In a prior post I spoke to the importance in getting involved in various organizations and groups as a way to build skills, expand one's network, and give back. Volunteering around causes you care about is vital to so many areas of one's life. Sadly, however, volunteer engagement is on the decline. 

In a survey of over 1,200 non-profit leaders conducted in 2022, 46.8% said that recruiting sufficient volunteers is a big problem for their organization. Those numbers have almost doubled from the 2003 survey, in which 29% of nonprofits saw this issue as a big problem. Furthermore, nearly half of non-profit leaders believe that the lack of volunteers is a "big problem" to their organizations fulfilling their missions. This same report also pointed out that the ~100 institutional funders they surveyed were less likely endorse the belief that volunteers provide important programmatic and functional support to non-profit organizations (when compared to responses from non-profit leaders) and  were less aware of some of the challenges organizations faced in recruiting volunteers. This gap in funders' understanding of volunteer engagement and impact may result in it being difficult for non-profits to solicit funding support for these efforts. Importantly, the study also found that most non-profit organizations do not ask for funding for volunteer engagement and emphasized that funders see benefits to supporting volunteer engagement if they perceive the investment increases the capacity of volunteers to form or strengthen connections with other people or organizations in the community.   

I have seen some of the challenges in volunteer recruitment and engagement first-hand as part of my involvement in two organizations close to my heart: the National Postdoctoral Association (NPA) and the Graduate Career Consortium (GCC). Across both organizations, interest and engagement with one might call "service" committees has eroded, potentially because some volunteer tasks and activities in these areas seem like "work". 

While the NPA has a small staff (of 3.5 FTE as of this writing), many of them are focused on the day-to-day running of the organization and trying to "keep the lights on." As such, focusing on a complex problem like "volunteer engagement" and "leadership development" is a challenge. The GCC suffers from the fact that is a 100% volunteer-run organization. So, all day-to-day operational tasks of the GCC lies it its leaders and members to execute. Having served on the Executive Committee of the GCC, I can tell  you that it is A LOT of work. Furthermore, much like the NPA, GCC leadership spends much of its time trying to keep the organization running and fiscally stable.  

Both the NPA and GCC are great organizations with important missions and are working diligently to try to improve and evolve their operations and structures to serve their members better. That said, they can only do so much at their current volunteer levels. Both organizations would be transformed if more members engaged in volunteer efforts and activities. This requires infrastructure and a plan to accomplish, however. And while leadership in each organization can start to shape processes and procedures to improve volunteer recruitment, engagement, and retention, it will ultimately be up to volunteer leaders across various committees and taskforces within each organization to do the work. We need to engage volunteers in volunteer engagement which highlights the weird circularity of the problem. It will take effort to get this fly wheel going but perhaps combining established volunteers and leaders in each organization with newer volunteers would allow for fresh ideas and insights to emerge. There are no easy answers but we have to start somewhere. 

Certainly the COVID-19 pandemic hit many hard and led to burnout and a re-setting of priorities. Ironically, non-profit, volunteer-drive organizations offer an important service to those affected by the pandemic. Feeling isolated and uncertain? Organizations that foster community, connection, and resource sharing conceptually are more important to you now. But taking advantage of organizational resources and programs is quite different from helping to run and manage them. 

Perhaps part of the lower levels of engagement in volunteer work (and paid work, too) is a general issue in our limited attention and bandwidth today...stretched to its breaking point with the proliferation of content and technologies engineered to distract us. Email, notifications on applications like Slack, and the infinitely vast distractions available via the internet and streaming content services like Netflix provide a countervailing force on our attention and focus on work that is almost insurmountable. And this is work we are paid to do that gets crowded out by digital distractions. What hope do we have for engaging in work we are not paid to do (ie, volunteer work) in such an environment? 

There is also the issue that engaging in volunteer or leadership capacity in a non-profit organization is WORK. It requires effort and commitment that many have too little of these days. 

Similarly, developing more robust structures to engage and support volunteers within non-profits requires work on the part of an organization whose bandwidth is already stretched due to lower levels of engagement. Ironically, solving the problem often requires more engagement and volunteers. One can see how this state of affairs could lead to a sort of "doom loop" where a decrease in volunteer engagement erodes the organization's ability to "get stuff done" and provide examples of projects and activities for prospective volunteers to get excited about, ultimately leading to less new volunteer interest in the organization. 

There is some interesting research looking at what factors affect both volunteer retention and engagement. In the sample of 232 active volunteers working in social or environmental non-profit organizations, regression analyses found that commitment, and not engagement, predicts intention to remain with the organization, and that engagement, and not commitment, predicts psychological well-being of the volunteers. These data suggest a need for non-profits to articulate their "why" to volunteers to solidify their commitment to the organization and its mission to keep them engaged and then through their engagement, volunteers improve their sense of well-being (ie, feel "good" about their involvement). 

Indeed, other studies show that the volunteers perceive that their satisfaction with life had significantly changed as a result of doing voluntary work. In addition, this study found that the link between self-determined types of motivation and eudaimonic well-being ("living a life of virtue in pursuit of human excellence") is mediated by engagement. Engagement also mediated the positive effects of motivation on satisfaction with volunteering, which in turn acted as a second-order mediator on the relationship between self-determined types of motivation and hedonic well-being ("feel good"). In other words, volunteers need to be internally motivated to contribute to an organization and then be given pathways to engage with the organization to feel fulfillment from their involvement on a variety of levels. 

Qualitative analyses of interviews with experienced volunteer managers have found that key engagement strategies could include "fulfilling ulterior motives" of the volunteers. So, organizations must work to understand what is motivating their volunteers to engage and how can the organization help to fulfill this need while also involving the volunteer in activities crucial to the organization itself. Flexibility in engaging volunteers also came up this analysis, supporting the notion that providing volunteers different mechanisms for engagement (including potentially asynchronous tasks) allows them to remain engaged on their own terms. None of these findings are that surprising but they emphasize a need for organizations to develop infrastructure to hear from their prospective volunteers and offer them a variety of options to engage with the organization. Additional studies on volunteer engagement are linked at the end of this article. 

Reader, perhaps you can help jump-start volunteer engagement efforts in societies or organizations you care about by taking the first step of getting more involved? This could look differently for each person and organization but active engagement of some kind is critical. Perhaps you can identify a leader of a subcommittee or group within an organization and setup a meeting to learn more about their work and whether your skills and interests could contribute in some way? These conversations (and your continued involvement in an organization) ultimately help you widen and broaden your professional network and you can develop new skills in interpersonal communication, project management, and leadership by becoming involved in a project or initiative within the organization. If you are helpful and provide value, people around you will notice and could also be excellent references for jobs you may apply to in the future. In closing, volunteering is helpful for you professionally but also helps the organization accomplish its mission. It is the ultimate win-win. So, what are you waiting for? 

If you are a postdoctoral scholar or individual working to support this population, consider joining the NPA as a volunteer. There are several committees and taskforces to get involved in. 

If you work in the graduate-level (graduate student or postdoc) career & professional development space, the GCC is an amazing organization that could benefit from your contributions and involvement. Learn more about GCC committees and the organization's work and consider joining as a member if you aren't one. 

Additional Reading & Resources

• Nonprofit Volunteer Management: Three Tips to Increase and Maintain Engagement
• Initiative for Strategic Volunteer Engagement
• Council for Certification in Volunteer Administration 
• University of Maryland Do Good Institute
• Understanding and Improving Employee Engagement - Insights from Gallup

Research on Volunteer Engagement​

• Volunteer engagement and organizational commitment in nonprofit organizations: What makes volunteers remain within organizations and feel happy?
• Enhancing Volunteer Engagement to Achieve Desirable Outcomes: What Can Non-profit Employers Do?
• Volunteer Engagement and Retention: Their Relationship to Community Service Self-Efficacy
• Leading Volunteer Motivation: How Leader Behaviour can Trigger and Fulfil Volunteers’ Motivations

Get Involved!

• Great Nonprofits.org
• Volunteer Match

More from the Blog

• Why You Should Get Involved in Things Outside the Lab/Work
• ​To Be Rather Than To Seem

Life is not a zero-sum game.

In 21st Century American society it is easy to get sucked into the mindset of "us against them" or "me against the world" that appeal so much to our basal instincts, including fear of others. Human's penchant for being alert to threat and risk is deeply embedded in our evolution and requires cognitive effort to resist. Additionally, inequality and the precariousness of making a living in modern, capitalistic America leads to many living on the edge and/or fearful of falling from their current economic position.

​This pessimistic economic mindset and mood has negative spillover effects on society. Studies show that increases in economic inequality are associated with political polarization in the Unites States (US) and globally. An adversarial mindset to "the competition" both individually and collectively (ie, "zero-sum thinking") can thus drive both economic and political actions that are harmful to society as a whole. ​

What is "zero-sum thinking"? Essentially it is the belief that benefits to one person or group tend to come at the expense or cost of other persons or groups. The concept is thought to originate from work by the anthropologist George M. Foster who investigated "peasant" societies' view of the world and came to the conclusion that many individuals in these societies have an “Image of Limited Good.” That is to say, many people see all of the desired things in life (food, property, wealth) as existing in finite quantity and limited supply. 

A fascinating paper by Chinoy et al from 2022 found, among other things, specific factors that were related to more or less zero-sum thinking in a survey of 15,000 individuals in the United States. Specifically, they found respondents view the world as less zero-sum if:

• They, their parents, and their grandparents experienced more upward mobility during their lifetimes.
• They, their parents, or their grandparents immigrated to the United States.

While zero-sum thinking is commonly felt and believed, a further investigation into just what this doctrine proports leaves one feeling a different approach is not only needed but warranted. When others win, you can win. A modern nation relies on taxes from its citizens (and immigrants - to the tune of $467.5 Billion in federal and state/local taxes 2019) to fund projects and priorities that benefit others. What becomes tricky to negotiate is who is being taxed and who benefits from the government's actions and interventions. I would argue we all benefit at the most basic level as a growing tax base ultimately leads to more robust services and programs. ​

Despite the fact that the US Federal Government provides useful benefits to its citizens (Social Security, rule of law, security), the "rugged individualism" that is so pervasive in American culture leaves many to feel they have to "got it alone", that the government is not their friend, and that "others" are the competition. In truth, no one succeeds alone.  ​

Ironically, perhaps the most outward manifestation of the combination of American Capitalism and individualism is the reverence for the entrepreneur. The lore of the Silicon Valley start-up that grew from a garage to a global behemoth is seductive if not often the full story. Entrepreneurship is most often predicated on having a sufficient "cushion" of support including family wealth (among other factors) or a partner who is working in a more "stable" position with provided employer-sponsored health insurance, for instance. In some ways, pursuing entrepreneurship in America seems to be privilege inaccessible to many. Perhaps not surprisingly, then, some studies have found a positive relationship between inequality and entrepreneurship across US states, though the relationship between entrepreneurship and measures of a country's overall economic health are nuanced (economies as a whole can benefit from entrepreneurship even if all individuals don't). 

In essence, many American entrepreneurs have in place their own "safety net" to ensure that they can take risks in starting something new and bringing new ideas and products to market. What might be possible for entrepreneurship and innovation in the US, though, if more people were given a sufficient social safety net?

Entrepreneurship is a risky endeavor. One is taking the chance on advancing a new idea, solution, or product that faces a variety of hurdles to success. Some of these hurdles include entrenched interests and firms who seek to maintain market dominance while other challenges include communicating the value of the new idea to potential investors, partners, and ultimately customers. ​

On top of the myriad logistical challenges of entrepreneurship, systems of social support within the United States in particular make striking out on one's own a major challenge. For example, health insurance in the US is often tied to employment and while expansion of health insurance options through government initiatives like healthcare.gov are helpful, the costs of many of the government-backed health insurance offerings are prohibitive. This is perhaps the most salient example of how the robustness of a "social safety net" can affect one's willingness to engage in entrepreneurial activities, which has been demonstrated to be the case in prior work. There are a variety of social safety net programs beyond affordable health insurance that can matter including some form of universal basic income to provide a floor of economic stability and/or childcare subsidies to limit an expensive cost barrier to millions of parents participating fully in the economy. One can imagine more robust government initiatives to lower healthcare and childcare costs alone could make an entrepreneurial path more attainable. ​

There are also arguments that redistribution through the provision of public goods may help reduce both inequality and political partisanship/polarization. These initiatives help individuals, our communities, and our society function better. ​

The injection of stimulus checks to US households during the COVID-19 pandemic provided a mini experiment in the effect of income stabilization on entrepreneurship. We saw an increase in small business formation within the US during this time and while correlation does not prove causation, many speculate increased government stimulus was a key driver of this behavior. 

Regardless of the exact causes for the spike in new businesses, these trends are quite different than prior years where entrepreneurship was on the decline. And while entrepreneurship in the US is climbing post-pandemic, it remains uncertain whether the new businesses formed will result in an increase in employment (ie, businesses that ultimately hire employees to grow).​

It is often the case that for a new business to grow and expand it must be in some way innovative, bringing new products and solutions to market. And innovation at a macro level is critical to the growth and development of large economies. So, where does innovation stand today? 

Recent data suggests declines in US innovation over the past several decades. A January 2023 paper published in the journal Nature found that from 1945 to 2010 scientific papers and patents are increasingly less likely to break with the past in ways that push science and technology in new directions. While some work suggests the key measure in the aforementioned Nature paper, the disruption index, may be biased by citation inflation or a growth in publication rates, the study prompted many to ask if our current systems and incentives are hindering true scientific innovation. 

There is a twisted irony to the fact that a concentration of resources and power in a hyper capitalist "winner take all" system ultimately can stifle innovation and progress. Established power players (think big technology companies in the US) become entrenched and work hard to maintain their market dominance. 

The concentration of resources also occurs in various societal structures and working environments. Even those institutions deemed a societal good can succumb to market forces. Higher education, especially in the United States, is an interesting example where there truly are "elite" institutions whose resources dwarf others, leading to higher levels of research productivity (through graduate student and postdoctoral research labor advantages) and placement of their alumni into faculty positions. Cumulative advantage takes hold, ensuring those considered the "winners" in their spaces continue to win. 

We must ask if all this concentration is good for our society as a whole, especially as innovation drives economic growth. ​A paper by Nicholas Bloom and colleagues (Are Ideas Getting Harder to Find?) posits that economic growth arises from people creating ideas and can be captured by the product of research productivity x number researchers. Their paper finds that while research effort has risen substantially over the past few decades, research productivity is declining sharply. 

How might we advance research and innovation further? A more thoughtful distribution of resources to ensure funding is not overly concentrated would help. Furthermore, increasing access to opportunity will help bring diverse perspectives, skills, and ideas to the table.
​And so we come to the importance of improving immigration to the US to help in these areas. 

The US is a nation of immigrants and data show embracing more accessible immigration practices can assist us as our current population ages and in the process help grow our economy. In addition, immigrants drive American research and innovation, making our economy more dynamic. An important study released in December 2022 found that while immigrants represent 16% of all US inventors, they produce 23% of total innovation output (which was measured by number of patents, patent citations, and the economic value of their patents). The study also found that immigrant and native-born collaborations drive additional innovation through the mixing of ideas and perspectives. 

Another study released in 2022 has shown immigrant entrepreneurs play a large role in founding or co-founding successful US companies. Specifically, over half (55%) of America's start-up companies valued at $1 billion or more had at least one immigrant founder. That percentage rises to 64% if founders or co-founders who are the children of immigrants are included. ​

What is amazing about the impact of immigrants on US innovation is how difficult it is for many highly skilled individuals to successfully work in the US. Current caps on H-1B employment visas for the private sector and various backlogs in the review of applications for green cards makes the recruitment and retention of foreign talent to the US challenging. ​

And while fears of immigrants taking US Citizens' jobs and opportunities are certainly understandable, they are often unwarranted based on the data. 

Importantly, data show an increase in H-1B science, technology, engineering and math (ie, STEM) workers in cities is associated with significant gains in wages for natives. A recent study, published in March 2023, found evidence that large multinational companies based in the US were likely to replace skilled visa rejected employment with "offshoring," ie, employing a skilled worker outside the US, implying that US companies cannot necessarily get talent from current citizens in all cases.

The evidence that H-1B employment is not detrimental for native employees is somewhat conflicting, however. An October 2022 study looking at US firms who "won" versus "lost" the H-1B visa lottery (ie, were able to obtain H-1B visas for skilled, immigrant employees, or not) found some evidence that additional H-1B employees "crowd out" other workers at the firm. Furthermore, this study found some evidence that additional H-1Bs increase firm profits and decrease payroll costs per employee. From a purely economic point of view, one could argue that these data are supportive that the H-1B program improves firm profits even if it potentially hurts the employment prospects of some native employees. 

The Economic Innovation Group, a bipartisan public policy organization, has published important data on the topic of immigration and innovation, among others. They also surveyed the American voting public in 2022 on their perspectives on skilled immigration in the United States. They find that most US voters do not have strong opinions on the economic impact of immigration on the country or are split in its effects being economically net positive (38%) or negative (37%), despite evidence that skilled immigrants boost a variety of economic metrics. When the survey administrators better gauged support for specific skilled immigration programs that would boost the US economy and innovation, support was over 70% overall and over 60% in registered Republicans, who are politically more likely to oppose immigration. Thus, there are signs that immigration reform can be a winning political position, especially if it is framed as an economic and innovative "win" for the country. 

In closing, to grow entrepreneurship and innovation in the United States we need to make opportunity more inclusive to our citizens and support more effective immigration pathways for skilled workers. We need to have an abundance agenda - more social safety nets, more community support, more inclusion, and more access to education, opportunity, and employment in America. 

Scott Galloway echoes this abundance notion in a piece on greater accessibility to higher education. Knowledge itself should not be a scarce and expensive resource to obtain. Increasingly, with the proliferation of data and content on the internet, finding information is easy even if extracting knowledge is not. One could even make the argument that it is precisely due to the overwhelming amount of information available online that finding true knowledge has become more difficult. Our higher education institutions have a role to play in helping turn data and information into knowledge and producing individuals with the necessary skills and values to grow our economy responsibly. The US is in a unique position to provide opportunities and freedom of thought and expression to our citizens and future citizens (ie, immigrants), which allows them to innovate and make the world a better place. Higher education is and can remain our "front door" to the some of the best and brightest young minds who come to America to learn, live, and prosper, while positively impacting our economy. But we can't take international students and scholars for granted. 

In order for the United States to reach the ideals expressed in our founding - "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" from the Declaration of Independence - we must recommit to being a welcoming nation. Expanding immigration pathways for highly skilled workers who want to live and work in the US and contribute to our economy while advancing their own well being should be a win-win for these individuals and our country. We must get past our zero-sum thinking and remind ourselves that in a truly inclusive and democratic society, when our neighbors are allowed the freedom and opportunity to leverage their skills and expertise to their economic benefit, our economy as a whole becomes more robust and we all prosper. 

To innovate, people must be allowed to think, speak, publish, associate, and disagree.
They must be allowed to save, invest, trade, and profit. In a word, they must be free.
- From ​Superabundance 

The diversity of our nation presents challenges and opportunities. As a nation of immigrants, cultures and beliefs collide and mix here like almost no where else on Earth. ​

The American entrepreneurial spirit, commitment to capitalism (greed is good?), and our "rugged individualism" are all assets and, sometimes, liabilities. How we leverage and refine our current systems and beliefs will ultimately determine whether our future is bright or diminished. Through caring and compassion for our current citizens and those who want to join us (immigrants) I think we can achieve a more prosperous future for all of us.   

Future of Work, Opinion

Resistance is futile. The artificial intelligence revolution is underway. All hail our robot overlords.

Too much to start off a piece on the future of work? Perhaps, but many people have been feeling this way over the last few months. 

Late Fall 2022 was rocked by the public release of ChatGPT, an online chat bot from the company OpenAI that leverages large language models to generate predictive text "responses" to user-entered prompts. The technology has captured the public's attention with over 100 million users of the product within 2 months of launch, the fastest user uptake of an internet-based application/product in history.  ​

And on March 14, 2023, OpenAI announced the launch of the even more powerful GPT-4, which they claim can score in the 85th or higher percentile on the LSAT, SAT, and AP Biology exam. During a livestream demo of the platform (which garnered over 1.4 million views in less than 18 hours), the company showed the power of this next version of their technology, which can perform a range of functions from assisting with writing and troubleshooting computer code to analyzing an image. The demo also highlighted how GPT-4 can take a human-sketched and written design and create website html code or advise on one's taxes (by understanding and acting on the thousand-page US tax code). The range of capabilities and versatility of this model's output is quite astounding! 

Understandably, the release and promotion of ChatGPT, GPT-4, and other "generative artificial intelligence (AI)" products (Meta launched LLaMA in late February 2023 and Google's Bard and Anthropic's Claude both launched in March 2023) is being met with both awe and fear. There is a sense that the current "AI arms race" between companies and governments could lead to the technology outrunning needed safeguards and ethnical discussions around its use. The rapid pace of advancement of this technology has left many to make the case we should slow down on accelerating its deployment, including a statement signed by over 1,000 technology and business leaders urging caution in growing the size of large language models until they are better understood and more regulatory and security guardrails are put in place. 

Even the founder and CEO of OpenAI, Sam Altman, is unsure where this new technology will lead. Though he acknowledges generative AI will displace some human work in the near future, he is hopeful that it will ultimately create better jobs and more fulfillment for humanity. His recent interview with ABC News is shared below and you can watch a longer interview with him and Open AI's Chief Technology Officer here. ​

Versatile AI in a "Black Box"

The consulting firm Gartner has published a report on use cases for generative AI in a variety of industries and sectors. In their report, they highlight how AI could be used to assist in drug design and materials science research, including optimizing the design of various industrial components or semiconductors to maximize a particular use case or efficiency target. In addition, the investment firm ARK's 2023 "Big Ideas" report has made the case that advances in AI are the key catalysts to advancing the development of a variety of innovations from precision therapeutics to robotics and autonomous transportation. 

And if this output becomes increasingly relied on to aid in consequential decisions (think AI-assisted mortgage determinations), the inability to understand the basis from which the model generates output is problematic. It brings up the question of whether all output, products, or decisions that affect society should be rendered by a model that weights various pieces of input through an incredibly large neural network with hundreds of billions of parameters.

​Can all our problems be solved with more data and more computing power? 
Spoiler alert: No.​​

"Everyone will have a their own white collar personal assistant."

Microsoft founder Bill Gates said as much in a recent blog post about the power and potential of AI. It is not difficult to see how generative AI could be very helpful as an assistant to humans, helping them be more creative and productive.

Thanks to backing of OpenAI by Microsoft, ChatGPT-like technology is being integrated into the Microsoft 365 Suite of business software (Word, Excel, Powerpoint; which they have dubbed "Copilot") and their Bing search product. And recently Zoom announced an AI integration in their video meeting platform. AI as a productivity assistant is upon us. 

And who wouldn't be excited for the day when Outlook or Gmail offers to author responses to your 50+ un-replied-to work emails in a matter of minutes? Let AI handle the boring, administrative things while you focus on other more pressing matters. Though, this does not speak to the complexities around how the human reading your message on the other end feels about it, especially if they know it was written by AI. One could quickly see that this results in some weird future where human beings are not "in the loop" of these digital communications at all. AI written content being "read" by AI models to be responded to with AI and on and on it goes....In this infinite communication loop, what is the point of having a human involved at all? Does someone need to interpret the exchange and act? Could that one day be an AI decision maker (or human decision maker "assisted" by AI)?

​This quick little thought experience brings up the philosophical point around what are human beings for in a knowledge economy that my one day be driven predominantly by AI that is more efficient and effective at a range of data-based tasks? 

Productivity & Progress

Our modern, 21st-Century American economy is quite fixated on productivity. In fact, many news outlets lament a recent drop in worker productivity, defined by the Bureau of Labor and Statistics as how much total economywide income is generated (i.e., for workers, business owners, landlords, and everybody else together) in an average hour of work. Despite the recent decline in this metric in the past few years, it is inarguable that at a global scale, worker productivity has increased greatly over the past 50 years along with our technological progress.  ​

In theory, increased productivity should lead to increased prosperity, right? This is only true if productivity gains are shared across a society. However, data show that the gap between the average workers' pay and overall productivity in the United States has grown dramatically since the 1980s. While productivity from 1979 until 2021 grew by 64%+, average compensation grew at only a 17% pace. In short, the "returns" generated from increased productivity have not been shared with the average worker in America. This fact shocks no one and reinforces the argument that inequality (in the US and beyond) has accelerated since the early 1980s. 

One open question from these data, then, is whether the gains in productivity and efficiency to come from generative AI will be shared across society or concentrated in the hands of a few? The fact that OpenAI has "open" in its name and has, at least for now, made its ChatGPT technology available to anyone perhaps signals a more egalitarian approach to sharing this technology more equally than many that came before it. It is important to note, though, that while the interface is "open" the source code and details behind the data used to train the model ​are kept carefully under wraps. 

Companies like OpenAI suggest that these GPT technologies will make many workers more productive and efficient. The fact that anyone can access and use ChatGPT would suggest that anyone and everyone can become more productive by using it. This sounds like a great thing but how much can human performance be optimized? If we are talking about optimization, is that something better left to the machines and algorithms anyway?  ​

​Job Automation 

Studies investigating the effects of robotic automation on industrial and manufacturing jobs found evidence that the deployment of industrial robots reduced both the number of human workers and their wages in these industries. Then came the dawn of generative AI that demonstrated automation of creative and knowledge work, generating stunning visual images and often clever and compelling written words in a matter of a few seconds. This advancement is so new we cannot yet measure its effects but one can easily see that "automation" can replace more than routine, manual manufacturing work.

Just this month, OpenAI and researchers at the University of Pennsylvania released a pre-print (not peer-reviewed) publication titled "GPTs are GPTs: An Early Look at the Labor Market Impact Potential of Large Language Models". In this study, they assessed occupations based on their correspondence with the current capabilities of the Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT) models behind technology like ChatGPT and GPT-4. They found that approximately 80% of the U.S. workforce could have at least 10% of their work tasks affected by the introduction of GPTs, while around 19% of workers may see at least 50% of their tasks impacted. They go on to state: "The influence spans all wage levels, with higher-income jobs potentially facing greater exposure." 

And just this week (March 26, 2023), Goldman Sachs's Economics Research released a report predicting that two-thirds of US jobs are exposed to automation by AI and going on to state that it believes ~7% of current US jobs could be replaced by AI (which, based on a current US labor force size of 166 million, equates to 11.5+ million people - more than the population of the state of Georgia). The positions at greatest risk according to their report: administrative support, legal positions, and architecture and engineering jobs. Meanwhile, they found the jobs with the lowest exposure to AI automation included those in cleaning and maintenance, installation and repair, and construction. On a more positive note, the Goldman Sachs report believes AI could increase the total value of goods and services created worldwide by 7%. So, while some humans may be rendered redundant by AI, overall value in the economy could be increased, raising the question we posed earlier: who will see the economic benefits of AI and who will bear the costs?

The findings of these studies are perhaps not all that surprising as the world gets a better sense of what GPTs can accomplish. In some ways, administrative and knowledge work is the most automatable, even if there needs to be large advances in current technology to get to a (dystopian?) future where AI has replaced all ​human knowledge work.

The Future of Work is More Human

As AI becomes increasingly better at producing digital output, including images generated from programs like DALL-E or DreamStudio or computer code from Copilot, it is important to remember that there is still a physical world with many needs and problems that AI cannot yet act on effectively. Some jobs and tasks currently performed by humans will be very difficult if not impossible to automate away. Human skills and professions that emphasize physical interaction and engagement with objects in the world will remain essential as long as we live in a physical world with others (but the creation of a functional metaverse could change that). One could imagine a not-too-distant future where the skilled trades (which are already seeing a renewed interest and level of appreciation in younger generations) gain even more respect from society. A robot is not going to fix your plumbing or electrical issue any time soon. Construction work is another example of work that seem un-automatable.​

Ironically, tasks performed by the "trade professions" that many may view as "routine" but require presence in and manipulation of the physical world are much harder to automate than many futurists would have predicted a few decades ago. And perfecting the autonomous car has been exceedingly difficult even with vast amounts of resources devoted to the effort. Maybe those truck driver jobs are more safe than initially thought? Bottom line: acting on and operating in the physical world is really hard for current AI. ​

Another large category of work that I think will be very difficult for AI to replace is in the caring fields - think healthcare, childcare, counseling, and even teaching (especially young children). These caring professions involve interacting with human beings and even if one theoretically could automate this type of work, I do not think humanity would be very keen on entrusting the care of its children, elderly, and sick to robots and automated systems anytime soon. Knowing that another human being cares about you and your loved one's well-being is critically important and while generative AI can seem human and caring, it is important to remember that this technology does not have intentions or motives. Current AI literally does not "care" about anything. 

So, while the late 20th Century economy valued data science and computer skills, the future of work will reward those that are handy and humane. Both technical skills that center around operating in the physical world and interpersonal skills that help one work with, understand, and assist other human beings will become increasingly important to thrive in the future. This shift in what types of work is valued could have massive societal implications. 

Richard Reeves from the Brookings Institute has made a case for the growth of HEAL jobs: health, education, administration, and literacy and the fact that many of these professions are only ~25% occupied by men. He speculates that many men have shunned occupations like teaching and social work due to low pay but as labor shortages in these "hands-on" fields continue, demand may push up compensation. This may be even more true as AI replaces careers in software, computer science (some startup companies have already indicated they are using GPT-4 technology to reduce the need to pay human coders for services), finance (a recent pre-print suggests ChatGPT can help you pick a diversified investment portfolio), and others which have been overwhelming held by well compensated men. It is possible that the rise of AI will signal an increased societal importance placed on the HEAL fields. These professions and those of the skilled trades have always been critical to a functional society and it may take the rise of AI for more people to appreciate that point. I think, in the end, that will be a good thing. 

A Post-Work World?

​Even if the demand for HEAL professions and skilled trades rises in the years to come, the labor force will be forever changed as a result of generative AI technology and sooner than many may think. An interesting wrinkle in all of this is that if it is the knowledge workers whose occupations disappear will there be a larger push by the educated "elite" to support the unemployed and perhaps push for a universal basic income? Sadly, when blue collar workers in the US lost their jobs as a result of deindustrialization and globalization in the 1980s and 1990s many seemed unconcerned. When disruptive AI comes for the careers of journalists, computer programmers, and marketers, those influential individuals will definitely make some noise. Maybe they will be loud enough to help reshape our society to be less focused on work and wages than we have come to understand them? 

While a world without "work" seems almost unimaginable, it is important to point out that this mostly implies a world without humans performing some work. There may come a time soon when work that is tedious, laborious, and often undesirable by people will be replaced by automation, AI, and machines. This would, in effect, free people from performing these tasks. Instead, they may be able to focus instead on activities they enjoy (hobbies or creative pursuits) and that, at least in theory, can be good for society writ large - volunteering, community engagement, and care-giving, among others. 

​Image generation programs like DALL-E (from OpenAI) and DreamStudio (from Stability AI) and the advancement of AI video creation tools would suggest that creative work will also be vulnerable to automation. Alternatively, some have argued these technologies will make humans more creative. Though, we may need less creative types who are paid for their services if AI is doing most of the heavy lifting. Imagine a future where AI can create a unique, customized movie generated to your exact tastes. Would that lead to us amusing ourselves to death or being more glued to our screens?

​In a future of endless content and diversion, will we still seek to make an impact on the world?

Work Worth Doing

Far and away the best prize that life has to offer is the chance to work hard at work worth doing. - Theodore Roosevelt

Teddy Roosevelt's quote highlights a big existential question we face as AI is increasingly able to do more of our work: What is work for?

It could be argued that many human beings engage in "work" for meaning. They want to justify to themselves that their life has purpose and impact and this is often reflected in the work they do. The definition of "work" in the future may change, though. While today we think of work as an occupation one performs in exchange for wages to subsist on, perhaps the future of work is work that is more focused on contribution to the betterment of others that is decoupled from any monetary compensation? This idea seems very foreign to many but who says human work has to be about delivering measurable economic value? 

The increasing efficiency and productivity of AI suggests we shouldn't try to compete there. Let AI do what it is good at: optimizing parameters, testing models, and generating creative content. Freed from the need to "produce," humans may be able to think more about what they really care about and how they want to live their lives. Automation and the end of work as we know it may free us from a hyper-capitalist society where all too often our value is measured by what we produce. Instead, a future where AI worries about industrial and knowledge production at scale could free people from thinking of themselves as economic assets or liabilities on society. Rather, we could focus more on what we love to do rather than what we have to do.

This could lead to a place where everyone pursues their passions. We might also choose to focus on tasks and "work" that we know AI can "do better" but that we find fulfillment in doing ourselves. Steven Hales touches on this idea nicely in a recent piece entitled "AI and the Transformation of the Human Spirit" where he makes the point that successful authors still write despite their financial position and technology has made it such that most people don't need to bike 5 miles along an open road on the weekend (a Peloton bike is so much more efficient) or mountain climb but they do it anyway. I can't say it better than he does in the quote below:

In addition, free from the need to produce we might be able to re-engage with our fellow humans and be able to have deep and meaningful conversations with others to find common ground and aspirations for our society. To realize that we are all human and deserve basic respect, dignity, and support. We could work to repair our societal and community institutions like schools, civic groups, government agencies, legislative bodies, and so much more with all this new-found time. ​

In an ironic way, the rise of AI could bring us closer together as a species by better understanding what it means to be human. And while in the interim generative AI has the potential to produce more misinformation and destructive content, we are increasingly realizing that a negative digital world is not what we want. I believe much online negativity and tribalism has been fueled by fear of the world's resources and opportunities being zero-sum...that there is not enough success or money or power to go around. In a future where AI has freed us of the need to "produce to survive" we may be able to evolve past the scarcity mindset that has been a reality for our species from the beginning. It will be a paradigm shift and certainly take time but I believe in the end this technology will produce more abundance for the human race. We will still need to do the human work of engaging with and supporting our fellow man and employing the ethical use of AI in our society to realize the benefits of this optimistic future, together.  

Steven Hales concludes "AI and the Transformation of the Human Spirit" with something we all should think more about in this brave new world we are entering.

The Future is What We Make It

One fact that I think gets lost in the wonder that is generative AI is that is a product of virtually all of us. Yes, programmers and computer scientists created the neural networks and reinforcement learning models that lead to the ability for the AI to generate output. But it was our collective knowledge contribution via the internet that fed these models with vast amounts of data generated by billions of humans over thousands of years sharing their art, ideas, knowledge, worries, fantasies, hopes, and dreams with the world. Out of these models has come something "human-like" but not necessarily human. We must remember the difference. While generative AI can produce wonders and probably will lead to more productive generation of media to entertain us and knowledge to empower us, it can also be leveraged by bad actors to turbocharge our fears and anxieties. 

This technology is, in a way, a fun-house mirror for our humanity. It reflects back at us surprising, scary, and wonderous things. It could enslave us in a future where we are subjects of the black-box algorithm that strives for efficiency and productivity whatever the costs. Or, it could make us more human and free us from the drudgery of many tasks, leaving us more time to focus on helping and caring for others and being in community with our fellow man.

What will we do with the time AI may give back to us?
​How will we be responsible stewards of a technology capable of immense constructive and destructive impact as it continually improves over the coming months and years?  ​

In the end, we will get out of this technology whatever we collectively feel is most valued and important to us. I hope we choose humanity over optimization and oppression.
​Our future depends on it.

More from the Blog:

• To Be Rather Than To Seem
• The End of Work as We Know It: How an increasingly automated world will change everything (from December 2019)
• Precarity, Competition, and Innovation: How economic systems and societal structures share our future

For Further Reading

• AI Is Like … Nuclear Weapons? The new technology is beyond comparison.
• Big Ideas 2023 from ARK Invest
• What Have Humans Just Unleashed?
• Welcome to the Big Blur: Thanks to AI, every written word now comes with a question.
• Why All the ChatGPT Predictions Are Bogus
• The Economics of AI
• The case for slowing down AI
• Preparing for the (Non-Existent?) Future of Work (Brookings Institute Report)
• Robots and Jobs: Evidence from US Labor Markets (NBER paper from 2017)
• Post-work: The radical idea of a world without jobs
• The Crisis of Social Reproduction and The End of Work
• ​Redistributive Solidarity? Exploring the Utopian Potential of Unconditional Basic Income
• Enjoy the Singularity: How to Be Optimistic About the Future
• How to be a leader in an AI-powered world

Recent Pre-Print and Other Publications on GPTs

• Predictability and Surprise in Large Generative Models
• GPTs are GPTs: An Early Look at the Labor Market Impact Potential of Large Language Models
• Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4
• Theory of Mind May Have Spontaneously Emerged in Large Language Models
• GPT-4 System Card

Book Recommendations

• Broken: How our social systems are failing us and how we can fix them​​
• ​Futureproof: 9 Rules for Humans in the Age of Automation

Listen to:

• Andrew Yang's Forward Podcast interview with Kevin Roose on "Futureproofing Your Career in the Age of ChatGPT"

It's all a matter of perspective.

Human beings are remarkably adaptable creatures. In fact, our ability to adapt to different climates and environmental circumstances has allowed homo sapiens to colonize virtually all of Planet Earth. Essentially, adaptability is our evolutionary advantage. 

Adaptability is a double-edged sword, however. We often become so accustomed to a particular state that we forget what a different state can feel like. Biologists might resonate with explaining this in terms of homeostasis, where the body seeks to maintain a steady state of internal conditions (think temperature, pH, etc...). Our brains are no different. A neuroscientist might explain the "homeostasis" of our minds as habituation. In its most classic form, habituation involves our minds becoming accustomed to a constant stimulus to the point that it is not perceived after a period of time. A good example is the texture or feeling of our clothes on our skin. There is certainly a stimulus being applied but it becomes essentially imperceptible as we habituate to its constant presence. In essence, our conscious minds filter out this stimulus as it is not new, novel, or salient enough to devote attention to.  

Both our perception of external stimuli and our behavior can become habitual. Our ability to interpret and react to the world consistently produces a habit. Stimulus produces response almost reflexively when a habit is formed and conscious thought of why a particular action was taken is often absent. Habits are often useful as they free up cognitive resources and allow "routine" actions to proceed automatically. No need to think about how to walk once you have developed the action and, at a higher cognitive level, bicycling or driving to work everyday ultimately proceeds on autopilot after you have been using the same route for a month. Because of this amazing capability of our minds, we can think about other issues and goals during our commute as the "automatic" processes of our brains take over to get us from home to work. 

​The unconscious nature of habits means that we are often unaware of why we make choices or take actions that have become habitual. We may not even be aware or able to resist engaging in actions that are objectively "bad" or harmful. A classic example is drug addiction. One hallmark aspect of being addicted to a drug of abuse is that use of the drug becomes habitual (automatic) and that addicted individuals continue their drug use despite negative consequences. This occurs because drug use has become habitual in a biological sense, often triggered by stimuli in the environment that prompt craving and use in a powerfully unconscious way. There is strong evidence that habit and "wanting" drives drug use more than "liking" in once a drug has become addictive. 

Drug addiction may be one of the most stark demonstrations of how corrosive and destructive habits and the unconscious processes between stimulus and response can be on us and our lives. It is far from the only problematic behavior fueled by the environment acting on core neurobiological processes. Our modern world has resulted in the development of a variety of problematic habits, many of which are driven by the ability to obtain entertainment and content in an instant. Our attention is also sapped by a plethora of digital signals coming from our screens and attempts to appeal to our basal instincts of pleasure seeking and pain avoidance. The effects of technological proliferation on our brains and behavior is being studied and a particular focus on how it is shaping the minds of adolescents' during their development is critical. 

Personally, I feel patience and taking the long-view is in short supply these days. The current climate leads many to think feedback or "results" should be instantaneous in all aspects of their lives. We expect response to rapidly follow action in the 21st Century but all aspects of life are not as quick to give us the feedback we want as clicking "buy  now" on your smartphone. Overcoming these modern temptations is a challenge because of how easy it is for them to tap into habitual behaviors and our core needs of resource acquisition, human acknowledgement, belonging, and more. Fortunately, however, we have the ability to consciously frame our experience of the world in positive, constructive ways and take steps to behave accordingly.  

Humans are exceptionally good at allowing their perspective to construct their version of the world.

In our modern information age, one can often be captured by negative headlines. And while certainly negative information is more attention grabbing (ie, salient), it does not mean there are no positive narratives to speak of. 

In addition, many events or outcomes we experience are not objectively ALL negative or positive. Rather, there is a perspective that can often be taken that sees the positive in mostly negative events or the negative in mostly positive ones. 

I believe some human beings are wired to be more drawn to the positive or negative aspects of an experience...seeing the flaws in nearly all things or viewing the world through rose-colored glasses. Indeed data show individual differences in the experience of stimuli as positive or negative which may have a biological basis (see also). Through conscious decisions and processes, however, we can regulate our innate biological tendencies to focus on the negative or positive. 

Our perspective and view of the world ultimately shapes how we interact with it. If you feel the world is a hostile place and that everyone around you is motivated by their own self-interest, you will begin to take the same perspective. On the other hand, if you believe most human beings are altruistic and get fulfillment from helping others, you will perceive your interactions differently.

This can perhaps best be illustrated by thinking about the many instances we encounter in day where we are trying to discern a person's intent or motivation. This can be especially difficult if it comes in a form of communication where tone and other cues are absent - email.  

When you receive an email with a comment or request you project onto it your own belief about what the person intended to communicate. It is critical, then, to try to "read" the message from multiple perspectives and not assume that it was written with either ill intent or effusive praise. 

When we are faced with fear and uncertainty, I think it is even more important to keep our perspective and not spiral into a negative state. Indeed anxiety and stress heighten our negativity bias. A tendency to engage in cognitive reappraisal, or changing the way one thinks about potentially emotion-eliciting events, can mitigate these effects, however. 

Another concept that comes to mind when thinking about perspective is the impact a growth versus fixed mindset can have on our willingness to learn and develop. Stanford psychologist Carol Dweck coined these terms and her and her colleagues have researched how growth and fixed mindsets impact us. Those with a growth mindset believe that, with effort, perseverance and drive, they can develop their natural qualities and "improve". In contrast, those with a fixed mindset believe talent and abilities are fixed/innate and, thus, less likely to expend effort to try to enhance their skillsets. 

A similar concept is that of locus of control. Locus of control describes the degree to which individuals perceive that outcomes result from their own behaviors (internal locus of control), or from forces that are external to themselves (external locus of control).  

​We could all do better by developing a growth mindset and internal locus of control as we navigate a complex world. 

In an increasingly polarized and atomized United States and world, considering other's perspectives becomes a critical skill in short supply. It takes more cognitive resources and effort to consider other perspectives and ideas. This contemplation requires us to slow down and not rush to judgement. The process also requires decoupling our perception of a person's intentions from that individual's actual intent. As we've discussed, it is easy to fall into negative assumptions or construct narratives of ill-intent or maliciousness. While those assumptions could be true, starting from a negative space is rarely productive or effective. 

I choose to carefully reframe my perceptions of interactions before responding. To take a measured approach and understand the other party's position and viewpoint. While this takes time and effort, changing our default perceptions and habits can lead us to a more productive relationship with others and the world. 

Related Blog Posts:

• Wanting, Liking, and Dopamine's Role in Addiction
• Stress and the Brain: How Genetics Affects Whether You are More Likely to Wilt Under Pressure​
• To Be Rather Than to Seem

​
Further Reading:

• Brain health consequences of digital technology use
• ​The impact of the digital revolution on human brain and behavior: Where do we stand?
• Where do desires come from? Positivity offset and negativity bias predict implicit attitude toward temptations
• Your powerful, changeable mindset
• Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion (PDF)
• The psychological and neurobiological bases of dispositional negativity (PDF)
• Propensity to reappraise promotes resilience to stress-induced negativity bias (PDF)

 

• Mindset: The New Psychology of Success (book)
• The Impulse Society: America in the Age of Instant Gratification (book)
• Positive Emotions and Psychophysiology Lab at UNC Chapel Hill (led by Barbara Fredrickson, who developed the Broaden-and-Build Theory of Positive Emotions)
• Stanford Mind & Body Lab, which has led interesting studies on how mindset affects one's biology including: 
  • Making sense of a pandemic: Mindsets influence emotions, behaviors, health, and wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic
  • Mind over milkshakes: Mindsets, not just nutrients, determine ghrelin response
  • Mind-Set Matters: Exercise and the Placebo Effect
    

Life Advice, Professional Development, Personal Perspective

I have a lot of ties to the state of North Carolina. My mother was born and raised there, both my parents met at college there, I received my Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina, and ultimately took my first job after my postdoc in North Carolina (at NC State University). 

I have always found North Carolina's state motto - ​Esse quam videri: To Be Rather Than To Seem - to be quite inspiring. I also think this motto is a good way for us to think about navigating our current (often online) world where it is relatively easy to seem a certain way but much harder to be real and present in the physical world. Furthermore, being involves - at least to come extent - action and doing versus projecting "action" through online signaling and seeming engaged​. 

Furthermore, in an age where it is easy to post one's opinions and thoughts online, to critique and pile-on, and to signal authority without real expertise, we as consumers and distributors of information must work to be rather than to seem...to be critical consumers of content and to work hard to be honest and effective communicators of information. None of this is easy...being in the real world, with all its messiness, never is. However, only in being action oriented can change happen both in our lives and in society writ large.   

In a world with many systemic issues (climate change, inequality, discrimination), we must work to be change agents rather than to seem concerned and virtue signal without taking real action. 

It is quite easy to be a critic, to point out the flaws in systems, institutions, and other's arguments. It is more difficult to be the change that is needed through involvement and engagement.

​I firmly believe most systems can only be changed from within as knowledge of a current system helps inform how it could be improved...and the barriers to this improvement.  

Systemic Issues in the Higher Education Workforce

​Recently, many have pointed out the flaws in the United States' higher education system, specifically how the system is broken and exploits contingent labor (adjunct faculty, postdoctoral scholars) and graduate students.
​
While these points are well-founded and certainly providing living wages to graduate students and postdocs is critical, what would change look like in the current system? That is a post for another time (but see my Reimagining the Postdoctoral Experience opinion piece written earlier this year for some thoughts) but what I do want to say here is that without being embedded in a system, it is very difficult (if not impossible) to understand the various factors that have led to a current state of affairs and the barriers to change. One can only be pragmatic through carefully assessing the limitations others within a system face when making change. In the example of academic labor, recently the University of California System's postdoctoral scholars reached a tentative agreement for higher salaries and other benefits but it is currently unclear who will pay for this. If the institutions push the additional cost of supporting a postdoc on faculty research grants, this will necessitate research cuts in other areas. And if there are less funds available to support research efforts in these groups, couldn't that have a negative impact on the postdocs involved in the research? So, while this seems like a positive development, it has not necessarily changed the various systems and institutions associated with the academic research enterprise. Although this is still a developing story, it seems one approach the University of California System could take is shifting the burden of covering the increased postdoc compensation package onto faculty supervisors who are already burdened with funding their work under the current system. 
​
​Change is challenging and multi-layered...when you solve one issue you introduce others. 

Let's take a step back from higher education and academia, with its own unique issues, and look more generally at societal challenges around seeming vs being and reflect on the need to change current incentive structures that undermine human flourishing for many. 

In this modern age we need...

To be...real.

Crypto and $ Trust...
The recent news of the collapse of FTX and reports that the company leveraged its self-created digital token to shore up its finances seems at first unbelievable. How is such a thing even possible? One can create a digital "asset" out of nothing and assign it value? Well, yes. This is essentially what cryptocurrencies are - digital assets that have value because a group of people believe they have value. While the cryptocurrency bitcoin can point to the fact that it has scarcity on its side (ie, mathematically, only so many bitcoin can be "mined" and produced), many other digital assets have no constraints. 

​And while certainly all fiat currency is based on belief in a system (ie, government issuing it), there are often security measures in place to ensure the currency is protected and maintains a stable form of value (see the US Federal Reserve System and FDIC insurance as examples in the United States). 

This is not the case with cryptocurrency. So, why did it gain so much popularity over the last few years? Mostly through rampant speculation but also it centered around a story many wanted to believe - that decentralized financial systems represent the future. And why that narrative may prove right over time, the largest flaw in this system is that while it points to the fact that it does not rely on trust in governments to keep currencies afloat, it does still involve trust in individuals to believe the currency has value. Money is ultimately a human trust exercise centered in belief with little tangible "realness" to any of it. Though trust may be stronger in some assets than others, especially at the current moment.

Ultimately, I think many recent cryptocurrencies exploded in value and popularity the past few years because they seemed like a great concept and way to speculatively grow one's assets without offering anything of real value. The collapse of FTX is yet another lesson in being critical and discerning in one's investments and not blindly buying into hype and groupthink. 

Signaling Status...
The rise of social media over the past 10-15 years powered by a smart phone in virtually everyone's pocket led to rise in individuals signaling "success" or satisfaction on platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok. An outside observer would be left to believe that nearly everyone on these platforms had amazing lives but, as we know, social media posts are really curations of one's daily/weekly "highlights" and not really what one's life actually looks like. New platforms have emerged to try to foster more "realness" on social media - see BeReal - but the fact remains that most people want to project a version of success and contentment to others. 

As such, spending too much time on these social media platforms can produce unwarranted envy, depression, and other mental health issues in adolescent and adult consumers who weigh their current lives as deficient compared to what they see online. 

To be...present.

The proliferation of modern, on-demand media and the fact that the COVID-19 pandemic moved programs and events online have resulted in many individuals not engaging in "real time" with content and programming. This trend leads to a lack of community building and reduces social and community ties. I see it first hand in the work I do offering career and professional development workshops to graduate students and postdoctoral scholars. 

It is so easy to sign up for workshops or events and then either not attend and wait for a link to a recording or resource or to "attend" but not really be present - the dreaded Zoom event where everyone but the presenter has their cameras off. While certainly some of these workshops are focused on information transmission which one may argue does not necessarily require "engagement", there is the hope individuals use the time to ask questions and engage not only with me but with each other. 

Why is this important? Well, it is easy in our online world to feel alone while being virtually connected. Making space for individuals to engage with one another around topics like career exploration, having difficult conversations, the job search, etc....allows attendees to see they are not alone in their struggles and self-doubt. It is easy to think you alone are experiencing challenges and setbacks if you don't interact with other human beings for real and make space for authentic conversations.  

If when one felt down or uncertain all one did was Google terms for "help", one would unfortunately often be presented with results that would suggest there is a clear way forward by following steps 1-X as outlined by expert BLAHBLAH. Sure, that advice could be helpful but reading cold insights online detaches you from the personal nature of the many challenges we face as human beings. The information shared might work for the individual sharing it given their unique situation but might not work for you.

Finding communities of support to engage with authentically is critical. And technology can help make these connections. In the end, though, you need to connect with others on a more personal level to have them open up about their own struggles, doubts, and experiences. Ultimately, these individuals may also be able to offer more personalized advice by engaging with you one-on-one (informational interviews). Most people want to be helpful but first they have to get to know you and trust you.

To be...involved.

Involvement in institutions has dropped precipitously in the US over the past few decades. The 2020 book Bowling Alone by Robert Putnam brought an issue that had been simmering for years to the forefront. Social capital and involvement in civic institutions in the US has plummeted and the pandemic only made this worse. 

Getting involved in a group or organization helps bring meaning to our lives. Human beings need community and belonging to thrive. This can look different for each of us but the benefit of involving yourself in organizations or groups whose causes you care about provide an opportunity to meet and interact with others and the ability to bring change to the world in areas important to you. 

To be...the change.

Speaking about change is quite different than driving forward change. The later is difficult and filled with challenges. Real, structural change involves work. Ironically, though, it is often by overcoming large obstacles and challenges with instituting change that we feel the most fulfilled. Making change when it is hard means we have overcome something and fought for what we believe in even if there was a chance that change would not come. In fact, change might not come from your efforts initially but perhaps you spark conversations and reflection within organizations that eventually lead to change. These changes may not even occur in our lifetime. While this sounds deflating, humanity's evolution can sometimes be an incremental process. Changes can result from small beginnings in the past. 

I think of scientific advances as a good illustration of this concept of effects sometimes not being realized in real time. Scientific theories and ideas often cannot be implemented until other breakthroughs occur that make the technology needed to execute them cost effective and/or there is collective need to implement the science to respond to global challenges. The science that ultimately led to mRNA vaccines against the SARS-CoV-2 (corona) virus was developed over 30+ years, though it took a global pandemic for it to be fully realized as a tool to swiftly and efficiently create vaccines targeted to the specific genetic fingerprint of a virus.  

To be...content.

Learning to be truly content is difficult. It is not the natural state of human beings and especially not the case in cultures that strongly value growth and progress over nearly anything else (ie, Neoliberal capitalism). 

You could also rephrase this as being present. Too often in modern society we are either super focused on the next task, item, or goal or we ruminate on past choices and decisions that can't be changed. Living in the present moment is challenging but is also the most actionable course to take. You control your present in many regards while your past is, well, past and the future is unpredictable and, frankly, unknowable. 

To be...vulnerable. 

The not so dirty secret of being "real" and authentic is that it makes one vulnerable. Similarly, being involved, present, and invested in change and the betterment of systems means you are bound to encounter obstacles and setbacks. In short, "being" involves the potential of failure. We must acknowledge this fact and try our best, despite our human nature, to embrace it. ​

To be...optimistic about the future.

In summary, while it is easy to stay in your comfort zone and seem engaged, involved, and like you have it all together it is much harder to be involved in the real world and a change agent...to push for progress despite setbacks and face the potential that your hard work might not have an immediate impact. 

​Certainly there are challenges we face in our current world and it can be easy to get stuck in the mindset that structural challenges and barriers are too large for us to overcome. This can lead to paralysis and detachment...in fact we are seeing it in the data. Americans' confidence in major institutions are near all-time lows (measured since 1973), according to Gallup.   

Percentage of Americans reporting great deal or quite a lot of confidence in:

• Congress: 7%
• Television news: 11%
• Big business: 14%
• U.S. Supreme Court: 25%
• Large technology companies: 26%
• Banks: 27%
• Public schools: 28%

The average confidence in major US institutions reached an all time low of 27% in 2022. For comparison, average confidence was 36% in 2020 and 43% in 2004. So, in 18 years we saw a confidence decline of ~37%. 

A new survey, conducted by The Harris Poll on behalf of the American Psychological Association, tells a story of a stressed nation facing uncertainty about the future. From their report: 

A majority of adults (62%) disagreed with the statement, “our children are going to inherit a better world than we did,” and 63% disagreed with the statement, “I feel our country is on the path to being stronger than ever.”

More than three-quarters of adults (76%) said that the future of our nation is a significant source of stress in their lives, while 68% said this is the lowest point in our nation’s history that they can remember. 

Certainly the data don't point to a rosy picture but, as I have been saying, perception (seeming) is sometimes different than reality (being). There is also data showing that, objectively, many aspects of the human experience have improved as a result of technological innovations over the past century and even the past few decades. Steven Pinker's book, Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism and Progress, illustrates clearly that technology and innovation have made many citizens of the world better off. 

As the graph above shows, in 1950 approximately 63% of the global population lived in extreme poverty. That percentage in 2015 was ~10%....a massive decline. United States Census Bureau data also show a historical decline in poverty from the mid 20th Century to now. The poverty rate in the US in 1959 hovered at 22% and was down to ~12% in 2021. And while certainly inequality is on the rise, the US and the world are arguably wealthier and healthier than we have ever been.

Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic and other challenges (opioid crisis) we have encountered over the past decade or so only highlight the amazing power of science and technology. In less than 12 months we went from sequencing the coronavirus to APPROVING mRNA vaccines for distribution in the US. A remarkable scientific achievement. Just as easily, however, scientific advances can produce powerful, highly addictive opiate medications that can destroy the lives of many who find the modern world unbearable. 

What all these finding show are that humans have the capacity for innovation and adaptation...that we can push forward technology and change (both societal and environmental) with the power to create or destroy.

​It is in our mindset and perception of the world, however, where we choose what path to take: a hopeful future where change happens for the better or a pessimistic view of humanity torn asunder by its own envy, discontent, and detachment. One requires action and individuals stepping up to be the change they want to see in the world...the other is, frankly, easier on the individual - let entropy and chaos reign.

​Will you stand by and feel disempowered and disengaged or find ways to contribute in tangible, real ways to the lives of others? 

To be is to do...

Being implies doing. A recent article in The Atlantic by the fantastic writer Derek Thompson illustrates nicely that while innovation and advancement are nice in and other themselves, it is in their implementation that they truly impact society. A focus on action is critical to making the world a better place. Furthermore, this action has to take place in the real, physical world with all its messiness and limitations. Practicality must be considered and various stakeholders engaged to drive forward lasting change. 

This is because for a society to really change and advance it has to see the value in the change. It has to be bought into the notion that, on balance, the benefits of change outweigh the risks.

Doing requites putting oneself out there in the world, literally, and connecting and working with others to accomplish shared goals. 

To close, I hope you find ways in 2023 to engage more with the "real" world, with others, and with your real self...to be rather than to seem. 

For Further Reading
From the Blog

• Why You Should Get Involved In Things Outside the Lab/Work
• Cultivate Serendipity by Giving Back and Getting Involved
• Find Your Passion? Finding Meaning and Purpose in Your Work and Life

Online reads

• Why the Age of American Progress Ended
• What Happens When Americans Don’t Trust Institutions?

Books

• The Achievement Habit: Stop Wishing, Start Doing, and Take Command of Your Life
• Better Together: Restoring the American Community
• Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community
• The Upswing: How America Came Together a Century Ago and How We Can Do It Again