Get your free personalized podcast brief

We scan new podcasts and send you the top 5 insights daily.

Despite public perception that political violence is increasing, historical data suggests it was more frequent in eras like the 1960s and 70s. The feeling of rising violence is a media phenomenon, where instant mobile access to events makes them feel more present and pervasive than ever before, skewing public sentiment away from statistical reality.

Related Insights

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.

While online discourse feels intensely hostile, it may serve as a substitute for physical conflict. The ability to engage in "virtual combat" provides an outlet for tribal anger that, in previous media eras, often manifested as street violence. Measured political violence is currently at an all-time low.

The mid-to-late 20th century, with its consolidated, "objective" media (e.g., three TV networks), was an era of artificially suppressed volatility. Today's fragmented and partisan media landscape is a return to the historical norm of a highly-opinionated press, like that of Ben Franklin's era.

Constant exposure to global crises like political polarization causes a 'collective amygdala hijack,' putting society into a chronic defensive state that impairs higher-order thinking and empathy. In this state, we lose nuance, become more prone to tribalism, and are easier to control.

Despite data showing San Francisco's crime rates at a 20-year low, the public narrative was one of a city in collapse. This disconnect is fueled by visible social issues like homelessness and public drug use, creating an emotional state of fear that statistics cannot easily disprove.

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.

The belief that society is uniquely polarized today is a historical fallacy. From political duels and violent labor strikes to the culture wars of the 1970s, American history is filled with intense, often physically violent, conflict. We tend to view the past with "rose-colored glasses," underestimating its strife.

Global conflicts are increasingly processed through an emotional lens, amplified by social media. Because algorithms reward outrage over analysis, public discourse becomes deranged, making populations more likely to support violent escalations without understanding the cause-and-effect consequences of their leaders' actions.

Personalized media algorithms create "media tunnels" where individuals experience completely different public reactions to the same event. Following a political assassination attempt, one person's feed showed universal condemnation while others saw widespread celebration, highlighting profound social fragmentation.

The era of limited information sources allowed for a controlled, shared narrative. The current media landscape, with its volume and velocity of information, fractures consensus and erodes trust, making it nearly impossible for society to move forward in lockstep.