What Our Words Tell Us

[YMix]

By DAVID BROOKS
Published: May 20, 2013

About two years ago, the folks at Google released a database of 5.2 million books published between 1500 and 2008. You can type a search word into the database and find out how frequently different words were used at different epochs.

The database doesn’t tell you how the words were used; it just tells you how frequently they were used. Still, results can reveal interesting cultural shifts. For example, somebody typed the word “cocaine” into the search engine and found that the word was surprisingly common in the Victorian era. Then it gradually declined during the 20th century until around 1970, when usage skyrocketed.

I’d like to tell a story about the last half-century, based on studies done with this search engine. The first element in this story is rising individualism. A study by Jean M. Twenge, W. Keith Campbell and Brittany Gentile found that between 1960 and 2008 individualistic words and phrases increasingly overshadowed communal words and phrases.

That is to say, over those 48 years, words and phrases like “personalized,” “self,” “standout,” “unique,” “I come first” and “I can do it myself” were used more frequently. Communal words and phrases like “community,” “collective,” “tribe,” “share,” “united,” “band together” and “common good” receded.

The second element of the story is demoralization. A study by Pelin Kesebir and Selin Kesebir found that general moral terms like “virtue,” “decency” and “conscience” were used less frequently over the course of the 20th century. Words associated with moral excellence, like “honesty,” “patience” and “compassion” were used much less frequently.

The Kesebirs identified 50 words associated with moral virtue and found that 74 percent were used less frequently as the century progressed. Certain types of virtues were especially hard hit. Usage of courage words like “bravery” and “fortitude” fell by 66 percent. Usage of gratitude words like “thankfulness” and “appreciation” dropped by 49 percent.

Usage of humility words like “modesty” and “humbleness” dropped by 52 percent. Usage of compassion words like “kindness” and “helpfulness” dropped by 56 percent. Meanwhile, usage of words associated with the ability to deliver, like “discipline” and “dependability” rose over the century, as did the usage of words associated with fairness. The Kesebirs point out that these sorts of virtues are most relevant to economic production and exchange.

Daniel Klein of George Mason University has conducted one of the broadest studies with the Google search engine. He found further evidence of the two elements I’ve mentioned. On the subject of individualization, he found that the word “preferences” was barely used until about 1930, but usage has surged since. On the general subject of demoralization, he finds a long decline of usage in terms like “faith,” “wisdom,” “ought,” “evil” and “prudence,” and a sharp rise in what you might call social science terms like “subjectivity,” “normative,” “psychology” and “information.”

Klein adds the third element to our story, which he calls “governmentalization.” Words having to do with experts have shown a steady rise. So have phrases like “run the country,” “economic justice,” “nationalism,” “priorities,” “right-wing” and “left-wing.” The implication is that politics and government have become more prevalent.

So the story I’d like to tell is this: Over the past half-century, society has become more individualistic. As it has become more individualistic, it has also become less morally aware, because social and moral fabrics are inextricably linked. The atomization and demoralization of society have led to certain forms of social breakdown, which government has tried to address, sometimes successfully and often impotently.

This story, if true, should cause discomfort on right and left. Conservatives sometimes argue that if we could just reduce government to the size it was back in, say, the 1950s, then America would be vibrant and free again. But the underlying sociology and moral culture is just not there anymore. Government could be smaller when the social fabric was more tightly knit, but small government will have different and more cataclysmic effects today when it is not.

Liberals sometimes argue that our main problems come from the top: a self-dealing elite, the oligarchic bankers. But the evidence suggests that individualism and demoralization are pervasive up and down society, and may be even more pervasive at the bottom. Liberals also sometimes talk as if our problems are fundamentally economic, and can be addressed politically, through redistribution. But maybe the root of the problem is also cultural. The social and moral trends swamp the proposed redistributive remedies.

Evidence from crude data sets like these are prone to confirmation bias. People see patterns they already believe in. Maybe I’ve done that here. But these gradual shifts in language reflect tectonic shifts in culture. We write less about community bonds and obligations because they’re less central to our lives.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/21/opini ... hare&_r=1&

[Simple Minded]

Interesting stuff YMix, thanks for posting.

How to measure is the big variable, words used in a city, county, nation, hemisphere? Who really cares what language people 100's or 1000's of miles away from one uses if people within a 50 mile radius are relatively happy?

And in what context. websites, print, broadcast, etc?

Broken down by ethnic group, income, education, occupation, etc?

In regards to words as indicators, which is cause, which is effect?

I have heard several interviews with Paul Guercio, you might enjoy this website:

http://www.accessbest.com/merlin/

[Enki]

So the story I’d like to tell is this: Over the past half-century, society has become more individualistic. As it has become more individualistic, it has also become less morally aware, because social and moral fabrics are inextricably linked. The atomization and demoralization of society have led to certain forms of social breakdown, which government has tried to address, sometimes successfully and often impotently.

This story, if true, should cause discomfort on right and left. Conservatives sometimes argue that if we could just reduce government to the size it was back in, say, the 1950s, then America would be vibrant and free again. But the underlying sociology and moral culture is just not there anymore. Government could be smaller when the social fabric was more tightly knit, but small government will have different and more cataclysmic effects today when it is not.

This is precisely the argument I have been making to Mr. Perfect for as long as we've known each other.

[Simple Minded]

So the story I’d like to tell is this: Over the past half-century, society has become more individualistic. As it has become more individualistic, it has also become less morally aware, because social and moral fabrics are inextricably linked. The atomization and demoralization of society have led to certain forms of social breakdown, which government has tried to address, sometimes successfully and often impotently.

This story, if true, should cause discomfort on right and left. Conservatives sometimes argue that if we could just reduce government to the size it was back in, say, the 1950s, then America would be vibrant and free again. But the underlying sociology and moral culture is just not there anymore. Government could be smaller when the social fabric was more tightly knit, but small government will have different and more cataclysmic effects today when it is not.

This is precisely the argument I have been making to Mr. Perfect for as long as we've known each other.

That seems to be the fundamental difference between the philosphy of a Leftist and a Rightist (nebulous terms).

The "left" seems to believe that increasing the size, scope, and power of government is the necessary effect, and that social decline is the cause.

The "right" seems to believe increasing the size, scope, and power of government is the cause, and that social decline is the inevitable effect.

Whether one belives "society" (whatever that means) has become more individualistic or less individualistic over the last half century, probably depends upon the neighborhood one lives in, and which the decade in which they were born. IMSMO, it seems that most people define "normal" as the conditions they lived in from roughly age 10 to age 25 or so, and for the rest of their lives, that seems to become their standard of measure.

Relative, imprecise, ever changing definitions abound!!!!

Brooks shoots his thesis in the foot by stating that the database does not reveal how the word was used, but only counts quantity. Therefore, the statements "Individualism is the root of all evil," and "Individualism is the cure of all problems," would both score quantity 1 on the use of the word individualism but reflect different zeitgeists. Talk about a Rorshach test!

David Brooks lives on a different planet than I, but then again, don't we all live on different planets?

Never trust anyone over 30!

[Enki]

The society was very community minded when people only cared about white people. Now that we include everyone else in society, it's a different story. Just like it was a different story back then if you were one of the not white people.

[noddy]

So the story I’d like to tell is this: Over the past half-century, society has become more individualistic. As it has become more individualistic, it has also become less morally aware, because social and moral fabrics are inextricably linked. The atomization and demoralization of society have led to certain forms of social breakdown, which government has tried to address, sometimes successfully and often impotently.

This story, if true, should cause discomfort on right and left. Conservatives sometimes argue that if we could just reduce government to the size it was back in, say, the 1950s, then America would be vibrant and free again. But the underlying sociology and moral culture is just not there anymore. Government could be smaller when the social fabric was more tightly knit, but small government will have different and more cataclysmic effects today when it is not.

This is precisely the argument I have been making to Mr. Perfect for as long as we've known each other.

not really - what you have been arguing about is the consequences of realising that.

its a strawman anyway, people that i know dont have such a utopian "vibrant and free" attitude about it and acknowledge that their will be levels of chaos and problems in many areas but this needs to be balanced against the depressing distopia of a more authoritarian and centralised world.

freedom is messy and the arguments between being a caged animal in a zoo with guaranteed food and medical attention versus being a free animal who might miss out on those things are impossible.

personally i see more creatures trying to escape the zoo than break in to it - this is the exact spot these conversations break down.

[Enki]

not really - what you have been arguing about is the consequences of realising that.

My position has always been that in a high-tech society, no one should be suffering deprivation. My problem with the modern American Conservative movement is that it is so soaked in Ayn Rand's clem, that they are against providing a safety net at all. If you want to make the argument, "This is the people's job, not the government's.", then I am right there with you. If your position is 'genuflect the poors, they deserve to suffer because they were not virtuous to make lots of money.', then I am at odds with that. My argument has been essentially that the private sector is not outcompeting the government. And I take Conservatives who dismiss Occupy less and less seriously considering Occupy is the greatest argument for the people outcompeting the government in providing services that this country has ever known. Everyone I am working with is looking at decentralized structures. No one is looking to lobby the government for more resources, mostly it's about asking the government to get out of the way, or asking the government to cooperate with what we the people are spearheading. In otherwords the government supplements lack of community, but should not get in the way of building community. Unfortunately government quite often gets in the way of community. The Social Engineers like Robert Moses create urban wastelands like the South Bronx by bisecting communities with roads without respect to the actual movement of people and the conditions in those communities. I don't mind a new highway, but it really needs to take the community stakeholders into account. We consistently get developers promising they will help with certain things in order to get the zoning to build their monstrous luxury condo towers, but then they renege on those promises when the commercial tower is complete. Community is a dirty word on Wall Street, and that is exactly why I loathe the neo-Conservative movement so much. American Conservatism as I know it is very much about community. And I think in Mr. P's life, he actually lives very much by those principles. It's the noxious ideology that I cannot stand.

[Mr. Perfect]

My position has always been that in a high-tech society, no one should be suffering deprivation.

When you elect people with your economic beliefs deprivation is the unavoidable out come. Technology has nothing to do with anything.

My problem with the modern American Conservative movement is that it is so soaked in Ayn Rand's clem, that they are against providing a safety net at all.

When you implement Ayn Rand's ideas no one needs any government help, you are so productive and wealthy as a country.

If you want to make the argument, "This is the people's job, not the government's.", then I am right there with you. If your position is 'genuflect the poors, they deserve to suffer because they were not virtuous to make lots of money.', then I am at odds with that.

Your belief system has produced more poors than any other belief system in history. Which is why I am passionately against your belief system.

My argument has been essentially that the private sector is not outcompeting the government. And I take Conservatives who dismiss Occupy less and less seriously considering Occupy is the greatest argument for the people outcompeting the government in providing services that this country has ever known. Everyone I am working with is looking at decentralized structures.

Not everyone really has the luxury of endlessly gazing into one's own navel. Not everyone is trying to support "structures".

No one is looking to lobby the government for more resources,

Could be, but all gov'ts are intently spending themselves out of existence. Any ideas on why? \

mostly it's about asking the government to get out of the way, or asking the government to cooperate with what we the people are spearheading.

Most people have no need of 75% of government. I say just get rid of it.

In otherwords the government supplements lack of community, but should not get in the way of building community. Unfortunately government quite often gets in the way of community. The Social Engineers like Robert Moses create urban wastelands like the South Bronx by bisecting communities with roads without respect to the actual movement of people and the conditions in those communities. I don't mind a new highway, but it really needs to take the community stakeholders into account. We consistently get developers promising they will help with certain things in order to get the zoning to build their monstrous luxury condo towers, but then they renege on those promises when the commercial tower is complete.

City people and their problems. Don't know how to help you there.

Community is a dirty word on Wall Street, and that is exactly why I loathe the neo-Conservative movement so much.

Harvard Democrats, don't know what you do about them. If the Democrats would have let them die naturally then all of that would be over. However it wasn't in the left wing interest of democrats to do that, so here we sit.

American Conservatism as I know it is very much about community. And I think in Mr. P's life, he actually lives very much by those principles. It's the noxious ideology that I cannot stand.

American conservatives recoil at mixing community and state, with a few exceptions. Leftists can't imagine it. Among other things.

[noddy]

not really - what you have been arguing about is the consequences of realising that.

My position has always been that in a high-tech society, no one should be suffering deprivation.

if only deprivation was definable...

My problem with the modern American Conservative movement is that it is so soaked in Ayn Rand's clem, that they are against providing a safety net at all. If you want to make the argument, "This is the people's job, not the government's.", then I am right there with you. If your position is 'genuflect the poors, they deserve to suffer because they were not virtuous to make lots of money.', then I am at odds with that. My argument has been essentially that the private sector is not outcompeting the government. And I take Conservatives who dismiss Occupy less and less seriously considering Occupy is the greatest argument for the people outcompeting the government in providing services that this country has ever known. Everyone I am working with is looking at decentralized structures. No one is looking to lobby the government for more resources, mostly it's about asking the government to get out of the way, or asking the government to cooperate with what we the people are spearheading. In otherwords the government supplements lack of community, but should not get in the way of building community. Unfortunately government quite often gets in the way of community. The Social Engineers like Robert Moses create urban wastelands like the South Bronx by bisecting communities with roads without respect to the actual movement of people and the conditions in those communities. I don't mind a new highway, but it really needs to take the community stakeholders into account. We consistently get developers promising they will help with certain things in order to get the zoning to build their monstrous luxury condo towers, but then they renege on those promises when the commercial tower is complete. Community is a dirty word on Wall Street, and that is exactly why I loathe the neo-Conservative movement so much. American Conservatism as I know it is very much about community. And I think in Mr. P's life, he actually lives very much by those principles. It's the noxious ideology that I cannot stand.

despite the fact that the "sensible middle" seems to dismiss the tp as christian fundies being astro turfed by millionaires and the ows as arts students and communist loons i still think that they are both big moments of the next gen of politics and as the boomers fade out the issues raised by these groups are the new party lines.

nothing is going to change until the boomers are gone - we have a messy decade infront of us.

[Simple Minded]

not really - what you have been arguing about is the consequences of realising that.

My position has always been that in a high-tech society, no one should be suffering deprivation.

if only deprivation was definable...

My problem with the modern American Conservative movement is that it is so soaked in Ayn Rand's clem, that they are against providing a safety net at all. If you want to make the argument, "This is the people's job, not the government's.", then I am right there with you. If your position is 'genuflect the poors, they deserve to suffer because they were not virtuous to make lots of money.', then I am at odds with that. My argument has been essentially that the private sector is not outcompeting the government. And I take Conservatives who dismiss Occupy less and less seriously considering Occupy is the greatest argument for the people outcompeting the government in providing services that this country has ever known. Everyone I am working with is looking at decentralized structures. No one is looking to lobby the government for more resources, mostly it's about asking the government to get out of the way, or asking the government to cooperate with what we the people are spearheading. In otherwords the government supplements lack of community, but should not get in the way of building community. Unfortunately government quite often gets in the way of community. The Social Engineers like Robert Moses create urban wastelands like the South Bronx by bisecting communities with roads without respect to the actual movement of people and the conditions in those communities. I don't mind a new highway, but it really needs to take the community stakeholders into account. We consistently get developers promising they will help with certain things in order to get the zoning to build their monstrous luxury condo towers, but then they renege on those promises when the commercial tower is complete. Community is a dirty word on Wall Street, and that is exactly why I loathe the neo-Conservative movement so much. American Conservatism as I know it is very much about community. And I think in Mr. P's life, he actually lives very much by those principles. It's the noxious ideology that I cannot stand.

despite the fact that the "sensible middle" seems to dismiss the tp as christian fundies being astro turfed by millionaires and the ows as arts students and communist loons i still think that they are both big moments of the next gen of politics and as the boomers fade out the issues raised by these groups are the new party lines.

nothing is going to change until the boomers are gone - we have a messy decade infront of us.

Well said noddy. Exactly why both establishment dems and repubs view both groups as threats to the status quo/power structure. I am always amazed at how much common ground exists between the tea part and OWS, even if Glenn Beck and Tinker can't see each other as soul mates.

I think the boomers have pretty much exited the stage, most of the boomers I know think the current zeitgeist is dominated by the younguns (15-45). The boomer whinning could just be indicative of the current fad of everyone wanting to be the victim of some powerful entity.

Tinker's statements above in red bold mystify me. Of his posts I have read, the number of posts in which Tinker agrees with my interpretation of Rand's ranting out number his anti-Rand screeds by about 30 to 1. Take deep breaths Tinker, that was a compliment.

Every town, city, or county I have lived in has been awash in community centered and volunteer groups. Though I have little doubt that some areas of the US are very much dominated by localized political MOBS. If DC, NYC, Detroit, Chicago, LA, etc. fit that description, I would not be surprised.

Tinker's future looks alot like the 1950s. I applaud his efforts. We just disagree on the definition of a few words.

Hell noddy, deprivation is easily defined by the person who feels deprived..... Once we nail down that definition and the definition of fairness, we are golden. Two simple words and all the arguing and whinning go away, how effing hard can it be?

[Ibrahim]

The society was very community minded when people only cared about white people. Now that we include everyone else in society, it's a different story. Just like it was a different story back then if you were one of the not white people.

This is the American story. Formerly marginal groups being included in the national whole, and others resisting their inclusion. American social history is a story of group after group being resisted, and then included, as members of the normative "white" society. Irish, then Italians, then Eastern Europeans and Jews, recently some Asians. Currently hung up on Middle Easterners and Latinos. African-Americans and Native Americans still waiting... any day now...

[Mr. Perfect]

That's Democrats for you.

[noddy]

not really - what you have been arguing about is the consequences of realising that.

My position has always been that in a high-tech society, no one should be suffering deprivation.

if only deprivation was definable...

My problem with the modern American Conservative movement is that it is so soaked in Ayn Rand's clem, that they are against providing a safety net at all. If you want to make the argument, "This is the people's job, not the government's.", then I am right there with you. If your position is 'genuflect the poors, they deserve to suffer because they were not virtuous to make lots of money.', then I am at odds with that. My argument has been essentially that the private sector is not outcompeting the government. And I take Conservatives who dismiss Occupy less and less seriously considering Occupy is the greatest argument for the people outcompeting the government in providing services that this country has ever known. Everyone I am working with is looking at decentralized structures. No one is looking to lobby the government for more resources, mostly it's about asking the government to get out of the way, or asking the government to cooperate with what we the people are spearheading. In otherwords the government supplements lack of community, but should not get in the way of building community. Unfortunately government quite often gets in the way of community. The Social Engineers like Robert Moses create urban wastelands like the South Bronx by bisecting communities with roads without respect to the actual movement of people and the conditions in those communities. I don't mind a new highway, but it really needs to take the community stakeholders into account. We consistently get developers promising they will help with certain things in order to get the zoning to build their monstrous luxury condo towers, but then they renege on those promises when the commercial tower is complete. Community is a dirty word on Wall Street, and that is exactly why I loathe the neo-Conservative movement so much. American Conservatism as I know it is very much about community. And I think in Mr. P's life, he actually lives very much by those principles. It's the noxious ideology that I cannot stand.

despite the fact that the "sensible middle" seems to dismiss the tp as christian fundies being astro turfed by millionaires and the ows as arts students and communist loons i still think that they are both big moments of the next gen of politics and as the boomers fade out the issues raised by these groups are the new party lines.

nothing is going to change until the boomers are gone - we have a messy decade infront of us.

Well said noddy. Exactly why both establishment dems and repubs view both groups as threats to the status quo/power structure. I am always amazed at how much common ground exists between the tea part and OWS, even if Glenn Beck and Tinker can't see each other as soul mates.

I think the boomers have pretty much exited the stage, most of the boomers I know think the current zeitgeist is dominated by the younguns (15-45). The boomer whinning could just be indicative of the current fad of everyone wanting to be the victim of some powerful entity.

Tinker's statements above in red bold mystify me. Of his posts I have read, the number of posts in which Tinker agrees with my interpretation of Rand's ranting out number his anti-Rand screeds by about 30 to 1. Take deep breaths Tinker, that was a compliment.

Every town, city, or county I have lived in has been awash in community centered and volunteer groups. Though I have little doubt that some areas of the US are very much dominated by localized political MOBS. If DC, NYC, Detroit, Chicago, LA, etc. fit that description, I would not be surprised.

Tinker's future looks alot like the 1950s. I applaud his efforts. We just disagree on the definition of a few words.

Hell noddy, deprivation is easily defined by the person who feels deprived..... Once we nail down that definition and the definition of fairness, we are golden. Two simple words and all the arguing and whinning go away, how effing hard can it be?

dont get me wrong - im not anti boomer by any means, i just think their priorities and worldview are formed in another time and not on focus for the life experience and conditions of the current mess..

you are right they are exiting from the workplace but they still dominate the politics in my country and probably still do have about a decades worth of that left in them.

[Ibrahim]

Agreed. I guess I'm "generation X" and we spent most of our time trying to dig out comfortable boomer-style niches in the economy, but only half of us were able to do so. Presumably even harder for the next wave. Are "generation Y" and "millennials" two different groups? Not that there is any sense in blaming this generation or that for broader economic trends.

[Enki]

Agreed. I guess I'm "generation X" and we spent most of our time trying to dig out comfortable boomer-style niches in the economy, but only half of us were able to do so. Presumably even harder for the next wave. Are "generation Y" and "millennials" two different groups? Not that there is any sense in blaming this generation or that for broader economic trends.

Gen Y and Millenials are the same generation. The generation that came of age in the new millenium. Gen X stops if you graduated from HS before the turn of the Millenium. I am at the tail end of Gen X. I graduated HS in 1996. Basically, born between 1965 and 1980 you're Gen X, born between 1980 and 1990 you're Gen Y, Millenial.

[Simple Minded]

dont get me wrong - im not anti boomer by any means, i just think their priorities and worldview are formed in another time and not on focus for the life experience and conditions of the current mess..

you are right they are exiting from the workplace but they still dominate the politics in my country and probably still do have about a decades worth of that left in them.

no worries mate! IMSMO, you don't seem like one who clings to a sense of group identity or the us vs them binary meme.

Life is flux, and there are lots of ways to slice up reality to fit the preferred perceptions that make us comfortable. Culture, generation, nation, race, wealth, location, education, etc. filters are everywhere.

Current events look like little more than a multi-generational credit cycle unwinding. Lots of humans don't seem to be able to handle prosperity for more than a couple decades without getting foolish and self-defeating. Blaming it on parties, nations, or generations just seems a bit toooooo simple minded for even my reptilian brain.

nothing new under the sun......?

Without our filters, life may be just too complex for us mere humans to process large groups of others. As neighbors, people seem to agree easily and almost by default. As groups larger than, say 100,000 seem to require deploying of the mental labels, Europeans are ________, Americans are ________, Conservatives are _________, Liberals are ___________,

Are you a typical Stralian or an outlier?

gets ugly, but is also quite humorous how seriously we defend