Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Study finds growing social circles may fuel polarization

phys.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 245 posts

Re: Study finds growing social circles may fuel polarization

#71

Post by JumpCrisscross »

th0ma5 wrote: post #35
lukebechtel wrote: post #33

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.

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

Curious for the source? To my recollection, Chomsky talked about distraction, i.e. repurposing attention. OP is talking about the pool of attention as a whole drying up (versus being misdirected).

Re: Study finds growing social circles may fuel polarization

#72

Post by DavidPiper »

MattGaiser wrote: post #66
DavidPiper wrote: post #59

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.

In this case it sounds like the polarisation is fueled by the axing and not the adding?

Re: Study finds growing social circles may fuel polarization

#73

Post by mackeye »

lukebechtel wrote: post #33

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...

i think this is a good article, but these statements,

> If populism is merely a strategy, not an ideology, then why are certain ideas seemingly present in all populist movements (such as the hostility to foreigners, or the distrust of central banking)? > For example, why are “the people” always conceptualized as a culturally homogeneous mass, even in the context of societies that are quite pluralistic (which forces the introduction of additional constructs, such as la France profonde, or “real Americans”)?

... are not quite as applicable to left-wing populism (for the latter --- at least, at the surface). post-colonial, _left-wing_ populism tended to be of international character, or at least of wider appeal than the nation (e.g., nasser). the "distrust of central banking" is of wildly unique impetuses for left- vs. right-wing populism.

the common-sense point is quite poignant, at least for me in the u.s., where each party paints their own solutions as explicitly "common-sense", for solutions as unique as harsh border control ("solutions") vs. city-owned grocery stores & free childcare.

there are certainly issues i imagine i don't hold the "elite" view on. many people don't consider the "elite" view at all --- anti-punitive justice, for example, is rejected for particular types of crimes, despite provenly worse outcomes if we simply punish these crimes. the rise of anti-intellectualism doesn't help :D

Re: Study finds growing social circles may fuel polarization

#74

Post by watwut »

yieldcrv wrote: post #64
crazygringo wrote: post #15

> "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

When you look at studies, women and men are lonely at about the same rate. There are differences at the margins - period right after divorce, being stay at home and such. But overall rates are the same.

Re: Study finds growing social circles may fuel polarization

#75

Post by dmix »

Grikbdl wrote: post #69
dmix wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 disse…

> but in so doing the polarization only increases as dissenting opinions are removing themselves.

It used to make sense when the internet was smaller but now? Not so much. Especially when the people running platforms/media, content moderators and influencers explicitly don't care about the truth. You're not just fighting some dummy posting a comment.

The only positive thing I've seen in the last decade to address this was Community Notes on X.

Re: Study finds growing social circles may fuel polarization

#76

Post by watwut »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #45
jerlam wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would agree - usually close friends are limited to people that share the same values and ideas as you. Having more close friends that all think alike would increase rejection of ideas not shared by other close friends. It is harder (but not impossible) to have close friends that have dramatically different lifestyles, ideals, or socioeconomic class. Weaker ties would include friends that have less in common, and ha…

> usually close friends are limited to people that share the same values and ideas as you That stirkes me as myopic. My closest friends--the ones I trust with all my secrets, with whom have have practically no secrets, the ones I'd hide if it came to that or risk my life to save--are all over the place values and ideas-wise. It's what makes their company fun. It's also what makes their advice useful, because they'll…

If you are far right, I have to keep secrets from you. For safety.

And no, someone actively wanting to limit my freedom and safety because their ideology is that women must be limited cant be trusted. They cant be trusted in calling me on my shit, because what they perceive as shit is my self interest and my core values.

Re: Study finds growing social circles may fuel polarization

#77

Post by bossyTeacher »

crazygringo wrote: post #15

> "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…

> have people redefined what they consider to be "close friends"?

Yes. People nowadays spent 8 hours per day chatting to someone online and they call it close friend even if they never met in real life.

Also, people nowadays are notorious for being unable to have friendship that is not a [insert activity here] buddy.

Re: Study finds growing social circles may fuel polarization

#78

Post by txrx0000 »

zwnow wrote: post #21
zkmon wrote: post #18

Polarization maybe a bit unclear word here. Connectivity creates cohesion, which creates larger creatures. So what we have is, virtual monsters roaming around with huge human groups riding on them. They can organize real protests, polarized opinion and massive impact wherever these monsters go.

Monsters is a interesting choice of words. Why call it monsters? Isn't polarization a good thing? If I was enslaved by tyrants making my life worse everyday, shouldn't I be opposed by their ways?

More polarization is good if people are allowed to naturally polarize in different directions. Alignment between individuals are supposed to emerge naturally, forming small groups that are internally polarized in the same direction. Democracy would work fine in that society.

But now we have huge online mobs that are homogenously polarized that want to kill eachother. It gets violent when the group size reaches the nation-state level because that's where most of the violence and oppression in our society is siloed.

We have to limit group sizes online. Before social media, it was physically limited by the difficulty of meeting up in person. But now groups just keep getting larger and more homogenous.

Re: Study finds growing social circles may fuel polarization

#79

Post by rfrey »

DavidPiper wrote: post #67
lukebechtel wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You can start with his recent Russian apologia where he blames the U.S. and Ukraine for forcing Russia to invade Ukraine. That might provide some context when you read one of his books.

Re: Study finds growing social circles may fuel polarization

#80

Post by mothballed »

henriquemaia wrote: post #54
johnny22 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've found the opposite of that. I've found good people from all sorts of cultures and countries.

I'm like you and with you. I've lived in several countries in 3 continents now, and the more I get to know different peoples, the more I feel we're all the same—albeit stuck in these almost kaleidoscopic ways of outwardly displaying the very same humanity. Perhaps OP got fixated on the collective differences instead of seeing through them. Perhaps.

The major difference in the more extreme case were I was shot at, or had a gun put to my head, or was caught in between a knife fight, or systematically on a regular basis saw people getting the shit beat out of them. Which I acknowledge can happen anywhere, but such trauma is not so easily rationalized when considering what I'd like my kids exposed to and after viscerally experiencing it in real life.

In any case, "I've found good people from all sorts of cultures and countries" is something I've definitely found to be true, and I don't view that as mutually exclusive. The trouble being, the amount of bad things a certain sector of people get away with can vary a lot depending on where you are and what the cultural response and incentives to that is.

Post reply on HN