The Virtues and Downsides of Online Dating

30% of U.S. adults say they have used a dating site or app. A majority of online daters say their overall experience was positive, but many users – particularly younger women – report being harassed or sent explicit messages on these platforms


How we did this

From personal ads that began appearing in publications around the 1700s to videocassette dating services that sprang up decades ago, the platforms people use to seek out romantic partners have evolved throughout history. This evolution has continued with the rise of online dating sites and mobile apps.

Today, three-in-ten U.S. adults say they have ever used an online dating site or app – including 11% who have done so in the past year, according to a new Pew Research Center survey conducted Oct. 16 to 28, 2019. For some Americans, these platforms have been instrumental in forging meaningful connections: 12% say they have married or been in a committed relationship with someone they first met through a dating site or app. All in all, about a quarter of Americans (23%) say they have ever gone on a date with someone they first met through a dating site or app.

Previous Pew Research Center studies about online dating indicate that the share of Americans who have used these platforms – as well as the share who have found a spouse or partner through them – has risen over time. In 2013, 11% of U.S. adults said they had ever used a dating site or app, while just 3% reported that they had entered into a long-term relationship or marriage with someone they first met through online dating. It is important to note that there are some changes in question wording between the Center’s 2013 and 2019 surveys, as well as differences in how these surveys were fielded.1 Even so, it is clear that websites and mobile apps are playing a larger role in the dating environment than in previous years.2

These shifting realities have sparked a broader debate about the impact of online dating on romantic relationships in America. On one side, some highlight the ease and efficiency of using these platforms to search for dates, as well as the sites’ ability to expand users’ dating options beyond their traditional social circles. Others offer a less flattering narrative about online dating – ranging from concerns about scams or harassment to the belief that these platforms facilitate superficial relationships rather than meaningful ones. This survey finds that the public is somewhat ambivalent about the overall impact of online dating. Half of Americans believe dating sites and apps have had neither a positive nor negative effect on dating and relationships, while smaller shares think its effect has either been mostly positive (22%) or mostly negative (26%).

Terminology

Throughout this report, “online dating users” and “online daters” are used interchangeably to refer to the 30% of respondents in this survey who answered yes to the following question: “Have you ever used an online dating site or dating app?”


These findings come from a nationally representative survey of 4,860 U.S. adults conducted online Oct. 16 to 28, 2019, using Pew Research Center’s American Trends Panel. The following are among the major findings.
Younger adults – as well as those who identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual – are especially likely to use online dating sites or apps

Some 30% of Americans say they have ever used an online dating site or app. Out of those who have used these platforms, 18% say they are currently using them, while an additional 17% say they are not currently doing so but have used them in the past year.

Experience with online dating varies substantially by age. While 48% of 18- to 29-year-olds say they have ever used a dating site or app, that share is 38% among 30- to 49-year-olds, and it is even smaller among those ages 50 and older. Still, online dating is not completely foreign to those in their 50s or early 60s: 19% of adults ages 50 to 64 say they have used a dating site or app.

Beyond age, there also are striking differences by sexual orientation.3 LGB adults are about twice as likely as straight adults to say they have used a dating site or app (55% vs. 28%).4 And in a pattern consistent with previous Pew Research Center surveys, college graduates and those with some college experience are more likely than those with a high school education or less to say they’ve ever online dated.

There are only modest differences between men and women in their use of dating sites or apps, while white, black or Hispanic adults all are equally likely to say they have ever used these platforms.

At the same time, a small share of U.S. adults report that they found a significant other through online dating platforms. Some 12% of adults say they have married or entered into a committed relationship with someone they first met through a dating site or app. This too follows a pattern similar to that seen in overall use, with adults under the age of 50, those who are LGB or who have higher levels of educational attainment more likely to report finding a spouse or committed partner through these platforms.
A majority of online daters say they found it at least somewhat easy to come across others on dating sites or apps that they were physically attracted to or shared their interests

Online dating users are more likely to describe their overall experience with using dating sites or apps in positive, rather than negative, terms. Some 57% of Americans who have ever used a dating site or app say their own personal experiences with these platforms have been very or somewhat positive. Still, about four-in-ten online daters (42%) describe their personal experience with dating sites or apps as at least somewhat negative.

For the most part, different demographic groups tend to view their online dating experiences similarly. But there are some notable exceptions. College-educated online daters, for example, are far more likely than those with a high school diploma or less to say that their own personal experience with dating sites or apps is very or somewhat positive (63% vs. 47%).

At the same time, 71% of online daters report that it was at least somewhat easy to find people on dating sites or apps that they found physically attractive, while about two-thirds say it was easy to find people who shared their hobbies or interests or seemed like someone they would want to meet in person.

While majorities across various demographic groups are more likely to describe their searches as easy, rather than difficult, there are some differences by gender. Among online daters, women are more likely than men to say it was at least somewhat difficult to find people they were physically attracted to (36% vs. 21%), while men were more likely than women to express that it was difficult to find others who shared their hobbies and interests (41% vs. 30%).
Men who have online dated in the past five years are more likely than women to feel as if they did not get enough messages from other users

When asked if they received too many, not enough or just about the right amount of messages on dating sites or apps, 43% of Americans who online dated in the past five years say they did not receive enough messages, while 17% say they received too many messages. Another 40% think the amount of messages they received was just about right.

There are substantial gender differences in the amount of attention online daters say they received on dating sites or apps. Men who have online dated in the past five years are far more likely than women to feel as if they did not get enough messages (57% vs. 24%). On the other hand, women who have online dated in this time period are five times as likely as men to think they were sent too many messages (30% vs. 6%).

The survey also asked online daters about their experiences with getting messages from people they were interested in. In a similar pattern, these users are more likely to report receiving too few rather than too many of these messages (54% vs. 13%). And while gender differences remain, they are far less pronounced. For example, 61% of men who have online dated in the past five years say they did not receive enough messages from people they were interested in, compared with 44% of women who say this.
Roughly seven-in-ten online daters think people lying to appear more desirable is a very common occurrence on online dating platforms

Online daters widely believe that dishonesty is a pervasive issue on these platforms. A clear majority of online daters (71%) say it is very common for people on these platforms to lie about themselves to appear more desirable, while another 25% think it is somewhat common. Only 3% of online daters think this is not a common occurrence on dating platforms.

Smaller, but still substantial shares, of online daters believe people setting up fake accounts in order to scam others (50%) or people receiving sexually explicit messages or images they did not ask for (48%) are very common on dating sites and apps. By contrast, online daters are less likely to think harassment or bullying, and privacy violations, such as data breaches or identify theft, are very common occurrences on these platforms.
Some users – especially younger women – report being the target of rude or harassing behavior while on these platforms

Some experts contend that the open nature of online dating — that is, the fact that many users are strangers to one another — has created a less civil dating environment and therefore makes it difficult to hold people accountable for their behavior. This survey finds that a notable share of online daters have been subjected to some form of harassment measured in this survey.

Roughly three-in-ten or more online dating users say someone through a dating site or app continued to contact them after they said they were not interested (37%), sent them a sexually explicit message or image they didn’t ask for (35%) or called them an offensive name (28%). Fewer online daters say someone via a dating site or app has threatened to physically harm them.

Younger women are particularly likely to encounter each of these behaviors. Six-in-ten female online dating users ages 18 to 34 say someone via a dating site or app continued to contact them after they said they were not interested, while 57% report that another user has sent them a sexually explicit message or image they didn’t ask for. Other negative interactions are more violent in nature: 19% of younger female users say someone on a dating site or app has threatened to physically harm them – roughly twice the rate of men in the same age range who say this.

The likelihood of encountering these kinds of behaviors on dating platforms also varies by sexual orientation. Fully 56% of LGB users say someone on a dating site or app has sent them a sexually explicit message or image they didn’t ask for, compared with about one-third of straight users (32%). LGB users are also more likely than straight users to say someone on a dating site or app continued to contact them after they told them they were not interested, called them an offensive name or threatened to physically harm them.
Online dating is not universally seen as a safe way to meet someone

The creators of online dating sites and apps have at times struggled with the perception that these sites could facilitate troubling – or even dangerous – encounters. And although there is some evidence that much of the stigma surrounding these sites has diminished over time, close to half of Americans still find the prospect of meeting someone through a dating site unsafe.

Some 53% of Americans overall (including those who have and have not online dated) agree that dating sites and apps are a very or somewhat safe way to meet people, while a somewhat smaller share (46%) believe these platforms are a not too or not at all safe way of meeting people.

Americans who have never used a dating site or app are particularly skeptical about the safety of online dating. Roughly half of adults who have never used a dating or app (52%) believe that these platforms are a not too or not at all safe way to meet others, compared with 29% of those who have online dated.

There are some groups who are particularly wary of the idea of meeting someone through dating platforms. Women are more inclined than men to believe that dating sites and apps are not a safe way to meet someone (53% vs. 39%).

Age and education are also linked to differing attitudes about the topic. For example, 59% of Americans ages 65 and older say meeting someone this way is not safe, compared with 51% of those ages 50 to 64 and 39% among adults under the age of 50. Those who have a high school education or less are especially likely to say that dating sites and apps are not a safe way to meet people, compared with those who have some college experience or who have at bachelor’s or advanced degree. These patterns are consistent regardless of each group’s own personal experience with using dating sites or apps.
Pluralities think online dating has neither helped nor harmed dating and relationships and that relationships that start online are just as successful as those that begin offline

Americans – regardless of whether they have personally used online dating services or not – also weighed in on the virtues and pitfalls of online dating. Some 22% of Americans say online dating sites and apps have had a mostly positive effect on dating and relationships, while a similar proportion (26%) believe their effect has been mostly negative. Still, the largest share of adults – 50% – say online dating has had neither a positive nor negative effect on dating and relationships.

Respondents who say online dating’s effect has been mostly positive or mostly negative were asked to explain in their own words why they felt this way. Some of the most common reasons provided by those who believe online dating has had a positive effect focus on its ability to expand people’s dating pools and to allow people to evaluate someone before agreeing to meet in person. These users also believe dating sites and apps generally make the process of dating easier. On the other hand, people who said online dating has had a mostly negative effect most commonly cite dishonesty and the idea that users misrepresent themselves.

Pluralities also believe that whether a couple met online or in person has little effect on the success of their relationship. Just over half of Americans (54%) say that relationships where couples meet through a dating site or app are just as successful as those that begin in person, 38% believe these relationships are less successful, while 5% deem them more successful.

Public attitudes about the impact or success of online dating differ between those who have used dating platforms and those who have not. While 29% of online dating users say dating sites and apps have had a mostly positive effect on dating and relationships, that share is 21% among non-users. People who have ever used a dating site or app also have a more positive assessment of relationships forged online. Some 62% of online daters believe relationships where people first met through a dating site or app are just as successful as those that began in person, compared with 52% of those who never online dated.

Americans’ personal experiences with online dating

Digital technology permeates almost every facet of society – from how people get news and information to the way they shop or apply for jobs and even how they seek romantic partners. Since online dating sites’ humble beginnings in the mid-1990s, these platforms have risen to become a multibillion-dollar industry that serves customers around the world.
Today, 30% of adults say they have ever used a dating site or app, but people’s experiences with online dating vary substantially across demographic groups.
To begin with, adults under the age of 30 are particularly likely to say they have used these dating platforms. Roughly half of 18- to 29-year-olds (48%) say they have ever used a dating site or app, compared with 38% of those ages 30 to 49, and 16% of those ages 50 and older. At the same time, there are significant differences in online dating experience by sexual orientation. More than half of LGB Americans (55%) report ever using these platforms, compared with 28% of those who are straight.
Use of online dating platforms also varies substantially by current marital status. Fully 52% of Americans who have never been married say they have ever used a dating site or app, compared with around one-third of those who are divorced, separated or widowed (35%) and just 21% of those who are married or living with a partner.
Although less pronounced, experiences with online dating also differ by educational attainment and community type. For example, 35% of those who have at least a bachelor’s degree have ever used a dating site or app, compared with 22% of those with a high school education or less. Additionally, those living in urban or suburban communities are more likely than those living in rural areas to say they have used these platforms.

Roughly one-in-five online dating users say they are currently using these platforms

Some 18% of Americans who have ever used a dating site or app say they are currently using these platforms, while another 17% report that they are not currently doing so but have in the past year. Still, a majority of people who have ever used these platforms report that the last time they did so was either between one and five years ago (26%) or more than five years ago (38%).
People who identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual are particularly likely to be current users of these platforms. One-in-three LGB Americans who have online dated are currently using a dating site or app, compared with 15% of straight users.
At the same time, online dating users ages 18 to 49 are more likely than those ages 50 and older to say they are currently using these platforms (20% vs. 12%), while men who say they’ve used these platforms are more likely than women to be current users of dating sites or apps (21% vs. 14%).

39% of online daters – and 12% of Americans overall – have married or been in a committed relationship with someone they first met through a dating site or app

Fully 77% of online dating users – and 23% of Americans overall – say they have gone on a date with someone they first met through a dating app or website. Interestingly, about one-in-four Americans who have used a dating site or app (23%) say they have never been on a date with someone they met through these platforms.
And while a majority of online daters have never forged a committed relationship with someone they first encountered through these platforms, 39% of online dating users (representing 12% of all U.S. adults) say they have been in a committed relationship or married someone they met on a dating site or app.
It also is fairly common for online daters to encounter people on these platforms that they already know: 63% of online daters (or 19% of all U.S. adults) say they have come across the profile of someone they already know offline.

Dating and its outcomes tend to vary by online daters’ level of education

Not only are those who have attended college more likely to use dating sites or apps compared with those who have less formal education, they also are more likely to have met or formed a committed relationship with the help of these sites.
Majorities across educational levels say they have gone on a date with someone they met through online dating, but these shares are higher among those with a college degree. Fully 84% of online dating users with at least a bachelor’s degree report going out with someone they met on a dating site or app, compared with 77% of those with some college experience, and 66% of those with a high school diploma or less.
College graduates and those with some college experience who used these platforms also are more likely than those with a high school education or less to say they have been in a committed relationship or married someone they met through an online dating site or app. These educational differences are similar when looking at just online daters ages 25 and older.

Users of online dating platforms experience both positive – and negative – aspects of courtship on the web

Over the past two decades, the internet and smartphones have transformed where, when and how people meet potential romantic partners. But, as many aspects of dating have migrated online, how do online daters themselves feel about their time spent using these platforms?
Overall, online daters are more likely to rate their experiences in positive rather than negative terms, and majorities of these users say that it is was easy to find others who shared their interests or wanted to meet in person. But users also describe a more troubling and frustrating side of online dating, including their own encounters with harassing behaviors on these platforms.

Roughly six-in-ten online daters say they have had an overall positive experience with these platforms

Some 57% of Americans who have ever used an online dating site or app say their own personal experiences with these platforms have been very (14%) or somewhat (43%) positive. Smaller shares of users – though still about four-in-ten – describe their time with online dating as at least somewhat negative, including 9% who say it was a very negative.
The way people assess their online dating experiences varies widely by socioeconomic factors. Fully 63% of online daters with a bachelor’s or advanced degree say their experience has been very or somewhat positive, compared with 47% among those who have a high school diploma or less. A similar pattern ties to users’ income: Online dating users whose annual family income is $75,000 or more a year are far more likely than those whose yearly family income falls below $30,000 to describe their experience as at least somewhat positive (70% vs. 44%).
By comparison, there are more modest differences by sexual orientation or age. LGB users are more likely than straight users to describe their own experience with dating sites or apps as very or somewhat positive (65% vs. 56%), while users ages 18 to 49 are more likely than those ages 50 and older to say their online dating experience has been at least somewhat positive (59% vs. 50%). By contrast, the way online daters rate their overall experience does not statistically vary by gender or race and ethnicity.

Current or recent users of these platforms say online dating leaves them feeling more frustrated than hopeful

Online dating often requires individuals to make themselves noticeable in a large pool of other daters who either accept or reject them based on quick assessments. For some, this fast-paced approach to dating may have a positive impact on their outlook and self-esteem, while others may feel more dispirited.
To better understand users’ experiences, the survey presented those who have used online dating sites or apps within the past year with three pairs of words and asked them to choose the sentiment that most closely matched how they felt when using these platforms. Larger shares of Americans who are currently using dating sites or apps or who have done so in the past year say the experience left them feeling more frustrated (45%) than hopeful (28%). Another 27% of these users say they felt neither hopeful nor frustrated.
Other sentiments are more evenly balanced between positive and negative feelings. Some 35% of current or recent users say that in the past year online dating has made them feel more pessimistic, while 29% say these platforms left them feeling more optimistic. At the same time, 32% of current or recent online daters report that in the past year, dating sites or apps made them feel more confident, while 25% say dating sites or apps made them feel more insecure. Still, for each of these pairs of words, nearly four-in-ten or more of these users say that neither of the emotions offered reflects how they felt when using a dating site or app in the past year.
Online dating users across most demographic groups report similar emotions while using these platforms, but there are some differences by race and ethnicity. Among those who have used a dating site or app in the past year, white users are more likely than nonwhite users to say that these platforms have made them feel more frustrated (53% vs. 36%) or more pessimistic (40% vs. 29%).⁵

Majorities of online dating users found it easy to come across others who shared their interests or were looking for the same kind of relationship

There have been numerous accounts detailing some of the struggles of online dating – including the difficulty that users may encounter when trying to find someone compatible. Overall, online daters are more likely to say that finding desirable or like-minded people was an easy rather than difficult endeavor, but there are some groups who find these aspects of online dating more daunting.
Fully 71% of Americans who have ever used a dating site or app say it was at least somewhat easy to find people on these platforms that they were physically attracted to, including 28% who say that this was a very easy task for them. A majority of online daters also said it was very or somewhat easy to find people who shared their hobbies and interests (64%), seemed like someone they would want to meet in person (64%) or were looking for the same kind of relationship as them (61%).
Online daters’ assessments of how hard or easy it was to find compatible users varies by gender. Women who have ever used a dating site or app are more likely than men to say they have found it very or somewhat difficult to find people that they were physical attracted to (36% vs. 21%) or seemed like someone they would want to meet in person (39% vs. 32%). On the other hand, 41% of male users say they found it at least somewhat difficult to find people who shared their hobbies and interests, compared with three-in-ten female users.
There are some educational differences as well. Online daters who have a high school education or less, for example, are more likely than those with a bachelor’s or advanced degree to say that it was very or somewhat difficult to find people who were looking for the same kind of relationship as them (45% vs. 32%) or who shared their hobbies or interests (39% vs. 30%).

Men and women who have used online dating in the past five years have contrasting experiences with the amount of messages they received

When asked if they received too many, too few or just about the right amount of messages, 43% of Americans who have used an online dating site or app in the past five years say they did not receive enough messages, 40% think the amount was just about right, and fewer – 17% – say they received too many messages.
But there are stark gender differences in the amount of attention users report receiving. Some 57% of men who have online dated in the past five years report that they did not receive enough messages, while just 6% state they received too many messages. By contrast, women who have used dating sites or apps in this time period are five times as likely as men to report they were sent too many messages (30% vs. 6%) and are far less likely than men to say they did not receive enough messages (24% express this view).
The survey also asked online daters about their experiences with getting messages from people they were interested in. Similarly, these users are more likely to report receiving too few rather than too many of these messages (54% vs. 13%). And while gender differences remain, they are less pronounced. For example, 61% of men who have online dated in the past five years say they did not receive enough messages from people they were interested in, compared with 44% of women who say this.

Online daters place a high level of importance on seeing other users’ photos, finding out the kind of relationship they’re interested in

Online dating allows users to quickly evaluate dozens of potential partners and scour profiles for all kinds of information – from the way someone looks to how they spend their free time and even their political leanings. But what are the most important things people look for as they scroll or swipe through profiles?
Online daters find it especially important to be able to view someone’s photo. Fully 71% of users say it was very important to them that the profiles they looked at included the other user’s photo.
A majority of online dating users also felt it was necessary to gauge other users’ intentions: 63% say it was very important that the profiles they looked through included the type of relationship the other person was looking for.
Additionally, 45% of users say it was very important that profiles included whether the person had any children; 36% say this about hobbies and interests; and 25% feel this way about religious beliefs.
Smaller shares of users consider a person’s racial or ethnic background, occupation, height or political affiliation to be very important information to discover when looking through online dating profiles.
Across several measures, women are more likely than men to describe certain information as essential to glean from someone’s profile. Roughly seven-in-ten female users (72%) say that it was very important to them that the profiles they looked at included the type of relationship the person was looking for, while about half of male users say this (53%). Among online daters, women also are more likely than men to say that it was very important to them that the profiles included a person’s religious beliefs (32% vs. 18%), occupation (27% vs. 8%) or height (22% vs. 8%).
Other gender differences – such as the importance of users including in their profiles hobbies and interests, racial or ethnic background, or political affiliation – are more modest.
The level of importance that users place on certain content also varies by age. Online dating users ages 50 and older are more likely than users ages 18 to 49 to say that it is very important that the profiles they looked at included the person’s race or ethnicity (26% vs. 16%) or their political affiliation (21% vs. 12%). Younger users, on the other hand, are more likely than older users to say that it was very important to them that profiles they came across included whether the person had children (48% vs. 37%).

Users of dating sites or apps generally believe embellishment is a very common part of the online dating experience

Even as users of dating sites and apps generally rate their overall experiences positively, they also believe that certain negative behaviors are especially prevalent on these platforms.
Indeed, a majority of users characterize lying as a prevalent feature of the online dating environment. Fully 71% of adults who have used an online dating site or app say it is very common for people on these platforms to lie about themselves to appear more desirable.
Smaller shares – though still about half of all users – believe that it is very common for people on dating sites and apps to set up fake accounts in order to scam others (50%) or for people to receive sexually explicit messages or images they did not ask for (48%). Fewer users believe that people being harassed or bullied (25%) or data privacy violations (18%) are very common occurrences on online dating sites or apps.
Views about the pervasiveness of certain behaviors on dating platforms varies substantially by educational attainment. For example, 61% of online daters who have a high school diploma or less education say it is very common for people to receive sexually explicit images or messages on dating sites or apps, compared with 49% of those with some college experience and 37% of those who have bachelor’s degree or more education. At the same time, users with a high school education or less are also more likely than those with a college degree to believe that people setting up fake accounts for scams, people being harassed or bullied, or privacy violations are a very common aspect of online dating.
Men and women also hold somewhat differing views on the prevalence of these issues. Some 57% of women say that people setting up fake accounts in order to scam others is very common, compared with 44% of men who say this. And while about one-in-three female users (32%) think harassment is a very common occurrence on online dating platforms, that share falls to 19% among male users. Among online daters, women are also more likely than men to say it is very common for people on dating sites and apps to lie about themselves to appear more desirable (76% vs. 67%), receive sexually explicit messages or images they didn’t ask for (55% vs. 42%) or for privacy violations to occur (22% vs. 14%).
There also are large differences by age when respondents are asked about the prevalence of nonconsensual sexual messages: 56% of online dating users ages 18 to 49 say this is very common on these platforms, compared with just 27% of users ages 50 and older who say this.

Younger women are especially likely to be the target of harassing behaviors when using these platforms

Online harassment has become a regular feature of life on the internet, from social media sites to comments sections – and dating platforms.
This survey finds that online daters encounter a range of negative behaviors while using these platforms. Some 37% of online dating users say someone on a dating site or app has continued to contact them after they said they weren’t interested, while 28% say they have been called an offensive name while using these platforms. About one-in-ten users (9%) also say that someone on a dating site or app has threatened to physically harm them.
Other negative encounters are more sexualized: 35% of users say someone on a dating site or app has sent them a sexually explicit message or image they did not ask for.
These unpleasant interactions are more prevalent among women than men – with the largest gender gaps present among those who say they have received unwanted contact or explicit messages. Some 48% of female users say someone has continued to contact them after they said they were not interested, while a similar share – 46% – report that they have been sent a sexually explicit message or image they didn’t ask for. These shares are considerably lower among male users (27% and 26%, respectively). Similar gender gaps are present when online dating users are asked about being called an offensive name or having someone threaten to physically harm them.
Younger women, in particular, stand out for how likely they are to encounter these behaviors on a dating platform. Six-in-ten female users ages 18 to 34 say someone through a dating site or app continued to contact them after they said they were not interested, while 57% say they have been sent a sexually explicit message or image that they did not ask for. At the same time, 44% of these younger female users say that someone has called them an offensive name via these platforms, while 19% report being physically threatened by another user. Each of these figures is substantially higher when compared with the experience of male online daters across age ranges, as well as that of female users ages 50 and up.
Women ages 35 to 49 who have online dated also are more likely than male users of the same age group – as well as men younger or older than them – to say someone has continued to contact them after they said they were not interested or sent them sexually explicit content on a dating platform.
Whether someone reports that they have been the target of these behaviors also differs by sexual orientation. LGB users are more likely than straight users to say someone on a dating site or app has sent them a sexually explicit message or image they didn’t ask for (56% vs. 32%). LGB online daters also are more likely than straight users to say they’ve faced unwanted contact from someone after they said they were not interested, been called an offensive name or been physical threatened by someone on a dating site or app.

Americans’ opinions about the online dating environment

Online dating platforms have been scrutinized at times for the way they have contributed to dating culture and its safety, as well as how successful they are at finding people a suitable match. There are a slew of both troubling and love stories involving online dating.
This chapter explores how all Americans – not just those who have online dated – feel about the broader landscape and impact of online dating. To begin, Americans are more likely to describe online dating as having a neutral impact on dating and relationships, rather than a mostly positive or negative one. And when asked to share their views about the success of relationships that begin through online dating, just over half of U.S. adults agree that these relationships are just as successful as those that began offline.
Still, views about online dating do vary across demographic groups, as well as by people’s own personal experience with using these sites or apps. At the same time, there are some lingering concerns about the danger of meeting someone through a dating site or app. Americans are somewhat divided on whether these platforms are a safe way to meet people.

Half of Americans believe that online dating has had neither a positive nor negative effect on dating and relationships

When asked to share their views on the type of effect dating sites and apps have had on dating and relationships, 50% of Americans believe their effect has been neither positive nor negative. Meanwhile, 26% say online dating has had a mostly negative effect on dating and relationships, while 22% describe its effect as mostly positive.
Across demographic groups, larger shares of Americans feel as if online dating has had neither a positive nor negative effect on dating and relationships, but personal experience with online dating also is associated with more positive views of its impact. Some 29% of online dating users view its effect on dating and relationships as mostly positive, compared with 21% of those who never used a dating site or app.
At the same time, 30% of adults with at least a bachelor’s degree say that dating sites and apps have a mostly positive effect on dating relationships, compared with 18% of those with a high school education or less. These educational differences are present regardless of online dating use.

Americans cite a number of reasons – ranging from expanding options to success stories – as reasons these platforms have been a good thing for dating and relationships

The survey also asked an open-ended question to give respondents a chance to explain, in their own words, why they feel as if dating sites and apps have had a mostly positive or mostly negative effect on dating and relationships.
Among respondents who say dating sites and apps have had a mostly positive effect, 25% say it is because they have helped expand people’s dating pool. Many of these responses emphasize how online dating has made it easier to meet people outside of one’s normal social circle, thereby expanding their options:

“They allow people who wouldn’t have ever really crossed paths in person easier access to that possible ‘one’ that they otherwise wouldn’t have ever met.” (Woman, age 36)

“It widens the pool of available persons.” (Woman, age 64)

Others in this group cite the ability to evaluate people before meeting them in person (19%) or that it is generally an easier way to meet people who also are interested in dating (18%).

“You read people’s profiles and know what they are all about before reaching out to them. Cheaper than going on a date to find out the hard way.” (Man, age 43)

“Easy to meet people. Easy to break the ice. Easy to size up people to see if you would like to really date them.” (Woman, age 28)

Some 14% of these respondents also express that these platforms can connect people who are likeminded or have mutual interests, while 11% offer up success stories as a reason online dating has had a mostly positive impact on dating.

“It’s easier to find someone who shares your interest and values. Easier to identify what you have in common before you decide to pursue spending time together.” (Man, age 54)

“We have known untold numbers of now-married couples who met online. … It does shrink the world to help you meet wonderful people.” (Woman, age 75)

Relatively small shares argue that online dating has had a mostly positive effect because it is a more efficient way of meeting people, is a better alternative to more traditional ways of meeting, helps people who have trouble meeting others or is a safer way of meeting people.

Americans who believe online dating has had a mostly negative effect on dating and relationships are especially likely to stress issues related to dishonesty

There is a stronger consensus among respondents who believe dating sites and apps have had a mostly negative effect. By far the most common response (given by 37% of these respondents) mentions that these platforms are a venue for various forms of dishonesty – ranging from people embellishing the truth to outright scams.

“You only know what they want you to know. They lie about themselves to make themselves look good.” (Man, age 58)

“People give a description of who they want to be and not always how they really are. You can’t depend on everyone being honest about who they are on both the positive and negative sides.” (Woman, age 40)

“I found there are a lot of scammers on dating sites trying to take advantage of others.” (Woman, age 59)

Another 14% in this group mention that online dating has made courtship more impersonal and devoid of meaningful communication.

“People don’t act like themselves online. No one is actually getting to really know each other. Communication is flawed from the beginning.” (Woman, age 33)

“There is a constant influx of ‘new inventory.’ It’s made dating more of a shopping activity (consumerism) than an interpersonal experience (emotional). The ‘swipe right’ mentality starts to affect us in everyday life.” (Man, age 56)

And additional 11% say the traditional ways of meeting were better and online dating has prevented people from connecting in the physical world. Overall, people who answer in this theme feel that online dating is generally just a bad way to meet people:

“Profiling isn’t romantic. The slower process of meeting someone, the chase, maybe the game and the face-to-face learning about each other makes for deeper and lasting feelings.” (Man, age 72)

“The old-fashioned way of meeting people in person or getting introduced through friends seems more individualized.” (Woman, age 30)

Respondents also offer other reasons they believe online dating has negatively affected dating, including that it keeps people from settling down because there are too many options (10% say this), while another 10% criticize these platforms for encouraging casual relationships and hookups. Another 8% in this group attribute their negative views of online dating to safety concerns.

“It’s hard to work on a relationship or give a partner another chance when sites/apps are constantly promoting the message that you are surrounded by wonderful singles all the time. It makes you believe that there is always a better or easier option available.” (Woman, age 27)

“Those sites and apps are used more for hookups nowadays and the people on there are not seriously looking for a committed relationship.” (Woman, age 33)

“I find the whole thing just extremely odd. I think that it is actually rather dangerous to meet complete strangers that way. It’s too easy for serial killers, psychos, thieves and people that are up to no good to find new victims that way.” (Woman, age 47)

About half of Americans think online dating is a safe way to meet people – but this varies substantially by age, gender and personal experiences with dating sites and apps

Overall, Americans are somewhat divided on whether online dating is a safe way to meet someone. Roughly half of the public says that dating sites and apps are a very (3%) or somewhat (50%) safe way to meet people. Still, perceptions that online dating is a dangerous way to meet someone are fairly common. Some 46% of Americans believe meeting someone through online dating is not safe, including one-in-ten who say it is not at all a safe way to meet people.
Public perceptions about the safety of online dating vary substantially by personal experience. A majority of Americans who have ever used a dating site or app (71%) see it as a very or somewhat safe way to meet someone, compared with 47% of those who have never used these platforms.
There are other groups who also express concerns about the safety of online dating. Women are far more likely than men to say dating sites and apps are not a safe way meet to people (53% vs. 39%). And while 39% of adults under the age of 50 view online dating as unsafe, that share is 54% among those ages 50 and older.
Additionally, 57% of adults with a high school education or less think meeting someone through a dating platform is not safe, compared with just about a third of those with a bachelor’s or advanced degree (34%). There also are differences in views about online dating safety by race and ethnicity, as well as, by sexual orientation.

54% of the public says relationships where people first meet through a dating site or app are just as successful as those that begin in person

One of the central debates that emerged with the rise of online dating is whether courtships that begin online can be as successful and long-lasting as those forged in person.
When asked whether relationships where people first meet through an online dating site or app are generally more successful, less successful or just as successful as those that begin in person, 54% of Americans agree that these relationships are just as successful. Smaller shares – though still around four-in-ten (38%) – categorize these relationships as less successful, while relatively few Americans (5%) say relationships in which people first met through online dating are more successful than those that begin in person.
Larger shares of most groups believe relationships that start through dating sites or apps are just as successful as those that begin in person, but there are some Americans who are more skeptical of digitally forged relationships.
Again, views about online dating differ between those who have used these platforms and those who have not. Roughly four-in-ten Americans who have never online dated (41%) believe relationships that start off through dating platforms are less successful than those that begin in person, compared with 29% of those who have used a dating site or app.
Americans ages 50 and up are more likely than those under the age of 50 to say that relationships that first began through a dating site or app are less successful than relationships that started in person (43% vs. 34%). And adults who have a high school education or less are more likely than those with a bachelor’s or advanced degree to believe that these types of relationships are less successful when compared with those that begin in person (41% vs. 31%). There also are differences by sexual orientation. Some 39% of straight adults feel that relationships that began through online dating are less successful, while smaller shares of LGB adults (27%) hold this view.
This pattern is true even among those who have online dated. Among those who have used a dating site or app, older or straight adults are more likely than those who are younger or LGB to say relationships that start through dating sites and apps are less successful than those that start in person.

Americans who have had more success with online dating tend to view it more positively

Across several measures, online daters who have found a committed partner through these dating sites or apps tend to view these platforms in a more positive light. The same is true of how they rate their overall experience, as well as whether they’ve experienced some form of harassment while using these platforms.
Online dating users who have married or been in a committed relationship with someone they met online are more likely than those who haven’t to say that these platforms have had a mostly positive effect on dating and relationships overall (37% vs. 23%), or to view online dating as at least a somewhat safe way to meet people (79% vs. 66%). Online daters who have had success in finding committed relationships online also are more likely than those who haven’t to say relationships started through dating sites or apps are just as successful as those started offline (67% vs. 58%).
Users who had at least a somewhat positive experience overall using these platforms also are more likely to view them as having had a positive effect on dating and relationships, compared with those who have had a very or somewhat negative overall experience (39% vs. 14%). Differences in perceived safety also are present. Fully 82% of online daters who had a positive experience with dating sites or apps believe these platforms are a safe way to meet people, compared with 55% among those who categorize their overall online dating experience as negative.
Additionally, opinions about online dating vary by users’ own encounters with harassment on these platforms. Online daters who have experienced some form of harassment measured in this survey are more likely to say that online dating platforms have had a mostly negative effect on dating and relationships, compared with those who have not experienced harassment (30% vs. 20%). And while majorities of online daters, regardless of their experience with harassment, think of these platforms as a safe way to meet someone, those who personally have faced these negative interactions (66%) are less likely than those who haven’t to describe it as at least somewhat safe (77%).

Rusia refuerza sus lazos con México con apoyo económico y en la lucha contra el narcotráfico

La “productiva” visita del canciller ruso a México confirma las buenas relaciones entre ambos países, que se concretarán en medidas económicas y sociales a lo largo del año. Serguéi Lavrov se ha entrevistado con su homólogo mexicano, Marcelo Ebrard, y en la rueda de prensa posterior ha informado de que la comisión económica detenida desde 2011 se reanudará de nuevo. “Estamos esperando las propuestas de México para ver dónde pueden las empresas rusas contribuir de forma útil”, ha dicho. Además, ha manifestado la intención de ambos países de fortalecer vínculos en todos los ámbitos y al “más alto nivel”, incluida la lucha contra el narcotráfico.

Las relaciones de Rusia y México celebran ya 130 años de intercambio diplomático y la colaboración quiere relanzarse ahora, también en el orden ciudadano. El ministro de Exteriores ruso ha anunciado este jueves que se flexibilizarán los visados para aumentar el flujo de visitantes. “El número de turistas rusos en México se ha incrementado y ahora con los visados será aún mejor”, ha dicho. Ha hablado de becas para estudiantes y de renovar la comisión para asuntos educativos, culturales, deportivos. Prácticamente ha mencionado todos los sectores productivos. “A Rusia le interesa que América Latina y el Caribe sigan siendo un centro importante del orden mundial”, ha dicho Lavrov, tras recordar que México es, después de Brasil, su segundo socio en la región .

El intercambio comercial entre México y Rusia es cercano a los 2.000 millones de dólares al año. A nivel mundial, Rusia ocupa el puesto 46 entre los países con inversiones en México. A cambio, importantes empresas mexicanas tienen proyectos de inversión a largo plazo en ese mercado, ha comunicado la Secretaria de Relaciones Exteriores mexicana .

La visita del jefe de la diplomacia rusa comenzó el miércoles en Cuba y finaliza este viernes en Venezuela, donde le recibirá el presidente, en un gesto que se interpreta como un apoyo explícito al Gobierno de Nicolás Maduro. Preguntado sobre ello, Lavrov ha asegurado que su enfoque es común con México, de respeto a la soberanía de aquel país y su compromiso de no intervención. Solo medidas pacíficas. El canciller se ha ceñido a las reglas internacionales de no injerencia entre países y abogó por “el diálogo entre el Gobierno y la oposición”. “No vemos más medida de apoyo al Gobierno legítimo de Venezuela que mantener los lazos económicos”.

Apenas 24 horas antes, el líder de la oposición venezolana, Juan Guaidó, había recibido un caluroso apoyo de Donald Trump en la Casa Blanca. “Solo los venezolanos pueden resolver sus problemas”, ha repetido Lavrov, aunque se ha comprometido a ayudarlos en ese camino así como ha denunciado “los intentos para provocar la intervención por la fuerza”. “El diálogo debe ser sin condiciones previas, una postura que compartimos con México”, ha afirmado. “No se trata solo de Venezuela, los principios de la Organización Internacional del Comercio están socavados por la Administración estadounidense”. Y ha acusado a Estados Unidos de pretender que todo el mundo occidental le concierne de forma exclusiva. “Deben trabajar de forma multilateral”, ha sugerido.

De vuelta a los asuntos mexicanos, Lavrov ha mencionado las “buenas perspectivas energéticas" y la colaboración en “la construcción, barcos, farmacia, ferrocarriles, agricultura” y avances en el terreno “técnico militar”. Para sellar todas estas buenas perspectivas, los rusos mandarán una buena representación de su país al festival cervantino de Guanajuato que se celebrará en octubre. Y Marcelo Ebrard también ha sido invitado a visitar Rusia.

México ya ha recibido el apoyo de todos los países de América Latina y el Caribe para formar parte del Consejo de Seguridad de Naciones Unidas. ¿Está Rusia dispuesta a prestar su apoyo? “Es líder de la región y tiene una muy buena reputación en sus enfoques internacionales y sobre la no proliferación de armas nucleares. Nada se interpone para que sea apoyada la candidatura de México para 2021-22. Cooperaremos de forma estrecha”.

La visita a América Latina del ministro ruso, que viene precedida por algunas reuniones en los organismos internacionales, refuerza los tradicionales lazos con esta región, que Lavrov ha defendido apelando a “la dignidad instintiva de los países de la región tras su independencia”, al tiempo que ha rechazado los “cuentos de hadas” de quienes acusan a Rusia de estar detrás de las crisis de América Latina. “Se necesita un análisis más serio. Rusia no hace amigos para ir contra otros” y ha acusado a Estados Unidos de tratar siempre “de poner en contra de Rusia a todos los interlocutores con chantajes y presiones”.

En una crisis profunda, la industria perdió 170.000 empleos durante la era Macri

Un informe de la UIA confirmó que sólo en 2019 se destruyeron casi 50.000 puestos manufactureros




La industria sufrió una de las peores debacles de su historia durante los cuatro años de la era Cambiemos, en donde prácticamente todas sus variables se derrumbaron y crearon un combo explosivo en materia de empleo, que dinamitó a más de 170.000 puestos en el período que fue desde diciembre de 2015 hasta el mes pasado, coincidente con la gestión de Mauricio Macri.

La confrontación de la UIA con el gobierno saliente quedó explicada en un informe que difundió la central fabril, en donde confirma los peores pronósticos para un cierre de año que tuvo como antecedente las reiteradas advertencias sobre la ausencia de medidas que auxiliaran a la industria de un final inevitable: una aceleración de las pérdidas de trabajadores ante la irreversible crisis.

En noviembre la contracción del empleo industrial fue del 4,4% interanual, lo que significó una reducción de 49.645 puestos. "Sin estacionalidad, la caída mensual del empleo asalariado industrial fue de -0,5% (-5.184 puestos). Respecto de noviembre de 2015 la caída acumulada fue de -13,5% (-170.166 puestos)", precisó el informe que difundió la UIA.


Otro sector que evidenció la crisis de la recesión fue la construcción, que en noviembre perdió casi 7.000 puestos de trabajo aunque en el acumulado del año perdió 37.706 empleos, 12.000 menos que la industria. Sin embargo, el rubro de los constructores evidenció descensos desde antes de la crisis final del 2019. según analizaron fuentes del sector.

Tal como adelantó BAE Negocios, la razón que esgrimieron los empresarios industriales que impulsó la baja de personal fue la "disminución de demanda". "La Encuesta de Indicadores Laborales (EIL) reveló que, durante diciembre de 2019, un 41% de las bajas son explicadas por esta razón (este motivo aumentó su participación en el total de bajas en +1,9 puntos porcentuales respecto de diciembre de 2018). Además, este dato es el máximo desde hace 5 años (en diciembre de 2014 las bajas por cambios en la demanda habían llegado a 42,9%)", destacó el informe.

Para el futuro existe una expectativa de amesetamiento en materia de empleo, lo que significaría un corte en la sangría de noviembre: "Si bien el 2019 cierra con una pronunciada caída del empleo asalariado privado, la perspectiva empresarial con respecto a la dotación de su personal en los primeros 3 meses del 2020 es cautelosa. Tal como lo indica la EIL, un 92,8% de las empresas esperan mantener la misma dotación, reflejando un incremento con respecto al mismo mes de años anteriores (84,4 y 87,6% en 2017 y 2018 respectivamente)".

Con 49.600 trabajadores menos, la industria representó un 32% de la caída del empleo asalariado privado total. El sector acumuló entre enero y noviembre de 2019, según el último informe del CEU de la UIA, una contracción de 6,9% interanual, que la ubicó "en el nivel más bajo en 10 años".

Cuando se había festejado el piso de la crisis laboral entre mayo y agosto del año pasado, el informe mostró que "sin estacionalidad, la caída del empleo asalariado en la industria volvió a ser de -0,5% (5 mil puestos de trabajo menos) por tercer mes consecutivo". "De esta forma, se remarca la tendencia declinante del empleo mensual, tras de haberse estabilizado con caídas mensuales en torno a los 0,25% entre mayo y agosto", sostuvo.

En términos regionales, sólo tres provincias no registraron caída interanual del empleo asalariado: Neuquén con un incremento de 3 mil puestos de trabajo (2,6%). En cambio, Buenos Aires (2,2%) y CABA (3,1%) fueron las jurisdicciones más afectadas en niveles absolutos.

Trump prometió apoyar a Alberto en la renegociación de la deuda

Recibió a Jorge Argüello en la Casa Blanca. "Dígale al presidente Fernández que puede contar con este presidente", le dijo.
Trump recibió a Argüello en la Casa Blanca.


Donald Trump prometió apoyar a Alberto Fernández en la renegociación de la deuda con el FMI, según adelantó Jorge Argüello, el embajador argentino en Washington.


Argüello fue recibido por el presidente de Estados Unidos en la Casa Blanca, en donde le presentó sus credenciales como embajador argentino en ese país.

Tras el encuentro, Argüello dialogó con corresponsales argentinos en la embajada en Washington. Según La Nación, el embajador contó que le dijo a Trump que el "objetivo estratégico" del Gobierno de Alberto "es volver a crecer, y para ello necesitamos primero resolver la crisis de la deuda". "Y acá me quiero detener, presidente, porque mi país necesita el apoyo de su gobierno", agregó Argüello.


"Dígale al Presidente Fernández que puede contar con este presidente", fue la respuesta de Trump, según el embajador argentino.

Durante su gira por Israel y Europa, Alberto ya había conseguido el respaldo de líderes como Benjamín Netanyahu -clave para el apoyo de Trump-, Angela Merkel y Emmanuel Macron.

Pero el apoyo de Trump es la clave para la renegociación con el FMI y los bonistas privados a la que apunta Alberto para encauzar la economía.

Las demandas latentes de género en el #VotoJoven en tiempos del #MeToo

Por Rubén Weinsteiner

A las mujeres jóvenes no se las deja crecer hacia arriba y a los hombres jóvenes no se los deja crecer hacia adentro.

Cuando construimos una marca política y desarollamos una narrativa de identidad y personalidad, un discurso, un posicionamiento, una simbología y ritualidad marcaria, debemos investigar los deseos, necesidades, demandas y miedos, desda la superficialidad racional hasta la profundidad reptiliana, pasando por la fase intermedia emocional.

Votamos a alguien, simplemente porque nos gustan sus propuestas?

En ese caso las propuestas se convertirían en una commoditie que cualquier candidato podría tomarlas y utilizarlas.


Sistema de preferencias


Solo el 15% del sistema de preferencias se articula de manera racional, funcional, y analítica, con una estructura de secuencia lógica que se define en el cortex o corteza cerebral, que es la sede de la razón, la herramienta lógica que usamos para ver el mundo.

Es el que define menos, pero es el emisor, el que habla, por eso nos parece que define todo.

“Voto al candidato C, porque promete mejor transporte público, porque promete incentivar el empleo, porque es inteligente y culto” “voto al candidato porque C porque es honesto” “Es un gran economista”.

El listado de propuestas, los discursos y las consignas operan fuerte en el cortex, pero como dijimos solo determinan el 15% del proceso de decisión.


El 30% del sistema de preferencias se define en el sistema límbico o cerebro emocional, centro de la afectividad. Es aquí donde se procesan las emociones (penas, tristezas, angustias o alegrías).

“Voto al candidato A porque me emociona” “está comprometido con la tolerancia” “es sensible con los que menos tienen”, “es un genio” “es de los míos”. Los jingles, las canciones y los slogans operan fuerte aquí.

Aquí se ubica la empatía, “el es como yo”.

El sistema límbico o cerebro emocional, también llamado “cerebro medio”, está justo debajo de la corteza cerebral y comprende el tálamo, hipotálamo, el hipocampo y la amígdala cerebral .

Estos centros funcionan en todos los mamíferos, siendo el asiento de movimientos emocionales como el temor o la agresión. Y en el ser humano éstos son los centros de la emoción.

El sistema límbico es considerado también el centro de recompensa, por lo que se ve afectado en el caso de las adicciones. Ese centro de recompensas es el que se puede alinear con la ritualidad emotiva, con lo que emociona, hace llorar, reir enojarse, indignarse etc.

Camuflado detrás de los 2 sectores ya mencionados y responsable del 55% de la constitución del sistema de preferencias, se encuentra nuestra fase más primitiva, el cerebro reptil.


Reptiliano: paradigmas, miedos y arquetipos en el sistema de preferencias del voto joven

El 55% del sistema de preferencias del sujeto de elección joven , se juega en la parte más primitiva de nuestro cerebro, lo que llamamos reptiliano. La zona cerebral que se encarga de los instintos básicos de la supervivencia: guarida, comida, salud, deseo sexual, reproducción, seguridad, venganza, codificaciones amigo-enemigo, respuestas pelea-huye, el futuro, la muerte etc.

El Reptiliano es lo que le aseguraba a nuestros antepasados la supervivencia. Es que nos decía cuando podíamos quedarnos y cuando teníamos que huir, cuando podíamos relajarnos, y cuando teníamos que luchar, donde y cuando podíamos conseguir comida, guarida y pareja, como cuidar y defender a los hijos, y cuando debíamos abandonar un lugar para buscar otro.

La protección, la venganza, la seguridad, el poder, la supervivencia y los hijos, son ejes centrales en el metadiscurso reptiliano.

Gran parte del comportamiento humano se origina en esta zona, profundamente enterradas en el cerebro, son las mismas que en un tiempo dirigieron los actos vitales de nuestros antepasados.

El reptiliano busca, guarida, alimentación y educación y salud para la cría. El reptiliano se conmueve cuando el candidato lo toca, come y baila. Tocar, comer y bailar, tiene que ver con rituales tan primitivos como el reptiliano, son rituales atávicos, a través de los cuales el reptiliano decodifica, cercanía, “amigo” y no “enemigo”, y predispone al 45% restante compuesto por el cortex y el límbico, para recibir con buena predisposición los mensajes específicos.
Este cerebro primitivo de reptil se remonta a millones de años y aún dirige parte de nuestros mecanismos para cortejar, casarse, buscar hogar y seleccionar dirigentes.

En los segmentos jóvenes el reptiliano lleva a su máxima expresión el esquema binario. Por eso el joven ama o no ama, mucho más allá de la limitada y ‘civilizada’ empatía que pueden sentir los mayores.

Las definiciones reptilianas tienden a desplegarse entre dos opciones, entre la cuales, no elegimos siempre las más racional, sino la que prefiere nuestro cerebro reptil. Y no siempre es la obvia.

El cerebro reptil es un enorme yo. Sin él nos habríamos extinguido. El reptil no tiene compasión ni empatía. Sólo entiende los grandes contrastes: blanco o negro. No tiene tiempo de más. El reptil joven reduce opciones a lo binario para sobrevivir, aunque la realidad es más compleja y comprenderla a fondo requeriría una lógica difusa. Se trata de un sistema que posterga las abstracciones, va a lo tangible, y es profundamente emocional y visual.

Los clivajes se constituyen para interpelar directamente al reptiliano.

Una de las dimensiones más importantes para la construcción de una marca política poderosa en el voto joven, es la arquitectura de un discurso de poder sólido, en función de un clivaje eficaz.

El clivaje es la división traducida en competencia política, que construye las singularidades y particularidades de una marca política, permitiendo plantearle a los sujetos de elección, una competencia con las demás marcas políticas.

El clivaje permite presentar lo que uno es, reforzado por lo que uno no es, en un esquema binario, si-no, blanco-negro, un planteo fácil de asumir, del tipo “de que lado estás” a los electores.
Este esquema es claramente el que necesita para operar el reptiliano. El debate en términos reptilianos se organiza a través del esquema binario

Desde los históricos derecha-izquierda, conservadurismo-liberalismo en Estados Unidos o peronismo-antiperonismo, en la Argentina; o la UCR desarrollando un clivaje en torno a institucionalidad-clientelismo, Carrió acerca de transparencia-corrupción, Macri; ineficiencia-gerentismo eficiente, el kirchnerismo inclusión-exclusión (todos/as-pocos),: otros probaron consenso-enfrentamiento, mano dura-garantismo, modernidad primer mundística-atraso (lo viejo), privado-estatal, liberación o dependencia, etc.

Detrás de la alternativa, se propone un posicionamiento claramente reptiliano, que no admite un análisis puramente racional para definir de que lado se está.

El discurso para lograr colonizar subjetividades debe ubicarse en la intersección de los tres formatos, y debe contener mensajes racionales, mensajes emocionales, y fundamentalmente mensajes reptilianos.





A las mujeres jóvenes no se las deja crecer hacia arriba y a los hombres jóvenes no se los deja crecer hacia adentro.



El deseo de la joven de crecer, desarrollarse, no ser acosada, ganar lo mismo o más que un par hombre, está en todos los segmentos. En algunos emerge más a la superficie y en otros menos. Pero está en todos.



Los jóvenes varones tienen muchos “debería”, o “no debería”. A un varón le tienen que gustar los deportes, no debería ser gordo, ni muy flaco, ni muy petiso, ni usar ropa rosa, ni depilarse, ni llorar.

En definitiva, no tienen que tildarte de puto, y tenés mostrar que sos exitoso, que te ganás mujeres, que sos muy “macho”, que jugás bien al fútbol, que estás al tanto de las últimas noticias, tendencias, chimentos, que sos proveedor de dinero, que sos fuerte, que no arrugás, que sos sano, que sos vivo, que sos gracioso, que no sos tímido, que tenés un buen pasar, que tenés auto, que tenés un buen auto, que no te mostrás vulnerable lo que no equivale a ser invulnerable, pero si a esconder vulnerabilidades.



A la mayoría de los jóvenes le enseñaron como debe ser “un hombre de verdad”.



Con la explosión del “me too” se resignifica todo. Desde los femicidios, la violencia doméstica, hasta los piropos zarpados en la calle.

Pero es así. Vivíamos (vivíamos?) en la Sudáfrica del Aparheid en términos del lugar de la mujer.



El discurso de la marca política en el voto joven, debe hacerse cargo de esos dos tipos de demandas y sus subdemandas ponderadas y definidas por las especificidades de cada microsegemento.



Deseo de ellas



Las jóvenes desean crecer para arriba, quieren dejar de ser acosadas, desean profundamente un cambio cultural que haga que los hombres tengan en claro que no se puede andar por ahí tocando culos, extorsionando, diciendo cualquier cosa y acosando. Desean igualdad y respeto. Desean oportunidades que hoy no existen. La promesa de la marca política hacia ellas debe habilitar un nuevo escenario, disruptivo, diferente y que conteste contundentemente a la “Sudáfrica de las mujeres” del pasado.

Ellos

Desean poder despojarse de los debería y saber que serán aceptados.

Es pesado cargar con el peligro de ser todo lo que hay que ser y todo lo que no hay que ser ni parecer.

Un escenario con más posibilidades con muchos más permisos y muchos menos prejuicios, deben constituirse en la promesa de la marca política hacia los jóvenes.

Las mujeres cambiaron en los últimos 50 años. De las amas de casa que miraban TV, cocinaban y cosían, a las mujeres, de hoy hay años luz de diferencia. A las mujeres se las educa diferente, a los varones igual que hace 50 años.

La represión en las mujeres tiene más que ver con el afuera, con los hombres más con el adentro.

La promesa de la marca en términos el deseo en materia de género hacia las jóvenes mujeres debe apuntar hacia la emocionalidad, que proponga una esperanza de movilidad de género ascendente, igualdad y derribamiento de prejucios en el caso de los jóvenes varones la interpelación es más reptiliana, anclada en la legitimación y aceptación de las heterogeneidades y debilidades.



Rubén Weinsteiner

El voto del segmento "control externo" entre el miedo y el deseo

Por Rubén Weinsteiner

Todos conocemos personas que creeen  que hagan lo que hagan, nada va a cambiar. Que no depende de ellos, que depende de la suerte, de los gobiernos, de la política, etc.
Este modelo de percepción no se contradice con los que tienen el verbatim de "yo me hice solo", "nunca le pedí nada a nadie" "a mi el estado nunca me dio nada". Muchas veces estas personas tienen estas expresiones como una submodalidad esceptica frete a la política o a los ideales,justamente porque creen que "la política no sirve para nada" "los políticos son todos ladrones" "nadie te va a ayudar'
Es este un discurso antipolítico, lleno de desconfiaza hacia la politica como actividad y como herramienta de trasformación.

Los segmentos definidos por variables blandas se articulan por marcos de pertenencia, pertinencia y demandas. Estas demandas articuladoras funcionan como insumos para 'progreso" personal o colectivo. La palabra progresar implica avanzar, pero avanzar hacia adonde? Entendemos ese "progreso" como un proceso donde el principal objetivo es el desarrollo integral de las "capacidades humanas" para ampliar las opciones de vida de las personas y crear un entorno que les permita mejorar su calidad de vida.
Un conjunto de dimensiones económicas, políticas, sociales, ambientales, culturales y psicológicas, modelan el bienestar tanto social-colectivo como personal.

Esos cambios producen y ordenan percepciones que construyen desde la dimensión subjetiva  nuevas realidades.
Esas percepciones generan algún nivel de satisfacción de necesidades existentes.

Maslow diferencia las demandas de déficit, de primer grado que desbordan la subjetividad, no es se mirada personal y subjetiva, que las personas tienen que alimentarse, vestirse o tener un lugar donde dormir. Pero cubietas las necesidades de primer grado están las demandas que no resultan excluyetes para la existencia y que representan aspectos subjtivos en la construcción del "desarrollo personal".

Las demandas de segundo grado se obstaculizan cuando las demandas básicas están insatisfechas. Es esperable que que las situaciones constantes de vulnerabilidad social sean un impedimento para alcanzar la salud plena y el bienestar personal.

La pirámide de Maslow es una teoría de motivación que trata de explicar qué impulsa la conducta humana. La pirámide consta de cinco niveles que están ordenados jerárquicamente según las necesidades humanas que atraviesan todas las personas.

En el nivel más bajo de la pirámide se encuentran nuestras necesidades más básicas, como alimentarse o respirar. Cuando satisfacemos esas necesidades básicas, estamos rellenando la base de la pirámide, y solo al cubrir esas necesidades podemos subir al siguiente nivel, donde se encuentran las necesidades superiores.

El nombre de la pirámide se debe a su autor, el psicólogo humanista norteamericano Abraham Maslow (1908-1970), que en la primera mitad del siglo XX formuló en su obra “Una teoría sobre la motivación humana” (A Theory of Human Motivation) la teoría de la pirámide de Maslow, una de las teorías de motivación más conocidas.

La teoría de la pirámide de las necesidades de Maslow explica de forma visual el comportamiento humano según nuestras necesidades. En la base de la pirámide aparecen nuestras necesidades fisiológicas, que todos los humanos necesitamos cubrir en primera instancia. Una vez cubiertas estas necesidades, buscamos satisfacer nuestras necesidades inmediatamente superiores, pero no se puede llegar a un escalón superior si no hemos cubierto antes los inferiores, o lo que es lo mismo, según vamos satisfaciendo nuestras necesidades más básicas, desarrollamos necesidades y deseos más elevados.

Los 5 niveles de la pirámide de Maslow son los siguientes:

Creencia del control externo

La variable creencia de control externo, refiere a la convicción acerca del grado en que las propias acciones, la propia conducta pueden ser eficaces o no, para modificar positivamente el entorno y las condiciones objetivas y sujbetivas de vida.
Las personas que se sienten a merced del destino o de las autoridades, o de "los políticos", consideran que su accionar está dirigido por la otredad con poder, revela la creencia de un control externo e inamovible.
Esas personas creen que hagan lo que hagan, nada va a cambiar y que sus demandas no serán satisfechas por el hecho de esforzarse o mover las cosas en un sentido o en el otro.
Estas personas desestiman la eficacia del propio accionar, son altamente influenciables a la coerción social y tienen una baja motivación y bajas expectativashacia el futuro.

Estas creencias  si bien son internas, tienen un componente cultural colectivo de características tribales.
Casi tres de cada diez personas, se perciben sometidos a una creencia de control externo.Mayormente son varones de 35 a 59 años sin secundaria completa, y cuanto más abajo está en la piramide social, cuanto menos ingresos posee, registran mayores posibilidades de percibirse sometidas a un control externo.Y también aumenta a mayor distancia de las grande ciudades.
En épocas de crecimiento económico cae la cifra de los integrantes de este segmento.

Este segmento dice no esperar nada de la política, pero siente otra cosa. Espera "todo" o por lo menos demasiado, y tiene tanto miedo a ser defraudado que dice no esperar nada.
Que espera el que dice no esperar nada pero lo espera todo y más?
Encontramos demandas latentes de primero, segundo y hasta quinto grado, envueltas en un discurso pesimista y atravesado por la incredulidad y el escepticismo. Esa incredulidad está apoyada en la valoración negativa de la política y de los políticos y en el miedo a ser defraudado, a "que se aprovechen de mi", a que "yo los voté y ellos se beneficien y yo me perjudique". Está presente también el dolor de haber sido defraudado no una sino varias veces.

El deseo

El sujeto de elección del "control externo" espera ser sorprendido, espera que sus creencias se verifiquen como incorrectas. Espera la disruptividad en el despliegue de la marca política. El diálogo "uno a uno" a la altura de los ojos, desprovisto de artificios, que no pida crédito, porque no está dispuesto a darlo. El discurso para el segmento "control externo" tiene que pagar en efectivo y por adelantado en términos de la construcción de percepciones. El posicionamiento a construir debe poner poner en emergencia el deseo del otro, sin expresarlo, pero que todos sepan que está.
Reinstalar el deseo a pesar del miedo a ser defraudado.

Rubén Weinsteiner

The Generation Gap in American Politics

Rubén Weinsteiner

Wide and growing divides in views of racial discrimination

Generational differences have long been a factor in U.S. politics. These divisions are now as wide as they have been in decades, with the potential to shape politics well into the future.

From immigration and race to foreign policy and the scope of government, two younger generations, Millennials and Gen Xers, stand apart from the two older cohorts, Baby Boomers and Silents. And on many issues, Millennials continue to have a distinct – and increasingly liberal – outlook.

These differences are reflected in generations’ political preferences. First-year job approval ratings for Donald Trump and his predecessor, Barack Obama, differ markedly across generations. By contrast, there were only slight differences in views of George W. Bush and Bill Clinton during their respective first years in office.

Just 27% of Millennials approve of Trump’s job performance, while 65% disapprove, according to Pew Research Center surveys conducted in Trump’s first year as president. Among Gen Xers, 36% approve and 57% disapprove. In Obama’s first year, 64% of Millennials and 55% of Gen Xers approved of the way the former president was handling his job as president.

Among Boomers and Silents, there is less difference in first-year views of the past two presidents; both groups express more positive views of Trump’s job performance than do Gen Xers or Millennials (46% of Silents approve, as do 44% of Boomers).

These generations were also considerably less likely than Millennials to approve of Obama’s performance early in his presidency: Among Silents, in particular, nearly as many approve of Trump’s job performance as approved of Obama (49%) during his first year in office.

Increased racial and ethnic diversity of younger generational cohorts accounts for some of these generational differences in views of the two recent presidents. Millennials are more than 40% nonwhite, the highest share of any adult generation; by contrast, Silents (and older adults) are 79% white. But even taking the greater diversity of younger generations into account, younger generations – particularly Millennials – express more liberal views on many issues and have stronger Democratic leanings than do older cohorts.

This report examines the attitudes and political values of four living adult generations in the United States, based on data compiled in 2017 and 2018. Pew Research Center defines the Millennial generation as adults born between 1981 and 1996; those born in 1997 and later are considered part of a separate (not yet named) generational cohort. Post-Millennials are not included in this analysis because only a small share are adults. For more on how Pew Research Center defines the Millennial generation and plans for future analyses of post-Millennials, see Defining Generations: Where Millennials end and post-Millennials begin.

Millennials remain the most liberal and Democratic of the adult generations. They continue to be the most likely to identify with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic. In addition, far more Millennials than those in older generational cohorts favor the Democratic candidate in November’s midterm congressional elections.

In fact, in an early test of midterm voting preferences (in January), 62% of Millennial registered voters said they preferred a Democratic candidate for Congress in their district this fall, which is higher than the shares of Millennials expressing support for the Democratic candidate in any midterm dating back to 2006, based on surveys conducted in midterm years.
Generations divide on a range of political attitudes

In some cases, generational differences in political attitudes are not new. In opinions about same-sex marriage, for example, a clear pattern has been evident for more than a decade. Millennials have been (and remain) most supportive of same-sex marriage, followed by Gen Xers, Boomers and Silents.

Yet the size of generational differences has held fairly constant over this period, even as all four cohorts have grown more supportive of gays and lesbians being allowed to marry legally.

On many other issues, however, divisions among generations have grown. In the case of views of racial discrimination, the differences have widened considerably just in the past few years.

Among the public overall, 49% say that black people who can’t get ahead in this country are mostly responsible for their own condition; fewer (41%) say racial discrimination is the main reason why many black people can’t get ahead these days.

However, the percentage saying racial discrimination is the main barrier to blacks’ progress is at its highest point in more than two decades. Between 2016 and 2017, the share pointing to racial discrimination as the main reason many blacks cannot get ahead increased 14 percentage points among Millennials (from 38% to 52%), 11 points among Gen Xers (29% to 40%) and 7 points among Boomers (29% to 36%).

Silents’ views were little changed in this period: About as many Silents say racial discrimination is the main obstacle to black people’s progress today as did so in 2000 (28% now, 30% then).

Among the public overall, nonwhites are more likely than whites to say that racial discrimination is the main factor holding back African Americans. Yet more white Millennials than older whites express this view. Half of white Millennials say racial discrimination is the main reason many blacks are unable to get ahead, which is 15 percentage points or more higher than any older generation of whites (35% of Gen X whites say this).

The pattern of generational differences in political attitudes varies across issues. Overall opinions about whether immigrants do more to strengthen or burden the country have moved in a more positive direction in recent years, though – as with views of racial discrimination – they remain deeply divided along partisan lines.

Since 2015, there have been double-digit increases in the share of each generation saying immigrants strengthen the country. Yet while large majorities of Millennials (79%), Gen Xers (66%) and Boomers (56%) say immigrants do more to strengthen than burden the country, only about half of Silents (47%) say this.

There also are stark generational differences about foreign policy – and whether the United States is superior to other countries in the world.

In 2006, there were only modest generational differences on whether good diplomacy or military strength is the best way to ensure peace. Today, Millennials are by far the most likely among the four generations to express the view that good diplomacy is the best way to ensure peace (77% say this), while Silents are the least likely to say this (43%). Nearly six-in-ten Gen Xers (59%) and about half of Boomers (52%) say peace is best ensured by good diplomacy rather than military strength.

When it comes to opinions about America’s relative standing the world, Millennials and Silents also are far apart, while Boomers and Gen Xers express similar views. While fairly large shares in all generations say the U.S. is among the world’s greatest countries, Silents are the most likely to say the U.S. “stands above” all others (46% express this view), while Millennials are least likely to say this (18%).

However, while generations differ on a number of issues, they agree on some key attitudes. For example, trust in the federal government is about as low among the youngest generation (15% of Millennials say they trust the government almost always or most of the time) as it is among the oldest (18% of Silents) and the two generations in between (17% of Gen Xers, 14% of Boomers).
A portrait of generations’ ideological differences

Since 1994, Pew Research Center has regularly tracked 10 measures covering opinions about the role of government, the environment, societal acceptance of homosexuality, as well as the items on race, immigration and diplomacy described above.

As noted in October, there has been an increase in the share of Americans expressing consistently liberal or mostly liberal views, while the share holding a mix of liberal and conservative views has declined.

In part, this reflects a broad rise in the shares of Americans who say homosexuality should be accepted rather than discouraged, and that immigrants are more a strength than a burden for the country.

Across all four generational cohorts, more express either consistently liberal or mostly liberal opinions across the 10 items than did so six years ago.

Yet Millennials are the only generation in which a majority (57%) holds consistently liberal (25%) or mostly liberal (32%) positions across these measures. Just 12% have consistently or mostly conservative attitudes, the lowest of any generation. Another 31% of Millennials have a mix of conservative and liberal views.

Among Gen Xers and Boomers, larger shares also express consistently or mostly liberal views than have conservative positions. Silents are the only generation in which those with consistently or mostly conservative views (40%) outnumber those with liberal attitudes (28%).
Racial and ethnic diversity and religiosity across generations

Millennials are the most racially and ethnically diverse adult generation in the nation’s history. Yet the next generation stands to be even more diverse.

More than four-in-ten Millennials (currently ages 22 to 37) are Hispanic (21%), African American (13%), Asian (7%) or another race (3%). Among Gen Xers, 39% are nonwhites.

The share of nonwhites falls off considerably among Boomers (28%) and Silents (21%). Among the two oldest generations, more than 70% are white non-Hispanic.

Generational differences are also evident in another key set of demographics – religious identification and religious belief. In Pew Research Center’s 2014 Religious Landscape Study of more than 35,000 adults, nearly nine-in-ten Silents identified with a religion (mainly Christianity), while just one-in-ten were religiously unaffiliated. And among Boomers, more than eight-in-ten identified with a religion, while fewer than one-in-five were religious “nones.” Among Millennials, by contrast, upwards of one-in-three said they were religiously unaffiliated.

And already wide generational divisions in attitudes about whether it is necessary to believe in God in order to be moral and have good values have grown wider in recent years: 62% of Silents say belief in God is necessary for morality, but this view is less commonly held among younger generations – particularly Millennials. Just 29% of Millennials say belief in God is a necessary condition for morality, down from 42% in 2011.
Generations’ party identification, midterm voting preferences, views of Trump

Millennial voters continue to have the highest proportion of independents of any generation. But when their partisan leanings are taken into account, they also are the most Democratic generation.

More than four-in-ten Millennial registered voters (44%) describe themselves as independents, compared with 39% of Gen Xers and smaller proportions of Boomers (32%) and Silents (27%).

However, a majority of Millennials (59%) affiliate with the Democratic Party (35%) or lean Democratic (24%). Just 32% identify as Republicans or lean toward the GOP.

Partisan identification is more evenly divided among older generations of voters. Nearly half of Gen Xers (48%) identify as Democrats or lean Democratic, while 43% identify as Republicans or lean Republican. Among Boomers, roughly equal shares identify with or lean toward both parties (48% Democrats, 46% Republicans).

The Silent Generation is the only generation in which, on balance, more registered voters identify as or lean Republican (52%) than identify with or lean Democratic (43%).
The 2018 congressional elections

With the midterm election still more than eight months away, Millennials express a strong preference for the Democratic congressional candidate in their district.

By greater than two-to-one (62% to 29%), more Millennial voters say, if the election were held today, they would vote for the Democrat in their district or lean toward the Democrat than prefer the Republican candidate.

Among older generations, about half of Gen Xers (51%) say they would vote Democratic, while 41% would vote Republican. Boomers and Silents are more divided in their early voting preferences.

The gap between Millennials and other generations in the midterm congressional vote is wider thus far in the 2018 cycle than in previous midterm years.

Millennial voters have generally favored Democrats in midterms, and that trend continues. But, comparing early preferences this year with surveys conducted in previous midterm years, Millennial registered voters support the Democrat by a wider margin than in the past.

Among older generations, voters’ midterm choices in 2018 are more similar to recent midterms. Gen Xers support the Democrat in their district, 51% to 41%; they backed the Democratic candidate by a comparable margin (49% to 40%) in surveys conducted in 2014.

Similarly, the early 2018 preferences of Boomers and Silents mirror their opinions during the 2014 midterm.

Millennials’ early interest in this year’s midterms is greater than for the past two congressional elections. This year, 62% of Millennial registered voters say they are looking forward to the midterms; at similar points in 2014 and 2010, fewer Millennials said they were looking forward to the elections (46% in 2014, 39% in 2010).

There has been less change among older generations. This year, 73% of Silents, 64% of Boomers and 62% of Gen Xers say they are looking forward to the midterms.
Trump’s job approval

Trump’s job approval is more negative than positive among Millennials, Gen Xers and Boomers, based on Pew Research Center surveys conducted over the first year of Trump’s presidency.

Nearly two-thirds of Millennials (65%) disapprove of Trump’s job performance, while just 27% approve. Among Gen Xers as well, a majority (57%) disapproves of the way Trump is handling his job as president, compared with 36% who approve.

Boomers are more divided in evaluations of Trump’s performance; still, somewhat more disapprove (51%) than approve (44%). Silents are divided in opinions about Trump’s first-year job performance (48% disapprove, 46% approve).


Views of scope of government, trust in government, economic inequality

Over the last several decades a clear generational divide has been evident in views of government, with those in younger generations more likely than those in older generations to express a preference for a bigger government with more services.

There also are generational differences in views of the government safety net; Millennials and Gen Xers are more likely than Boomers or Silents to say the government should do more for the needy, even if it means going deeper into debt. And Millennials are more likely than older generations to say it is the federal government’s responsibility to make sure all Americans have health care coverage.

However, trust in government is low across younger and older age cohorts. And majorities across generations say they are frustrated – rather than angry or content – with the federal government.

Roughly half of Boomers, Gen Xers and Millennials say that economic inequality in the United States is a “very big” problem. Silents are less likely to hold this view.
Most Millennials prefer ‘bigger government’

As has been the case for a decade, Millennials have a decided preference for a bigger government providing more services: 57% say this, while 37% say they would rather have a smaller government providing fewer services.

Members of Generation X also continue to be more likely than Boomers or Silents to prefer a bigger government: Half of Gen Xers (50%) say they would rather have a bigger government. Just 43% of Baby Boomers and 30% of those in the Silent Generation say the same.

For nearly three decades, majorities of Boomers and Silents have expressed a preference for a smaller government providing fewer services.

Among the public overall, nonwhites are more likely than whites to favor a bigger government providing more extensive services (65% vs. 39%). There are racial differences across generations on this question, including among Millennials; nonwhite Millennials are nearly 20 percentage points more likely than white Millennials to prefer bigger government (67% vs. 48%).

However, white Millennials are more supportive of bigger government than are older whites. In fact, while white Millennials are divided, with about as many favoring a bigger government (48%) as a smaller government (43%), majorities of whites in older age cohorts say they prefer a smaller government with fewer services.

There is broad consensus among the public – and across generational lines – that the federal government provides too much help for wealthy people, and not enough for poor people. But while majorities in each cohort say the federal government does not do enough for older people, there are wider differences in views of government help for younger people. A majority of Millennials (57%) say the government does not do enough for younger people; half of Gen Xers (53%) said the same. By contrast, about half of Boomers (48%) and just 37% of Silents say the government does too little for younger people.
Views of government role on health care, aid to needy

While about half or more across generations think the federal government has the responsibility to make sure all Americans have health care coverage, support for a federal government role in ensuring health care coverage is higher among Millennials than older generations.

Last July, 60% of the public overall said the government was responsible for providing health care coverage for all Americans – the highest share expressing this view in nearly a decade.

Two-thirds of Millennials say the government has the responsibility to ensure health coverage for all, more than any other generational cohort.

In a separate survey in December, majorities of both Millennials (63%) and Gen Xers (57%) approved of the 2010 health care law. About half of Silents also approved of the Affordable Care Act, while Boomers were roughly divided: 46% of Boomers approved, while 49% disapproved.

There also are generational differences in attitudes about government benefits for the poor and needy. Among Millennials and Gen Xers, majorities say the government should do more to help the needy, even if it means going deeper into debt (56% of Millennials, 53% of Gen Xers). Just 40% in each group say the government can’t afford to do much more to help the needy.

Boomers are divided: 48% say the government should do more to help the needy, while 45% say it cannot afford to do this. Among Silents, 40% favor increased aid for the needy even if it increases the debt, while 53% say the government can’t afford to do much more to help the needy.

Similarly, majorities of Millennials and Gen Xers say “poor people have hard lives because government benefits don’t go far enough to help them live decently.” Just about a third in each cohort (36% each) say poor people have it easy because “they can get government benefits without doing anything in return.”

Those in the Silent Generation are more divided over the hardships of the poor. While 43% say they have hard lives, about as many (45%) say they have it easy because they get government benefits without doing anything in return.
Trust in government is low across age cohorts

Public trust in the federal government has changed little in recent years. Just 18% of Americans say they trust the federal government to do what is right just about always or most of the time. Two-thirds of Americans say they can trust the government only some of the time, while 14% volunteer they can never trust the federal government.

These attitudes vary little across generational groups. Just 15% of Millennials – and comparable shares in older age cohorts – said they trust the government just about always or most of the time.

Historically, there have been modest generational differences in trust: Younger adults tend to be slightly more likely than older people to express trust in the government. At a young age, in the early 1990s, members of Generation X were somewhat more likely than Baby Boomers and members of the Silent Generation to say they could trust the government at least most of the time. A similar pattern can be seen among Boomers, compared with Silents, in the 1970s and 1980s when they were young.

See the accompanying interactive for long-term trends on public trust in government, including among generations and partisan groups.
Economic inequality and the social safety net

There are only modest differences across generational lines in views of the fairness of the U.S. economy and whether economic inequality is a problem.

Overall, 62% of the public says the economic system in this country unfairly favors powerful interests; about half as many (34%) say the system is generally fair to most Americans.

Nearly two-thirds of Millennials (66%) and Gen Xers (65%) say the system unfairly favors powerful interests; six-in-ten Boomers say the same. By comparison, members of the Silent Generation are more divided on the fairness of the economic system: While 50% say it unfairly favors the powerful, 45% say it is generally fair to most.

Similarly, wide shares of the generational cohorts with the exception of Silents say that economic inequality is at least a moderately big problem in this country, with at least half who say it is a very big problem. While three-quarters of Silents do say economic inequality is a problem in the country, the share that says it’s a very big problem is smaller among the oldest generation (37%).




U.S. foreign policy and America’s global standing, Islam and violence, NAFTA

There are substantial generational differences on a number of foreign policy attitudes and, in some cases, these differences have widened in recent years. About a decade ago, for instance, similar majorities across age cohorts agreed that the best way to ensure peace was through good diplomacy, rather than military strength.

But Millennials increasingly view good diplomacy as the best way to ensure peace, while the share of Silents who take the opposing view has grown in recent years. Opinions among Boomers and Gen Xers have changed more modestly since the mid-2000s.

Generational cohorts also differ over America’s relative global standing, as well as the extent to which the United States should compromise with its allies. On the other hand, generational cohorts have more similar views of whether the U.S. should be active in world affairs.
Growing gap between Millennials, Silents on ‘peace through strength’

An overwhelming share of Millennials say that good diplomacy – rather than military strength – is the best way to ensure peace. About three-quarters of Millennials (77%) see diplomacy as the better way to ensure peace, compared with about six-in-ten Gen Xers (59%), half of Boomers (52%) and roughly four-in-ten Silents (43%) who say the same.

Across all generations except Silents, more say good diplomacy rather than military strength is the better approach for ensuring peace. Silents are divided: 48% say military strength is the better path to ensuring peace, and 43% say good diplomacy is better.

Since 2006, the gap in opinions between Millennials and Silents on this question has grown substantially. At that time, 63% of Millennials said good diplomacy was a better way to ensure peace; 77% say that today. By contrast, the share of Silents who see good diplomacy as the better approach has declined from 55% to 43%.

Overall, the public is evenly divided on whether the U.S. should be active in world affairs, or concentrate on problems at home (47% each). The share saying the U.S. should be active in world affairs has increased 12 percentage points since 2014.

Millennials, by a modest 51% to 44% margin, say the U.S. should focus on problems in this country. Gen Xers, like the public, are evenly divided. Silents and Boomers are slightly more likely to say the U.S. should be active internationally.

There are sharper generational divisions on views about how the U.S. should balance its own interests and the interests of its allies, with the differences most pronounced between the oldest and youngest generational cohorts.

Silents are divided over whether the United States should follow its own national interests, even when allies strongly disagree (43% say this), or take into account the interests of allies even if it means making compromises (48%).

Support for the U.S. taking allies’ interests into account is higher among younger cohorts. Six-in-ten Gen Xers and 66% of Millennials say the U.S. should pay heed to the interests of its allies even if that requires compromises.

Silents are also substantially more likely than those in younger generations to say the U.S. “stands above all other countries in the world.” Nearly half of Silents (46%) say this, while an identical share say the U.S. is “one of the greatest countries in the world, along with some others”; just 7% say there are countries that are better than the U.S.

Among the three younger generations, the majority view is that the U.S. is among the greatest countries – but does not stand alone. About a third of Boomers (34%), 30% of Gen Xers and just 18% of Millennials say the U.S. stands above all other nations. While just 22% of Millennials say there are “other countries that are better than the U.S.,” that view is even less widely shared among older generations.
Millennials overwhelmingly view U.S. ‘openness’ as ‘essential’

About two-thirds of the public (68%) says America’s openness to people from around the world is “essential to who we are as a nation.” Just 29% say that if America is too open to people from other countries, “we risk losing our identity as a nation.”

While majorities of those in all generations say America’s openness is essential, the view is more widely shared among those in younger generations: An overwhelming majority of Millennials (80%) say America’s openness to others is essential, compared with 68% of Gen Xers, 61% of Boomers and 54% of Silents.

Though younger generations are more racially and ethnically diverse than older generations, there are only modest racial differences in these views in the overall public, and the generational pattern of opinion is nearly identical among whites across generations. For instance, 79% of white Millennials, compared with 52% of white Silents say the country’s openness to people from all over the world is essential to who we are as a nation.

There are stark partisan differences in views of whether or not openness to people from around the world is central to America’s national identity. Partisan divides are evident in all generations, but among both Republicans and Democrats, younger generations are more likely to view America’s openness as essential.

Among Republicans, Millennials are the only cohort in which a majority (61%) views America’s openness as essential to the nation’s identity. About half of Republican Gen Xers (46%) say this, as do 42% of Republican Boomers and just 38% of Republican Silents.

The view that openness to people from around the world is an essential part of America’s identity is held by majorities of Democrats across generations. But it is more widely held among Gen X (87%) and Millennial (91%) Democrats than among Democratic Boomers (78%) and Silents (68%).
Silents most likely to associate Islam with violence

Overall, 49% of the public says that the Islamic religion does not encourage violence more than other religions, while slightly fewer (43%) say it is more likely than others to encourage violence among its believers.

Overall opinion on this question is little changed over the past decade, but the partisan gap on this question has widened as a growing share of Democrats say Islam does not encourage violence more than other religions, while the share of Republicans who say that it does also has grown.

As has been the case since Pew Research Center first asked this question in 2002, those in younger generations tend to be more likely than those in older generations to say Islam is no more likely than other religions to encourage violence. In the 2017 survey, Silents are the only group in which more say the Islamic religion encourages violence (53%) than say it does not (36%).

Boomers and Gen Xers are divided in views of Islam and violence, while Millennials are the only generation in which a majority (55%) says Islam does not encourage violence more than other religions.
Millennials view NAFTA positively; older generations more divided

On the broad question of whether global economic engagement benefits the U.S., 65% of the public – and majorities across generations – say U.S. involvement in the global economy is a good thing because it provides the U.S. with new markets and opportunities for growth. Just 29% of Americans say it negatively affects jobs and wages in the U.S.

There are much wider generational differences over whether the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is good or bad for the United States. A majority of Americans (56%) have a positive view of NAFTA’s impact, while a third say it is bad for the U.S.

By about three-to-one (64% to 20%), more Millennials say NAFTA is good for the U.S. than say it is bad. Older generations are less positive about the trade pact. Among Silents, roughly as many think NAFTA is bad (44%) as good (43%) for the United States.




Race, immigration, same-sex marriage, abortion, global warming, gun policy, marijuana legalization

Majorities in all generations say the country needs to continue making changes to give blacks equal rights with whites, reflecting a public shift in these views in recent years. But Millennials are far more likely to hold this view than Boomers and Silents. The current generational gap in opinion is a relatively new one – as recently as 2015 there was not a substantial difference in these views by generation.

The divide is driven mostly by an uptick in the share of Millennials who say the U.S. needs to continue making changes to give blacks equal rights with whites.

In 2015, similar shares of Millennials (61%), Gen Xers (59%), Boomers (60%), and Silents (57%) said that more changes were necessary in order for blacks to achieve equal rights with whites. In 2017, 68% of Millennials say that more changes are needed, a significantly larger proportion than any other generational group.

There is a similar pattern on views of racial discrimination. In 2012, similar shares of adults in each generation (about two-in-ten) said that discrimination was “the main reason why many black people can’t get ahead these days” rather than that “blacks who can’t get ahead in this country are mostly responsible for their own condition.”

Since 2012, the share of Millennials who cite discrimination as the main reason blacks can’t get ahead these days has more than doubled (24% in 2012 to 52% in 2017), and a 24-point gap now separates the oldest and youngest generations.

The size of the generational divide on views about race is not simply attributable to the larger share of nonwhites in younger generations. White Millennials are 11-percentage points more likely than white Silents to say the country needs to continue making changes to give blacks equal rights with whites, similar to the 14- point generational gap in these views among all adults.
Generational gaps in views of immigrants, immigration policies

The share of adults in all generations saying immigrants strengthen our country because of their hard work and talents, rather than burden the country by taking jobs and health care, has grown in recent years as overall public sentiment has shifted.

But there has long been a generational divide in these views. Millennials, in particular, stand out for their positive views of immigrants: 79% say they strengthen rather than burden the country. And while about two-thirds (66%) of Gen Xers now say this, that compares with a narrower majority of Boomers (56%) and about half (47%) of Silents.

These wide divides are seen not just among the generations overall, but also among whites across generations. Fully 76% of white Millennials say immigrants do more to strengthen than burden the country, compared with 61% of white Gen Xers, 54% of white Boomers and 45% of white Silents.

These generational divides are also evident on public views of issues at the heart of the current immigration policy debate: opinions about plans to substantially expand the wall along the U.S. border with Mexico and views about granting permanent legal status to immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally when they were children.

While Boomers and Silents are roughly divided in their views about expanding the U.S.-Mexico border wall, younger generations – especially Millennials – are substantially more likely to oppose expanding the wall than favor doing so. Fully 72% of Millennials – including 70% of white Millennials – oppose expanding the wall. Among Gen Xers, 60% oppose expanding the wall, while 38% support it (white Gen Xers are divided: 49% favor, 50% oppose).

While substantial majorities – two-thirds or more – across all generations favor granting permanent legal status to immigrants who came illegally to the U.S., this sentiment is more widely held among Millennials: 82% of them favor granting permanent legal status, while just 13% are opposed.
Majority support for same-sex marriage, except among Silents

In the past decade, across generations, the public has grown more accepting of same-sex marriage. Two years after the Supreme Court decision that required states to recognize same-sex marriage nationwide, the share saying they favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally stands at its highest on record. By roughly two-to-one, a majority are in favor (62%), while about a third (32%) are opposed.

While there are gaps in these attitudes across generational lines, they have remained consistent over time. Millennials continue to be the adult generation most likely to say they favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally: Fully 73% say this. By about two-to-one, Generation Xers also say they favor more than oppose (65% vs. 29%).

For the first time, a majority of Baby Boomers also express support for same-sex marriage: 56% say they favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally.

While Silents have grown in their acceptance of same-sex marriage over time, they are divided: 41% say they favor, 49% are opposed.

On the issue of abortion, generational differences have long been more modest. Today, majorities of Millennials (62%) and Gen Xers (59%) say abortion should be legal in all or most cases. About half of Baby Boomers (53%) say the same, while fewer (44%) say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases.

Silents remain divided (48% legal in all or most cases, 47% illegal in all or most cases).

Views about abortion are little changed over the past decade among Gen Xers, Boomers or Silents. In recent years there has been a modest increase in the share of Millennials who say abortion should be legal in all or most cases: In the years between 2007 and 2011, no more than 53% of Millennials said abortion should be legal in all or most case. Since 2014, roughly six-in-ten (ranging from 58% in 2014 to 62% in 2017) have said this.

Generational differences in views of abortion are not evident within the parties. No more than four-in-ten Republicans and Republican leaners across generational lines say abortion should be legal in all or most cases. By contrast, wide majorities of Democrats and Democratic leaners of all generations say abortion should be legal.
Majorities across generations say there is ‘solid evidence’ of global warming

Overall, about three-quarters of the public currently thinks there is solid evidence that the average temperature on Earth has been getting warmer, including about half (53%) who say it is a result of human activity when asked a follow-up question about the causes.

Just about a quarter of the public overall (23%) say there is not solid evidence that the Earth’s temperature is warming.

Across generational lines, majorities say there is solid evidence that the Earth is warming. Still, younger generations are more likely to say this: 81% of Millennials and 75% of Gen Xers say the Earth’s temperature is getting warmer compared with 69% of Baby Boomers and 63% of Silents. And Millennials are the only generation in which a clear majority (65%) says both that there is solid evidence of global warming and attribute this primarily to human activity.

Among Republicans and Republican leaners, the younger generations differ substantially in these views from Boomers and Silents. Majorities of Republican Millennials (57%) and Gen Xers (56%) say there is solid evidence that the Earth is warming. By contrast, Boomers and Silents remain divided over whether there is evidence that the Earth is getting warmer.

And while about nine-in-ten Democrats and Democratic leaners across generational lines say there is solid evidence of the Earth warming, Millennials are somewhat more likely than those in older generations to attribute the cause of warming to human activity: Fully 87% say this, compared with no more than about three-quarters of Gen Xers (73%), Boomers (74%) or Silents (72%).
Views of gun policy had differed little across generations

Over much of the past decade, there has been little variation across generations in views of whether it is more important to “protect the rights of Americans to own guns” or more important to “control gun ownership.” In April 2017, when this question was last asked, Boomers were somewhat more likely than Millennials to say protecting the right of Americans to own guns was more important (51% said this, compared with 43% of Millennials).

As previous Pew Research Center reports have noted, there is a wide partisan divide on this question, with Republicans more likely than Democrats to say protecting the right of Americans to own guns is more important (76% vs. 22%). However, there are modest generational differences in these views among Republicans and Republican leaners: in 2017, 84% of Republican Boomers said protecting the right of Americans to own guns was more important, compared with 76% of Gen Xer Republicans and 68% of Millennial Republicans. There were no generational differences among Democrats (last year, about three-quarters of Democrats in all generations said it was more important to control gun ownership).
Support for marijuana legalization grows across generational lines

Among the public, support for marijuana legalization stands among its highest levels on record. Currently, 61% of Americans say the use of marijuana should be made legal, while 37% say it should not. Since 2000, the share supporting legal marijuana use has nearly doubled (61% now vs. 31% then).

Across generational lines, support for legalized marijuana has grown as well. Wide majorities of Millennials (71%) and Generation Xers (66%) say the use of marijuana should be made legal, as does a narrower majority of Baby Boomers (56%).

Members of the Silent Generation stand out for their low level of support of legal marijuana use: Just about a third (35%) say marijuana use should be legal, compared with a 58% majority who say it should not.


Rubén Weinsteiner

El alcalde de Oporto propone la formación de Iberolux, una unión de España con Portugal

Iberolux, la unión de España y Portugal en un nuevo ente al estilo del Benelux, es la propuesta del alcalde de Oporto, el independiente Rui Moreira (Oporto, 1956). Alcalde de la ciudad desde 2013, presidió el fin de semana pasado la celebración del Cities Forum 2020 en su ciudad. En ese contexto pidió una colaboración más estrecha entre los dos países. “Durante decenas de años vivimos de espaldas, con enormes desconfianzas. Felizmente, esa realidad ya no existe hoy”, declaró a la agencia Efe. “Hablamos un idioma que no es el mismo, pero que lo entendemos; tenemos un espacio iberoamericano que es esencial para ambos países; falta hacer el trabajo de construir el Iberolux”.

En la vida diaria, Moreira ya dirige una ciudad que practica diariamente el iberoluxing. El mayor número de turistas son españoles, y no solo gallegos. Los catalanes, por ejemplo, llenaron la Fundación Serralves con ocasión de la muestra inédita de Miró; los madrileños aumentaron también sus visitas a raíz del fichaje de Casillas por el primer equipo de la ciudad; los aeropuertos de Vigo y de Oporto se usan indistintamente por españoles y portugueses, según la conveniencia de horarios, rutas y hasta climatología. “Son buenos turistas, pues les gusta hacer compras, comer y beber”, añadió el alcalde.

Bélgica, Holanda y Luxemburgo constituyeron una unión aduanera, llamada Benelux, en 1944, antes de la fundación de la UE, y la ampliaron en 1958 a una unión económica mediante un tratado. La idea de una unión hispanoportuguesa dentro de la UE no es original ni nueva, pues data del siglo XVIII, aunque sin —como se ve— prosperar. Así como muchos intelectuales la han proclamado abiertamente —de Fernando Pessoa a José Saramago o Lobo Antunes, por parte lusa, y de Unamuno a Ortega y Gasset—, también muchos políticos —en la intimidad— cuentan las ventajas de esa unidad. Sin embargo, nunca ningún partido político —ni de un lado ni del otro de la frontera— se ha atrevido a concurrir a las elecciones proponiendo la formación de un Iberolux o una Iberia. La única excepción ha sido el Partido Ibérico, formado en 2015 en Castilla-La Mancha para concurrir a las elecciones, sin éxito alguno. Entonces el fundador ya dijo que la iniciativa no partía de los Estados, "sino del sentimiento de unión de los ciudadanos".

Moreira quiere reverdecerlo con el nombre de Iberolux. “El proyecto europeo está vivo y con buena salud y tiene ahora nuevas apuestas”, añadió el alcalde, como sería que los dos países del sur de Europa avanzasen con una cooperación más estrecha. Para él ya no existen fronteras entre el norte de Portugal y Galicia, una comunidad en donde, al igual que en Extremadura, estudian portugués miles de escolares españoles. “Un argumento más para la creación de Iberolux”.