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

171–180 of 245 posts

Re: Study finds growing social circles may fuel polarization

#171

Post by carlosjobim »

somenameforme wrote: post #126
FloorEgg wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think you left out the biggest one (though I suppose #3 indirectly hits on this). Social media, and increasingly even online media in general, tends to heavily misrepresent 'the other side.' In the past relationships were formed primarily in person so you actually got see what 'the other side' was like. Now a days people instead depend on completely inaccurate stereotypes that are far more like cartoon caricatures…

When was that past? People used to hate you for being from a different village.

Polarization could instead be because there are fundamental differences in how people see the world and what is right. And now that we've tangled ourselves through all the wars imaginable to dispel the old division lines, this is what we're left with. This is what we have, now that information has become available for the masses; the real differences which split people. Not based on phony dividers of the past.

Polarization also means that if you disagree with the ideology of your family or of your village, you have millions of friends on a national or international level who think like you, instead of being ostracized for life.

Re: Study finds growing social circles may fuel polarization

#172

Post by renewiltord »

somenameforme wrote: post #123
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…

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…

An entertaining insight into the thought process of adding epicycles.

Re: Study finds growing social circles may fuel polarization

#173

Post by jfengel »

lynx97 wrote: post #165
watwut wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Same for "far left", those can't be trusted either. However, what strikes me as interesting: Do you actually destinguish between right and far right? Because I have a feeling, many people don't. Why do I think that? I recently read on Planet Debian: "Conservatives tend to be criminals". That sentences struck me as the core of the problem. People seem to fail to see the difference between a person with conservative va…

Just at the moment: a lot of people who consider themselves merely "right" voted for a candidate who is undeniably "far right". So for the moment I'm not drawing much distinction between "conservative values" and "outright Nazis".

That was not always true and I hope it will not remain true. But speaking at this specific time in history, this fact represents a genuine threat to life and liberty.

Re: Study finds growing social circles may fuel polarization

#174

Post by pjc50 »

phrotoma wrote: post #169
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...

On top of that, text based communication for short attention spans is both brief and dehumanized, encouraging "dunking" behaviour. Hard to empathize with folks who have differing views when the discourse can broadly be described as "lol got'em!".

it does feel like there's been a slow shift from the Internet being a place to make friends to a place to make enemies.

The article that sticks in my mind is "Internet of Beefs": https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2020/01/16/the-internet-of-beefs/ - ironically I have vague memories of the author being on the wrong side of various beefs, but the description of the phenomenon is spot-on.

Some corners of bluesky are resisting this with trying to form the habit of aggresive blocking of clickbait and anyone who comes into your mentions to beef. But overall it's gone horribly mainstream, everyone is just promoting themselves by whom they have beef with.

Re: Study finds growing social circles may fuel polarization

#175

Post by lynx97 »

jfengel wrote: post #173
lynx97 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same for "far left", those can't be trusted either. However, what strikes me as interesting: Do you actually destinguish between right and far right? Because I have a feeling, many people don't. Why do I think that? I recently read on Planet Debian: "Conservatives tend to be criminals". That sentences struck me as the core of the problem. People seem to fail to see the difference between a person with conservative va…

Just at the moment: a lot of people who consider themselves merely "right" voted for a candidate who is undeniably "far right". So for the moment I'm not drawing much distinction between "conservative values" and "outright Nazis". That was not always true and I hope it will not remain true. But speaking at this specific time in history, this fact represents a genuine threat to life and liberty.

From my POV, you are pissed that your people lost, and can't get over it. Remember that democracy is a pendulum. Swinging from side to side is a necessary ingredient of democracy. You can't always win, and, you shouldn't. But I guess you are unable to listen to this simple principle, because you and your people railed yourself up so much that you are unable to calm down. That is weird to me, as I believe that is a skill we all learn when moving from childhood to adulthood. Throwing tantrums isn't very useful.

Re: Study finds growing social circles may fuel polarization

#176

Post by Ratelman »

bee_rider wrote: post #161
elric wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or have people redefined what they consider to be "close friends"? I suspect that you've hit the nail on the head. It would also be interesting to see numbers on churn. How long do these many close friendships last? Do they last longer than before? Or, more likely, less long?

I think longer is… possible, at least? The internet has allowed me to keep in touch with friends from elementary school. I’m, unfortunately, approaching 40 more quickly than I’d like, so these are around 30 year friendships. Although, I’ve also got some college friends that I’d consider close. So that’s more like 15 years. Also online mostly at this point.

What makes you consider them close (aside from length of friendship)?

Re: Study finds growing social circles may fuel polarization

#178

Post by int_19h »

txrx0000 wrote: post #160
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Government propaganda is used to rile people up so that they're willing to kill eachother in war. This is indeed a default throughout history but I don't think it's a good default and we could change it by making and then keeping the Internet a free place.

It doesn't have to be government propaganda, though. It can be everyone with enough money to broadcast, and in the Internet age that is basically everyone.

We've spent most of the 20th century honing propaganda techniques to the point where its potency is like a nuke compared to a dynamite stick. And then we've spent most of the 21st century so far making that nuke cheap and easily available to everyone.

I'm very pro-free-speech in general and I don't think censorship is a solution, but in order to argue for free speech in good faith we have to acknowledge the problem. The reason why people want government to censor is, in many cases, the same reason why they want government to crack down on someone who is building a nuke in their garage (but are okay with the government itself having the same nuke).

Re: Study finds growing social circles may fuel polarization

#179

Post by Ratelman »

Ratelman wrote: post #158
elric wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or have people redefined what they consider to be "close friends"? I suspect that you've hit the nail on the head. It would also be interesting to see numbers on churn. How long do these many close friendships last? Do they last longer than before? Or, more likely, less long?

Boils down to the basics of proper science - how does one measure/quantify close friends?

Reflecting on my own experience - frequency of contact (if I see them once a year, can't really count them as close friends) How involved they are in my life - are they people I turn to when I'm facing a problem, do they turn to me when facing their own problems? Do we have frequent deep conversations - not just surface level discuss the weather, sports etc. but stuff that matter. Quantifying this - length of friendship (# of years), frequency of contact (annually, monthly, weekly etc.), level of trust (low, medium, high - can I trust my kids with them kind of trust), level of involvement (low, medium, high - what things do I feel comfortable sharing with them - suppose this is also level of trust?)

Re: Study finds growing social circles may fuel polarization

#180

Post by VagabundoP »

somenameforme wrote: post #123
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…

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…

Yeah I'd like to see a follow up with the depth of friendships compared with pre-social media ones.
Post reply on HN