Elites and political polarisation.
Photo credit: theFreesheet/Nano Banana Pro

A small group of influential voices is driving deep societal rifts, creating a level of political polarisation in which opposing sides have “nothing left in common”.

New research from Aalto University used network theory to quantify the partisan divide, revealing that a tiny “elite” cluster — potentially just a few hundred people — accounts for a disproportionate share of societal division.

The study measured “alignment”, which tracks how closely a person’s views on one issue match their views on others. By 2023, this alignment reached near-maximum levels among online thought leaders, meaning a progressive view on climate almost certainly guaranteed a progressive view on immigration, while conservative social views paired with conservative economics.

“In democracies, it’s healthy –– even desirable –– to disagree sharply on individual issues. But when alignment becomes complete, society splits into just two camps that disagree on absolutely everything –– there’s nothing left in common with the other side,” said Mikko Kivelä, Professor of Computer Science at Aalto University.

The network structure

The algorithm identified these elites not by their job titles, but by their position within the network structure.

“Not all thought leaders –– the so-called elite –– are politicians. But even without knowing exactly who they are, we can infer their status from the network’s structure. You don’t end up at the centre by accident,” said Ali Salloum, a doctoral researcher and lead author of the study.

This intractable siloing leads to political gridlock, where legislation stalls and decision-making falters. However, the researchers warned that studying these dynamics is becoming impossible as platforms restrict data access.

“It’s especially frustrating when we already know what’s inside the black box, and the value of all that data that the platforms control. By law, researchers should have access, but it’s not being followed. In my opinion, we don’t have enough political pressure directed at keeping these platforms transparent and open,” said Salloum.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You May Also Like

AI consciousness claims are ‘existentially toxic’ and unprovable

The only scientifically justifiable position on artificial intelligence is “agnosticism”, meaning humans…

Tech-savvy millennials suffer most anxiety over digital privacy risks

Digital concerns regarding privacy, misinformation and work-life boundaries are highest among highly…

Experts warn of emotional risks as one in three teens turn to AI for support

Medical experts warn that a generation is learning to form emotional bonds…

Social media ‘cocktail’ helps surgeons solve cases in three hours

A global social media community is helping neurosurgeons diagnose complex pathologies and…

AI exposes alcohol screening ‘blind spot’, finds 60 times more at-risk patients

Artificial intelligence has revealed a staggering gap in the detection of dangerous…

Harari warns of ‘alien’ AI oligarchs and is your brand really 67 cool?

TL;DR: Yuval Noah Harari warns that AI has evolved into an “alien…