Live data from Hacker News

Study finds growing social circles may fuel polarization

phys.org

61–70 of 245 posts

Re: Study finds growing social circles may fuel polarization

#61
post #57

The study linked at the beginning of this article, and the two listed under "More information" at the bottom all take me to a page with the error "DOI Not Found" Given that the main (only significant) fact cited in the article goes against everything else I've read, I would like to see the actual study and how it came to the conclusion that the number of close friends has doubled. Here are some sources that appear to…

This might be it? https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1004008107

Re: Study finds growing social circles may fuel polarization

#62

> The sharp rise in both polarization and the number of close friends occurred between 2008 and 2010—precisely when social media platforms and smartphones first achieved widespread adoption. This technological shift may have fundamentally changed how people connect with each other, indirectly promoting polarization. Indirectly? Seems to me that this is far more likely the "direct" cause, given what we know about the…

The article said that a close relationship is one where the other person can influence your views. I didn't dig into the details to see how that was measured.

Thanks! I tried clicking into the linked research paper but got a 404 >.<

Re: Study finds growing social circles may fuel polarization

#63
post #35

I favor the theory that polarization is due to decreasing attention spans, effectively preventing us from appropriately considering nuance. Related: https://open.substack.com/pub/josephheath/p/populism-fast-an...

That's one of Chomsky's major points for decades.

embarrassingly haven't dug into Chomsky, this is another update towards me doing so soon!

Re: Study finds growing social circles may fuel polarization

#64

> "Despite minor differences between individual surveys, the data consistently show that the average number of close friendships rose from 2.2 in 2000 to 4.1 in 2024," says Hofer. If true, this is an astonishing social transformation, because it goes against everything we here about the loneliness epidemic getting worse . Or have people redefined what they consider to be "close friends"? Or are people actually genuin…

Or women have 8 and guys have 1

Re: Study finds growing social circles may fuel polarization

#65

> "Despite minor differences between individual surveys, the data consistently show that the average number of close friendships rose from 2.2 in 2000 to 4.1 in 2024," says Hofer. If true, this is an astonishing social transformation, because it goes against everything we here about the loneliness epidemic getting worse . Or have people redefined what they consider to be "close friends"? Or are people actually genuin…

[deleted]

Re: Study finds growing social circles may fuel polarization

#66

The fact that we have more close friends on average is a novel and surprising observation to me. Very worthy of investigation. But, how is moving from a circle of 2 close friends to a circle of 4 close friends a significant enough jump to "fuel polarization" on a societal level? There's also a 10-year gap between USA (and other countries' data points too) that covers the span of the whole alleged "aligned trend". It…

> But, how is moving from a circle of 2 close friends to a circle of 4 close friends a significant enough jump to "fuel polarization" on a societal level?

You add 2 close friends and to fit them in, axe 10 weaker ones.

Re: Study finds growing social circles may fuel polarization

#67
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's one of Chomsky's major points for decades.

embarrassingly haven't dug into Chomsky, this is another update towards me doing so soon!

OT: As someone in the same camp, does anyone have any recommendations on where would be best to start?

Re: Study finds growing social circles may fuel polarization

#68

The fact that we have more close friends on average is a novel and surprising observation to me. Very worthy of investigation. But, how is moving from a circle of 2 close friends to a circle of 4 close friends a significant enough jump to "fuel polarization" on a societal level? There's also a 10-year gap between USA (and other countries' data points too) that covers the span of the whole alleged "aligned trend". It…

> But, how is moving from a circle of 2 close friends to a circle of 4 close friends a significant enough jump to "fuel polarization" on a societal level? You add 2 close friends and to fit them in, axe 10 weaker ones.

> You add 2 close friends and to fit them in, axe 10 weaker ones

I did this after Covid. Consciously started declining invitations from acquaintances, and instead making time and travel to see close friends. Would never go back.

Re: Study finds growing social circles may fuel polarization

#69
post #56

I favor the theory that polarization is due to decreasing attention spans, effectively preventing us from appropriately considering nuance. Related: https://open.substack.com/pub/josephheath/p/populism-fast-an...

Agreed, there's so many headlines on X and Reddit that are obviously highly spun and could take 5 seconds of reading into it to see through the BS. But they kill as long as people agree with the phrasing and people go right to the comments to cheer it on instead of reading the article. It's tough on the internet being a skeptic or generally thoughtful about the world. It's not even worth debunking stuff anymore. Much…

I can no longer engage in (controversial) debates on other social medias, as responses often indicate a lack of understanding with the other person - they glance over the arguments, make a prejudice-based opinion, and then they respond to their straw man, often loaded with bad emotions. It's quite frustrating and as you say, sadly only solution is to disengage, but in so doing the polarisation only increases as dissenting opinions are removing themselves.

Re: Study finds growing social circles may fuel polarization

#70
I’m more interested in how people determine who they trust, and the parameters by which humans decide to trust someone.

I would wager that people are shit at determining trustworthiness based on limited information (like social media representations). In the old days before social media, you got to know people in person, and decades ago, most of the people you knew were likely people you grew up around. You knew that person’s background, how they treated people, what their family was like, and what likely influences them as a person.

So much of how we process trustworthiness is how we perceive the motives of the speaker. With shallower friendships and parasocial relationships, we want to feel connected but really lack any good context that you need to actually know who you’re listening to.

Post reply on HN