Thanks to the internet, we live in a strange age of parasocial relationships — one-sided connections with online personalities. Social media users feel they know the people they read, watch and follow. Ever since Google declared me an “internet personality” (Google “Nick Kossovan”), the number of “I feel like I know you” messages and comments has significantly increased.
But you don’t truly know someone based solely on their social media activity. What you know is the content they selectively choose to share. You know them in fragments, not as a complete person.
Faithfully watching someone’s videos, reading and commenting on their Facebook and Instagram posts, reposting their tweets and taking their words to heart makes many feel the online strangers they have chosen to give their time and attention to hold a significant place in their lives. That is the illusion social media creates.
When social media matured in the early 2010s, it accelerated quickly, cutting many of the threads that hold our social fabric together. Instead of interacting predominantly with people within your immediate community, you could now spend your time online with like-minded individuals, or let your ego, fuelled by feelings of moral superiority, get the better of you and wage war against strangers whose beliefs, values and opinions differ from yours. In my opinion, the most harmful aspect of social media in terms of undermining social harmony is its tendency to amplify the us-versus-them paradigm.
What is easier? Trying to get along with your God-fearing socialist uncle during holiday gatherings, or retreating to a corner, pulling out your smartphone and engaging with like-minded strangers who share your beliefs and values?
Most people do not log onto social media searching for a debate. Inherently, we are tribal. We seek and want to be with our tribe, where we feel we belong and are welcomed. Often, our tribe becomes our label, which we protect fiercely. The moment a stranger’s post disgraces our label, it is like stepping on a Lego in the dark. Suddenly, you are upset, and a surge of dopamine hits your brain, triggering an emotional roller-coaster ride filled with angst.
We are too easily agitated by the most inconsequential things: the opinions of strangers. Why do we allow ourselves to be bothered by a stranger’s politics, religion, point of view or video on how to cook a steak, which inevitably leads to a debate over whether it is undercooked or overcooked? The answer lies in human psychology 101, specifically, confirmation bias.
People tend to seek information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs while avoiding information that challenges them. When we encounter posts that contradict or, worse, challenge our views, especially if the post is from someone we feel we know, it creates a primal need to defend ourselves against the perceived attack. It is worth noting that ignoring evidence that contradicts our beliefs and values is a psychological coping strategy that keeps our minds closed.
Consider this: should you really invest emotionally in the opinions of strangers? As I mentioned at the beginning, social media creates an illusion of intimacy, drawing us into online conversations. When the dialogue we seek is not forthcoming, we feel as though we are shouting into a digital void, leaving us unheard, insignificant, frustrated and angry, emotions that have become increasingly prevalent.
Moreover, to avoid taking ownership of our emotions, we have an inherent tendency to attempt to control others’ beliefs and ideologies. This is ultimately futile since individuals possess free will and autonomy.
Civility on the internet could be achieved if everyone followed what I believe should be the internet’s No. 1 rule: instead of trying to prove someone wrong, consider how they may be right. This is not a diplomatic way of saying “mind your own business.” It is a strategy for cultivating healthier online interactions and potentially connecting all of us to the, albeit exaggerated, notion of an ongoing organic infinite love story.
Imagine an online world where, instead of jumping into a heated argument, everyone pauses to understand the perspectives of others and approaches posts and videos with curiosity instead of immediate judgment.
“But, Nick, some people are just plain wrong!” Sure, some opinions may seem misguided to you, but will engaging in a digital shouting match change the other person’s supposed misguided opinion? Whether online or offline, arguing rarely changes a person’s mind; it usually just reinforces it.
The first step to not being bothered by what others do online is to let go of your need to control their narrative. Additionally, accept that it is not your place to police others’ actions. When you feel the urge to respond, take a deep breath and ask yourself, “Is this worth my time?” Hint: it is not.
The emotional investment people make in the lives of strangers will forever baffle and, to some extent, disturb me. Today, too many people are engaging in heated online debates with people they have never met — and likely never will — over topics and issues that ultimately make no difference. When the stranger you have been arguing with logs off and returns to real life, they will continue to believe or do whatever got you upset. And the sun will rise tomorrow.
Nick Kossovan, a self-described connoisseur of human psychology, writes about what’s on his mind from Toronto.
©
The commentaries offered on Â鶹´«Ã½ are intended to provide thought-provoking material for our readers. The opinions expressed are those of the authors. Contributors' articles or letters do not necessarily reflect the opinion of any Â鶹´«Ã½ staff.
