Your “graphs” and commentary continue to inspire me, Ryan! Your work on women and religious disaffiliation I cite in a new publication through Wipf And Stock, a book version of my Substack serial, Eight Trails.
Another fascinating post as usual. However, should flourishing be the goal for 18 to 25 years olds? Those times were a period of struggle and pain which I attribute to developing perseverance to handle greater challenges in life. I’m not sure flourishing should be a goal during that period of life…although I might have said it was a goal at the time, I wouldn’t trade the hardships I experienced now I can see how they have helped me weather life.
I sort of agree with this, but I also think the generation that immediately followed me (as an elder Millennial) engaged in a lot more angst and existential despair than we did, and it doesn't seem to have gotten better, and that's probably bad even for future flourishing, especially if it translates to a fear of exposure to new things or to engaging with the world.
I picked up on this when I started hearing college kids talk about homesickness and anxiety anxiety anxiety around 5 years after I graduated, which I don't remember hearing about nearly so much, if at at all, when I was in college. I feel like I was part of the last generation that went off to college and was genuinely ecstatic about the freedom, even if there were also doubts about going out into the world of work afterwards.
Also we dated. I wasn't even remotely a hot commodity but still had a girlfriend or another for probably 70-80% of my time in college. Even one that I thought for sure I would marry. I see a lot less of that now.
Ryan, First off, thank you for all you do. You are truly exceptional at your craft, and I learn so much from each post.
This post was extremely important to me as a father of three young adults, including two boys, as well as a former Religious Education teacher at a small Catholic parish. I saw anecdotal evidence of your research here in the seven years I taught 13 year olds. Life was good in so many respects. They had a roof over their head. They had purpose five days a week at school. Maybe they had sports, and a friends network.
Watching these children grow up and seeing them in their 20s, I see how the burdens of life can prevent flourishing. I hope for those children I taught, there is something they took with them that helps them navigate the times when we all flounder.
Some thoughts, it seems that "religious" is a terms that generally has an agreed upon meaning and lends itself to be measured in objective way (behavior, observation, self report etc.) but spiritual is just about the exact opposite. If some one asks me "how spiritual I am" I have no idea what that means or how to answer. It is identical to asking me "how monkeys precarious are you?". Likewise if someone tells me to that they are spiritual it give me no information to better understand them. In actual interacting with a person I can ask follow up questions and gain a great understanding of what spiritual means to them and what role in plays in there life, but in a survey its a precarious monkeys variable.
I will give this caveat. I am for all practical purposes a layman when it comes to interpreting data and reading sociology research. I had to take statistics classes in graduate and undergraduate but it was not the focus of my education or future career, and whatever I learned I probably forgot a week after finishing the courses. That being said I reviewed the links to Dr. VanderWeele paper and could not understand what "spirituality" is defined as and if it is defined at all. What am I not getting?
I think there's this tension between how the general public reads these results and how practitioners think about them.
I get this question all the time, "How is <BLANK> defined?"
Often in questions related to ideology, partisanship, spirituality, etc.
I think I speak for the vast majority of academics in saying we don't want to define those terms.
One good reason: there is no widely agreed upon definition. Go ask ten people what the word "liberal" means right now. How many would give you the same answer?
Another is: surveys are already too long as it is. Having to define most terms would mean we could ask fewer questions.
I'm happy to try and figure out what those terms means in a post-hoc way - by looking at how they answer other questions.
Really appreciate the reply. I gathered there were very technical intricacies that would not be easy to grok without specialized training. In my personal life I really push back hard when people bandy about terms they can't define (even for just how they are using it), but that instinct is maybe not so relevant in social science data crunching.
Some questions not asked by your work, from an atheist.
1. Percent of non-religious and non-spiritual who have become dissolutioned by religious and/or leadership and are trying to negotiate their own ethical life creating less satisfaction with peers and possibly parents while they learn to believe in themselves.
2. The very real religious bias/discrimination amongst newly confirmed peers towards the non-religious and non-spiritual reducing happiness in this group due to a sudden change in peer friendships and in some communities almost daily verbal abuse until the non-religious child learns to say they are spiritual just to have peer friendships return thus increasing happiness. In short, you learn how to play societies game.
Wow! Thanks for this analysis. I find it to be true among Haight school students I taught as they age. Some find life more challenging after high school and before they settle into a more stable career. Some of it may be due to finishing degrees, particularly advanced degrees that absorb so much time, energy and money without immediate advantages. Just hopes that it will all work out. That can’t lead to flourishing.
Your “graphs” and commentary continue to inspire me, Ryan! Your work on women and religious disaffiliation I cite in a new publication through Wipf And Stock, a book version of my Substack serial, Eight Trails.
Another fascinating post as usual. However, should flourishing be the goal for 18 to 25 years olds? Those times were a period of struggle and pain which I attribute to developing perseverance to handle greater challenges in life. I’m not sure flourishing should be a goal during that period of life…although I might have said it was a goal at the time, I wouldn’t trade the hardships I experienced now I can see how they have helped me weather life.
I sort of agree with this, but I also think the generation that immediately followed me (as an elder Millennial) engaged in a lot more angst and existential despair than we did, and it doesn't seem to have gotten better, and that's probably bad even for future flourishing, especially if it translates to a fear of exposure to new things or to engaging with the world.
I picked up on this when I started hearing college kids talk about homesickness and anxiety anxiety anxiety around 5 years after I graduated, which I don't remember hearing about nearly so much, if at at all, when I was in college. I feel like I was part of the last generation that went off to college and was genuinely ecstatic about the freedom, even if there were also doubts about going out into the world of work afterwards.
Also we dated. I wasn't even remotely a hot commodity but still had a girlfriend or another for probably 70-80% of my time in college. Even one that I thought for sure I would marry. I see a lot less of that now.
Ryan, First off, thank you for all you do. You are truly exceptional at your craft, and I learn so much from each post.
This post was extremely important to me as a father of three young adults, including two boys, as well as a former Religious Education teacher at a small Catholic parish. I saw anecdotal evidence of your research here in the seven years I taught 13 year olds. Life was good in so many respects. They had a roof over their head. They had purpose five days a week at school. Maybe they had sports, and a friends network.
Watching these children grow up and seeing them in their 20s, I see how the burdens of life can prevent flourishing. I hope for those children I taught, there is something they took with them that helps them navigate the times when we all flounder.
Thanks again. Your work is so needed.
Some thoughts, it seems that "religious" is a terms that generally has an agreed upon meaning and lends itself to be measured in objective way (behavior, observation, self report etc.) but spiritual is just about the exact opposite. If some one asks me "how spiritual I am" I have no idea what that means or how to answer. It is identical to asking me "how monkeys precarious are you?". Likewise if someone tells me to that they are spiritual it give me no information to better understand them. In actual interacting with a person I can ask follow up questions and gain a great understanding of what spiritual means to them and what role in plays in there life, but in a survey its a precarious monkeys variable.
I will give this caveat. I am for all practical purposes a layman when it comes to interpreting data and reading sociology research. I had to take statistics classes in graduate and undergraduate but it was not the focus of my education or future career, and whatever I learned I probably forgot a week after finishing the courses. That being said I reviewed the links to Dr. VanderWeele paper and could not understand what "spirituality" is defined as and if it is defined at all. What am I not getting?
I think there's this tension between how the general public reads these results and how practitioners think about them.
I get this question all the time, "How is <BLANK> defined?"
Often in questions related to ideology, partisanship, spirituality, etc.
I think I speak for the vast majority of academics in saying we don't want to define those terms.
One good reason: there is no widely agreed upon definition. Go ask ten people what the word "liberal" means right now. How many would give you the same answer?
Another is: surveys are already too long as it is. Having to define most terms would mean we could ask fewer questions.
I'm happy to try and figure out what those terms means in a post-hoc way - by looking at how they answer other questions.
Really appreciate the reply. I gathered there were very technical intricacies that would not be easy to grok without specialized training. In my personal life I really push back hard when people bandy about terms they can't define (even for just how they are using it), but that instinct is maybe not so relevant in social science data crunching.
Some questions not asked by your work, from an atheist.
1. Percent of non-religious and non-spiritual who have become dissolutioned by religious and/or leadership and are trying to negotiate their own ethical life creating less satisfaction with peers and possibly parents while they learn to believe in themselves.
2. The very real religious bias/discrimination amongst newly confirmed peers towards the non-religious and non-spiritual reducing happiness in this group due to a sudden change in peer friendships and in some communities almost daily verbal abuse until the non-religious child learns to say they are spiritual just to have peer friendships return thus increasing happiness. In short, you learn how to play societies game.
I've been seeing 18-22 year olds struggle to come out of COVID--it's tough as someone nearly 10 years older than they are to see them not flourish.
Wow! Thanks for this analysis. I find it to be true among Haight school students I taught as they age. Some find life more challenging after high school and before they settle into a more stable career. Some of it may be due to finishing degrees, particularly advanced degrees that absorb so much time, energy and money without immediate advantages. Just hopes that it will all work out. That can’t lead to flourishing.