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

111–120 of 245 posts

Re: Study finds growing social circles may fuel polarization

#111

Post by solid_fuel »

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…

I don't really see the causal link here between "more close friends" and "growing polarization", and I'm having trouble finding the actual study - the link in the article seems broken.

I can't find more information on the actual distribution, but I think looking at the _average_ number of close friendships is a red flag. It's perfectly possible for some social groups to be growing, while others are shrinking.

Re: Study finds growing social circles may fuel polarization

#112

Post by hamasho »

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…

It's super hard to have good faith discussions on the internet for years now. When someone has different opinions, those opinions are associated with certain groups (liberals, conservatives, etc). And it's very easy to demonize other groups, because social media shows curated content with extremely idiotic and malicious people in that group. Even if we have only slightly biased opinions, the algorithm knows watching content which follow your existing opinions are super engaging. We can't resist the satisfaction and dopamine hit of finding out our opinion is right. Attacking obviously wrong people from a moral high ground without risking being attacked by other people is also really attractive. After consuming such content for a long time, we come to see other groups as nothing but evil, and it makes it very difficult to have good faith conversations.

Re: Study finds growing social circles may fuel polarization

#113

Post by pseudalopex »

mothballed wrote: post #97
Jensson wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean "feel lonely at the same rate" or that they are actually alone at the same rate? Men do have fewer friends and its much more common for men to have no close friends at all.

The free market rate of a young/fit woman's sexual services are several hundred or even thousand+ $/hr. I suspect any man who is seen as potentially offering 100s of $/hr in services if you pretend to be a friend long enough, would see similar interest of fake friends. I could see it making you even more lonely, to have to filter through that though, as a man is probably less likely to reject someone as a 'false posi…

Most of most women's friends are women. Close friends even more.

Re: Study finds growing social circles may fuel polarization

#114

Post by svnt »

FloorEgg wrote: post #84
scarmig wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could also be something structural about how the "friendship graph" looks. The mean number of friendships isn't the median or typically experienced number of friendships, and if friendship relationship distributions follow some kind of power law, a change in the power-law exponent could make those diverge.

I am wondering the same thing. It's interesting that they didn't report at all on the median and only the average. Also find the timing interesting, as I can't help but suspect that both the justification and incentive for self-reporting a higher number of friends materially changed for some people in the early days of social media. They didn't seem to acknowledge this at all. The model they built that draws a causal…

It seems insane to try to connect a twenty year shift in one global variable to one causal factor. This approach is why the social sciences continue to struggle to create understanding. It is all they can afford to do, though.

That said, 3) I think possibly best explains both: the increase in average number of friends due to influencer dynamics skewing the distribution, and the increase in polarization due to the tactics in social media.

However there seems to be no chance it is a durable or reproducible link, as it depends on the novelty of polarization techniques which wear over time and become known and integrated in education, reducing their effectiveness

Re: Study finds growing social circles may fuel polarization

#115

Post by squigz »

kulahan wrote: post #51
riazrizvi wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I find modern technology makes it easier to maintain them. 25 years ago my friendships around the world would have been relegated to 'penpalships' because of the cost of long distance calls and the lack of face time. Loneliness is a big topic now due to the pandemic, and the lingering trends from stay/work-at-home mandates.

They probably aren't the friends people are thinking of when referring to things like this. The benefit of friends isn't just that you have someone fun to talk to, it's that you're building out a social support circle. Your discord friends can't come over and help you clean up after a flood, or watch your dogs while you're away on a sudden emergency, or cook you a meal when you're grieving a loss, or help you get an…

For many people, the benefits of friendships are not just reduced to the physical tangible things a friend might do for you.

Re: Study finds growing social circles may fuel polarization

#116

Post by jahsome »

solid_fuel wrote: post #111
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…

I don't really see the causal link here between "more close friends" and "growing polarization", and I'm having trouble finding the actual study - the link in the article seems broken. I can't find more information on the actual distribution, but I think looking at the _average_ number of close friendships is a red flag. It's perfectly possible for some social groups to be growing, while others are shrinking.

It likely doesn't account for the evolving definition of what a "close" friend actually is.

Just because Jack and Jill know a bunch of details about each others' lives owing to facebook updates or group chats, that doesn't necessarily mean they share a strong connection, at least not in the traditional sense. But I suspect they might still feel a certain connection and belonging to each other.

It used to require frequent, active, quality communication to know someone well. Now it just requires a few clicks.

Re: Study finds growing social circles may fuel polarization

#117

Post by armenarmen »

jahsome wrote: post #116
solid_fuel wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really see the causal link here between "more close friends" and "growing polarization", and I'm having trouble finding the actual study - the link in the article seems broken. I can't find more information on the actual distribution, but I think looking at the _average_ number of close friendships is a red flag. It's perfectly possible for some social groups to be growing, while others are shrinking.

It likely doesn't account for the evolving definition of what a "close" friend actually is. Just because Jack and Jill know a bunch of details about each others' lives owing to facebook updates or group chats, that doesn't necessarily mean they share a strong connection, at least not in the traditional sense. But I suspect they might still feel a certain connection and belonging to each other. It used to require freq…

> It likely doesn't account for the evolving definition of what a "close" friend actually is

This has to be it. I’ve got guys I would die for, and I don’t know their birthdays.

Re: Study finds growing social circles may fuel polarization

#118

Post by dlivingston »

tanseydavid wrote: post #19
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…

>> goes against everything we here about the loneliness epidemic getting worse This seems like a hot-take. IMHO one does not and cannot cure loneliness by having more online friends .

Completely agree. Fully online friendships are hollow simulacrums of the real thing, like most fully online things compared to their offline counterparts. That's not to say there isn't real connection or real value there, just that they are a supplement to - and not a replacement for - the 'real thing'.

Example: long-distance relationships vs. in-person. My wife and I started off as long distance before moving to the same city together. Obviously we established a very real relationship digitally, but it was a means to an end, and not an end in itself, and the real-world date nights and so on are so much deeper and richer than Facetime calls.

Re: Study finds growing social circles may fuel polarization

#119

Post by wonderwonder »

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…

I had the same thought. Some of you have 5+ close friends? and before you had 2 - 3? Where are you finding these people :)

I don't think I have had an IRL friend let alone a close one for 20+ years. So since my mid 20's

Happy for you all though!

Re: Study finds growing social circles may fuel polarization

#120

Post by dlivingston »

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?

The Chomsky-Foucalt debate is a classic [0], as is Chomsky's book Manufacturing Consent [1].

[0]: https://youtu.be/eF9BtrX0YEE

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent

Post reply on HN