Many widely cited social trends, such as the crisis of democracy and the loneliness epidemic, lack solid backing from objective data. The crisis of democracy, which suggests global democratic backsliding, is challenged by a study showing flat trends in democracy when assessed through objective measures. Furthermore, claims of a loneliness epidemic are questioned by a meta-analysis indicating mixed data that does not support an overarching narrative of increasing loneliness, particularly among adolescents. These findings challenge the validity of these social trends as widely accepted crises.
A landmark article published last year by scholars Andrew Little and Rachel Meng shook the field of political science by demonstrating that most evidence for claims of a "crisis of democracy" comes from "democracy scores" based on subjective opinions.
When examining more objective measures of democracy, such as electoral competitiveness and constraints placed on leaders, Little and Meng found that global trends in democracy are largely flat.
Journalist Faith Hill notes in an article from The Atlantic titled, "The Myth of a Loneliness Epidemic," that the data underlying claims of a loneliness epidemic are mixed at best.
A global analysis of loneliness trends among adolescents, a group considered high risk for loneliness, revealed findings that are inconsistent and therefore do not support sweeping claims of a global loneliness epidemic.
Collection
[
|
...
]