Live data from Hacker News

Study finds growing social circles may fuel polarization

phys.org

131–140 of 245 posts

Re: Study finds growing social circles may fuel polarization

#131

> "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…

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.

Loneliness pandemic is a topic because one author wrote a book on it and is pushing and agenda to generate sales for his book.

The biggest article about the loneliness pandemic was one in the New York times and oh just to happened to mention said book. Countless articles followed on from there. If the book were sound, it would be less sad, but the studies it cites have problems so this is all built on a huge heaping of confirmation bias.

Re: Study finds growing social circles may fuel polarization

#132
post #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…

A person's trustworthiness has always been based more on perception though, even if you were familiar with more of their history - that's how you end up with members of a community who are perfectly kind people but are ostracized because they're perceived as strange and untrustworthy in some way; it's also how you end up with members of a community who have demonstrated a lack of trustworthiness continuing to be trusted, because they can appear trustworthy and persuade others to trust them despite the prior evidence.

Re: Study finds growing social circles may fuel polarization

#133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before the Internet and social media, groups had a practical size cap because they had to meet up in person. Polarization was naturally limited. I don't think the social media companies' algorithms are entirely to blame. But more broadly it's centralized moderation of public online spaces. Moderation of public behavior of physical spaces was only necessary because it wasn't possible to selectively filter people's inf…

We aren't doing it because most people want to suppress (some kind of) speech, meaning they don't want others to hear it either.

Yes. Indulging in that desire to boss over other people (and also hubris, thinking oneself knows better) was fine before social media because it was hard to have a say over what others hear at scale. People congregated into groups that moderated speech internally, but those small groups rarely got large enough to influence nation-states. Democracy worked fine because those small groups were independently-thinking entities despite being internally homogenous. And individuals from different groups could still talk to eachother intelligently because the inter-group rifts weren't that large. The groups weren't that large. Many small groups existed and could debate eachother to generate effective policies in a democratic society.

Now there are big social media mobs. The number of independently-thinking entities have gone down drastically over the past 2 decades. We're ranking, filtering, and moderating ourselves into authoritarian governments ran by Internet echo chamber mobs.

Re: Study finds growing social circles may fuel polarization

#134

> "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…

The DOI links aren't working so I can't read the study but I think there's a simple explanation, that also belies the headline. It may be that the typical number of close friends is now 0. But as people no longer even have any concept of close friendships, they're considering 'lesser' relationships as close friendships, because it's all they know. This is made even more likely if they didn't define the term and allow…

So this would boil down to "social media increases polarisation". Quelle suprise

Re: Study finds growing social circles may fuel polarization

#135

In-group dynamics are further ingrained as the group gets bigger. If you have 4 friends in a group, their opinions aren't as strong. If you have 40 friends in a group, not only are their opinions stronger, they'll fight vigorously to defend the group's commonly accepted beliefs. So a growing social circle does reinforce the group dynamic. (this is well established by lots of studies) But increased polarization around…

Before the Internet and social media, groups had a practical size cap because they had to meet up in person. Polarization was naturally limited. I don't think the social media companies' algorithms are entirely to blame. But more broadly it's centralized moderation of public online spaces. Moderation of public behavior of physical spaces was only necessary because it wasn't possible to selectively filter people's inf…

I don't understand what you mean with your last paragraphs, but I disagree that there's a centralized moderation. Of all the social media I'm aware of, moderation is mostly distributed, and weighted. Instagram flagged posts go to "a team" to review, but they weigh that against the account and the content. Reddit moderation is per-subreddit. Facebook moderation is a combination of group moderators and site moderators.

In any case, I don't think moderation isn't a factor, because moderation is for commenters. Something like 90% of people just lurk. And that's where ads, influencers, comments, and everything else, are targeted.

How can we get more people viewing TikToks, or YouTube Shorts? How can we get more people to sub to our Patreon? How can we get more followers, or likes? This has nothing to do with moderation. It's the math of "what can we post that will make people "engage" with their eyeballs and their clicks?" That's what matters. Partly because eyeballs equal ad dollars; but also because eyeballs equal influence. The science of manipulation is getting you to see what I want you to see, and you coming back for more. The more you come back, the more you're part of my in-group.

Another example is astroturfing. I can't remember if it started for commercial or political gain, but the point is the same. Post some fake shit to make people believe there's a grassroots opinion, in order to get them to back it, with them assuming it's really a grassroots movement. Whether you're Vladimir Putin or DuPont, you benefit the same way: manipulation of public perception, through the science of social media disinformation.

Re: Study finds growing social circles may fuel polarization

#136

> "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…

Found with AI but this article claims the opposite of the GP.

https://www.americansurveycenter.org/research/the-state-of-a...

And the various articles found seem to agree. The GP claims to have combined 30 surveys. I wonder if they wound-up with one of those statistical paradoxes where a combining of data sets points to something different from each individual data set. But something probably isn't true 'cause the individuals sets are well curated and the combination isn't.

Re: Study finds growing social circles may fuel polarization

#137
Some theories on polarization I've collected so far that are interesting to think about:

1. Fragmented Realities and Epistemic Closure

Society has splintered into separate informational worlds. People no longer disagree about interpretations — they disagree about basic facts. Every event is reinterpreted through group narratives, while algorithms and media ecosystems reinforce self-sealing belief systems that reject contradictory evidence. Truth has become tribal.

2. Complexity, Distrust, and the Need for Simplicity

Modern systems — from technology to institutions — are too complex for most to grasp. This creates epistemic anxiety and fuels distrust. People fill gaps in understanding with emotionally satisfying stories or conspiracies that reaffirm their group’s worldview, simplifying chaos into moral clarity.

3. Freedom Without Shared Norms

Unlimited freedom of expression, especially online, allows individuals to curate entire realities — news, values, communities, even moral codes. With no shared gatekeepers or social guardrails, this leads to radical pluralism without cohesion, making dialogue and compromise feel impossible.

4. Identity Through Opposition

People now define themselves less by what they love than by what they hate. Belonging is sustained through shared enemies, not shared ideals. When external foes disappear, movements turn inward, targeting internal dissenters in purity spirals. This “negative partisanship” keeps polarization alive even in victory.

5. Homogeneity Within, Division Between

Within each ideological camp, members become increasingly uniform, while differences between camps grow unbridgeable. Social media and online subcultures create homogeneous echo chambers, replacing the moderating influence of local, mixed communities.

6. Moral Absolutism and Emotional Reasoning

Disagreement has become moralized. Positions are interpreted as ethical declarations, not intellectual arguments — “if you question this policy, you must be evil.” Complex moral issues are reduced to emotional reactions (“yay” or “boo”), eliminating space for nuance and ensuring every debate feels existential.

7. Fear of Ostracism and the Loss of Honest Discourse

Individuals self-censor to avoid social punishment. Within tribes, dissent signals disloyalty; silence becomes survival. Even when people privately know inconsistencies in their group’s logic, they publicly conform, reinforcing collective delusion.

8. Purity Spirals and Internal Cannibalization

Movements built on moral fervor tend to devour their own. The demand for ideological purity leads to factionalism and self-destruction — evident in both political extremes. Each cycle of purification shrinks the movement and intensifies radicalism.

9. Outrage Economies and Performative Extremes

Attention, not truth, is the currency of the digital age. Algorithms reward anger, certainty, and spectacle, pushing participants toward theatrical extremity. Outrage becomes addictive, and moderation becomes invisible.

10. Collapse of Shared Identity

Both left and right have lost sources of positive collective identity. The left often ties self-worth to guilt or systemic critique; the right has turned against institutions it once championed. Without shared symbols or pride, all that remains is mutual resentment and moral posturing.

11. Self-Directed Polarization and Moral Competition

Especially in progressive spaces, moral status is signaled through self-critique and guilt, producing competition over who can appear most virtuous. This inward moral warfare fragments coalitions and deepens alienation, even among ideological allies.

12. Excessive Individualism and Identity Nihilism

When every norm, archetype, and tradition is deconstructed, people lose a sense of meaning and belonging. The absence of shared cultural frameworks drives individuals to seek identity in micro-tribes — often online — where belonging depends on rigid ideological loyalty.

13. Perception Distortion and Amplified Extremes

Media and social networks exaggerate the prevalence of fringe behaviors and views, making each side believe the other is dominated by extremists. This illusion of extremity fuels fear and rage, even when most people are moderate.

14. Cynicism, Performance, and the Collapse of Grace

Public moral life has become performative. People perform virtue or outrage online instead of acting constructively in reality. Every good deed is questioned as clout-seeking; every mistake is eternal. This erodes trust, forgiveness, and the possibility of moral growth.

15. Technology and the Future of Polarization

AI and algorithmic personalization amplify division by creating individually tailored echo chambers. Combined with emotional fatigue (“outrage burnout”), this could produce a paradoxical future: a society both numb and hyper-polarized — disengaged yet unbridgeably divided.

Re: Study finds growing social circles may fuel polarization

#138

> 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.

Wow that sounds like an awful definition. People get influenced by random comments online...

Re: Study finds growing social circles may fuel polarization

#139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We aren't doing it because most people want to suppress (some kind of) speech, meaning they don't want others to hear it either.

Yes. Indulging in that desire to boss over other people (and also hubris, thinking oneself knows better) was fine before social media because it was hard to have a say over what others hear at scale. People congregated into groups that moderated speech internally, but those small groups rarely got large enough to influence nation-states. Democracy worked fine because those small groups were independently-thinking ent…

Government-moderated echo chambers existed long before the internet. In fact I think they're the default throughout history. But I think business has developed the manipulation (through specific technologies, products, services) into a science. The gift of big data and business analytics applied to the problem of manipulating public opinion.
Post reply on HN