking a walk—as well as lowering heart rate, reducing muscle tension, and improving sleep.

A 2020 study in International Psychogeriatrics found that consistent reading habits among older adults are associated with slower cognitive decline—independent of education and other risk factors. What’s more, a 2016 Social Science & Medicine study reported that book readers had roughly a 20 percent lower risk of death than non-readers.

As early as the mid-1940s, librarians and clinicians were documenting the use of reading as a therapeutic tool—a practice that came to be known as “bibliotherapy.” Case histories published in Library Journal, along with reports from psychiatric hospitals and educational settings, document how carefully chosen books could aid emotional healing, foster insight, and support rehabilitation.

Bibliotherapy is now practiced worldwide in public, academic, and hospital settings and is increasingly used by therapists as a mental-health support tool. As a 2025 BBC Future article notes, “Carefully selected books can provide emotional relief and help readers navigate difficult feelings, offering insights that might be hard to access otherwise.” An influential 2016 study published in Frontiers in Psychology found that engaging with literary fiction activates brain networks involved in social cognition, allowing readers to simulate other people’s thoughts and feelings, even when controlling for age, education, and IQ. “When readers engage with literary fiction, they actively simulate the experiences of others, enabling the use of social‑cognitive capacities in a way that non‑fiction simply does not,” the study notes. “If we become a nation of non-critical, superficial, shallow-skimming non-readers, we have no chance to build the base of empathy, critical analysis, and rigorous knowledge that is imperative for our next generation,” Reader, Come Home author Wolf said in an interview with the UCLA School of Education & Information.

The benefits begin early: A 2024 Psychological Medicine study of over 10,000 American children found that those who read early scored higher on cognitive tests and fared better emotionally as they entered adolescence. Yet many kids are missing out: A 2025 HarperCollins UK study reports that only 41 percent of kids ages 0–4 are read to regularly—a drop from 64 percent in 2012. The researchers note that Gen Z parents—many of whom grew up in the digital age—are more likely to see reading as academic rather than enjoyable. Nearly 30 percent say reading is “more a subject to learn than a fun thing to do,” compared with 21 percent of Gen X parents—and kids are following their lead: According to the study, 29 percent of children ages 5–13 now say reading feels like schoolwork, up from 25 percent in 2012.

“It’s very concerning that many children are growing up without a happy reading culture at home,” said Alison David, Consumer Insight Director at Farshore and HarperCollins Children’s Books, in a release about the study. “Children who are read to daily are almost three times as likely to choose to read independently compared to children who are only read to weekly at home.”

Early disparities in reading habits often persist into adulthood: American high school seniors are reading at lower levels than they have in over two decades, according to the 2024 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) report, which reveals a continuing long-term decline.

Low-Literacy, High Stakes

The stakes extend far beyond the classroom. Lesley Muldoon, executive director of the National Assessment Governing Board, warns, “These students are taking their next steps in life with fewer skills and less knowledge in core academics than their predecessors a decade ago, and this is happening at a time when rapid advancements in technology and society demand more of future workers and citizens, not less.”

Analysis from the 2023 Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) reveals a “dwindling middle” in skill distribution, with more Americans clustering at the bottom levels of proficiency than in previous assessments. According to the study, the share of adults performing at the lowest literacy level rose from 19 percent in 2017 to 28 percent in 2023, and fewer than half of adults now reach the highest proficiency levels.

Low adult literacy is estimated to cost the U.S. economy $2.2 trillion annually, factoring in lost productivity, higher healthcare spending, and other social costs, according to a 2021 Adult Literacy and Learning Impact Network study, which reports that more than half of American adults read at Level 2 or below, and nearly 30 percent struggle with the most basic texts, limiting job opportunities and career growth.

The Rise of Digital Media

Such widespread literacy challenges don’t exist in a vacuum—they collide with a rapidly changing media environment that makes deep reading even harder to sustain. In today’s “attention economy,” digital platforms feast on Americans’ media appetite, serving a constant menu of bite-sized, algorithm-curated news and “infotainment” via phones, tablets, and streaming feeds. As more Americans turn to gig work and experience growing time scarcity, sustained reading is increasingly squeezed out by the low-effort pull of online streaming—according to Pew Research, roughly 83 percent of U.S. adults turn to online streaming, revealing how both shrinking leisure time and intense competition for attention are driving the decline.

Pew Research shows that 86 percent of Americans now get news digitally, while only 7 percent rely on print newspapers. According to Pew’s Social Media and News fact sheet, about 53–54 percent of U.S. adults report getting news from social platforms at least sometimes. Facebook (38 percent) and YouTube (35 percent) remain the leading news sources, followed by Instagram (20 percent), TikTok (17 percent), and X/Twitter (12 percent). Streaming has also become deeply embedded in American culture, with 83 percent of adults reporting use of streaming services.

Reading is no longer just a solitary pastime—it faces increased competition from online communities, social media, and other digital distractions. The mid-20th-century “middlebrow” culture, where book clubs, newspapers, and mass-market fiction created shared cultural touchstones, has largely faded. As Thomas Jefferson warned, “An informed citizenry is the only true repository of the public will,” and yet being “well-read” no longer carries the social prestige it once did; literacy and engagement with books are less visible markers of cultural participation, reducing the societal incentives to read deeply or widely. This dramatic migration to digital formats is not merely a change in medium—it is transforming the cognitive and social contexts in which information is interpreted. The combination of fast-paced digital formats, viral misinformation, and partisan echo chambers amplifies skepticism, making it harder for audiences to distinguish reliable reporting from opinion or disinformation.

A 2025 Gallup survey reveals that Americans’ confidence in mass media has plunged to a historic low—just 28 percent now say they have “a great deal” or “a fair amount” of trust in newspapers, TV, and radio to report news “fully, accurately and fairly.” The survey notes that when it began polling in the 1970s, trust ranged from 68 percent to 72 percent.

Screen-Inferiority Effect

The move from print to screens represents a fundamental change in how Americans encounter reading content, sharpening concerns about how people, especially students, process what they read—and where they read it.

A growing body of research suggests that reading on screens can undermine comprehension, attention, and deep engagement compared with print. This phenomenon, dubbed the “screen inferiority effect,” appears to stem from three key issues: cognitive overload (digital reading encourages multitasking and scrolling), a lack of spatial landmarks (print’s physical layout helps our brains remember where information is on the page), and the tendency to skim when reading online.

Young readers may be the hardest hit. Research suggests that children who grow up with paper books not only score better on reading assessments but may also achieve more academically—those with access to physical books reportedly complete an average of three more years of education. MRI studies show that these children develop stronger neural connections in brain regions responsible for language and self-control—connections that screen-heavy kids may lack.

Leisure reading on digital platforms has also been linked to lower comprehension among children and young adults, according to a 2023 Scholastica review, and other long-term studies suggest that print reading fosters stronger retention and deeper cognitive processing, as reported by The Guardian.

A 2025 study published in Frontiers of Psychology examined how different modes of reading—paper, digital, audio, and video—affect cognition and mental health of college students, finding that participants who read literary works in paper (or listened in audio formats) showed the greatest improvements, demonstrating better cognitive function and lower levels of anxiety and depression than those in digital, video, or control groups.

“Reading has declined because it’s facing growing competition from other forms of media consumption that may offer students more immediate gratification,” Martin West, professor of education at the Harvard Graduate School of Education and the deputy director of the Program on Education Policy and Governance at the Harvard Kennedy School, noted in a 2025 “Harvard Thinking” podcast.

“I think we have a lot of evidence to support the extent to which technology can be a distractor when students are engaged in learning processes. And that ability to distract, to compete for attention, could also lead to diminished appetite for persistence in reading on their own,” said West.

The Literacy Divide

The challenge isn’t just attention—it’s the unraveling of support systems that sustain reading in schools, including rising book prices, unequal access, and weakened infrastructure, all of which are eroding opportunities for leisure reading and amplifying the economic pressures behind the decline. According to the Center for American Progress 2024 report “Investing in School Libraries and Librarians to Improve Literacy Outcomes,” more than 50 years of research show that students with access to well‑resourced school libraries with certified librarians consistently perform better academically and score higher on standardized assessments.

However, America’s public schools have quietly but steadily shed thousands of certified school librarians. A national analysis from the School Librarian Investigation—Divergence & Evolution (SLIDE) Project found that librarian positions dropped by about 20 percent between 2009 and 2019, even as many districts increased spending on other staff roles.

The losses were not evenly shared: High-poverty districts, schools serving mostly Black, Hispanic, or multilingual students, and small rural systems were far more likely to lose their certified librarians entirely. Charter schools were hit hardest: Roughly 90 percent reported having no librarians at all. The strain on school libraries reflects a broader crisis in the U.S. public library system, where staffing shortages, budget pressures, and reduced services are also concentrated in high-poverty, high-minority, and rural districts. A study published as an EdWorkingPaper finds that between 2008 and 2019, 766 public library outlets closed, disproportionately affecting rural areas; the closures were associated with declines in nearby students’ reading and math test scores.

Tests Over Texts

Access to books shapes not only what students can read but also how reading is taught. A growing emphasis on standardized testing has increasingly displaced literature, narrowing curricula to measurable skills and focusing on short texts and assessment at the expense of sustained reading or literary exploration. “A critical part of becoming a literate person is to examine and explore a full text. This should be a major part of every student’s education,” writes Peter Greene in “The Atomization of Literature: How Standardized Testing Is Killing Reading Instruction,” published in Forbes.

“Instead of teaching students how to read a whole book, we teach them how to take a standardized test,” Greene argues, adding, “As long as high-stakes testing pushes a quick, superficial solo reaction to a context-free excerpt, schools will deprioritize teaching reading and literacy as a reflective, collaborative, thoughtful deep dive into a complete work. And that will be a loss for students.”

Rose Horowitch, in her 2024 Atlantic article “The Elite College Students Who Can’t Read Books,” cites a 2024 EducationWeek Research Center survey of about 300 third-to-eighth-grade educators, noting that only 17 percent said they primarily teach whole texts; an additional 49 percent combine whole texts with anthologies and excerpts. Horowitch emphasizes that nearly a quarter of respondents said that books are no longer the center of their curricula. “Whether through atrophy or apathy, a generation of students is reading fewer books,” writes Horowitch. “Students see reading books as akin to listening to vinyl records—something that a small subculture may still enjoy, but that’s mostly a relic of an earlier time.”

Counter-Currents: Signs of Hope

From smartphones to e-readers, new technology is beginning to erode the long-standing resilience of the paper book. About 30 percent of U.S. adults now read books digitally, according to the Pew Research Center. Audiobooks are experiencing even faster adoption: The Audio Publishers Association 2025 Consumer Survey found 51 percent of Americans aged 18 and older—an estimated 134 million people—have listened to an audiobook.

That momentum is matched—and in some ways surpassed—by the popularity of podcasts. Podcasting is booming in the U.S., reaching 210 million Americans and drawing 115 million weekly listeners as of 2025, according to Edison Research. Podcasting now accounts for roughly 11 percent of daily audio consumption, and over 1.1 million English-language podcast episodes have been identified via public RSS feeds.

One bright spot is that independent bookstores are experiencing a resurgence, often supported by local communities and curated events, and subscription book boxes make discovering new titles easier than ever. Social media, particularly TikTok’s “BookTok,” has become a powerful driver of reading among Gen Z, propelling interest in specific genres and bestselling titles. The growth of book‑subscription services suggests a counter-current supporting reading: the global market, valued at about $1.34 billion in 2024, is projected to nearly double by 2033, as more consumers seek curated deliveries to keep reading habits alive.

The Path Ahead

To reverse the reading recession in the United States, experts say efforts need to reach across schools, families, and communities. “It will take a comprehensive ecosystem to support our students at every touchpoint,” says Dr. Paige Pullen, chief academic officer and literacy principal at the University of Florida’s Lastinger Center for Learning, in a release about the innovative New Worlds Reading Initiative.

Created by the Florida Legislature in 2021, the program illustrates how multi-level, coordinated approaches can address declining reading rates. Offering modular training for educators from birth through 12th grade, incorporating evidence-based strategies, practical classroom applications, and ongoing mentorship, the initiative aims to support teachers in applying literacy practices in the classroom while promoting collaboration across schools and communities, helping ensure students receive consistent guidance in developing reading skills at each stage of learning.

Across the United States, several states are implementing ambitious literacy initiatives to address persistent reading gaps. Iowa, Arizona, Nebraska, Rhode Island, and Alaska have all received multi-million-dollar federal Comprehensive Literacy State Development (CLSD) grants to support evidence-based reading instruction, high-dose tutoring, and professional development for educators, with a focus on children in high-need communities. A range of literacy nonprofits and school programs are also stepping in to bolster reading skills and access to books, particularly for children in under-resourced communities.

The NEA offers a range of solutions to promote early reading at home—from in-clinic programs to digital tools and grassroots book-sharing initiatives. Nonprofits Reading Is Fundamental (RIF) and the Children’s Literacy Initiative are expanding access to books, supporting teachers, and strengthening reading instruction where schools need it most.

Raising a Reader partners with schools, community centers, and libraries to provide curated, multicultural book collections and training for parents. Reach Out and Read integrates literacy into pediatric care, giving books to young children during well-child visits and coaching caregivers on reading aloud together.
Worldreader—a global nonprofit that promotes family reading through its free digital app, BookSmart—is helping parents read to their children daily, even in low-resource settings.

Grants, policy incentives, and strategic partnerships are also critical to ensuring these efforts are sustainable and equitable. A policy brief from the Center for American Progress, “Investing in School Libraries and Librarians to Improve Literacy Outcomes,” argues that investing in certified school librarians, up-to-date collections, and teacher collaboration is a powerful lever to boost student literacy and long-term reading engagement.

Emerging technologies, such as augmented reality (AR technology) storybooks (Metabook) and interactive voice-assisted reading (TaleMate), combine engagement with learning, demonstrating how digital and print strategies can work together to foster reading habits, improve literacy outcomes, and transform libraries into immersive learning hubs.

Programs like Open eBooks—a collaboration among major publishers, libraries, and nonprofits—provide free access to thousands of eBooks for children in under-resourced communities. Penguin Random House’s Living Stories app merges read-aloud sessions with interactive lights and sounds to engage young readers. Library software providers like BiblioCommons integrate e-books into public library catalogs. At the same time, platforms such as Reading Plus and collaborations like Reading Partners + AT&T deliver personalized, digital literacy instruction to students at school and home.

Reversing America’s reading decline requires more than urging kids to pick up a book—it demands rebuilding a culture that champions literacy at every stage of life. This means addressing funding and staffing crises in school and public libraries, rethinking teaching practices that undervalue deep reading, and supporting parents in fostering early literacy. It also calls on policymakers, educators, and communities to invest in the long-term infrastructure that literacy requires.

The stakes are high: without intervention, the next generation risks inheriting a world of perpetual scrolling, fragmented attention, and shallow engagement with ideas. But with coordinated action, we can envision a future where books, both print and digital, reclaim their role as catalysts for curiosity, empathy, and civic understanding. Reading can once again be a shared cultural experience, a personal joy, and a cornerstone of an informed, connected society.

The Genetic Secrets That Help Some Animals Defy Aging

Aging brings about a range of changes—often unwelcome—to our bodies: sagging skin, graying or thinning hair, and a decline in muscle strength and vitality. But aging also affects us on the inside, altering proteins and other biomolecules in ways that increase our risk of developing chronic diseases—such as cancer, Alzheimer’s, and diabetes —and raise the likelihood of death. “You live, and by living, you produce negative consequences like molecular damage. This damage accumulates over time,” says Vadim Gladyshev, who researches aging at Harvard Medical School. “In essence, this is aging.” Yet some species (including some humans) age more slowly and live long, healthy lifespans. Why is that?

Why Mammals Have Different Maximal Lifespans

Mammals, for instance, differ dramatically in their maximal lifespans—from the tiny forest shrew, which lives only one or two years, to the bowhead whale, capable of living for more than 200 years. Humans are also notable among primates for their comparatively extended lifespans, living twice as long as chimpanzees, our closest relatives. Larger species tend to have longer lifespans than smaller species. At an average of 100 tons, the bowhead whale is about 100 times heavier than the forest shrew. The African elephant, the largest land mammal, weighs more than six tons and lives up to 65 years.

Larger species’ longevity is usually due to their ability to resist stress and predators. However, size isn’t the only factor, nor is it always definitive. Bowhead whales are enormous—the second-largest living mammal—but their 200-year lifespan is at least double what you would expect given their size. Farther down on the scale, Brandt’s bat, which weighs 5 to 20 grams (0.17–0.70 ounces), can live for more than 40 years, and so can the naked mole rat, which weighs a mere 34 grams (1.9 ounces). Because birds and bats can evade predators by flying, they live longer than their small size would predict.

Researchers have compared 26 mammalian species with diverse maximal lifespans. These ranged from two years (shrews) to 40+ years (naked mole rats). The thousands of genes identified were related to the species’ maximal lifespans. The genes were either positively or negatively correlated with longevity. The disparities in species longevity raise two questions: First, from an evolutionary viewpoint, why do some species have long lives while others don’t? And second, what genetic and metabolic idiosyncrasies allow the long-lived species to live as long as they do?

The Energy Theory of Longevity

Scientists believe that the answer to the first question lies in the energy a species expends to prevent or repair cellular damage. “You want to invest enough that the body doesn’t fall apart too quickly, but you don’t want to over-invest,” says Tom Kirkwood, a biogerontologist at Newcastle University in the United Kingdom. “You want a body that has a good chance of remaining in sound condition for as long as you have a decent statistical probability to survive.” Researchers found that short-lived species tend to have a high number of genes involved in energy metabolism. In contrast, long-lived species tend to have fewer genes that are similarly involved, indicating that those with lower metabolic rates conserve energy over the long term.

According to this theory, a house mouse isn’t going to spend much energy on maintenance because its chances of survival are slim. A predator, such as a cat, is likely to catch the mouse quickly. As a result, the mouse ages rapidly. By contrast, long-lived mole rats spend most of their lives in underground burrows, putting them beyond the reach of most predators; this allows them to allocate their energy to survival, enabling them to live for decades. Whales and elephants are less vulnerable to predators (except for humans, of course) and are likely to survive long enough to benefit from better-maintained cellular machinery.

Genetic Tricks to Delay Aging

But the question that researchers most urgently want to answer is the second one: How do long-lived species manage to delay aging? Researchers have made some progress in deriving an answer. Long-lived species, they’ve found, accumulate molecular damage more slowly than shorter-lived ones do. Comparative genomic analyses identify genes and biochemical pathways associated with complex traits and processes. What are the particular signaling and metabolic networks that might play a role in regulating age-related conditions? Why have specific organisms benefited from using novel evolutionary strategies and genetic determinants of aging in different environments?

Scientists have identified several aging-related genes in mice, fruit flies, and worms. But they still don’t know whether these genes controlled lifespan variations during the evolution of species. Some tantalizing clues, however, have emerged. For instance, the naked mole-rat evolved unique mutations in a gene that confer cancer resistance. DNA repair genes in humans, elephants, and whales, such as those found in the bowhead, help reduce cancer incidence in these species. These genes also appear to be related to longevity.

The risk of cancer poses a significant challenge to increasing the lifespan of mammals. For instance, two of the longest-lived rodent species—the naked mole-rat and the blind mole-rat—have discovered a genetic trick that utilizes interferon secretion to induce cell death, thereby enabling them to combat cancer. They have a gene called TP53, which appears to help prevent cancer by suppressing tumor growth. Indeed, elephants, like blind mole-rats, benefit from similar genes, and humans, too, have a protective equivalent.

Mammals didn’t start living longer only in the last few centuries. On the contrary, evolution has produced long-lived mammals multiple times over millions of years. Among the oldest surviving mammals are bats, tapirs, monkeys, rhinos, horses, bowhead whales, and apes. Humans also enjoy a high ranking. As of 2025, Jeanne Calment, who died in 1997 at the age of 122, is recognized as the longest-lived human; however, some scientists speculate that humans may live up to 150 years or more. Each evolutionary experiment has involved trying out different genetic strategies, such as enhancing homeostasis (biological balance) throughout life or preventing cancer.

The “engine” of evolution is called the pluripotency network. That is, all embryonic or pluripotent stem cells can differentiate into various cell types in different parts of the body, such as the lungs, liver, or pancreas. “We discovered that evolution activated the pluripotency network to achieve a longer lifespan,” says Vera Gorbunova, a biologist at the University of Rochester. The pluripotency network enables the reprogramming of somatic cells—non-reproductive cells—into embryonic cells. Embryonic cells can more readily rejuvenate and regenerate by repackaging DNA, which becomes disorganized as we age.

The pluripotency network is “an important finding for understanding how longevity evolves,” says Andrei Seluanov, a researcher at the University of Rochester. “Furthermore, it can pave the way for new antiaging interventions that activate the key positive lifespan genes. We would expect that successful antiaging interventions would include increasing the expression of positive lifespan genes and decreasing the expression of negative lifespan genes.”

Establishing a link between gene expression and longevity requires more than simply identifying the genes involved or the actions they perform in the body. Scientists need to determine when these genes are activated—turned on—and at what times on a daily, monthly, and yearly basis. Circadian networks also play a role in controlling the lifespans of genes, specifically whether a particular gene’s expression is limited to a specific time of day, which may inhibit the action of that gene in terms of how long, on average, a species can live.

Researchers can determine when specific genes are activated by attaching chemical tags, known as methyl groups, to sites that regulate gene activity. Geneticist Steve Horvath of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), and his colleagues have found that by assessing the status of a set of almost 800 methylation sites scattered around the genome, they can reliably estimate an individual’s age relative to the maximal lifespan of its species. This “epigenetic clock” holds for all 192 mammalian species Horvath’s team has examined so far. He surmises that by reviewing these methylation sites, he will be able to predict a species’ lifespan regardless of any particular individual’s age. This is an advantage in studying species previously unknown to science.

For longer-lived mammals, this means their genes remain active for a longer period. Put another way, their epigenetic marks degrade more slowly, causing their biological clocks to tick more slowly. For example, the longest-lived bats often have the slowest rate of change in methylations, whereas those of shorter-lived species change more quickly.

The Longest-Lived Species

Elephants

Since large size in mammals generally corresponds to a slow metabolic rate, it is hardly surprising that elephants have long lifespans. African elephants are estimated to live up to about 74 years, whereas Asian elephants can live up to about 60 years. Elephants in both parts of the world also possess extra copies of the tumor-suppressor gene TP53, which may help them deal with DNA damage by clearing affected cells, allowing them to live longer.

Marmots

At the other end of the scale are yellow-bellied marmots, which weigh between 7 and 15 pounds and can live for 15 to 18 years. Natives of the United States and Canada, they spend almost half their lives hibernating, entering their burrows each year during September or October and remaining in them until May.

In the other months, marmots, which resemble ground squirrels, prepare for hibernation by fattening themselves on flowers, grasses, insects, and bird eggs. It is their long hibernation period that explains why they can live as long as they do. During hibernation, marmots alternate between periods of metabolic suppression, which last approximately one to two weeks, and shorter periods of increased metabolism, typically lasting less than a day. During metabolic suppression, the animals’ breathing slows, and their body temperatures drop dramatically, allowing them to use a minuscule amount of energy—about a gram per day. By saving energy, marmots can survive prolonged periods without food. Hibernation basically stalls the aging process.

A study of marmots in the wild shows that an antiaging effect kicks in when marmots are two years old, based on the date at which juveniles first emerge from their natal burrows. Researchers at UCLA believe that these hibernation-related adaptations—diminished food consumption, low body temperature, and reduced metabolism—are the reason why marmots outlive other animals of a similar body weight. The UCLA researchers speculate that the marmot may offer a model adaptable to humans, for example, to improve organ preservation for transplantation or to enable long-term space missions.

Bowhead whales

This 100-ton cetacean can live up to 200 years. It is one of the heaviest animals on the planet. Researchers studying its genome have discovered that this species possesses unique genes that aid in DNA repair and resistance to mutations that can lead to cancer. The bowhead whale’s cells were both efficient and accurate at repairing double-strand breaks in DNA—that is, restoring broken DNA so that it’s as good as new. And their cells do this more often than the cells of other mammals. It is thought that the whale’s relatively sluggish metabolism may also account for its longevity. These whales, of which there are now approximately 25,000, inhabit Arctic and subarctic waters. Research conducted in 2025 found that the bowhead whales may live as long as they do because they can repair detrimental mutations in their DNA, thanks to a protein (CIRBP). These mutations, if unchecked, can increase the risk of cancer and age-related diseases over time. Whales have 100 times as much CIRBP as humans do, which may explain why they live beyond the normal human lifespan. The researchers believe that their repair mechanism is enhanced by the frigid Arctic waters in which these whales spend their lives.

Bats

“If we lived as long as bats, adjusted for size, we could live 240 years,” said Gerald Wilkinson, a biology professor at the University of Maryland and the lead author of a 2019 paper about bat longevity. In one case, a small bat, approximately one-third the size of a mouse, was recaptured, still healthy, 41 years after it was initially banded. Bats live longer than mammals of similar size that live on land. There are some 1,400 different types of bats. Not surprisingly, they have different food preferences—flying insects, fruits and nectar, fish and small crustaceans such as scorpions, and blood, which is the sustenance of vampire bats.

Some species can fly at speeds of up to 100 miles per hour, making them the fastest mammals on earth. But what has particularly caught researchers’ attention is their tendency to live in large colonies, where they’re exposed to deadly viruses, including rabies, Ebola, Marburg, Nipah, and Hendra, as well as other pathogens. (Bats are believed to have originated viruses such as COVID-19, and two related strains—SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) and MERS (Middle East Respiratory Syndrome), all of which can cause suffering and death in humans.)

Why do bats live so long—30 to 40 years is typical—when they are practically swimming in all these viruses? Bats, it turns out, have a remarkably robust response to viruses. Although scientists have inoculated them with lethal viruses, they exhibit minimal responses, showing no overt symptoms and developing only subclinical infections. Genomic sequences show that bats have an extraordinary innate immunity to viruses and inflammation. This immunity may contribute to their long lives.

Cockatoos

In captivity, a cockatoo, a type of parrot, can generally live for 60 to 70 years. The oldest confirmed bird in captivity was a pink cockatoo named Cookie, who lived to 83. Another famous cockatoo in captivity, named Cocky Bennett, was said to have lived to the age of 119, though this is unconfirmed. In the wild, a sulfur-crested cockatoo typically lives for 40 years, but other cockatoo species—there are 21—may live longer. To explain why cockatoos and other parrot species live as long as they do, whether in captivity or in the wild, researchers at the Max Planck Institute examined two hypotheses.

One question was whether the larger brain size of birds, such as cockatoos, is responsible for their longer lifespans. Because in the wild, more intelligent birds can solve problems more effectively, they tend to live longer. The second was whether their relatively large brains simply take longer to grow, naturally resulting in longer lifespans. The results supported the first hypothesis. Parrots with relatively large brains possessed cognitive capabilities that enabled them to solve problems in the wild that could otherwise have led to their demise. Their intelligence enabled them to live longer lives. The scientists were surprised to find that other factors, such as diet or the longer developmental time required to develop larger brains, had no impact on their longer average lifespans.

Albatrosses

Most albatrosses live to age 50. The oldest wild albatross on record is Wisdom, a female Laysan albatross, estimated to be approximately 72 or 73 years old as of 2024. Researchers first tagged her in 1956, and she was estimated to have hatched around 1951. She has racked up three million miles in her travels around the world since 1956.

One theory to explain the longevity of albatrosses—applicable to other migratory birds as well—focuses on their power of flight. Annual migrations can take these birds thousands of miles, requiring them to remember geographic locations, maintain strong muscles, and keep their eyes and ears in a state of readiness. That means that they can more easily evade predators and find shelter. “They’ve had to be so highly engineered to succeed at flight,” says Steven Austad, who studies aging at the University of Birmingham. “That kind of physiological integrity has allowed them to stay healthy much longer than another animal.” Reproductive success may also account for longevity. In albatrosses and other long-lived seabirds, reproductive success actually increases with age. Wisdom, for example, has hatched 30 to 36 chicks with her mate (albatrosses are monogamous); that is, they have produced at least one chick per year since 2006.

Macaws

Like albatrosses, macaws (which belong to the parrot family) mate for life. They can survive for up to 60 years in the wild and 100 years in captivity. The oldest macaw in captivity lived to be 112 years old. Researchers have found that, as in other parrots, brain size plays a significant role in their longevity. “Large-brained birds might spend more time socially learning foraging techniques that have been around for multiple generations,” says Simeon Smeele, a doctoral student at the Max Planck Institute of Animal Behavior. “This increased learning period could potentially also explain the longer life spans, as it takes more time but also makes the foraging repertoire more adaptive.”

Tuataras

These lizard-like animals are the largest reptiles in New Zealand, and have one of the slowest growth rates of all reptiles, which may help to explain why they can live up to 100 years. They are sometimes referred to as “living fossils,” since they have no extant relatives. Although they share some traits with snakes, they diverged from them 250 million years ago, making them older than the oldest dinosaurs. They are close to impervious to many infectious diseases and demonstrate peak physical activity at shockingly low temperatures for a reptile. Tuataras have the lowest known optimal body temperature of any reptile, ranging from 16 to 21 degrees Celsius (or 60 to 70 degrees Fahrenheit).

Scientists interested in understanding why tuataras live so long have undertaken the first-ever deciphering, or sequencing, of their genetic code. They have found that the animal’s genome is enormous, about five gigabytes, or some five billion DNA base pairs in length, which is about two-thirds bigger than humans’ and is “unusually large” for a reptile. Many of these genes encode selenoproteins, which help protect against aging and cellular deterioration. Tuataras also appear to have an unusually high number of TRP genes, which encode proteins involved in temperature sensitivity and body temperature regulation. This may be why they can tolerate such low temperatures.

Giant tortoises

All tortoises are turtles, but not all turtles are tortoises. Turtles can live only in water, whereas tortoises can live on land, including deserts, grasslands, and wet tropical forests. And although turtles have an average lifespan of 40 years, the Galápagos tortoise—the largest species—can live up to 177 years in captivity, possibly longer. One giant tortoise, called Jonathan, is believed to have been born in 1832 and is alive and well in 2025. The Galápagos tortoise’s name is derived from the Spanish galápago, meaning “tortoise.” Some of the observations that led Charles Darwin to develop his theory of evolution were based on tortoises in the Galápagos Islands during the second voyage of the Beagle in 1835.

Giant tortoises can weigh up to 1,000 pounds. Like other large species, their metabolisms are set at an extremely low level, and their life stages tend to be comparably extended, as it takes them up to 30 years to reach sexual maturity (about twice the time of a human). Animals with lower heart rates tend to live longer than those with higher heart rates. Giant tortoises have a heart rate of approximately 10 beats per minute. Humans have heart rates between 60 and 100 beats per minute, while the pygmy shrew, whose heart rate is 1,200 beats per minute (the fastest rate of any animal), survives for only a few months.

For longevity, several other factors work in the giant tortoises’ favor, including genetic traits related to DNA repair, immune response, and cancer suppression. One study found that tortoises have extra copies of genes (called “duplications”) that may protect against the ravages of aging, including cancer. Giant tortoises can destroy precancerous cells through a process called apoptosis. Cancer is more prevalent as species age, and a defense against cancer may help tortoises to become centenarians more often. In addition, because these larger species have more cells, they have a greater number of cells that are vulnerable to cancer.

Cave salamanders

These blind amphibians can regularly live to be 100 years old. They don’t appear to be resilient; they are pale, eyeless, and about a foot long. As their name suggests, they spend their entire lives in caves (in Southern Europe), where, of course, there is little need for vision. This creature, like most other long-lived species, has an unusually sluggish metabolism. It takes 15 years to mature, mate, and lay its eggs (every 12 years or so). Cave salamanders barely move except to seek food, not that they need much food. They have virtually no predators, and their ability to conserve energy also helps explain their remarkable longevity. For comparison, the next longest-lived amphibian, the Japanese giant salamander, only rarely lives to 50 years.

Glass sponges

These sponges, believed to be the oldest animals on Earth, also have one of the planet’s longest lifespans—more than 10,000 years, possibly 15,000 years. One glass sponge observed by researchers in the Ross Sea, a bay of Antarctica, is thought to be the oldest living animal on the planet. Glass sponges are composed of large, complex, glass-like skeletons made of silica; they spend their lives attached to hard surfaces, filtering water through thousands of holes to consume bacteria and plankton. The filtration is also fast—80,000 liters per second. They also serve as habitats for small crustaceans. The relative simplicity of their structure may explain why these sponges live so long. Glass sponges are among the organisms often classified as biologically immortal, as their cells can regenerate infinitely, thereby preventing biological aging. However, “immortal” is a bit hyperbolic, as these animals are still vulnerable to predation, disease, and environmental changes.

Giant barrel sponge

Another sea sponge, the barrel sponge, is the largest species of any sponge and is found in the Caribbean Sea. It may be more than 2,300 years old, earning its nickname the “redwood of the reef” due to its large size and long lifespan. It typically grows in Caribbean coral reefs at depths up to 390 feet (120 meters). It is usually large, firm, and cone-shaped, although some varieties are low and squat. However, why it lives so long remains a mystery. One clue may come from research conducted in 2025, which proposed that the environment may be a significant factor in its longevity. The sponges, the researchers say, may be resilient to the effects of sediment by producing mucous. The mucous, in turn, removes the sediment from the surface of these ‘redwoods of the reef,’ which may allow the sponges to resist environmental conditions that would inhibit their ability to thrive and survive for millennia.

Black coral

Corals are among the longest-living animals on Earth. Some coral species can live up to 5,000 years, but black corals in the genus Leiopathes are known to be the longest-living of all corals. It takes considerable time to create an entire coral reef; therefore, coral formations grow an average of only 1 to 1.5 inches per year. Corals are constructed out of colonies, which in turn are formed by individual polyps, some of which may have lifespans of a few hundred years, whereas some polyps may only live for a couple of years. Corals, which depend on sunlight and salt to grow, are generally found in clear, shallow saltwater. They require warm temperatures—no more than 70 degrees Fahrenheit—and are susceptible to pollution.

Ocean quahog

This mollusk can live up to 500 years and is found in the North Atlantic from Newfoundland to North Carolina. Like so many long-lived species, it grows very slowly, reaching reproductive maturity only at the age of six. Biologists have yet to figure out why quahogs live so long. However, they suspect that its relatively stable antioxidant levels help to prevent the cell damage responsible for most signs of aging in animals.

Rougheye rockfish

These deepwater fish are found in the North Pacific. They can live for over 200 years. Many other rockfish can only live up to 11 years. Rougheye rockfish, however, generally start breeding at age 25, and they produce more and stronger young as they get older. Because rockfish comprise more than 100 species, with lifespans ranging from 11 to over 200 years, researchers have utilized them to study the phenomenon of longevity. They have found that genes that normally regulate steroid hormones, which affect how long an organism takes to reach sexual maturity, may explain why this particular species has a longer lifespan than its relatives.

The flavonoid metabolic pathway (controlled by these genes) may be among the biological pathways that influence longevity, and this applies not only to rougheye rockfish but also to humans. “Nature presented us with an experimental design in the form of rockfish, and we wanted to see if we could pull data from it,” says Matthew Harris, associate professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School. “It’s incredibly impressive and valuable that this actually worked. It shows how comparative genomics can detect signals from millions of years of evolution to help us understand the networks of genes that interact to regulate complex phenomena such as longevity.”

Koi

These large goldfish, native to Japan and prized especially for their beauty, typically live 15 to 30 years, although some have been known to live up to 200 years. However, they are indulged by humans, which explains why they can live so long. Even in captivity, other fish seldom live 40 years or longer. The koi that reach the century mark and beyond may also owe their longevity to breeding, as Japanese breeders take great care to maintain the gene pool of these fish, keeping the most valuable and longest-lived in Japan and exporting others that don’t meet their exalted standards.

Greenland shark

Also known as the gurry or grey shark, this fish is typically found in the waters of the North Atlantic and Arctic. But because these sharks live at great depths (an average of 2,568 feet), they haven’t been well studied. What is known about them is that they can live to very advanced ages—250 to 500 years, the longest known lifespan among vertebrates. They’re extremely big (they measure between 8 and 23 feet and weigh 3,000 pounds or more) and reach sexual maturity only at 150 years.

Their pups are born alive after a protracted gestation period that ranges from 8 to 18 years. Researchers believe that their slow metabolism is a key factor in their long lifespan. These sharks move through the depths at speeds of less than 10,000 feet per hour (about 1.8 miles per hour). Compare that rate to that of the great white sharks, which can travel up to 35 miles an hour. On the other hand, no other sharks can withstand the extreme Arctic cold year-round. Greenland sharks may also benefit from the protection afforded by the methylated compounds in their muscles. These compounds play a role in gene regulation.

Jellyfish

A standout among jellyfish, Turritopsis dohrnii possesses a unique trait that makes it immortal—or as close to immortal as a living organism can be. This species has the ability to revert to its juvenile polyp stage after reaching sexual maturity. These jellyfish begin their lives as free-swimming larvae that eventually develop into colonies (collections of cloned polyps). In the event of environmental stress, a threat to its well-being, sickness, or age, the jellyfish can revert to its original polyp state and form or join another colony.

Turriopsis dohrnii can pull off this trick through a process called transdifferentiation, which transforms old cells into new cell types. In theory, this process can go on indefinitely. Immortality, though, is seldom reached because of predation or disease in the earliest medusa stage, cutting these creatures off before they can revert. Nonetheless, their capacity to revert—and, in theory, live indefinitely—has attracted the interest of researchers studying aging, which may ultimately lead to the development of regenerative therapies or age-delaying drugs in humans.

The Resurrected Worm

A humble worm may have won the long-life competition. The discovery of an apparently long-dead worm in the Siberian permafrost in 2023 has prompted scientists to reassess the longevity of an organism. After being frozen for approximately 46,000 years in the permafrost, the worm Panagrolaimus kolymaensis—a previously unreported nematode species in the scientific literature—survived and remained alive. It just took a bit of thawing. The worm appears to have benefited from a process known as cryptobiosis, which slows an organism’s metabolism. In this biological strategy, life seems to stop under icy conditions. This process has been observed in other creatures, such as tardigrades and particular species of brine shrimp. Because no significant metabolic activity occurs in a frozen state, animals can survive even lethal conditions until they are restored to an environment in which they can resume growth and reproduction.

The worm extracted from the permafrost appears to have spent most of its life in a state of suspended animation. Scientists believe that these long-lived creatures possess special molecules that stabilize cells, keeping them intact even under extreme dryness or temperature fluctuations. Similar molecules have been found in other organisms that are known to survive dehydration and freezing. A 2023 study of tardigrades, also known as water bears, by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration highlighted their ability to withstand harsh conditions in space. This suggests that these tiny beings may have developed defense systems against extreme radiation and severe temperature fluctuations.

“No one had thought that this process could last millennia, 40,000 years, or even longer. It is simply amazing that life can begin again after so long, in the state between life and death,” said Dr. Phillip Schiffer, a group leader in the Institute of Zoology at the University of Cologne.

Scientists hope that, if they can isolate the genes in these nematodes that protect cells against freezing and radiation, they can store human tissue in cold storage and minimize damage from severe cold or dehydration. Although the worm unearthed from the permafrost has died, this type of worm generally lives for only one or two months. Its offspring remain alive in controlled conditions.

Oaks

The oldest individual oak tree in the United States is the Pechanga Great Oak Tree in Temecula, California, estimated to be around 2,000 years old. The Jurupa Oak in Riverside, California, which is estimated to be 13,000 years old, isn’t one tree; it’s a colony of trees with the same DNA; that is, it has cloned itself. The cloned trees form only after wildfires, when the burned branches of the original trees sprout new shoots.

Baobabs

Found in the savannas of 32 African countries and playing a role in many remedies, the baobab is one of the world’s oldest trees. It predates both human beings and the splitting of continents 200 million years ago. The tree is a succulent, absorbing water during the rainy season and storing it in its wide, cylindrical trunk during the dry season. It produces a nutrient-dense fruit that earns it its nickname, the Tree of Life. An iconic tree with an average height of nearly 100 feet and a crown of distinctively gnarled branches, it can live up to 5,000 years. “Baobabs are particular trees, with unique architectures, remarkable regeneration properties and high cultural and historic value,” says Adrian Patrut, a chemist at Babes-Bolyai University in Romania, noting that “they play an important role in carbon sequestration and create a distinct microenvironment.”

Bristlecone pine

The longest-lived tree is thought to be over 4,789 years old; it is a Great Basin bristlecone pine named Methuselah, located high in the White Mountains of California. Although other trees in the White Mountains and Aspen are older, they are clones of the same species, not individual trees like the bristlecone pine. This tree’s survival is due to its ability to thrive in environments where most other plants can’t. It can spread its roots far and wide in search of nutrients. Apparently, it is also relatively impervious to intense stress. This tree grows slowly because of the freezing temperatures, dry soil, and high winds in the area. Yet it can grow in both good and bad weather. Because it has a tough exterior, it is resistant to insect and pest infestations. Even as it ages and most of its bark dies, enough of the bark remains that the tree never dies entirely.

Redwoods

Individual redwoods can live up to a thousand years, but the species is believed to have lived on the planet for millions of years. There are three types of redwoods—coastal redwoods, giant sequoias, and dawn redwoods—and most are found in California. Some giant sequoias are estimated to be 3,000 years old. Coastal redwoods—some rising as high as skyscrapers 30 stories tall—are the tallest trees known. Because of their thick bark (up to 12 inches), the redwoods can withstand forest fires. Their canopies are vital to their health; by capturing water (often in the form of fog droplets), they effectively create their own rain.

Yews

Yews are among the longest-living trees in the world, capable of surviving for millennia. Some species, like the Pacific yew (Taxus brevifolia) of the Pacific Northwest, live for over 2,000 years, slowly growing into dense, evergreen forms. In Europe, yews have inspired awe for centuries because of their extraordinary age. The Llangernyw Yew in Wales is estimated to be between 4,000 and 5,000 years old, making it one of the oldest living organisms on the planet. Their ability to endure through centuries of environmental change, human activity, and disease highlights yews as a remarkable example of nature’s resilience and longevity.

The world’s oldest tree (possibly)

The Alerce Milenario, also known as Gran Abuelo (Great Grandfather), in Chile, is believed to have begun growing in 1630 BC and may be the world’s oldest tree. Only 28 percent of the tree is alive, primarily in its roots. Its surface is mainly covered with lichens and mosses. Scientists used a bore to penetrate the tree without harming it and found that it had 5,000 rings, which they used to determine its age, concluding that it was 100 years older than any of its rivals.

The Secret to Longevity Remains a Mystery

“The genetics of longevity are notoriously confusing,” says Dr. Mary Armanios, an oncologist and geneticist at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. Confusing is right. Inflammation, which is associated with diseases of aging, is one factor. So is genetics. “Please study me,” pleaded Maria Branyas Morera, a Spanish citizen who, up until her death in 2024 at the age of 117, was the world’s oldest living person. Scientists have obliged, examining her blood, saliva, urine, and stool. They determined that her cells “seemed younger than her age.”

She lived a healthy life, walking a mile a day until she was over 100, and abstaining from drinking and smoking. And she consumed three yogurts a day. However, a healthy lifestyle wasn’t the only factor that contributed to her longevity. She was also found to have genetic variants reported to protect against common risk factors such as high cholesterol levels, dementia, heart disease, and cancer. In addition, she had a microbiome with an abundance of a type of beneficial bacteria, to which those yogurts might have contributed.

But nearly everyone who lives to a ripe old age—there’s a growing number of supercentenarians (those who live to 110 or more)—has a different explanation as to why they lived as long as they have while retaining all their marbles. The truth is that no one knows the secret to longevity, whether in humans, Greenland sharks, Galápagos tortoises, or bristlecone pines. Good genes are helpful. A healthy lifestyle, curiosity, and strong social relationships also play a significant role in contributing to why some individuals live to a great age. And yogurt can’t hurt, either.

Writing and Critical Thinking: How Words Shape the Mind

What kind of writer are you? Do you write from the heart, the mind, or the gut? Some writers produce words intuitively, without conscious thought, while others edit meticulously as they create. Writing is not only an act of expression; it is a process that engages cognitive functions at multiple stages—from conception to final draft. In today’s world, with projected growth in publishing, including independent authors and diverse digital content, it seems that many people are—or aspire to be—writers. But writing is more than producing text: it is a method for clarifying thought. Writing and critical thinking are closely connected, as words play a crucial role in shaping reasoning, reflection, and understanding.

Critical thinking operates across education, politics, business, and everyday life. It’s one of the most sought-after qualities in job candidates, yet it can be developed at any age or stage of life. We use it constantly—when planning our day, discussing current events, writing an email, or weighing the credibility of something we read online. At the heart of critical thinking lies the argument—not an argument as in a quarrel, but a reasoned statement that supports an idea or claim. Take a simple example: “One should never run out of clean clothes, or risk wearing dirty ones.” On its face, it sounds sensible. But a critical thinker pauses to ask questions. Is it always true? Could new clothes be bought instead? What if the person works outdoors or is traveling? Does “dirty” mean unsanitary or merely worn once? Exploring such questions exposes the hidden assumptions in a statement—and this act of inquiry exercises the core skills of analysis, evaluation, and synthesis.

This skill is strengthened through writing. Writing forces precise expression, reveals gaps in logic, and provides space to question assumptions. Revising a draft mirrors the process of refining thought, enabling ideas to evolve and improve before sharing them with others. Every writer has a unique approach. The medium used to draft—whether handwriting, typing, or dictation—can engage the brain in different ways, with research suggesting that handwriting may offer unique cognitive benefits compared with typing. Some writers are intuitive, while others are learned and practiced; some flow, some gush, some stop and start, and some are constantly self-editing. Regardless of the process, writing activates parts of the brain and exercises thinking processes.

Confessional writing, brain dumps, and creative exploration are early forms of engaging thought, but writing becomes truly transformative when combined with critical thinking. Words move from internal inspiration to external clarity, enabling reflection, analysis, and revision. Writing helps distinguish subjective and objective perspectives. For instance, geese crossing a road may be called “stupid” (subjective) while also being vulnerable to cars (objective). Investigating why geese behave as they do—considering biology, environment, and context—exercises reasoning and empathy simultaneously. Similarly, the example of dirty clothes reveals practical and evaluative considerations, illustrating how writing clarifies thought.

Writing encompasses many forms, each of which strengthens critical thinking in different ways. Journaling promotes self-reflection and discovery, revealing insights and encouraging structured thought. Essay writing strengthens logical argumentation. Creative writing develops perspective-taking and problem-solving. Note-taking and summarizing improve comprehension and synthesis. Public writing, such as blogging, introduces accountability and dialogue with differing viewpoints, sharpening clarity and reasoning. How-to writing requires precision, sequencing, and anticipation of the reader’s needs. Reporting objectively refines critical thinking by analyzing and carefully considering the selection of facts. Digital tools, including mind-mapping software and writing platforms, can aid in organizing thought, while over-editing, autocorrect, or excessive reliance on AI may reduce engagement with the thinking process.

Writing can feel overwhelming, even producing stage-fright-like anxiety. Common challenges include lack of confidence, confusion about tasks, missing foundational skills, perfectionism, and premature self-editing. Yet, these obstacles can be addressed through critical thinking, which enables ideas to be evaluated, refined, and organized before being expressed. The writing process itself—brainstorming, drafting, revising, and editing—mirrors cognitive processes. Revision exercises the mind on macro levels (structuring big ideas), mezzo levels (organizing paragraphs), and micro levels (proofreading and smoothing language). Critical thinking ensures that expression is coherent, persuasive, and meaningful.

Audience, vehicle, and voice also shape writing and thinking. Every piece of writing targets a specific audience, whether it is a teacher, a colleague, or the public. The chosen medium—whether a poem, essay, report, email, or campaign—has an impact on cognitive engagement. Voice, the writer’s unique expression, influences how ideas are interpreted and understood. Recognizing these factors deepens reasoning and enhances communication. Consistent practice develops mastery over content and process. Structured prompts, freewriting sessions, journaling, and reflective revision not only expand skills but also enhance mindset, self-awareness, and critical engagement with ideas.

Writing activates critical thinking through reflection, analysis, and iterative development. For example, the Harvard University course “Structure and Function of Argument” frames arguments as statements in support of ideas. Writing enables the breakdown of arguments into components, evaluation, and conclusion. Revising a draft mirrors this cognitive evaluation. Instructors and students alike benefit when writing is used as a tool to analyze and improve reasoning.

Writing also allows the integration of head, heart, and gut. It is not simply a brain dump or emotional purge. The act of choosing words, sequencing ideas, and revising thoughts requires conscious decisions, providing space for critical thinking and the development of coherent reasoning. As the late English author Sir Terry Pratchett observed, “No one’s policing their own minds more than an author. You spend a lot of time in your own head analyzing what you think about things, and a philosophy comes.” Writing becomes a marriage between internal reflection and external communication, fostering clarity and precision.

Journaling encourages discovery and problem-solving, turning intuitive or emotional expression into structured insight. Writing instructions, even for simple tasks, strengthens precision and logical sequencing. Objective reporting refines critical thinking by analyzing and carefully considering the selection of facts. Each type of writing exercises reasoning differently, but consistently contributes to sharper thought processes. As exemplary leaders of critical thinking, scientists and entrepreneurs apply these skills to validate outcomes, recognize when ideas need reevaluation, and refine their approaches accordingly.

Ultimately, writing facilitates the evaluation of both subjective and objective dimensions. Understanding the difference between what one feels and what one thinks enables clearer communication and greater empathy toward others. For instance, in the case of dirty clothes, the subjective view may be one of disgust at disorganization, while the objective perspective might recognize a lack of executive functioning skills. The geese example illustrates the same principle: Reasoning through perspective and context strengthens both understanding and analytical thinking.

Writing challenges, including stage fright, perfectionism, and premature editing, can be seen as opportunities for developing critical thinking skills. Engaging deliberately with these challenges—through iterative drafts, feedback, and reflection—enhances reasoning and problem-solving skills. The writing process mirrors cognitive refinement: Brainstorming, drafting, revising, and editing cultivate clarity, organization, and coherence at multiple levels.

Writing is a lifelong cognitive practice. It clarifies ideas, challenges assumptions, strengthens reasoning, and improves communication. Whether journaling, crafting essays, composing creative works, or reporting objectively, deliberate writing engages critical thinking and refines understanding. As George Orwell noted, “Good writing is like a windowpane”—it reveals ideas clearly, allowing both writer and reader to perceive the world with sharper insight. Writing is not merely an act of expression; it is a structured practice for cultivating thought. To think more clearly, reflect deeply, and reason more effectively, the path is simple: Write consistently, revise thoughtfully, and allow words to illuminate the mind.