There's no need to make everyone share the same opinion — Mathematics for managing a society with conflicts: A new model explaining social media firestorms through "boundaries"

There's no need to make everyone share the same opinion — Mathematics for managing a society with conflicts: A new model explaining social media firestorms through "boundaries"

If Eliminating Division is an Impossible Game—Shift the Goal to "Coexistence Without Consensus"

When society becomes turbulent, we instinctively think, "Let's find common ground," "Let's clear up misunderstandings," or "Let's move towards the middle." However, in reality, the basis on which we view the world, where our anger and fear are directed, and whom we trust differ so greatly that forming consensus often becomes a war of attrition.


Amidst this, a mathematical model has been proposed that shifts the goal from "eliminating division (polarization) itself" to "reducing friction even if conflicts exist." The research halts the idea of treating polarization and friction as the same.


First, Clarification: "Polarization" and "Friction" Are Not the Same

The research emphasizes the separation of two often-confused concepts.

  • Polarization: A state where opinions in society are clearly divided into support and opposition (e.g., the whole is split 50/50).

  • Connected Disagreement: A state where people with opposing views are adjacent in a network, making daily contact and clashes more likely. It measures the "local occurrence" of friction.


Here's the point. Even if society is split 50/50, if there is little contact between the sides, friction appears small. Conversely, even if the ratio of opinions doesn't change, if differing opinions are intricately interwoven and adjacent, boundaries increase, and friction becomes greater. The research states that friction is amplified more by the "shape of opinion boundaries" and "how they are connected" than by the "ratio of opinions."


High "Self-Confidence" Makes Polarization Hard to Avoid

The model incorporates a psychological mechanism known as the "self-confidence effect." The stronger a person's conviction, the less likely they are to change their opinion under social pressure, tending to stick to their existing beliefs.

 
As a result, in a society with high self-confidence, polarization tends to become "inevitable." The lead author explains, "Attempts to eliminate polarization often fail because self-confidence drives the fixation of biased opinions."


The important point here is that even if polarization is inevitable, it does not immediately mean "high friction." Polarization and friction are different, and the targets for policy and design can be set separately.


The True Nature of Friction Was "Boundaries": The Way Clusters Split Becomes a Spark

The research views places where friction becomes strong as "boundaries of opinion clusters." As self-confidence increases, society not only splits into two major camps, but opinion clusters break apart, creating more complex boundaries. The more boundaries there are, the more "surface area" there is for differing opinions to contact, making local clashes more likely.


This is intuitive when you think of an SNS timeline.
In a space where only posts with the same opinion flow, it seems peaceful, but when there is a "boundary" where different posts mix, words can quickly become harsh. Outbursts often occur not when the overall ratio of pros and cons in society changes, but when boundaries are exposed, and different people become more likely to come into contact.


The Solution is "Geometry" Over "Persuasion"—Tweak the Network Structure

What makes this research proposal interesting is that the prescription is not to "persuade everyone to have the same opinion," but to adjust the geometry (structure) of the network.


An example given is structural adjustments such as weakening the influence of highly influential "hub" individuals. Even without changing the majority of opinions, changing the way connections are made could potentially reduce friction.


The "adjustment" mentioned here does not necessarily mean censorship or suppression of speech. For example, in SNS design,

  • if the exposure of some super-diffuser accounts excessively increases boundary clashes, slightly reduce the weight of recommendations.

  • For contentious topics, prioritize "delayed sharing" or "context presentation" over "instant diffusion."

  • Rather than bridging divides, make it a conduit to reduce "points of collision."
    Such approaches can be interpreted as a design of how contact is made.


The researchers also emphasize "multiple benefits" of reducing friction while leaving diverse opinions, unlike the conventional route of enforcing consensus.


Breaking the Simple Schema of "Division is Bad": Realism in Social Management

The value of this idea lies in its realism, stepping down from idealism.


Division exists because humans are diverse, with different experiences and interests. Forcing consensus leads to backlash or silence (suppression of voices), causing distortions to erupt elsewhere.


On the other hand, high friction not only affects mental health and public safety but also skyrockets the costs of organizational decision-making and policy implementation. Therefore, shifting the goal from "consensus" to "minimizing friction" is highly feasible for societies where conflict is normalized.


Furthermore, related lecture materials present a stronger view that "the direct threat is not polarization itself, but the conflict between 'connected individuals' with differing opinions."

 
In short, the problem in society is not the "ratio of pros and cons," but the "amplification of conflicts created by connections."


SNS Reactions: Focused on "Design Over Consensus," "Handling Hubs," and "Isn't That Censorship?"

This topic is particularly well-suited to the structure of SNS. Phys.org itself summarizes the key points of the research as "distinguishing between polarization and connected disagreement," "polarization is hard to avoid with high self-confidence," and "adjusting network structures can reduce friction."

 
Based on official releases visible within the public domain and typical points of discussion likely to arise on SNS, reactions can be categorized into the following three types.


1) The Relief of "Not Having to Persuade Everyone"
The reception is that "the more we aim for consensus-building, the more turbulent it becomes," and "designing to reduce friction under the premise that discussions won't work is realistic." The direction of "operating" rather than "eliminating" conflicts resonates well.


2) Agreement with "The Problem is Algorithms and Hubs"
Many people have the experience that a few individuals with strong diffusion power amplify boundary clashes. Therefore, the prescription to "weaken the influence of hubs" aligns well with empirical knowledge.


3) The Concern of "Isn't That Just Another Name for Censorship?"
On the other hand, concerns arise about who decides the reduction of hub influence and exposure adjustments, and whether there is arbitrariness. Minimizing friction could become an "excuse to silence inconvenient voices." Therefore, the objective function (what is friction), accountability, and transparency become central to the design.


So What Can We Use It For?—Applications Beyond "Flame War Countermeasures"

The reach of this research is not limited to SNS. It is effective in general settings where "opinion division is normal," such as company organizations, local communities, schools, and places of political participation.

  • Organizations: Rather than unifying opinions in meetings, identify boundaries where clashes occur (between departments, job types, locations) and change the design of contact points.

  • Government/Public: Rather than aiming for everyone's agreement, reduce "constant collision pathways" between opponents and proponents, and design separate/disordered discussion venues.

  • Community Management: Depending on the agenda, alternate between mixing (mutual understanding) and separating (friction reduction).


The important thing is to abandon the single choice of "eliminating division as a bad thing" and be able to choose "designs that reduce friction" according to the situation.


Finally: In the Age of Division, the KPI Shifts from "Consensus Rate" to "Total Friction"

Polarization is hard to avoid as long as self-confidence is strong. Therefore, rather than pouring all resources into the difficult-to-achieve goal of consensus, it is more realistic to measure friction, shape boundaries, and reduce structures that amplify collisions—a modest but effective approach.
A society where we can live "differently but together" rather than "everyone having the same opinion." Mathematics is beginning to become part of that blueprint.


Reference URLs

Related Articles