I did some thinking about this months ago and I think the origin of the problem is how groups make decisions. I think it is similar to a Flocking algorithm. I

I did some thinking about this months ago and I think the origin of the problem is how groups make decisions. I think it is similar to a Flocking algorithm. In the algorithm, each bird starts in a random direction but then keeps adjusting its heading a little based on the average of its nearest neighbors. After many little adjustments, the birds will form flocks where all the birds fly in the same direction. Similarly, in group decisions, each person starts with their own ideas. As people interact in the group, each person learns and modifies their position a little bit. Eventually, the group's members are all thinking similar ideas. The big question is: Does this algorithm produce 1 flock or many flocks? If there is a force bringing all the birds together, they'll form a single flock. But if there isn't, the birds will separate into many flocks that each head in different directions and do not influence each other. Before social media, most of our group interactions were physical. If we disagreed with our neighbor at a school meeting, the school was still a force to bring us back together. If we disagreed with family, there was still family reunions or holidays to bring us back together. But social media allows us to "unfriend". That is, to cut connections to people who disagree with us. There is no forced interactions between strident voices of one political team and strident voices of another political team. The mantra of "for the good of the country" doesn't force us to communicate and bring everyone back together. On social media, we're fracturing into many flocks. A different social media paradigm/algorithm might include a force that brings us back together. E.g., not allowing "unfriend" or forcing people at random to interact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flocking_(behavior)#Algorithm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flocking_(behavior)#Algorithm