Research from Duncan Watts shows the bigger societal issue isn't fabricated facts (misinformation), but rather taking true data points and drawing misleading conclusions (misinterpretation). This happens 41 times more often and is a more insidious problem for decision-makers.

The perception of rising crime in London is amplified by a financial incentive. X's platform pays contributors for engagement, leading to a surge in disingenuous accounts posting exaggerated or false crime content for profit.

The feeling of deep societal division is an artifact of platform design. Algorithms amplify extreme voices because they generate engagement, creating a false impression of widespread polarization. In reality, without these amplified voices, most people's views on contentious topics are quite moderate.

The erosion of trusted, centralized news sources by social media creates an information vacuum. This forces people into a state of 'conspiracy brain,' where they either distrust all information or create flawed connections between unverified data points.

While people form strong ideological tribes online, these virtual communities offer no protection from physical threats. During societal instability, geography becomes paramount, as people self-select into physically safe locations, reinforcing regional divides.

Historically, financial comparison was contained within socioeconomically similar neighborhoods. Social media removes these geographic and social barriers, constantly exposing individuals to global, hyper-affluent lifestyles. This distorts the perception of 'normal,' making luxury seem common and fueling widespread feelings of financial inadequacy.

The online world, particularly platforms like the former Twitter, is not a true reflection of the real world. A small percentage of users, many of whom are bots, generate the vast majority of content. This creates a distorted and often overly negative perception of public sentiment that does not represent the majority view.

People often agree on the facts of a political event but arrive at opposite conclusions because their internal 'threat monitors' are calibrated differently. One person's 'alarming authoritarian move' is another's 'necessary step for order,' leading to intractable debates.

Humans are heavily influenced by what others do, even when they consciously deny it. In a California study, homeowners' energy usage was most strongly predicted by their neighbors' habits. However, when surveyed, these same residents ranked social influence as the least important factor in their decisions, revealing a powerful disconnect between our perceived autonomy and actual behavior.