Cable news and social media don't show the average person who votes differently. They blast the loudest, most cartoonish "professional lunatics" from the opposing side. This creates a false impression that the entire opposition is extreme, making tribalism seem rational.

We are months away from AI that can create a media feed designed to exclusively validate a user's worldview while ignoring all contradictory information. This will intensify confirmation bias to an extreme, making rational debate impossible as individuals inhabit completely separate, self-reinforced realities with no common ground or shared facts.

Algorithms optimize for engagement, and outrage is highly engaging. This creates a vicious cycle where users are fed increasingly polarizing content, which makes them angrier and more engaged, further solidifying their radical views and deepening societal divides.

Before generative AI, the simple algorithms optimizing newsfeeds for engagement acted as a powerful, yet misaligned, "baby AI." This narrow system, pointed at the human brain, was potent enough to create widespread anxiety, depression, and polarization by prioritizing attention over well-being.

Extremist figures are not organic phenomena but are actively amplified by social media algorithms that prioritize incendiary content for engagement. This process elevates noxious ideas far beyond their natural reach, effectively manufacturing influence for profit and normalizing extremism.

A/B testing on platforms like YouTube reveals a clear trend: the more incendiary and negative the language in titles and headlines, the more clicks they generate. This profit incentive drives the proliferation of outrage-based content, with inflammatory headlines reportedly up 140%.

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.

Tragic political events rarely change minds. Instead, they function as Rorschach tests where people see what they want to see, using the event to confirm their pre-existing biases and deepen societal divisions rather than fostering unity or understanding.

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.