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…
Study finds growing social circles may fuel polarization
61–70 of 245 posts
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.
Re: Study finds growing social circles may fuel polarization
#63I 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.
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…
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…
Re: Study finds growing social circles may fuel polarization
#66The 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…
You add 2 close friends and to fit them in, axe 10 weaker ones.
Re: Study finds growing social circles may fuel polarization
#67Re: Study finds growing social circles may fuel polarization
#68The 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.
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
#69I 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…
Re: Study finds growing social circles may fuel polarization
#70I 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.