Social media has evolved from being a space where discussion and nuance between individuals thrive, to a place where the loudest and most confident argument elicits stronger attention and approval despite it lacking an empathic approach or grounded evidence.
Since the COVID-19 pandemic that caused millions of people around the world to isolate within their homes, I have noticed a significant difference in how society perceives and interacts with social media. In these last five years, we have all seen how social media has gone from being a frequently misunderstood, mocked and ridiculed medium to becoming normalized and respected by our peers.
According to the research paper “Social media use during COVID-19 worldwide – Statistics & Facts,” a survey by Stacy Jo Dixon found that there is around a 20 percent increase in social media use since the pandemic. These new users have contributed significantly to a new era of social media where consumerism, usage and social interactions have become a dominant form of communication.
When we consider how social media allows users to interact with others through anonymous pseudonyms or without the consequences of face-to-face confrontations, we can notice that many people have been discussing topics that they have little (or no) experience in. Many users can easily be seen arguing about why a piece of art is bad or what the best way to do something is. Many of these arguments would not hold much validity in real-life discussions because it would be easy to assess whether a person knows what they’re talking about and if they are actually participating in the industries that they criticize.
On social media, you could hear an opinion from a Grammy-winning artist on a throwaway account, or a perspective from someone who has never touched an instrument in their life. This inevitable conflict is bound to happen, especially when we realize that we will likely never meet the person on the other end of the screen.
In many ways, social interactions have become transactional rather than empathic and knowledgeable, but many people adopt overconfidence as a defense mechanism to reinforce their beliefs, knowing that confident rhetoric is more likely to get engagement than nuanced discussion. After all, most Grammy-winning artists are not spending their whole day on X or Reddit arguing about why another artist is perceived as annoying or fragile.
With the layers of complex topics constantly being explored and discussed on social media, I believe it is more important than ever to understand when to choose your battles and speak out versus observe and learn. If you are not a mathematician, it would be easy to Google the answer to a question and respond to a social media post with the answer; however, when you start to debate with another mathematician who came up with a conflicting answer and explains why, rather than becoming defensive, it would likely be more productive to accept that your answer that you received from another source may be incorrect.
From considering multiple perspectives and observing how conversations like these play out, I have noticed that many people on social media want to prove a point because it gives them a sense of reassurance and validation that they have difficulty finding in their everyday life. Realistically, these same people would not double down on their perspective when someone calls their bluff with further research in real life. Many of them would apologize, or avoid the confrontation entirely. However, on social media, we are able to interact without the emotional repercussions of social rejection.
For these many reasons, the bias of overconfidence has converted a social space that originally existed to empower and share information to a space where conflict, humiliation and stubbornness get the most attention—even if the information stated is incorrect. It seems many people on social media are more interested in the entertainment value of someone losing a debate rather than meaningful conversation.
The next time you are scrolling on social media and see a debate or “hot take,” question how it makes you feel and how the other perspective may feel before liking it or responding. Is this an argument that you would defend in real life or confront someone with, or is this an argument that you find engaging because of the drama and stimulation?
