Just to build on that, the rise of devices and social media means that we might be less likely to engage with people randomly. For example, I was waiting to pick up my rental car and fell into a conversation with a gentleman from Alabama as we jointly excoriated the rental car company. I had never met anyone from Alabama and it was an eye-opener for me. Memes and reels are replacing conversations and cutting off human interaction.
Social media is a true evil and I can’t believe we let it gain steam on our watch. Jo On Wed, Oct 29, 2025 at 2:27 AM Sean Doyle via Silklist < [email protected]> wrote: > Warning - this migh be too US-centric. > > Hopefully the paper becomes available to look at it more closely - so I > might be misjudging it entirely. Explanations of social change need to make > sense at different levels and scales. The summary of the paper mentions > the friend network of individuals and a possible technical introduction of > the cell phone to explain polarization. But at a broader scale - there is a > huge increase in media concentration and income disparity over the last few > decades. When I was an undergraduate I could go into several news outlets > and bookstores and get foreign newspapers. Now the news outlets are gone. > Most of the bookstores are gone. So - I don't know that focusing on > individual decisions about the number of friends is the best way to > characterize the change. > > I can buy the argument that people are self-selecting friends that have > similar views. Older social networks (church, clubs) get less attention > because people are focused on work. To the degree that social networks > replace some of these connections they can algorithmically enhance these > polarized groupings. But surely the predatory behavior of the social media > companies is a large causal factor here. > > > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 1:47 PM Suresh Ramasubramanian via Silklist < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> At least with politics these days, you can find yourself suddenly no >> longer on speaking terms with friends - or so estranged from a formerly >> dear and close relative you cut off all ties with them. >> >> Paradoxical and illogical but unfortunately not unknown >> >> --srs >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Silklist <[email protected]> >> on behalf of Keith Adam via Silklist <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 28, 2025 10:33:25 PM >> *To:* Intelligent conversation <[email protected]> >> *Cc:* Keith Adam <[email protected]> >> *Subject:* Re: [Silk] Study says polarization in society increases as >> social circle increases >> >> >> I was first of all reminded of this episode of In Our Time from earlier >> on the year on Civility: talking with those who disagree with you. >> >> >> >> BBC Radio 4 - In Our Time, Civility: talking with those who disagree with >> you <https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m002f9f4> >> >> >> >> I too am unconvinced. The argument seems to be that the more close >> friends we have, the more polarised we can be, because we can then lose the >> close friends we disagree with. But then they are not close friends, no? >> A bit paradoxical. >> >> >> >> I do want to focus on this statement though. >> >> >> >> "More and more people are clearly aligning themselves with one political >> camp rather than holding a mixture of liberal and conservative views," >> explains Hofer. >> >> >> >> The phenomenon, I think, is more one of taking each issue or subject and >> aligning it in to one of the two camps that seem to be coalescing in a lot >> of societies. That is what I find most intriguing. I find it is now the >> case that if I gauge a new acquaintances position on a couple of touchstone >> subjects I can make a pretty good guess on their position on a few dozen >> more. It was a fun game to play for a while but now one that depresses >> me. >> >> >> >> Ten years ago the need to address anthropogenic climate change was pretty >> much accepted by most people. So, while we may have held different views >> on say, whether to continue membership in the EU or not, we could agree on >> the need for action in climate change. Now, I find that is very often no >> longer the case. >> >> >> >> Polling in the UK would seem to bear this out: What do Reform UK voters >> believe on climate change? | YouGov >> <https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/50971-what-do-reform-uk-voters-believe-on-climate-change> >> >> >> >> I don’t know how a sociology study could be set up to test it, but I >> think it is the polarisation of subjects that counts, not the number of >> connections. I would be interested to hear proposals for how it could be >> tested. >> >> >> >> - Keith >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Silklist <[email protected]> *On >> Behalf Of *Suresh Ramasubramanian via Silklist >> *Sent:* 28 October 2025 10:27 >> *To:* Intelligent conversation <[email protected]> >> *Cc:* Suresh Ramasubramanian <[email protected]> >> *Subject:* Re: [Silk] Study says polarization in society increases as >> social circle increases >> >> >> >> There is of course the Dunbar number - where the trust starts to break >> down in a group past a certain size. So too would increase the chance of >> fights or polarizations of opinion as different cliques gather in a group? >> >> >> >> *From: *Silklist <[email protected]> >> on behalf of Kiran K Karthikeyan via Silklist < >> [email protected]> >> *Date: *Tuesday, 28 October 2025 at 3:55 PM >> *To: *Intelligent conversation <[email protected]> >> *Cc: *Kiran K Karthikeyan <[email protected]> >> *Subject: *Re: [Silk] Study says polarization in society increases as >> social circle increases >> >> +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 >> > -- > Silklist mailing list > [email protected] > https://mailman.panix.com/listinfo.cgi/silklist >
-- Silklist mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.panix.com/listinfo.cgi/silklist
