Author: MIL-OSI Publisher

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Sarah Lubienski, Professor of Mathematics Education, Indiana University

Among high school students and adults, girls and women are much more likely to use traditional, step-by-step algorithms to solve basic math problems – such as lining up numbers to add, starting with the ones place, and “carrying over” a number when needed. Boys and men are more likely to use alternative shortcuts, such as rounding both numbers, adding the rounded figures, and then adjusting to remove the rounding.

But those who use traditional methods on basic problems are less likely to solve more complex math problems correctly. These are the main findings of two studies our research team published in November 2025.

This new evidence may help explain an apparent contradiction in the existing research – girls do better at math in school, but boys do better on high-stakes math tests and are more likely to pursue math-intensive careers. Our research focuses not just on getting correct answers, but on the methods students use to arrive at them. We find that boys and girls approach math problems differently, in ways that persist into adulthood.

A possible paradox

In a 2016 study of U.S. elementary students, boys outnumbered girls 4 to 1 among the top 1% of scorers on a national math test. And over many decades, boys have been about twice as likely as girls to be among the top scorers on the SAT and AP math exams.

However, girls tend to be more diligent in elementary school and get better grades in math class throughout their schooling. And girls and boys across the grades tend to score similarly on state math tests, which tend to be more aligned with the school curriculum and have more familiar problems than the SAT or other national tests.

Beyond grades and test scores, the skills and confidence acquired in school carry far beyond, into the workforce. In lucrative STEM occupations, such as computer science and engineering, men outnumber women 3 to 1. Researchers have considered several explanations for this disparity, including differences in math confidence and occupational values, such as prioritizing helping others or making money. Our study suggests an additional factor to consider: gender differences in approaches to math problems.

When older adults think of math, they may recall memorizing times tables or doing the tedious, long-division algorithm. Memorization and rule-following can pay off on math tests focused on procedures taught in school. But rule-following has its limits and seems to provide more payoff among low-achieving than high-achieving students in classrooms.

More advanced math involves solving new, perplexing problems rather than following rules.

Differing strategies

In looking at earlier studies of young children, our research team was struck by findings that young boys use more inventive strategies on computation problems, whereas girls more often use standard algorithms or counting. We wondered whether these differences disappear after elementary school, or whether they persist and relate to gender disparities in more advanced math outcomes.

In an earlier study, we surveyed students from two high schools with different demographic characteristics to see whether they were what we called bold problem-solvers. We asked them to rate how much they agreed or disagreed with specific statements, such as “I like to think outside the box when I solve math problems.” Boys reported bolder problem-solving tendencies than girls did. Importantly, students who reported bolder problem-solving tendencies scored higher on a math problem-solving test we administered.

Our newer studies echo those earlier results but reveal more specifics about how boys and girls, and men and women, approach basic math problems.

Algorithms and teacher-pleasing

In the first study, we gave three questions to more than 200 high school students: “25 x 9 = ___,” “600 – 498 = ___,” and “19 + 47 + 31 = ___.” Each question could be solved with a traditional algorithm or with a mental shortcut, such as solving 25 x 9 by first multiplying 25 x 8 to get 200 and then adding the final 25 to get 225.

Regardless of their gender, students were equally likely to solve these basic computation items correctly. But there was a striking gender difference in how they arrived at that answer. Girls were almost three times as likely as boys – 52% versus 18% – to use a standard algorithm on all three items. Boys were far more likely than girls – 51% versus 15% – to never use an algorithm on the questions.

We suspected that girls’ tendency to use algorithms might stem from greater social pressure toward compliance, including complying with traditional teacher expectations.

So, we also asked all the students eight questions to probe how much they try to please their teachers. We also wanted to see whether algorithm use might relate to gender differences in more advanced problem-solving, so we gave students several complex math problems from national tests, including the SAT.

As we suspected, we found that girls were more likely to report a desire to please teachers, such as by completing work as directed. Those who said they did have that desire used the standard algorithm more often.

Also, the boys in our sample scored higher than the girls on the complex math problems. Importantly, even though students who used algorithms on the basic computation items were just as likely to compute these items correctly, algorithm users did worse on the more complex math problems.

Continuing into adulthood

In our second study, we gave 810 adults just one problem: “125 + 238 = ___.” We asked them to add mentally, which we expected would discourage them from using an algorithm. Again, there was no gender difference in answering correctly.

But 69% of women, compared to 46% of men, reported using the standard algorithm for their mental calculation, rather than using another strategy entirely.

We also gave the adults a more advanced problem-solving test, this time focused on probability-related reasoning, such as the chances that rolling a seven-sided die would result in an even number. Similar to our first study, women and those who used the standard algorithm on the computation problem performed worse on the reasoning test.

The importance of inventiveness

We identified some factors that may play a role in these gender differences, including spatial-thinking skills, which may help people develop alternate calculation approaches. Anxiety about taking tests and perfectionism, both more prevalent among women, may also be a factor.

We are also interested in the power of gender-specific social pressures on girls. National data has shown that young girls exhibit more studious behavior than do boys. And the high school girls we studied were more likely than boys to report they made a specific effort to meet teachers’ expectations.

More research definitely is needed to better understand this dynamic, but we hypothesize that the expectation some girls feel to be compliant and please others may drive teacher-pleasing tendencies that result in girls using algorithms more frequently than boys, who are more socialized to be risk-takers.

While compliant behavior and standard math methods often lead to correct answers and good grades in school, we believe schools should prepare all students – regardless of gender – for when they face unfamiliar problems that require inventive problem-solving skills, whether in daily life, on high-stakes tests or in math-intensive professions.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Girls and boys solve math problems differently – with similar short-term results but different long-term outcomes – https://theconversation.com/girls-and-boys-solve-math-problems-differently-with-similar-short-term-results-but-different-long-term-outcomes-269059

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Jonathan Deutsch, Professor of Food and Hospitality Management, Drexel University

Working in restaurants is physically, mentally and emotionally taxing and often thankless work. So it was wonderful to see so many hardworking friends in the Philadelphia dining industry recognized at the Michelin Guide’s 2025 Northeast Cities Ceremony in Philadelphia on Nov. 18, 2025.

Three Philadelphia restaurants each received a star: Provenance, Friday Saturday Sunday and Her Place Supper Club. In addition, 10 other food destinations received a Bib Gourmand for providing “exceptionally good food at moderate prices,” and 21 received Michelin-Recommended status. Pietramala was the sole winner of a green star for sustainability.

I’m especially proud that the Culinary Arts and Science program at Drexel University, where I teach, has had student co-ops and employees, as well as alumni, at all three starred restaurants.

As a classically trained chef, culinary educator and author of the textbook “Culinary Improvisation,” which teaches culinary creativity, I’ve been following the Michelin developments in Philadelphia closely. I am also a contributor to The Infatuation Philly, whose mission is to bring you honest and trustworthy opinions about where to eat. I spend a good amount of time experiencing and reviewing restaurants.

In “Culinary Improvisation,” my co-authors and I discuss the “ingredients” needed to foster culinary innovation: mastery of culinary technique, access to a diverse range of ingredients and flavors, and a collaborative and supportive environment to take risks and make mistakes.

I worried that Michelin, while good for bringing more tourist dollars and recognition to the city, would be bad for fostering some of the very qualities that already make Philadelphia one of the most innovative and high-quality dining cities in the country.

I was particularly concerned that the freedom to experiment, create and innovate would be stifled under the spotlight of outside inspectors.

According to the Michelin Guide, stars are awarded to outstanding restaurants based on: “quality of ingredients, mastery of cooking techniques and flavors, the personality of the chef as expressed in the cuisine, value for money, and consistency of the dining experience both across the menu and over time.”

The criteria do not mention innovation.

Some confounding snubs

The three Philly restaurants that were awarded stars are all deserving, but I believe there are so many oversights, especially on the creativity and innovation front. Reviewing the reviewers, I don’t think they deserve a star.

Within the city boundaries, Emmett, Fork, Vernick Fish, Ogawa, Rice and Sambal, Elwood, Alice, Fiore, a.kitchen, Perla, Bastia, Blue Corn, Little Fish, Mawn, Lacroix and Le Virtu all stand out to me as places that embody the creative energy of Philly’s dining scene and should be at least recommended.

While the guide refers to “Philadelphia and surroundings,” and a Michelin representative reportedly indicated that suburban restaurants would be considered, no restaurants outside the city limits were honored. Did the inspectors not want to battle rush-hour traffic to visit the comforting yet exciting things happening at Cornerstone, June BYOB, Hearthside, Zeppoli, Park Place, Ripplewood, Andiario, Lark and The Choice?

The three recommended cheesesteak places – Dalessandro’s, Del Rossi’s and Angelo’s – are arguably fine, but it’s a tourist stereotype to include so many.

In contrast, China Gourmet, Nom Wah, Bai Wei, E-Mei, Café Nhan, South Philly Barbacoa, Black Dragon, Doro Bet, Farina di Vita and John’s Roast Pork received no mention by Michelin – while all are on my short list to recommend to visitors looking for great food at a good value.

Philadelphians know that cheesesteak may be obligatory for visitors, but the roast pork sandwich – ideally with provolone, broccoli rabe and long hots – is the real reason to visit.

James Beard darling Mawn didn’t make the list, nor did the [omakase experience at Royal Sushi and Izakaya], which Philly food media thought was a given for a star. The casual izakaya part of the restaurant did receive a Bib Gourmand, but the review doesn’t mention the food at the omakase bar, leading chef-owner Jesse Ito and Philly food critic Craig LaBan to speculate that Michelin inspectors couldn’t get a reservation. If that’s the case, it’s inexcusable. When asked, a Michelin spokesperson said they don’t “reveal specifics.” Michelin inspectors should do the work to get into the critically acclaimed places.

As for Mawn: Wait in line for their no-reservation lunch like the rest of Philly.

Where to eat now?

As a strategy for building tourism, filling seats during lunch hours and early in the week, and recruiting out-of-town restaurant talent, Michelin makes a lot of sense for Philly. But many people don’t realize that Michelin is pay-to-play in the locations included in its guides, so Philly’s lack of Michelin stars before last month should not indicate that the city’s restaurant scene was not already Michelin-worthy. We just hadn’t paid for the privilege of being inspected.

Additionally, Michelin awards are just one of many awards and accolades that Philly restaurants can get.

The Philadelphia Convention and Visitors Bureau has not stated how much they paid to have an outside for-profit company come and confirm that Philly indeed has good restaurants. But in 2024, Houston reportedly agreed to pay the Michelin Guide $270,000 for the privilege. Assuming Philadelphia paid a similar amount, if not more, that averages to about 100K per star.

In Philadelphia, that money could have been used for scholarships for culinary students, workforce development training ahead of the city’s celebration of the nation’s 250th birthday or strengthening high school and community college culinary and hospitality programs. It could have gone to tax incentives or lowering hurdles for underrepresented or emerging restaurateurs – uses I believe would make Philly’s food scene even stronger.

Instead it was used to give restaurants that had already received prestigious James Beard awards and other recognition even more kudos – making them even more difficult to get into for Philadelphians and tourists alike.

In a city known for its grit, doing its thing whether you like it or not, and thumbing its nose at New York and Washington, D.C., this whole thing strikes me as very un-Philly.

I’m going to make it a point to visit all the restaurants I love that haven’t gotten the credit they deserve. With over 6,000 restaurants in Philadelphia, I’ll be busy. The tourists can have the Michelin places until the hype dies down.

Read more of our stories about Philadelphia, or sign up for our Philadelphia newsletter on Substack.

Jonathan Deutsch does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. A culinary educator and local dining expert breaks down Michelin’s debut Philly list − and gives zero stars to the inspectors – https://theconversation.com/a-culinary-educator-and-local-dining-expert-breaks-down-michelins-debut-philly-list-and-gives-zero-stars-to-the-inspectors-271049

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Roger J. Kreuz, Associate Dean and Feinstone Interdisciplinary Research Professor​, University of Memphis

Which terms best represent 2025?

Every year, editors for publications ranging from the Oxford English Dictionary to the Macquarie Dictionary of Australian English select a “word of the year.”

Sometimes these terms are thematically related, particularly in the wake of world-altering events. “Pandemic,” “lockdown” and “coronavirus,” for example, were among the words chosen in 2020. At other times, they are a potpourri of various cultural trends, as with 2022’s “goblin mode,” “permacrisis” and “gaslighting.”

This year’s slate largely centers on digital life. But rather than reflecting the unbridled optimism about the internet of the early aughts – when words like “w00t,” “blog,” “tweet” and even “face with tears of joy” emoji (😂) were chosen – this year’s selections reflect a growing unease over how the internet has become a hotbed of artifice, manipulation and fake relationships.

When seeing isn’t believing

A committee representing the Macquarie Dictionary of Australian English settled on “AI slop” for their word of the year.

Macquarie defines the term, which was popularized in 2024 by British programmer Simon Willison and tech journalist Casey Newton, as “low-quality content created by generative AI, often containing errors, and not requested by the user.”

AI slop – which can range from a saccharine image of a young girl clinging to her little dog to career advice on LinkedIn – often goes viral, as gullible social media users share these computer-generated videos, text and graphics with others.

Images have been manipulated or altered since the dawn of photography. The technique was then improved, with an assist from AI, to create “deepfakes,” which allows existing images to be turned into video clips in surreal ways. Yes, you can now watch Hitler teaming up with Stalin to sing a 1970s hit by The Buggles.

What makes AI slop different is that images or video can be created out of whole cloth by providing a chatbot with just a prompt – no matter how bizarre the request or ensuing output.

Meet my new friend, ChatGPT

The editors of the Cambridge Dictionary chose “parasocial.” They define this as “involving or relating to a connection that someone feels between themselves and a famous person they do not know, a character in a book, film, TV series … or an artificial intelligence.”

These asymmetric relationships, according to the dictionary’s chief editor, are the result of “the public’s fascination with celebrities and their lifestyles,” and this interest “continues to reach new heights.”

As an example, Cambridge’s announcement cited the engagement of singer Taylor Swift and football player Travis Kelce, which led to a spike in online searches for the meaning of the term. Many Swifties reacted with unbridled joy, as if their best friend or sibling had just decided to tie the knot.

But the term isn’t a new one: It was coined by sociologists in 1956 to describe “the illusion” of having “a face-to-face relationship” with a performer.

However, parasocial relationships can take a bizarre or even ominous turn when the object of one’s affections is a chatbot. People are developing true feelings for these AI systems, whether they see them as a trusted friend or even a romantic partner. Young people, in particular, are now turning to generative AI for therapy.

Taking the bait

The Oxford Dictionary’s word of the year is “rage bait,” which the editors define as “online content deliberately designed to elicit anger or outrage by being frustrating, provocative, or offensive, typically posted in order to increase traffic to or engagement with a particular web page or social media content.”

This is only the latest word for forms of emotional manipulation that have plagued the online world since the days of dial-up internet. Related terms include trolling, sealioning and trashposting.

Unlike a hot take – a hasty opinion on a topic that may be poorly reasoned or articulated – rage baiting is intended to be inflammatory. And it can be seen as both a cause and a result of political polarization.

People who post rage bait have been shown to lack empathy and to regard other people’s emotions as something to be exploited or even monetized. Rage baiters, in short, reflect the dark side of the attention economy.

Meaningless meaning

Perhaps the most contentious choice in 2025 was “6-7,” chosen by Dictionary.com. In this case, the controversy has to do with the actual meaning of this bit of Gen Alpha slang. The editors of the website describe it as being “meaningless, ubiquitous, and nonsensical.”

Although its definition may be slippery, the term itself can be found in the lyrics of the rapper Skrilla, who released the single “Doot Doot (6 7)” in early 2025. It was popularized by 17-year-old basketball standout Taylen Kinney. For his part, Skrilla claimed that he “never put an actual meaning on it, and I still would not want to.”

“6-7” is sometimes accompanied by a gesture, as if one were comparing the weight of objects held in both hands. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer recently performed this hand motion during a school visit. The young students were delighted. Their teacher, however, informed Starmer that her charges weren’t allowed to use it at the school, which prompted a clumsy apology from the chastened prime minister.

Throw your hands in the air?

The common element that these words share may be an attitude best described as digital nihilism.

As online misinformation, AI-generated text and images, fake news and conspiracy theories abound, it’s increasingly difficult to know whom or what to believe or trust. Digital nihilism is, in essence, an acknowledgment of a lack of meaning and certainty in our online interactions.

This year’s crop of words might best be summed up by a single emoji: the shrug (🤷). Throwing one’s hands up, in resignation or indifference, captures the anarchy that seems to characterize our digital lives.

Roger J. Kreuz does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. 2025’s words of the year reflect a year of digital disillusionment – https://theconversation.com/2025s-words-of-the-year-reflect-a-year-of-digital-disillusionment-270769

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Ellen T. Meiser, Assistant Professor of Sociology, University of Hawaii at Hilo

The season of gifting is in full swing – a time when people scour the internet and shops of all kinds for items that appropriately symbolize their relationships with their loved ones.

Gift givers hope that their gift will appropriately communicate their feelings and bring the recipient joy. But that’s not always the reality. Gifts can be tricky and rife with hidden hazards. Relationships can even be ruined when the mismatch between the giver’s intention and the recipient’s perceptions of it is too vast.

The circumstances of the people involved also shape a gift’s meaning and the way it might be interpreted.

My research partner, Nathalie Rita, and I have been seeking to better understand gifting in one of life’s most dicey, distressing circumstances: cancer.

As sociologists, we use techniques such as in-depth interviews to study the experiences, feelings and motivations of specific groups of people. I focus on restaurant workers and my colleague on migrants and minorities. But in 2021, we were both diagnosed with cancer in our early 30s – breast cancer for me and endometrial cancer for her. This encouraged us to explore the experiences of other young women dealing with cancer.

By 2023, we had interviewed 50 millennial women diagnosed with cancer about a plethora of social and emotional topics related to their illness. Our own bouts with cancer revealed curious patterns in the gifts we very gratefully received from family and friends. So, we included a few questions about gifts in our research.

We expected some eccentric anecdotes similar to our own experiences. But our research, which isn’t yet published, revealed just how much of a mismatch there is between what people wanted and what they received – often driven by the marketing of specific gifts or care packages for cancer patients.

What loved ones give

One of our first questions was, what exactly do women diagnosed with cancer receive from their loved ones? Their answers ran the gamut. Our interviewees reported hundreds of gifts, from stuffed possums to child care help to Vitamix blenders. Friends and family were very eager to shower them in goods.

But from these hundreds of items and acts, 10 popped up over and over again. In order of frequency, they were:

1. Fuzzy socks.
2. Food and drinks, particularly herbal teas, groceries, gourmet goodies and Meal Trains.
3. Money, GoFundMe donations and gift cards.
4. Blankets.
5. Fancy, spa-style self-care items.
6. Written thoughts and prayers.
7. Flowers and plants.
8. Mugs, tumblers and bottles.
9. Adult coloring books.
10. Books.

The women we spoke with largely understood and appreciated the intentions behind these items in the context of their illness: books to distract, flowers to beautify. They viewed the gifts as material proof that their loved ones wanted to deliver comfort and support in a time of discomfort and helplessness.

But the frequency of certain items perplexed us. Why socks and coloring books instead of, say, Rollerblades and bongs?

The long shadow of online commerce and gift guides

We traced these gifting trends to two sources: premade cancer care packages and online gift guides.

Numerous women reported receiving some of the items from our top 10 list in premade care packages sourced from Etsy, Amazon or cancer-specific companies such as Rock the Treatment and The Balm Box. They noted that the contents of these packages felt predictable: spa-style self-care goods such as aromatherapy oils, lip balms and soy candles; herbal teas; a mug with a slogan or ribbon; and hard candies or throat lozenges.

Some received more opulent care packages, similar to Rock the Treatment’s large chemo care package for women, which adds adult coloring books, protein-rich snacks, a beanie and fuzzy socks. These additions mirror our interviewees’ top 10 received gifts even more closely.

Online gift guides published by magazines, news sites and stores may be influencing gifters’ behaviors, too. A Google search for “gift guide” yields countless lists for niche demographics – chicken lovers, mathematicians, even people who are always cold. Online viewership of these lists is prolific. For example, New York Magazine’s product recommendation site, The Strategist, received 10.7 million monthly views in 2021.

The top seven Google-ranked gift guides for cancer patients also contain suggestions that align almost perfectly with what our interviewees reported, with the addition of clothing and jewelry emblazoned with inspirational declarations such as “I’m stronger than cancer!”

These overlaps reflect the broader phenomena of the commodification and commercialization of cancer. As businesses seek to extract economic value out of all aspects of daily life, cancer has become a lucrative business opportunity and patients a source of profit.

Our research suggests that these market forces warp how gift givers perceive people with cancer and their desires. In turning cancer into something profitable, the ugly parts of illness are also glossed over to make cancer palatable to the market. Businesses then sell would-be gifters the idea that cancer can be assuaged by purchasing and giving a bejeweled, teal-ribboned Stanley tumbler.

Additionally, while premade care packages ease the labor of decision-making for gifters, they run a greater risk of disappointing recipients. These generic boxes, we found, can communicate a degree of thoughtlessness at a time when our study participants were aching for thoughtfulness.

What to actually gift

So, what do women going through cancer treatment actually want to receive? Our interviewees recommended:

1. Money in the form of cash or useful gift cards, such as for Door Dash, grocery stores and Petco.
2. Meals and groceries, particularly if the recipient is a parent with mouths to feed.
3. Help with errands and tasks such as babysitting, transportation, cleaning and lawn care.
4. Cards and personal messages of love, which serve as check-ins and gestures of care and support.
5. Practical self-care items such as thick lotions, face masks and soft soaps that don’t irritate skin.

Pragmatic. Simple. Even a little mundane.

There is some overlap between these recommendations and the frequently received gifts mentioned earlier. But notably, almost none of the women we interviewed expressed a desire for the nonessential items usually stocked in commercial care packages or those associated with profiting from cancer.

Instead, the gifts they felt touched them more deeply were ones that addressed ways in which they felt the disease incapacitated their abilities as a worker, woman, mother or caregiver.

Our interviewees spoke of financial strain from medical bills, fatigue preventing them from mothering in ways they used to, and mounting burdens that made it almost impossible to be present for partners or spouses. A monstera plant in a whimsical vase offered little reprieve from these pressures. However, a chat while folding laundry or a Pyrex of enchiladas did.

Perhaps most importantly, such offerings made them feel cared for and seen – their unvarnished circumstances recognized.

So, if a friend with cancer – or any other serious illness, for that matter – is on your list this holiday season, consider hanging those fuzzy socks back on the rack.

Instead, mull over their daily stresses, and choose an item – or a task – that provides a bit of relief.

Ellen T. Meiser does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Buying a gift for a loved one with cancer? Here’s why you should skip the fuzzy socks and give them meals or help with laundry instead – https://theconversation.com/buying-a-gift-for-a-loved-one-with-cancer-heres-why-you-should-skip-the-fuzzy-socks-and-give-them-meals-or-help-with-laundry-instead-268642

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Matthew Blanton, PhD Candidate, Sociology and Demography, The University of Texas at Austin

In a region known for its tumultuous change, one idea remained remarkably consistent for centuries: Latin America is Catholic.

The region’s 500-year transformation into a Catholic stronghold seemed capped in 2013, when Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina was elected as the first Latin American pope. Once a missionary outpost, Latin America is now the heart of the Catholic Church. It is home to over 575 million adherents – over 40% of all Catholics worldwide. The next-largest regions are Europe and Africa, each home to 20% of the world’s Catholics.

Yet beneath this Catholic dominance, the region’s religious landscape is changing.

First, Protestant and Pentecostal groups have experienced dramatic growth. In 1970, only 4% of Latin Americans identified as Protestant; by 2014, the share had climbed to almost 20%.

But even as Protestant ranks swelled, another trend was quietly gaining ground: a growing share of Latin Americans abandoning institutional faith altogether. And, as my research shows, the region’s religious decline shows a surprising difference from patterns elsewhere. While fewer Latin Americans are identifying with a religion or attending services, personal faith remains strong.

Religious decline

In 2014, 8% of Latin Americans claimed no religion at all. This number is twice as high as the percentage of people who were raised without a religion, indicating that the growth is recent, coming from people who left the church as adults.

However, there had been no comprehensive study of religious change in Latin America since then. My new research, published in September 2025, draws on two decades of survey data from over 220,000 respondents in 17 Latin American countries. This data comes from the AmericasBarometer, a large, region-wide survey conducted every two years by Vanderbilt University that focuses on democracy, governance and other social issues. Because it asks the same religion questions across countries and over time, it offers an unusually clear view of changing patterns.

Overall, the number of Latin Americans reporting no religious affiliation surged from 7% in 2004 to over 18% in 2023. The share of people who say they are religiously unaffiliated grew in 15 of the 17 countries, and more than doubled in seven.

On average, 21% of people in South America say they do not have a religious affiliation, compared with 13% in Mexico and Central America. Uruguay, Chile and Argentina are the three least religious countries in the region. Guatemala, Peru and Paraguay are the most traditionally religious, with fewer than 9% who identify as unaffiliated.

Another question scholars typically use to measure religious decline is how often people go to church. From 2008 to 2023, the share of Latin Americans attending church at least once a month decreased from 67% to 60%. The percentage who never attend, meanwhile, grew from 18% to 25%.

The generational pattern is stark. Among people born in the 1940s, just over half say they attend church regularly. Each subsequent generation shows a steeper decline, dropping to just 35% for those born in the 1990s. Religious affiliation shows a similar trajectory – each generation is less affiliated than the one before.

Personal religiosity

However, in my study, I also examined a lesser-used measure of religiosity – one that tells a different story.

That measure is “religious importance”: how important people say that religion is in their daily lives. We might think of this as “personal” religiosity, as opposed to the “institutional” religiosity tied to formal congregations and denominations.

Like church attendance, overall religious importance is high in Latin America. In 2010, roughly 85% of Latin Americans in the 17 countries whose data I analyzed said religion was important in their daily lives. Sixty percent said “very,” and 25% said “somewhat.”

By 2023, the “somewhat important” group declined to 19%, while the “very important” group grew to 64%. Personal religious importance was growing, even as affiliation and church attendance were falling.

Religious importance shows the same generational pattern as affiliation and attendance: Older people tend to report higher levels than younger ones. In 2023, 68% of people born in the 1970s said religion was “very important,” compared with 60% of those born in the 1990s.

Yet when you compare people at the same age, the pattern reverses. At age 30, 55% of those born in the 1970s rated religion as very important. Compare that with 59% among Latin Americans born in the 1980s, and 62% among those born in the 1990s. If this trend continues, younger generations could eventually show greater personal religious commitment than their elders.

Affiliation vs. belief

What we are seeing in Latin America, I’d argue, is a fragmented pattern of religious decline. The authority of religious institutions is waning – fewer people claim a faith; fewer attend services. But personal belief isn’t eroding. Religious importance is holding steady, even growing.

This pattern is quite different from Europe and the United States, where institutional decline and personal belief tend to move together.

Eighty-six percent of unaffiliated people in Latin America say they believe in God or a higher power. That compares with only 30% in Europe and 69% in the United States.

Sizable proportions of unaffiliated Latin Americans also believe in angels, miracles and even that Jesus will return to Earth in their lifetime.

In other words, for many Latin Americans, leaving behind a religious label or skipping church does not mean leaving faith behind.

This distinctive pattern reflects Latin America’s unique history and culture. Since the colonial period, the region has been shaped by a mix of religious traditions. People often combine elements of Indigenous beliefs, Catholic practices and newer Protestant movements, creating personal forms of faith that don’t always fit neatly into any one church or institution.

Because priests were often scarce in rural areas, Catholicism developed in many communities with little direct oversight from the church. Home rituals, local saints’ festivals and lay leaders helped shape religious life in more independent ways.

This reality challenges how scholars typically measure religious change. Traditional frameworks for measuring religious decline, developed from Western European data, rely heavily on religious affiliation and church attendance. But this approach overlooks vibrant religiosity outside formal structures – and can lead scholars to mistaken conclusions.

In short, Latin America reminds us that faith can thrive even as institutions fade.

This research was supported by grants P2CHD042849 and T32HD007081, awarded to the Population Research Center at The University of Texas at Austin by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

– ref. ‘Yes’ to God, but ‘no’ to church – what religious change looks like for many Latin Americans – https://theconversation.com/yes-to-god-but-no-to-church-what-religious-change-looks-like-for-many-latin-americans-266880

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Michelle Lynn Kahn, Associate Professor of History, University of Richmond

How can society police the global spread of online far-right extremism while still protecting free speech? That’s a question policymakers and watchdog organizations confronted as early as the 1980s and ’90s – and it hasn’t gone away.

Decades before artificial intelligence, Telegram and white nationalist Nick Fuentes’ livestreams, far-right extremists embraced the early days of home computing and the internet. These new technologies offered them a bastion of free speech and a global platform. They could share propaganda, spew hatred, incite violence and gain international followers like never before.

Before the digital era, far-right extremists radicalized each other primarily using print propaganda. They wrote their own newsletters and reprinted far-right tracts such as Adolf Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” and American neo-Nazi William Pierce’s “The Turner Diaries,” a dystopian work of fiction describing a race war. Then, they mailed this propaganda to supporters at home and abroad.

I’m a historian who studies neo-Nazis and far-right extremism. As my research shows, most of the neo-Nazi propaganda confiscated in Germany from the 1970s through the 1990s came from the United States. American neo-Nazis exploited their free speech under the First Amendment to bypass German censorship laws. German neo-Nazis then picked up this print propaganda and distributed it throughout the country.

This strategy wasn’t foolproof, however. Print propaganda could get lost in the mail or be confiscated, especially when crossing into Germany. Producing and shipping it was also expensive and time-consuming, and far-right organizations were chronically understaffed and strapped for cash.

Going digital

Computers, which entered the mass market in 1977, promised to help resolve these problems. In 1981, Matt Koehl, head of the National Socialist White People’s Party in the United States, solicited donations to “Help the Party Enter The Computer Age.” The American neo-Nazi Harold Covington begged for a printer, scanner and “serious PC” that could run WordPerfect word processing software. “Our multifarious enemies already possess this technology,” he noted, referring to Jews and government officials.

Soon, far-right extremists figured out how to connect their computers to one another. They did so by using online bulletin board systems, or BBSes, a precursor to the internet. A BBS was hosted on a personal computer, and other computers could dial in to the BBS using a modem and a terminal software program, allowing users to exchange messages, documents and software.

With BBSes, anyone interested in accessing far-right propaganda could simply turn on their computer and dial in to an organization’s advertised phone number. Once connected, they could read the organization’s public posts, exchange messages and upload and download files.

The first far-right bulletin board system, the Aryan Nations Liberty Net, was established in 1984 by Louis Beam, a high-ranking member of the Ku Klux Klan and Aryan Nations. Beam explained: “Imagine, if you can, a single computer to which all leaders and strategists of the patriotic movement are connected. Imagine further that any patriot in the country is able to tap into this computer at will in order to reap the benefit of all accumulative knowledge and wisdom of the leaders. ‘Someday,’ you may say? How about today?”

Then came violent neo-Nazi computer games. Neo-Nazis in the United States and elsewhere could upload and download these games via bulletin board systems, copy them onto disks and distribute them widely, especially to schoolchildren.

In the German computer game KZ Manager, players role-played as a commandant in a Nazi concentration camp that murdered Jews, Sinti and Roma, and Turkish immigrants. An early 1990s poll revealed that 39% of Austrian high schoolers knew of such games and 22% had seen them.

Arrival of the web

By the mid-1990s, with the introduction of the more user-friendly World Wide Web, bulletin boards fell out of favor. The first major racial hate website on the internet, Stormfront, was founded in 1995 by the American white supremacist Don Black. The civil rights organization Southern Poverty Law Center found that almost 100 murders were linked to Stormfront.

By 2000, the German government had discovered, and banned, over 300 German websites with right-wing content – a tenfold increase within just four years.

In response, American white supremacists again exploited their free speech rights to bypass German censorship bans. They gave international far-right extremists the opportunity to host their websites safely and anonymously on unregulated American servers – a strategy that continues today.

Up next: AI

The next frontier for far-right extremists is AI. They are using AI tools to create targeted propaganda, manipulate images, audio and videos, and evade detection. The far-right social network Gab created a Hitler chatbot that users can talk to.

AI chatbots are also adopting the far-right views of social media users. Grok, the chatbot on Elon Musk’s X, recently called itself “MechaHitler,” spewed antisemitic hate speech and denied the Holocaust.

Countering extremism

Combating online hate is a global imperative. It requires comprehensive international cooperation among governments, nongovernmental organizations, watchdog organizations, communities and tech corporations.

Far-right extremists have long pioneered innovative ways to exploit technological progress and free speech. Efforts to counter this radicalization are challenged to stay one step ahead of the far right’s technological advances.

Michelle Lynn Kahn has received funding from the National Humanities Center, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, American Historical Association, and American Jewish Archives.

– ref. Far-right extremists have been organizing online since before the internet – and AI is their next frontier – https://theconversation.com/far-right-extremists-have-been-organizing-online-since-before-the-internet-and-ai-is-their-next-frontier-269271