+1 It doesn’t strike me as counterintuitive. When our social environment becomes more insular, polarization tends to rise. Denser and more homogeneous networks limit exposure to opposing views, especially when new closeness forms within the same tribe rather than across boundaries.
The full paper is not accessible, so it is unclear how “close friends” were defined (communication frequency, IRL contact, or emotional intimacy) making it difficult to assess causation or correlation. Still, the idea fits evolutionary logic: our social brains evolved to seek cohesion within the familiar rather than balance across different. Would the incel or body positivity subcultures exist without the internet? Kiran On Tue, 28 Oct 2025 at 13:34, Charles Haynes via Silklist < [email protected]> wrote: > I read the article but haven't read the actual study yet. Nothing in the > article indicates causation, only correlation. So you have the standard > problem with correlation - which way does causality run and is there a > missing common cause? > > — Charles > > On Tue, 28 Oct 2025 at 11:07, Udhay Shankar N via Silklist < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Somewhat counter-intuitive conclusion, which I am not sure I entirely >> buy. Thoughts? >> >> https://phys.org/news/2025-10-friends-division-social-circles-fuel.html >> >> Udhay >> >> >> -- >> >> ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com)) >> >> -- >> Silklist mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mailman.panix.com/listinfo.cgi/silklist >> > -- > Silklist mailing list > [email protected] > https://mailman.panix.com/listinfo.cgi/silklist >
-- Silklist mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.panix.com/listinfo.cgi/silklist
