science

Authored by Clay Routledge via RealClearPolitics,

In the middle of a Trump transition, the “Resistance 2.0,” and the inevitable partisan mud-slinging, it is easy to lose faith in humanity’s future. Polls show growing pessimism about everything from democracy to economic mobility to climate change.

Yet the major challenges we face demand something different from us: a progress mindset. 

Our team at Archbridge Institute’s Human Flourishing Lab recently launched Progress Pulse, a new research initiative to study the attitudes, knowledge, motives, and goals that individuals hold regarding progress. In our first Progress Pulse survey, the results from over 2,000 U.S. adults reveal a stark divide: 52% believe we will make significant progress and create a better world for future generations, while 48% expect failure and decline.

Particularly concerning is our finding that young Americans are the most cynical about the future. Among adults aged 18 to 34, only 47% believe life will be better for future generations, while 53% expect decline. This drops to 42% when looking specifically at Gen Z (adults under 28). In other words, nearly 60% of Gen Z believes we will fail to improve the world and that life will be worse in the future. This stands in stark contrast to older Americans: Among those 65 and older, 60% believe in a better future, with only 40% expecting decline. 

This generational divide should worry us all, given that young adults will be at the forefront of solving tomorrow’s challenges. We cannot afford for them to have a negative outlook.

Some might argue that negativity is actually needed to drive progress. I frequently come across the view that positive feelings – from happiness to hope – are signs of people putting their heads in the sand or living blissfully unaware. The slogan, “If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention,” captures the sentiment that negative feelings are necessary for driving change.

But this view fundamentally misunderstands human psychology. Negative feelings such as anxiety often make us more psychologically defensive. While this can be useful when we need to protect ourselves from immediate physical, social, or financial threats, it also orients us away from the creative, innovative thinking and action that progress requires. For instance, research finds that the more anxious people are, the less likely they are to engage in entrepreneurial activities. Whether we are building businesses, families, friendships, or the broader institutions that advance civilization, negative thoughts and feelings are barriers to success.

Positive mental states, not negative ones, tend to push us outward toward solving problems and improving the world. This is because positive emotions promote a more expansive mindset, leading to greater willingness to take risks and explore new possibilities, which is crucial for addressing complex societal challenges. 

Take hope, for example. Hope is a positive and action-oriented mental state. Behavioral sciences research shows that when people are hopeful, they have a firm confidence in themselves and an unwavering belief that they will attain positive change in their lives. This allows them to persist through adversity. Hopeful people are flexible in finding effective paths toward their goals and can quickly adjust their approach when they encounter obstacles. Hopeful individuals are also more motivated to want to improve the world and they show greater creativity and tolerance for different perspectives – essential qualities for addressing the major challenges of our time.

The good news? Hope is contagious. Hopeful individuals inspire others to adopt more positive and action-oriented mindsets. They create ripple effects of positive change in their communities and organizations.

Right now, we need hope to spread. Our public discourse is saturated with negativity. Research finds that a growing proportion of news headlines convey anger, fear, disgust, and sadness. And we are part of the problem: Research also shows that when individuals engage with news online, they give more clicks to negative headlines. All of this is taking a toll on our nation’s psyche. 

As we confront the challenges of our time, we face a choice: Succumb to negativity or embrace a progress mindset. The evidence is clear – if we want to solve big problems and create a better future, we need to adopt a positive outlook.

The future remains unwritten. The challenges we face are real, but so is our capacity to overcome them. The first step is believing we can.

Clay Routledge is vice president of Research and director of the Human Flourishing Lab at the Archbridge Institute.

Authored by Kenin Spivak via RealClearPolitics,

It’s time to defrock the word police.

The election, polls, and anecdotal evidence confirm that Americans want to end the obnoxious recitation of pronouns – “Latinx,” “birthing persons,” and other entries in the radical left lexicon – except in eulogies for progressive virtue signaling.

In a March Gallup poll of more than 12 million adults, 4.4% identified as bisexual, 0.9% as transgender, and 0.1% as pansexual. In exit polls this year of more than 110,000 voters conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago, just 1% identified as “nonbinary,” a subset of the Gallup categories. Some of these individuals, most often nonbinaries, dominate use of non-standard pronouns such as “they,” “zir” and “hir.”

If 100% of bisexuals, transgenders, and pansexuals used non-standard pronouns (they do not) and all are offended if the remaining 94.6% of us do not publicly proclaim our pronouns in our signature cards and profiles (also untrue), then the pronoun kerfuffle risks offending 5.4% of Americans. From 10 to 20 times more Americans are offended by this babble. According to a Pew study published in June, nearly 56% of registered voters are uncomfortable with someone using the pronouns “they” or “them,” rather than “he” or “she.” Most of the 53% of Americans who consider religion to be “very important” in their lives likely agree.

Even in Canada, where polls show greater support for gender fluidity, a survey of 3,016 adults from the Angus-Reid Institute found that 66% opposed (36% strongly) and just 22% supported (6% strongly) that “everyone should put their pronouns in their social media profiles/emails.” Media savvy squad member Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez deleted her pronouns from her X profile.

The core question is not whether those who choose non-standard pronouns, other than “they,” should be dissuaded from doing so, but whether we must all subjugate ourselves to pronoun activists by beclowning our signature cards and profiles to confirm that we are adhering to at least 2,000 years of gender identification, and whether we must adopt idiosyncratic pronouns when describing others.

At the least, no one should use the pronoun “they.” The use of “they” to describe an individual is grammatically incorrect in nearly all circumstances. It is narcissistic and pompous. When discussing multiple people and also using “they” as a pronoun for one or more of them, the result is indecipherable. (Try to understand the sentence I just wrote if the word “them” could mean both more than one individual, and one or more specific individuals.)

More than a few times I have had the following conversation with a professional whose firm uses pronouns in its signature cards. Me: Does anyone in the firm use pronouns other than him or her? Partner: “No” (or, rarely, “a few”). Me: Why then do you do this, since it must be off-putting to many more people than the number who like it? Partner: Some variation of, “We only care about the feelings of the few.”

This goes even further when people are penalized for refusing to participate in this farce. Being LGBTQ may be protected by law or common decency, but the Constitution unambiguously protects free speech and the exercise of religion. It does not protect an individual’s right to force others to refer to him or her as a “they.” At least 10 states have passed legislation to ensure that teachers, staff, and students aren’t required to use students’ pronouns or names if they don’t align with the student’s sex at birth.

Nothing, of course, is more absurd that the misogynistic “birthing person,” or that a nominee for the Supreme Court can’t define “woman.”

U.S. passport applicants now may select any gender, or an “X” gender, as may residents of 16 states on birth certificates, and at least 25 states and the District of Columbia on drivers’ licenses and other identification, defeating the purpose of identification.

French, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish assign gender to most nouns. Hence, Americans from South America refer to themselves as “Latino,” “Latina,” or just “Hispanic.” The same misogynistic pathology that causes progressives to insist there are more than two immutable sexes, erase women, and put biological males in girls’ sports, drives them to the despised slur “Latinx.”

A 2021 poll of 800 registered voters of Latin American descent for Bendixen and Amandi International, a Democratic firm, found that only 2% described themselves as Latinx, and 40% found the term offensive. A Pew survey in September found that only 4% of Hispanics use it, 51% have never heard of it, and 75% of those who have, oppose it. In October, a study conducted by professors from Georgetown and Harvard found that the use of Latinx by Democrats was increasing Hispanic support for Donald Trump and other Republicans.

The progressive lexicon is based on tenuous connections (“grandfathered” is racist), wordy (“people experiencing homelessness” for “homeless”), kooky (“assigned female at birth” for “girl”) and offends vast number of Americans, including women and members of minority groups whom the progressives claim to be supporting.

According to Future Forward, Kamala Harris’ lead PAC, variants of Trump’s campaign advertisement about her support for taxpayer-funded sex reassignment surgery for transgenders with the tagline “Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you.” shifted the race 2.7% in Trump’s favor.

Trump’s success among most demographic groups, and exit and post-election polling (see here, here, here, and here) tell us that Americans don’t want to be told by the radical left what to think or how to speak about social issues. It is time to put pronouns, Latinx, and other progressive terminology in the waste basket.

Kenin M. Spivak is founder and chairman of SMI Group LLC, an international consulting firm and investment bank. He is the author of fiction and non-fiction books and a frequent speaker and contributor to media, including The American Mind, National Review, the National Association of Scholars, television, radio, and podcasts.

South Korea’s Constitutional Court began reviewing President Yoon Suk Yeol’s impeachment on Saturday, following a National Assembly vote that led to it. Yoon was scheduled for questioning on Sunday as part of a prosecutors’ office investigation, but he has not responded. Meanwhile, the leader of his party, who had supported the impeachment, has resigned.

NBC News reports the prosecutors’ office asked Yoon to appear for questioning on Sunday as part of an investigation over his failed attempt to declare emergency martial law earlier this month. Prosecutors will issue another summons for the president. 

On Saturday, the National Assembly voted to impeach Yoon, with 204 lawmakers in the 300-member house in favor of the motion and 85 against. Eight votes were declared invalid, while three lawmakers abstained from voting.

The vote comes a little more than a week after Yoon survived an impeachment vote, capping multi-week political turmoil in the country that borders North Korea. This follows Yoon’s declaration of the briefest martial law in South Korean history on December 3, lasting only a few hours, after accusing the opposition party of engaging in ‘anti-state activities.’

Recall, Yoon said: “I will not give up. I will do my best for our country.” And this could be why he failed to appear for questioning on Sunday.

“If Yoon continues to defy requests for questioning in the two inquiries, investigators could ask a court to issue a warrant for his arrest,” NBC noted. 

Under South Korea’s Constitution, Yoon’s impeachment has allowed Prime Minister Han Duck-soo to become interim leader.

Political instability in South Korea led to the resignation of Han Dong Hoon, the leader of Yoon’s People Power Party, on Monday morning. 

Han said he does “not regret supporting the impeachment” because the president’s use of martial law was wrong. 

“Defending illegal martial law is a betrayal of the country, the people, the conservative spirit, and the achievements of our party that achieved industrialization and democratization,” Han emphasized. 

Given that the Constitutional Court will now decide whether to reinstate or remove Yoon, Goldman’s Goohoon Kwon and Andrew Tilton provided clients with the possible transition scenarios. That process could take up to six months.

Here’s what comes next: 

Newsquawk’s latest headlines on the ongoing political turmoil: 

• South Korean MPs have successfully voted to impeach President Yoon in their second attempt, amid backlash following his brief move to impose martial law, according to BBC. Yoon was suspended from official duties at 19:24 local time on Saturday while PM Han is to continue as acting president, according to Yonhap.

• South Korea’s acting president Han vowed to leave no vacuum in state affairs, build a solid security posture, and ensure the cabinet works hard to maintain trust with the US, Japan, and other partners. He also pledged efforts to operate financial and forex markets smoothly, according to Yonhap. Acting President Han said the country will maintain preparedness to prevent North Korea from stirring up provocations, secure national interests ahead of the new US administration, and prioritise national security above all else, according to News1 and Yonhap.

• South Korea’s opposition leader Lee Jae-myung said the party has decided not to proceed with the impeachment of acting , according to Reuters.

• Bank of Korea stated it is necessary to respond more actively to the economic impact compared with past impeachment periods, given heightened challenges in external conditions. It also said it will use all available policy instruments, in conjunction with the government, to respond to and avert escalation of volatility in financial and forex markets, according to Reuters.

• South Korea’s Finance Minister said the government will continue to swiftly deploy market-stabilising measures as needed, seek more support measures for vulnerable sectors, and actively communicate with parliament to keep the economy stable. The minister also confirmed that the bi-annual economic policy plan will be announced before the end of the year, according to Reuters.

• South Korea’s financial regulator said it will expand market-stabilising funds if needed to boost liquidity in bond and short-term money markets and expects financial markets to stabilise as recent political events are temporary shocks, according to Reuters.

Also, the Goldman analysts warned of another scenario that could unfold: “… muddling through in a political gridlock.” 

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Alejandro Mayorkas, provided an update Sunday on a rash of apparent drone sightings in the New Jersey region, saying the federal government will take action to address concerns but signaled that officials don’t have the authority to shoot them down.

Over the past several weeks, residents and local officials have reported drones flying over New Jersey, drawing intense speculation and scrutiny in the past week. Some federal lawmakers have called on the drones to be shot down or captured, while federal officials have not disclosed the source of the unmanned aerial vehicles.

“There’s no question that people are seeing drones,” Mayorkas told ABC News’ “This Week” anchor George Stephanopoulos on Sunday morning. “I want to assure the American public that we in the federal government have deployed additional resources, personnel, technology to assist the New Jersey State Police in addressing the drone sightings.”

Mayorkas added that the sightings are “in fact” of drones, but some are “manned aircraft that are commonly mistaken for drones,” echoing previous statements made by the FBI, DHS, and the White House. He did not provide further details.

“But there’s no question that drones are being sighted,” the secretary said, adding that there are “thousands” of drones that are flown every day in the United States, including commercial and recreational vehicles. He also pointed out that in September 2023, the Federal Aviation Administration changed federal rules that allow drones to fly in the evening.

“I want to assure the American public that we are on it. We are working in close coordination with state and local authorities,” Mayorkas said. “And it is critical, as we all have said for a number of years that we need from Congress additional authorities to address the drone situation. Our authorities currently are limited, and they are set to expire. We need them extended and expanded.”

Elaborating, he called on Congress to allow state and local officials to have broader latitude in dealing with drones “under federal supervision.”

When asked by Stephanopoulos about whether the drones should be shot down, as suggested by President-elect Donald Trump in a social media post over the weekend, Mayorkas signaled that the U.S. government has limited capacity in that regard.

Several local New Jersey elected officials, including Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), said in a Saturday news conference that that government should take down the drones and have them inspected by federal officials. “Why can’t we bag at least one drone and get to the bottom of this?” Smith asked.

Mayorkas said Sunday that the U.S. government is “limited in our authorities” in taking down a drone, noting that there are more than 8,000 drones being flown each day across the country.

“We have certain agencies within the Department of Homeland Security that can do that, and outside our department,” he added, “but we need those authorities expanded as well.”

The Homeland Security secretary then stressed that U.S. officials have not seen evidence that the drones are being operated by a foreign adversary, echoing statements made by the White House and FBI. He also suggested that the drones have not been flown over any sensitive or restricted areas.

“When a drone is flown over restricted air space, we act very, very swiftly,” said Mayorkas, who is due to leave office on Jan. 20, 2025. “And, in fact, when an individual in California flew a drone over restricted air space, that individual was identified, apprehended, and is being charged by federal authorities. And so we act as swiftly as possible when an individual does fly a drone over restricted air space and violates the rules.”

He was making reference to an incident earlier this month in which a Chinese national living in the United States was flying a drone near Vandenburg Air Force Base in Southern California.

The suspect, Yinpiao Zhou, was arrested at the San Francisco International Airport right before he was set to board a flight back to China on Dec. 9, officials have said.