Social Media and Understanding the Pain of Others

The Internet and social media pulled us all together so that our pain could lock us up in our own personal silos to protect us from each other.

There is a cruel irony to the development of the Internet and social media. First touted as a means to unify people the world over and share ideas with the goals of problem solving and exposing minds to evolving cultures for the sake of personal enrichment, we now find ourselves at the mercy of vicious partisanship, career-ending criticism, and those who could not care less about our personality or ideas but would love for us to hand over our data and money at the click of a button. From the outside it looks like the groups to really champion the Internet are there to push gambling, pornography, shopping, and popular but fact-less information, as we voluntarily hand over our personal and financial information for these trinkets.

In hindsight, the assumption that people would naturally begin to constructively debate within an atmosphere of civility once brought together is incredibly naïve. Why would we assume that everyone would hold themselves to the mandates of a good debate? Why would we assume that challenges to our fundamental ideas about life would result in pauses for thought or teaching moments for the adults involved? We rapidly found out that people are only good at debating when the person they are interacting with agrees with them, or that if enough links or book recommendations could be shared then surely an opponent would have to change their mind? When pushed hard enough on our beliefs, everyone quickly hears themselves saying, “It’s just what I believe.” We overlooked the fact that debating really is hard work, requires a lot of thought and study, and is also an acquired skillset.

The result of a good debate might not have somebody fundamentally agreeing with the opponent who bested them, but at least they could accept that their opponent listened to them and became familiar with and understood their viewpoint. The loss would also be accepted as a moment to either adjust their initial position or see if there are other ideas that could best their opponent’s views. Clearly, this result of anything that could be called an exchange of ideas is rare.

The fastest way to signal no interest in an exchange of ideas, intentional or not, is to level an insult, which is essentially the admission, “I don’t like you and I have nothing to learn from you.” The response to an insult can be varied; an escalation of further insults, ambiguous language to sort of show a rebuttal but not really, a last ditch attempt at reason, or as is becoming more popular, simple silence before there are larger implications. Responses to people also seem to indicate that the response is sometimes not really for the person in question, but for the entertainment or denigration of others, which is strange because it further removes the person in question from their initial communication, which means they have been used for the causes of another (not a comfortable feeling).

One mind blowing result of social media is that many people seem to have become comfortable verbally attacking strangers. This was largely unheard of in the days before social media. From the perspective of the assaulted, to be attacked on your opinions, comments, and jokes by people you do not know is harrowing. To be attacked, in addition to the immediate hurt caused, is to wonder why you were attacked, and if it came from a stranger, you might wonder why you were not given the benefit of the doubt or allowed the possibility of a nuanced response. In contemporary society, we respond strongly to attacks from strangers because it contravenes the civil(ish) society where we have otherwise thrived.

Put simply, there is no etiquette in a system of communication that has been designed to promote a person’s popularity, and this is fed by the idea that conflict creates drama, which creates interest, which is good for business. The system is also designed precisely for quick responses, boosting the chances of somebody replying while they are still feeling hurt and more likely to level insults or go all-in on an ill-advised response. 

The fact that offense is a common occurrence can come as no surprise.

To make matters worse, if somebody does have a legitimate need to share or discuss something personal, any perceived insult to this is likely to result in offense. Being unable to express oneself results in strong feelings of rejection and can lead to long lasting personal issues. This is particularly acute when it comes to aspects of identity; when our sex, gender, race, neurodiversity, and beliefs are insulted or misunderstood. However, it can also be frustrating if personal aspects of how we communicate are insulted or misunderstood, such as our sense of humor. In a system where our initial communication has already had its response, this snapshot in time is widely popularized, and the person is then viciously torn from the discussion as there is little interest in explanation or follow-up. The person being attacked is also not responsible for providing an explanation of the aggressor or their behavior, as they were the one attacked. It is not uncommon for someone to communicate an idea and then find themselves spinning in an exchange of ideas with no rules and are at the mercy of public opinion with little control over the outcome. For a person whose livelihood is tied to their marketability and public interest, this could be especially damaging.

Hopefully, we will collectively come to a crossroads. Regardless of identity or beliefs, social media is one of the most common ways for people the world over to communicate, and as we have seen it is inherently unfriendly, and at once so impersonal but with serious personal implications. Social media use for short term communications that are posted or shared as full stops carry the smallest risk, but this is not a means for lengthy or deep communication that will boost our collective understanding of complex social and political issues in any meaningful way.

Popular social media exchanges that become saturated with insults and popularity pile-ons do show us something else that is often overlooked.

People are in pain.

The need to share personal information about identity and experience is often an attempt to see if others experience similar things. Finding a community of like-minded individuals is arguably a bold step towards providing inner wellbeing. If a person struggles with acceptance, they take a risk in sharing personal information about how they do not feel accepted with the hope the experiences and encouragement from others will help to minimize the constant self-directed negativity they feel.

There is obviously a psychology to being attacked, as one person attacking forces the other person to defend, and even worse, perceived attacks force a person to defend. Their attitude and approach to communicating will no longer be neutral and will become defensive; this is the point where good intentions and benefit of the doubt are lost. The way people become defensive can vary, but we do see that doubling down or becoming even more committed to views and ideas is common. This means that during these exchanges, people will become more partisan, or even start to become radicalized. The idea of healthy debate slips further away.

There is an argument to be had that people hearing an opposing viewpoint or a joke, should be mindful enough not to interpret it as an attack or a threat and should be able to understand nuance and the complexity of concepts. There is also the power to ignore these responses, which is easy if you are alone with your phone, tablet, or laptop. Why do people seem unable to exercise these responses? This is another complex issue. It assumes that most adults are rational, comfortable with themselves, and in control of their egos and anger. They are not. And currently, claiming that people should be able to exercise control over their exposure to information they do not like is not a defense – further admittance that most adults are irrational, not comfortable in their own skin, and not in control of their egos and anger. The common response of “words have consequences” would be meaningless if most adults had control over themselves.

These are all characteristics of people in pain.

Putting aside the great existential threats of our time, global warming and nuclear war, surely the greatest moral threat right now is how we decide to acknowledge the pain of others? When enough of us are in pain, healthy exchanges of ideas stop, the ability to enjoy a shared partisan-neutral culture stops, our communication systems only serve to amplify pain, and we see more radicalization and group acceptance of people into groups that bolster fringe and destructive ideas. There is no easy answer to this dilemma, bit with responses we could start by making better choices about who we respond to and how we decide to respond. If somebody’s initial post is compelling you to attack, then maybe, don’t? Social media (outside of closed groups) is not there to help resolve deep, personal issues; keep that for your therapist and for those close to you.

With better decisions and better control over our reactivity, maybe we could all get to a better place.