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]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Kiran K Karthikeyan via Silklist <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Tuesday, 28 October 2025 at 3:55 PM To: Intelligent conversation <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Kiran K Karthikeyan <[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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<http://pobox.com>)) ((www.digeratus.com<http://www.digeratus.com>)) -- Silklist mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://mailman.panix.com/listinfo.cgi/silklist -- Silklist mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://mailman.panix.com/listinfo.cgi/silklist
-- Silklist mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.panix.com/listinfo.cgi/silklist
