by geox on 10/27/25, 7:06 PM with 231 comments
by crazygringo on 10/27/25, 9:13 PM
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 genuinely maintaining more friendships because phones make it so much easier to message?
by lukebechtel on 10/27/25, 10:03 PM
Related:
https://open.substack.com/pub/josephheath/p/populism-fast-an...
by 0xbadcafebee on 10/27/25, 9:08 PM
But increased polarization around the world isn't because of this. There's the typical environmental factors: an increase in changes (or challenges) to traditional values increases polarization; an influx of migrants increases polarization. But then there's also social media, where mastery of "engagement" by businesses for profit has been adopted by political groups looking to sow division to reap the benefits of polarization (an easier grip on power). The rapid rise of polarization is a combination of both.
It's nothing new of course, political/ideological groups have been doing this forever. We just have far more advanced tools with which to polarize.
by procaryote on 10/28/25, 7:56 AM
Social Media getting big → larger perceived friend groups
Social Media getting big → more polarisation
larger friend groups → more polarisation
by tsumnia on 10/27/25, 8:58 PM
I know this paper isn't about social networks, but we know this, we knew it in the 70s. The only difference is that we continue to ignore and forget it.
by DavidPiper on 10/27/25, 10:42 PM
But, how is moving from a circle of 2 close friends to a circle of 4 close friends a significant enough jump to "fuel polarization" on a societal level? There's also a 10-year gap between USA (and other countries' data points too) that covers the span of the whole alleged "aligned trend". It feels a little bit like the authors just went "Look! Two data trends moving in the same direction! Causal?!"
More seriously, I would love to see a much deeper dive on:
- Technological and associated psychological trends that might be causing greater polarisation (plenty of existing data here)
- How an increase in close friends can co-exist with an apparent loneliness epidemic (plenty of existing data here too)
by bicx on 10/27/25, 10:48 PM
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 person’s background, how they treated people, what their family was like, and what likely influences them as a person.
So much of how we process trustworthiness is how we perceive the motives of the speaker. With shallower friendships and parasocial relationships, we want to feel connected but really lack any good context that you need to actually know who you’re listening to.
by psychoslave on 10/28/25, 4:44 AM
As is it's hard to evaluate if there is anything substantial to get out of these claims.
First time for me to meet with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity_Science_Hub
Is that cause or correlation?
Like, if people are more polarized, there are more likely to have wider ground to sympathize. Less throttle in opinion divergences, so they can deal with more social exchanges as the only interactions are endless smooth easy agreements within their social bubbles.
by mikeiz404 on 10/28/25, 9:05 AM
The DOI in the article is being reported as invalid. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2517530122
by flave on 10/28/25, 6:43 AM
Occam’s Razor tells me that it’s almost certainly linked to the near-total failure of the economic system (and the very slow recovery outside specific US cities).
by cowpig on 10/27/25, 10:39 PM
"DOI Not Found"
Given that the main (only significant) fact cited in the article goes against everything else I've read, I would like to see the actual study and how it came to the conclusion that the number of close friends has doubled.
Here are some sources that appear to contradict this article:
https://www.americansurveycenter.org/research/the-state-of-a...
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/250617/dq250...
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11288408/#pone.0305...
by dudewtf10 on 10/28/25, 11:53 AM
by philjw on 10/27/25, 11:42 PM
Digitalization and the pursuit of perfect information seemed to invite more binary thinking — and with it, more opportunities to disagree every single day. Meanwhile, other forces found easy consensus on simpler, more immediate issues: cheap gas, housing, grocery prices, job security, immigration. Complex, long-horizon topics like the climate crisis rarely stood a chance.
by _3u10 on 10/28/25, 4:08 AM
by dauertewigkeit on 10/27/25, 9:41 PM
by cnoolean on 10/28/25, 1:54 AM
by grdomzal on 10/27/25, 10:34 PM
Indirectly? Seems to me that this is far more likely the "direct" cause, given what we know about the psychology around algorithmic feeds.
Also - I'm not sure if I missed it in the article, but did they define what they mean by "close relationship" means? I'd be very curious to know if a purely online relationship is counted and how this may also contribute to the observations made.
by eucryphia on 10/27/25, 11:58 PM
by nativeit on 10/28/25, 12:35 AM
That could be a problem, considering how the push back to "actively cultivating tolerance" has unfolded so far.
by zkmon on 10/27/25, 9:19 PM
by thefz on 10/27/25, 9:27 PM
Thanks to David Wong for explaining this in JDATE, calling it the Babel threshold.
by VWWHFSfQ on 10/27/25, 9:45 PM
by Huxley1 on 10/28/25, 3:18 AM
by naikrovek on 10/28/25, 10:55 AM
Anyone who has ever been to public school knows this in their bones.
by xchip on 10/28/25, 11:01 AM
Note that this study MAY not be accurate
by dooglius on 10/27/25, 8:41 PM
by brador on 10/28/25, 11:11 AM
by morshu9001 on 10/28/25, 12:26 AM
by stevage on 10/27/25, 11:19 PM
If this is true, it is counterintuitive, and runs against the prevailing narrative that living within your bubble and not interacting with opposing viewpoints is what causes polarisation. I thought cities were supposed to be less polarised because people can't help encountering other viewpoints.
by motoxpro on 10/28/25, 9:45 AM
It is not that people have wildly different views all of a sudden, it is that being exposed to views we used to be protected against is really unpleasant.
"The world isn't so bad" -> "The world is very bad"
by foobarian on 10/27/25, 8:45 PM
by eleveriven on 10/28/25, 11:11 AM
by ZebusJesus on 10/27/25, 9:39 PM
by billfor on 10/28/25, 1:47 AM
by dpe82 on 10/28/25, 6:12 AM
by exotica on 10/28/25, 5:53 AM
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.
by fragmede on 10/28/25, 4:24 AM
by mothballed on 10/27/25, 10:17 PM
The internet has accelerated this.
by txrx0000 on 10/27/25, 8:56 PM
For details see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45515980
The solution is to ban all server-side ranking, moderation, and filtering mechanisms and replace them with client-side-only solutions, at least for large platforms above a certain user count like X and YouTube. Same thing for search engines and chatbots.
Each person should be able to control what they can post and view online, but not what anyone else posts or views. The norms that we use to moderate physical public spaces must not be applied to online public spaces. Until we discard those norms, people will continue to become increasingly polarized, democracy will continue to decline worldwide, and violent conflicts will continue to increase in frequency and scale.