Study Finds Growing Social Circles May Fuel Polarization (phys.org)
- Reference: 0179887504
- News link: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/25/10/27/2325201/study-finds-growing-social-circles-may-fuel-polarization
- Source link: https://phys.org/news/2025-10-friends-division-social-circles-fuel.html
> The researchers' findings confirm that increasing polarization is not merely perceived -- it is measurable and objectively occurring. "And this increase happened suddenly, between 2008 and 2010," says [says Stefan Thurner from the Complexity Science Hub (CSH)]. The question remained: what caused it? [...] 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.
>
> "Democracy depends on all parts of society being involved in decision-making, which requires that everyone be able to communicate with each other. But when groups can no longer talk to each other, this democratic process breaks down," emphasizes Stefan Thurner. Tolerance plays a central role. "If I have two friends, I do everything I can to keep them -- I am very tolerant towards them. But if I have five and things become difficult with one of them, it's easier to end that friendship because I still have 'backups.' I no longer need to be as tolerant," explains Thurner.
>
> What disappears as a result is a societal baseline of tolerance -- a development that could contribute to the long-term erosion of democratic structures. To prevent societies from increasingly fragmenting, Thurner emphasizes the importance of learning early how to engage with different opinions and actively cultivating tolerance.
The research was [2]published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences .
[1] https://phys.org/news/2025-10-friends-division-social-circles-fuel.html
[2] https://csh.ac.at/news/researchers-find-possible-cause-for-increasing-polarization/
A house divided cannot stand... (Score:2)
I can't help but to think that history is repeating, and that few learned any lessons from the hardships.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Since WWII governments have worked tirelessly to divide the populations of the West so we'd fight each other rather than oppose them. Now they're whining about "unity" because they've realized that by dividing us up so badly they've destroyed the cohesion that's required to maintain a first-world society and raise an army to fight whatever enemy-de-jour they may want us to fight.
And they're also shocked that the millions of people they've imported would rather vote for one of their own than for established
too "both sides" for me (Score:4, Insightful)
A lot of people are refusing to call a spade a spade. Social media has enabled these reality deniers to connect and cohere their delusions so that they agree on many of the same wrong things. Social media and media in general have further inflamed things by overdramatizing, in order to increase their revenue. Media is holding megaphones up to the stuff that is the craziest.
It's not "polarization" when some groups are refusing to accept reality, and further, pushing dark false narratives that conveniently and motivatedly but very unfairly blame other groups for their troubles, real and imagined, and propose murder and war as solutions, exactly like the Final Solution. That's evil.
Re: (Score:3)
I'll call him a spade!
Where is he?!?
Re: (Score:3)
> Media is holding megaphones up to the stuff that is the craziest.
That may be true, but their megaphones are drowning out reasoned discussion and making it all but impossible.
> some groups are refusing to accept reality
Not your group of course.
> Social media has enabled these reality deniers to connect
They have always connected, they just did it privately. You weren't even aware of the diversity of beliefs out there. The internet and social media now expose everyone to everyone else's world view. The people most shocked are those who had what they thought was a conventional view of reality shared by everyone. Turns out it wasn't.
Re: (Score:2)
It's *neither side* for me.
Yes, Republicans have gone off the rails. They have silenced free speech, treated immigrants brutally, engaged in economic warfare, and befriended dictators.
But Democrats don't get off the hook. They have repressed freedom of religion by banishing religion from all public places, they have tried to reduce gender to a feeling, and, like Republicans, they have spent borrowed money as if it rained from the sky.
As a Reagan conservative, I have no home in today's political landscape.
Sooo... (Score:2)
We used to stay in relationships longer before because since we only had two friends, each friend had proportionally greater power to emotionally blackmail us into staying?
I.e. emotional blackmail is really the core of a healthy relationship?
Social circles 3 generations ago (Score:1)
In the post-WW2 era, most towns of any size had several very active social/fraternal groups, not to mention churches and workplaces where friendships were forged.
Friendships (Score:2)
The internet seems to have reduced close friendships in society. When I was growing up I had a clique, a crew. People you'd do stuff outside with. And they'd have your back and vice versa. We'd fist fight one day and the next we're best friends. In addition to friends from school or neighborhood ... there was family, cousins who were like siblings. Lots of friends and still friends with them because of Facebook. I noticed that "friendships" that form nowadays are basically fake. When I was a kid, and up int
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree mostly (I came here to write the same, below your post), I have two comments:
> When I was a kid, and up into my late twenties, before people had smartphones etc. you could just go to your friends place for no reason. With people that I met after my twenties, I need a "reason" to go their place and also you have to worry about offending them
It's not the smartphone, it's that grew older. Being intrusive, or insulting (offensive) with friends is routine in childhood. As an adult we have learnt RESPECT, a very crucial teaching from parents or teachers.
> Is that friendship to keep accounts, especially when everyone is well off?
Yes and that's also a question of respect. I can afford to pay for your lunch, but as we are friends and equals I don't need to demonstrate my wealth or generosity with you, and I don't want to create discomfo
Friend vs. Acquaintances (Score:2)
The article misuses the concept of "Friend". We used to have, and still have, only about 2 friends, where friendship is a very specific relation of mutual help. A friend is someone of trust, who would spend time or money to help us in case of need; e.g. drive to pick us up, let us use their sofa for weeks or even months, or lend money to start over with life. We didn't increase in the number of those. Friends who are not politically aligned learn to not talk about politics and continue their happy friendshi
Little more then speculation (Score:3)
If ever there was a reason to repeat the mantra correlation is not causation, this is it. The causative link between the two sets of data is entirely speculative. It reads like people mining data sets to find support for a preconceived idea.
But I thougth there was a loneliness epidemic (Score:2)
I'm confused, and angry, and not voting for whatever politician you like.
Re: (Score:2)
It's true. Social circles *online* are not the same as social circles IRL. It's possible to have "close social circles" and still be lonely.