We Can Do It Narratives as of October 2025

This Storyboard - which we call our "stain" chart - shows you at a glance how strong or weak a given narrative is right now relative to its history.

For each narrative or "semantic signature" listed on the left of the chart, we have a series of blue dots on the right, each of which represents a specific weekly density or volume of that narrative. reading from within the date range that we are covering. The yellow arrow is the most recent reading, so it's just like the "YOU ARE HERE" spot on a map. The x-axis scale shows the range of index values.  If a dot is at 100, that means that story is 100% more present in media than usual. If it’s at 0, it means it’s at its normal level.

The light blue shaded box covers the middle 50% of readings across the date range, so you can see quickly if the current reading is typical (inside the blue box), depressed (left of the blue box), or elevated (to the right of the blue box).

If you hover over a specific blue dot, you will see the specific date and measurement that the dot represents.

A Narrative Battlefield Emerges over Where American Industry and Work Ethic Stack up Against the World

Battlefield #1: Leadership in Scientific and Medical Research

American media narratives about scientific competitiveness have entered troubling territory this October. Perscient's semantic signature tracking language warning about American scientific decline against other countries registered unprecedented levels more than 4 standard deviations above average, while parallel tracking of narratives claiming American scientific leadership likewise reached their peak. This divergence suggests a narrative battlefield of competitive anxiety about America’s place in the new world rather than a confident self-assessment.

The timing of this narrative shift coincides with significant real-world developments in science policy and funding. The Trump administration has implemented sharp cuts to scientific research funding and eliminated thousands of research positions across federal agencies. Scientists interviewed by The New York Times described 2025 as "a crushing year for science in America," with researchers detailing specific projects and initiatives that have been terminated or indefinitely suspended.

The downstream effects appear substantial. A Nature journal poll found that 75% of researchers in the United States are considering leaving the country, including prominent figures in mathematics and other fields. One researcher characterized the situation starkly: "The science world is ending." This potential brain drain represents a concrete mechanism through which narrative concerns about scientific decline could become self-fulfilling.

Medical research narratives followed a similar pattern. Perscient's signature tracking language suggesting that America is losing its leading role in medical and drug research rose substantially from the previous month – also to around 4 standard deviations above the long-term average. Health care research experts warn that federal funding cuts to research on health system effectiveness cannot be easily replaced by private sources, potentially compromising the infrastructure that has historically supported American medical innovation. The MIT Press Reader published analysis suggesting that the system of federally funded research that gave the U.S. wealth, power, and prestige now faces an uncertain future.

The October announcement of Nobel Prize winners provided an interesting backdrop to these narrative shifts. Recognition of global achievements in quantum computing and metal-organic frameworks offered tangible evidence of scientific progress occurring across multiple nations, potentially reinforcing media attention to international competition. Meanwhile, industry discussions focused on oncology innovations, obesity medicines, and AI applications in drug development, suggesting active debate about where medical research leadership actually resides rather than settled consensus.

Battlefield #2: Leadership in Energy Production

Narratives about America’s leadership in energy have been similarly split. On the one hand, Perscient's signature tracking language predicting an American energy renaissance approached its all-time high, reflecting intensified media attention to American energy leadership aspirations. The White House designated the month as National Energy Dominance Month, establishing the National Energy Dominance Council to coordinate policy across agencies.

At the same time, the semantic signature tracking language arguing America has ceded energy leadership to other nations also surged, rising substantially from September to approach its own record level. This mirror-image intensification of both positive and negative energy narratives suggests yet another battlefield in which narratives and counter-narratives are being proposed with equal vigor.

Policy developments provided concrete substance to the debate. The United States reached its fastest rate of new oil and gas drilling permits in years, with permit issuance exceeding the previous administration by 44%. The Trump administration reopened Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas development and announced steps to expand mining operations across federal lands. Social media commentary from administration officials emphasized the "drill, baby, drill" agenda, with Interior Secretary Doug Burgum announcing measures to triple coal leasing benchmarks and lower royalty rates.

Industry leaders expressed optimism about these policy shifts. Chevron's CEO discussed how new technologies could revolutionize production and cement U.S. dominance, arguing that America has only scratched the surface of its oil potential. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin framed energy dominance as both economic and environmental policy, arguing that the U.S. taps natural resources in ways much cleaner and safer than other countries, including China.

Yet questions about actual implementation tempered the triumphalist narrative. Analysis noted that most Western public land is already open to energy production, with little frontier remaining to unlock. The government shutdown threatened to stall oil and gas permitting processes, potentially delaying the very projects meant to demonstrate American energy leadership. This gap between aspirational rhetoric and operational reality may explain why narratives of both energy dominance and energy decline strengthened simultaneously.

Worker Productivity Narratives Show Diverging Trends

The narrative of an American work ethic drifted away from the zeitgeist this October. Perscient's signature tracking language celebrating how hard Americans work declined by 0.21 from the previous month, while our measure of language criticizing American worker productivity rose by an identical amount. This mirror-image movement suggests a media discourse increasingly questioning rather than celebrating American worker exceptionalism.

The shift reflects a backdrop of genuine and increasing labor market complexity – and not necessarily as a result of AI alone. Wall Street Journal reporting noted that GDP data suggests economic strength while jobs data points toward recession, with one way to reconcile this dissonance being productivity gains. Some analysts see hints that AI could fuel a revival similar to the technology-driven productivity surge of the 1990s. Yet a Harvard Business Review study found that AI output may actually be harming worker productivity rather than enhancing it, adding empirical uncertainty to the narrative debate.

The labor market itself shows signs of stress that complicate simple productivity narratives. Wall Street Journal analysis indicated that the faltering labor market is pushing more Americans into part-time work and other roles they don't want, which don't always pay bills. This shift toward underemployment creates statistical ambiguity about whether apparent productivity gains reflect genuine efficiency improvements or simply companies extracting more from workers who lack better options.

Social media commentary reflected this tension in stark terms. One observer calculated that for every 10 people in the U.S., only 4 have productive jobs while 1 is a government employee and 5 are unemployed, arguing that only 4 out of 10 people produce everything while everyone else only consumes. Another commentator argued that U.S. capital gave up on investing in productive forces long ago, with the current system focused on financial engineering, rent extraction, and speculative bubbles rather than productive investment. These critiques suggest deeper structural concerns beyond individual worker attributes.

Workplace behavioral trends added another dimension to the narrative. Media coverage identified "clock-botching" as a new workplace trend quietly eating away at productivity, where employees stretch out small tasks and check out emotionally. Experts characterized this not as laziness but as a sign of burnout and overburdened workers, reframing productivity concerns as management and systemic issues rather than worker deficiencies.

Similarly, tracking of language arguing Americans are willing to do difficult work that others won't stayed level, indicating that while narratives about general work ethic declined, specific claims about American willingness to do hard jobs maintained their position. This pattern suggests growing skepticism about American worker exceptionalism overall, even as certain specific claims about American work characteristics resist the broader trend.

Pulse is your AI analyst built on Perscient technology, summarizing the major changes and evolving narratives across our Storyboard signatures, and synthesizing that analysis with illustrative news articles and high-impact social media posts.