We all know social media has changed the way we communicate, but have we ever stopped to think about how communication itself has evolved? In Superbloom: How Technologies of Connection Tear Us Apart, Nicholas Carr explores how technology has transformed human interaction, not just in how we talk to each other but also in how we think, act, and exist as a society.

The title is inspired by the 2019 superbloom in Walker Canyon, California. At first, it was just a quiet, beautiful event. But when influencers started posting photos, everything spiraled out of control. Huge crowds showed up, nature got trampled, accidents happened, and then the outrage moved online. It’s the perfect metaphor for modern communication: the more we share, the more chaotic things become. More information doesn’t always mean progress. Sometimes, it just fuels division, reaction, and noise.

The title immediately caught my attention because this is exactly how I’ve been feeling lately. Technology isn’t necessarily making society better. It’s speeding us up, making us more reactive, more impulsive, and more disconnected. It has widened the gaps between us, broken down political conversations, and left us stuck in a cycle of endless, fast-moving interactions that don’t always lead anywhere meaningful.

But what can we do? Superbloom doesn’t offer easy answers, but it does serve as a reminder: maybe we can’t change the system, but we can change how we engage with it. We don’t have to be glued to our screens 24/7. We can step back, take a breath, and reconnect with real life. The world isn’t going to slow down, but we still have the choice to.

Summary

Drowning in Digital Noise

We’re living in an age of endless digital noise with a constant flood of messages, notifications, and updates. Our phones have transformed us into walking transmitters and receivers, always connected, always engaged. But this nonstop communication comes with a cost. Without realizing it, we’re navigating a wave of unexpected consequences, from social disconnection to information overload, shaping our lives in ways we never anticipated.

The Power of Collective Minds

Society shapes individuals far more than individuals shape society. We’re deeply social creatures, constantly adjusting our thoughts and behaviors in response to the people around us. This is about personal influence and part of a larger “social mind,” a collective intelligence that emerges from the way we exchange ideas.

But it’s not just what we communicate that matters, it’s how. The tools we use to share information shape our perceptions, our thinking patterns, and ultimately, our consciousness. From spoken language to digital platforms, communication technologies don’t just transmit messages; they mold the way we see the world.

The Written Word and the Rise of Power and Individualism

The invention of writing transformed communication by freeing speech from the limits of voice and ear. Once words could be inscribed on papyrus or paper, they could travel across time and space with little distortion, outlasting the writer’s own lifetime. Writing preserved thoughts and tied language to tools, trade, and technology, ensuring that communication would evolve at an ever-accelerating pace.

Every communication medium carries power, and the written word became a tool of influence and control. Governments, churches, and rulers used it to extend their reach, shaping laws, doctrines, and policies while restricting access to written knowledge to maintain authority. Communication tools became tools of empire, determining who had the power to shape ideas and who was left voiceless.

At the same time, writing had a counterbalancing effect. For those who could read, it provided access to the thoughts of others, breaking the constraints of physical surroundings and local communities. The spread of written ideas accelerated knowledge and fueled the rise of individualism. As books and documents circulated across generations, people gained greater exposure to different perspectives, decentralizing influence and making intellectual and social connections possible beyond immediate circles.

The invention of writing preserved speech and reshaped the way humans think, govern, and connect with one another.

The Speed of Communication and the Fragility of Society

As communication accelerates, the once-stable foundations of society become fluid, shifting and reshaping as easily as water. Faster, more efficient ways of exchanging information connect people and give individuals more control over what they see and who they engage with. The ability to filter information based on personal beliefs or emotions can strengthen communities, but it can just as easily deepen divides. When people cluster into like-minded groups, factionalism grows, authority becomes more extreme, and social tensions intensify.

Technology itself is neutral, operating with the cold precision of networked computers. But human communication is anything but neutral. It carries love, anger, joy, resentment, and fear, emotions that shape how we interpret and spread information. The more seamlessly we connect, the more unpredictable the social consequences become. Instead of uniting us, faster communication might destabilize or even fracture society in ways we never anticipated.

The Collapse of Distinctions in the Digital Age

The rise of digital media has reshaped industries and regulations as well as erased the clear boundaries that once defined different kinds of information. In the analog era, distinctions in form, tone, and significance helped shape how we understood and valued information. Newspapers, books, television broadcasts, and academic journals all had distinct roles, each with its own standards and expectations.

But in the digital world, those distinctions have blurred. Everything—news, opinion, entertainment, scholarship—gets flattened into the same catchall term: content. The internet’s architecture demands speed, novelty, and endless interconnectedness, forcing all forms of expression to conform to its conventions. Instead of preserving meaning, the priority is now efficiency—fast creation, fast consumption, fast forgetting. As a result, depth gives way to immediacy, and the once-sturdy framework of knowledge collapses into an ever-scrolling stream.

Resonance Theory and the Power of Algorithms

In a world saturated with information, grabbing people’s attention is about tapping into what’s already in their minds. Schwartz’s resonance theory of communication suggests that the most effective messages don’t introduce entirely new ideas. Instead, they activate existing memories and emotions, making them feel instantly relevant and compelling.

This explains why algorithms, despite being mindless machines, wield such power over human attention. They don’t need to understand the meaning of a message. By analyzing behavioral patterns, they can predict what will resonate most with an individual: what will spark curiosity, fuel outrage, or reinforce existing beliefs. The strength of a social media feed isn’t in the content itself but in its ability to serve up exactly what triggers a reaction, keeping people hooked without them realizing why.

The Engineered Urge to Scroll

Modern communication is about sharing information and provoke reactions. Online feeds are filled with content engineered to stir strong emotions and trigger physiological responses: a quickened heartbeat, tensed muscles, dilated pupils. The nervous system is put on high alert, making us more likely to keep scrolling, keep watching, and keep sharing. Whether we realize it or not, social media is engaging and addictive. The algorithms behind it don’t simply organize content; they shape behavior.

These algorithms determine what we see and dictate how we see it. By filtering information, prioritizing certain forms of expression, and burying others, they subtly influence meaning itself. As anthropologist Margaret Mead observed, controlling information means controlling interpretation. And this isn’t new. Over a century ago, poet John Jay Chapman pointed out that people are rarely swayed by long arguments. Instead, passing phrases—snippets of overheard conversation, headlines glimpsed in passing: are what shape thought and change minds. In the digital age, algorithms amplify this effect, delivering bite-sized, emotionally charged fragments that stay lodged in our minds, steering our perceptions in ways we barely notice.

The Lost Art of Deep Thinking

Reading and writing, when done with care, slow the mind down. They encourage us to wrestle with complexity, to sit with the unfamiliar, and to refine our thoughts before expressing them. But in an age of constant digital conversation, where communication is rapid and reactive, we’ve traded depth for speed. Instead of using language to think for ourselves, we use it to respond, to keep up with the never-ending swirl of opinions around us. Quick, emotional judgments replace slow, reflective reasoning.

This shift favors impulsive reactions over measured assessments and reshapes how we engage with the world. Philosophical reflection, deep introspection, and contemplative thought have been pushed to the margins. The dominance of screens and instant communication makes it harder to experience art, literature, and ideas as transformative, as something that expands our consciousness rather than just feeding into fleeting debates. As Susan Sontag once wrote, art has the power to mystify and elevate human awareness, but in a culture driven by immediacy, that sense of transcendence is slipping away.

The Shift from Deep Reading to Rapid Recognition

In the endless stream of messages flashing across our screens, there’s no time for slow, careful reading. Instead of following a line of thought, we scan for patterns. Instead of crafting precise, structured writing, we condense ideas into visual cues and symbols. The goal is no longer depth. It’s efficiency. As Dutch communication professor Lieke Verheijen observes, what matters most is getting a message across as quickly and effectively as possible, even if it means discarding traditional language rules.

Keeping up with the flood of digital conversation demands constant skimming, rapid-fire reflexes, and a fragmented focus. Every second spent on one message means less time for everything else. In this environment, speed becomes a survival skill, and brevity is a social necessity. To stay visible, and to maintain connections, people must adapt to the relentless pace, sacrificing depth in favor of immediacy.

The Double-Edged Nature of Proximity

Neighbors often become friends simply because they see each other often. Frequent, casual encounters foster familiarity, which builds empathy and a sense of connection. But proximity can just as easily breed resentment. When someone’s habits or opinions become a constant source of irritation, that familiarity turns toxic. The closer they are, the harder they are to ignore, and over time, annoyance festers into hostility. Avoidance replaces friendly interaction, and what could have been a bond becomes a self-reinforcing cycle of enmity.

The internet has broken the link between social proximity and physical proximity. Now, we don’t just share space with a handful of neighbors. We share virtual space with millions. We’re exposed to more people’s opinions and behaviors than ever before, not just from those we know but from strangers, influencers, and algorithms pushing content into our feeds. The casual conversations that once built empathy have been replaced by an unfiltered, 24/7 stream of thoughts and arguments, making it easier to clash than to connect.

When More Information Leads to Less Liking

We often assume that getting to know someone better will make us like them more. But research suggests the opposite. The more information we have about a person, the more likely we are to find something that irritates or offends us. Instead of fostering connection, deeper self-disclosure can increase the chances of disliking someone.

This phenomenon, sometimes called a dissimilarity cascade, stems from the way we form social bonds. We naturally gravitate toward people who seem similar to us and feel less comfortable with those who appear different. The more we learn about someone, the greater the chance we’ll discover a trait, belief, or habit that disrupts that sense of similarity. Online, where exposure to people’s unfiltered thoughts and opinions is constant, this effect is amplified, turning minor disagreements into irreconcilable differences and making social interactions feel more fraught than ever.

The Age of Oversharing and the Rise of Digital Rivalry

With social media, oversharing has become second nature. Platforms reward constant self-disclosure, turning likes, shares, and views into measures of social status. In the physical world, presence is enough. We exist even in silence. But online, to stop posting is to vanish.

As personal details flood the internet, people see both what they have in common with others and where they differ. But familiarity doesn’t always lead to connection. It can also fuel resentment. The more we see of someone’s life, the greater the chance of feeling irritation, envy, or rivalry. Social media has made everyone more visible and turned everyone into a competitor.

Envy, in small doses, can be motivating. It pushes individuals to aim higher and can even bring attention to social inequalities. But at its core, envy is corrosive. It breeds dissatisfaction, fuels comparison, and strains relationships. In a world where everyone is constantly broadcasting their achievements, curated moments, and opinions, social media isn’t just a space for connection but also an arena for silent competition.

The Anti-Empathy Effect of Social Media

MIT social psychologist Sherry Turkle describes social media as an anti-empathy machine. By replacing face-to-face interactions with digital exchanges, we weaken our ability to truly understand others. Online, we don’t look each other in the eye. We don’t sit with someone long enough to fully grasp their emotions. Conversations become fleeting, fragmented, and easily abandoned.

Over time, heavy reliance on online communication affects how we connect and changes how we feel. Studies suggest that those who use social media the most struggle to read emotions, both in others and in themselves. Their ability to empathize erodes, making them less attuned to people’s feelings even when they step away from their screens. In the process, even self-awareness can dull, leaving them more reactive but less reflective. In a world where digital connection dominates, the cost may be a diminished capacity for real human understanding.

When Too Much Communication Backfires

Healthy relationships, whether personal or societal, depend on both communication and boundaries. Not all thoughts need to be shared, and not all conversations should be open-ended. Without limits, excessive communication overwhelms, triggering defensiveness, social withdrawal, and even conflict. More connection doesn’t always mean stronger bonds. In fact, too much self-disclosure can backfire, eroding the very sense of mutual understanding it was meant to build.

The internet, by design, resists privacy and secrecy. But a well-functioning society doesn’t just encourage self-expression—it also protects personal boundaries. When openness is forced, when privacy is treated as outdated, communication stops being a bridge and starts becoming a battlefield. Instead of fostering harmony, the pressure to constantly share can lead to division.

Social media brings undeniable benefits, but they come at a cost. As digital connections multiply and messages flood in, relationships stretch thin. Mistrust grows, tensions escalate, and what was once meant to bring people together starts pulling them apart. At a certain point, communication overload doesn’t strengthen social ties. It unravels them.

The Double-Edged Sword of Unfiltered Expression

Social media has turned self-expression into an endless, unchecked stream. While this flood of content keeps platforms thriving, it doesn’t necessarily enrich individual lives. Instead, it breeds envy, hostility, and a sense of social claustrophobia. What was once private now becomes public, with personal lives transformed into broadcast material.

In some ways, this shift has made political discourse more personal, rooting agendas in the lived experiences of individuals. But at the same time, it has deepened divides. Even at the dawn of the digital age, some skeptics warned that unrestricted speech wouldn’t necessarily strengthen democracy. It could just as easily foster factionalism and extremism. The democratization of media, rather than expanding political freedom, might instead erode its foundations.

Psychologists have long understood confirmation bias: people instinctively favor information that reinforces their existing beliefs while dismissing anything that challenges them. In an era of unlimited content, this bias is amplified. Rather than leading to a richer, more nuanced public discourse, the sheer volume of information often results in fragmentation, polarization, and the erosion of political community. When every voice competes for attention, meaningful conversation drowns in the noise.

The Illusion of Reality and the Power of Stereotypes

No one sees the world exactly as it is. Instead, we navigate a pseudo-environment which is a mental representation of reality shaped by our education, personality, and experiences. For some, this mental model is a structured, scientific framework; for others, it’s a patchwork of biases, assumptions, and even outright hallucinations. Either way, it’s never a full and accurate picture of reality. This explains why people’s beliefs and behaviors often seem baffling to one another. We may live in the same world, but we think and feel in entirely different ones. And because our understanding of reality is built from the information we receive, we’re especially vulnerable to manipulation.

To make sense of an overwhelming world, we rely on stereotypes, mental shortcuts that help us categorize information quickly. Instead of analyzing every new detail, we intuitively fit things into familiar patterns drawn from our moral values, political leanings, and cultural influences. Art, literature, and entertainment all contribute to these mental templates, shaping how we see the world before we even realize it.

The more distracted we are, the more we rely on these shortcuts. Rapid, shallow processing becomes the norm, reinforcing snap judgments rather than critical thought. Even when we do engage in deeper reflection, our focus is necessarily limited. We can’t analyze everything in detail. As we age, our habits and opinions become more fixed, and these stereotypes grow even stronger, filtering our reality and making it harder to see beyond our preconceptions.

When More Knowledge Leads to More Bias

It seems logical that the most informed and politically engaged individuals would have the clearest, most objective understanding of the issues. But research suggests the opposite. The more people immerse themselves in politics, the more rigid and distorted their perceptions become, especially when it comes to understanding those with opposing views. Highly educated and politically active individuals are often the least accurate in assessing the beliefs and motivations of those they disagree with. Instead of fostering open-mindedness, deeper engagement can reinforce ideological blind spots.

Simply increasing the flow of information doesn’t necessarily lead to better discussions or more thoughtful debates. If anything, it widens the gap between the mental worlds people construct (pseudo-environments) and the reality in which they live and act. More sources don’t always mean more clarity; they often mean more noise, more selective interpretation, and more reasons to dig into pre-existing beliefs.

Despite the widespread belief that political opinions are based on careful reasoning, they are more often shaped by emotion and group identity. People don’t just analyze facts and form conclusions—they align with their tribe. Political affiliation is less about logic and more about belonging, which is why evidence rarely changes minds and debates rarely lead to meaningful shifts in perspective.

The Snowball Effect of Group Beliefs

Ideas don’t spread in isolation. They snowball. One person makes a claim, another repeats it, and soon, without firsthand knowledge, more and more people accept it as truth. As belief in the claim grows, it becomes a marker of group identity, reinforcing social norms. Whether the claim is true, half true, or entirely false doesn’t matter. Once a group embraces it, it takes on a life of its own. The result is a shared pseudo-environment, where members see the world through the same lens, often disconnected from reality.

Social media supercharges this process. By making it easy to find and connect with like-minded individuals, platforms encourage the rapid formation of insular groups. Within these groups, informational cascades—a steady flow of reinforcing messages—strengthen existing beliefs and make them harder to challenge. The more frequently a message appears in a feed, the more credible it seems. Repetition, in the human mind, serves as a stand-in for truth. The more we hear something, the more likely we are to believe it, even if it has no basis in fact.

In a world of endless digital echo chambers, it’s not reason that determines what we accept as true. It’s familiarity.

Polarization Thrives on Opposition, Not Just Echo Chambers

It’s easy to blame polarization on algorithm-driven filter bubbles, but the reality is more complex. Politically engaged individuals don’t just seek reinforcement for their own views. They actively consume and share stories about their opponents. But instead of prompting reflection, exposure to opposing viewpoints often strengthens their certainty. Rival perspectives aren’t treated as opportunities to learn. They’re framed as threats, fueling outrage rather than curiosity.

This means you don’t need to be trapped in an echo chamber to become more extreme. In fact, confrontation with opposing beliefs can be just as radicalizing as reinforcement. The more people engage in political discourse, the more they amass “evidence” to justify their stance, not by considering alternative arguments but by framing every disagreement as proof of the other side’s ignorance or malice. In this way, polarization isn’t just a byproduct of social media algorithms but it’s also a deeply human response to tribal identity, amplified by the speed and scale of digital communication.

My Favorite Bits

To stand in the way of communication is to stand in the way of progress.

Nicholas Carr, Superbloom: How Technologies of Connection Tear Us Apart

Our personal experience distorts our understanding.

Nicholas Carr, Superbloom: How Technologies of Connection Tear Us Apart

---

Author: Nicholas Carr

Publication date: 28 January 2025

Number of pages: 272 pages

---