How does self-perception affect our use of social media?

by Ray Davies-Van Voorhis

Many have readily assumed either the best or the worst of the internet and the ways in which it shapes our communication styles and relationships with ourselves and others. I will argue that the ways in which we see ourselves and others online are not entirely new, and to treat them as such is to ignore the nuance of human interaction. Patterns of behavior observed in online interactions do not differ so drastically from other forms of communication. The ability to remain anonymous and the potentially incomplete nature of online communication can both increase negative forms of engagement, but the impulse for self-preservation that is oft cited alongside these factors is not unique to the internet. The positive benefits of interaction and engagement across a widening audience and into narrower niches should not be forgotten in value-laden discussions of the internet. The internet is also not monolithic, and has a myriad of different spaces with their own of norms, all of parallel and conflict with different real world norms, that merit consideration even without carry moral values.

The concept of polarization, especially in politics and religion, is not new to broader discussions of public and social media in the U.S., but the psychological underpinnings of human interaction that facilitate this polarization are neither fundamentally political nor religious. Social media, and in fact any other methods of communication or archives, require a persona or stance, and while this is not inherently harmful, it does beg the question: how do we see ourselves and others online, and how do those perceptions change the ways in which we converse, argue, and come to conclusions about the topics we discuss?

There does not yet exist much conclusive research on this topic, or much direct research at all, but the ways in which human beings understand themselves and those around them has long been pondered by philosophers, scientists, theologians, and everyday people. The most complicating factor is not that we see ourselves incompletely, but that we either do not or cannot acknowledge which parts of ourselves we perceive incorrectly. While many are capable of acknowledging their biases, preferences, or personality quirks, when debate arises they are usually unwilling to cite their own blind spots as a cause or contributing factor. The term blind spot is particularly apt here, not just because people are blind to certain arguments, issues, or their own faults, but that they are also unable to see these blind spots at all.

How do we perceive ourselves on social media?

Just like political polarization, the issues surrounding self-perception did not emerge in the digital age, but are brought into close focus through the lens of social media. This focus does not bring additional clarity, but has intensified the conversation surrounding self-perception. To present oneself differently in different context strikes very few as dishonest, manipulative, or otherwise problematic, but the rapidly expanding access to different communities provided by social media, combined with unprecedented anonymity, has created a barrage of extreme cases of misrepresentation and nefarious behavior.

Different conversational contexts carry different norms, so it makes sense that one would speak differently at an academic conference than in the comfort of one’s own home, and this difference does not carry any moral connotations. For example, if Raymond works in an office, participates in a community bowling league, lives with a roommate, and visits his family on the weekends, we would be very willing to accept that he acts differently in these different spheres. A suit and polite form of communication at work, bowling shoes and jokes at the bowling alley, sweatpants and casual conversation at home, and a favorite shirt and relaxed catch-ups when visiting his family would be not only acceptable, but expected by the majority of observers.

The problem I seek to address arises in online spaces, as they are used in a variety of ways, typically have little to no moderation, and are perceived differently by users. For example, Raymond may use social media to communicate only with close family and friends, while others actively seek to address the largest audience possible with their arguments and opinions. While I will not be addressing whether either approach is right or wrong in a moral sense, it is notable that in the in-person corollaries for these two approaches generally are associated with very different moral and normative frameworks, but in these online examples, the norm setting is not clear.

What does this mean for how we perceive ourselves on social media? Beginning with the assumption that we perceive ourselves imperfectly in all situations, I will take face-to-face interactions as the baseline from which other forms of exchanges may be evaluated, as I believe they have better established partial roles we play. While talking with family members, Raymond will see himself as a son and a brother, at bowling he is a team-member, and at work he is an employee, all of which have culturally accepted norms associated with them. He is unlikely to behave in ways that would be identified as outside of these norms, because in these scenarios he sees himself as those roles, and therefore will do what is expected of him as a son, team-member, or employee. While online, however, it is more likely that there will not be a previously established role with which he can identify, and so his perception of himself online is heavily influenced by the norms and roles he assumes. The internet is significantly less structured than most other spaces, which can lead to significant miscommunications, both in meaning and intention.

The norms that Raymond, or any of us, conform to in different arenas are almost never explicitly stated, so we rely on a combination of assumption and knowledge of roles. When entering unfamiliar situations, the human mind looks for familiar patterns to base new roles on. Pattern recognition frequently draws on similar situations which can lead to repeating behaviors based on little more than the fact that they have been observed or practiced before. When gathering information, this process can overlap and feed confirmation bias, or the usually unconscious psychological preference for new information that validates what you already hold to be true (Kolbert). This way of thinking further entrenches people in the roles that they first fill, and the associated preferences, biases, and beliefs, which cyclically reenforces that same initial self-image. Another method of situating oneself in a role is in relation to others, discussed below.

How do we perceive others on social media?

The same issues that plague our self-perception online are equally present when we consider others. As framed by Martin Buber, relationships can be sorted into I-It and I-Thou structures, both of which can emerge in more varied ways online than in-person. While he goes into significantly more detail about the ramifications of this distinction, the basic concept is that some relational approaches recognize the living reality of the entity we are interacting with. He distinguishes I-It relationships as focused on objects, while I-Thou relationships are ultimately connected to our relationship with God. Setting aside, as much as possible, the religious underpinnings of his argument, the distinction between I-It and I-Thou can be seen in online interactions in a way that has been less frequent in face-to-face situations.

Online personas are frequently not as fleshed out as human beings usually are, meaning they are easier to identify as “Its,” while also offering the opportunity for people to identify and create connections with ever more “Thous.” The upside of social media is that more I-Thou connections are possible through interacting with a greater number of people, as well as being able to find communities that might not be otherwise accessible in which productive dialogue on specific topics is fostered. Social media also creates more opportunities to strengthen I-It connections where they should not be, as people encountered on the internet do not carry the same moral realities as people encountered in person. If Raymond is already disposed to dislike those who do not share his love of bowling, he will be quick to discount their anti-bowling posts when he sees them on his social media feed. Considering that these people might be individuals with whom Raymond shares other interests or who are bringing up valid points about the tediousness of bowling as an athletic activity, it would behoove him to view them as part of a mutual, human community, rather than as an object of disagreement.

Perception of others can either be an external version of the same struggles faced with perception of oneself, or as a separate phenomenon. while intriguing, this debate is not my ultimate focus, as either approach creates the same issue of I-Thou versus I-It frameworks. When we encounter somebody who does not meet our expectations of the expected situational norms, our perception can be quite harsh, in contrast to the significantly more forgiving approach most people take when conversing face-to-face. While social media does not necessitate conflict or disrespectful communication, it provides the tools to heighten existing conflicts of personality and perspective, while removing the normative baseline and understanding that many people rely on to find common ground.

There also exists danger, as outlined above, in how we create, fill, and habituate the roles we play in different environments, and our self-perception is undeniably connected to the roles that we perceive others to be filling. This relational understanding of oneself need not be negative or positive, but since the unconscious mental connection is already occurring, it is best to be aware of its effects. The roles and values given to others, whether they come chronologically before or after the roles and values we give ourselves, will always be tied to each other. Without his parents, Raymond does not have the role of son, without his roommate, he is not a roommate, and without his boss and workplace, he is not an employee. If these situations and roles were different, Raymond would not necessarily be better or worse off or a more or less valuable person in his own view or in the eyes of others, but he would not be held to the same expectations, because he would have a different set of roles. The ways in which we see other people will always be tied to the ways in which we see ourselves on any level, and adding opinions and value judgments does not change the fact of this confluence, but it does raise the stakes.

How does the existence and structure of social media combine with our perceptions of self and others to change the ways in which we interact online?

The existence of any new medium does not create new information itself, but innovation in the presentation and consumption of information will always lead to new opportunities for communication and miscommunication. This has been studied more fully in regard to journalism and politics, as they take up prominent space on the internet, as well as being considered a more important topic than Raymond’s bowling page on Facebook. Nevertheless, the same dynamics that are at play when social media is involved in altering the general public’s consumption of news remain relevant when getting into online arguments about someone’s identity, celebrity culture, religion, or bowling league rules. It has been shown that people view posts and headlines on social media for very brief periods of time and the frequency with which they read entire articles has decreased significantly (Martin). So while longing for a previous era of communication is not productive, the existence of social media has changed fundamentally changed news. The question remains: is it the amount and class of content that has caused this change, or is the existence of social media itself that has created these problems?

As described by Julia Galef in her book, The Scout Mindset: Why Some People See Things Clearly and Others Don’t, there are two modes of approaching the world: as a soldier or a scout. The soldier focuses on defending their territory against attack and prioritizing loyalty to their cause, while the scout searches for new information to make informed future decisions. The soldier mindset is incredibly valuable evolutionarily, especially in survival situations, but conversations on social media rarely entail life or death stakes. The scout mindset is much more likely to be useful in most of modern life, and especially on the internet, with an immense quantity of perspectives, in which many individuals and posts present relatively two-dimensional fronts. While the extent and nature of social media’s role in the communication woes of the internet age has not been conclusively decided, I feel comfortable asserting that these media lead the messages they present.

The notion of a medium making the message it presents is compelling, but as established, many of our current communication issues are based on essentially human issues involving perception, and so the medium cannot carry all the blame. The medium does channel certain messages better than others, and encourage the creation of certain types of content. This directionality will inevitably steer the general flow of discourse within certain websites, apps, or other corners of the internet, even if the internet as a whole remains unregulated by moral norms. So, even if Instagram does not force Raymond to post pictures of his herb garden, summer vacation, and new puppy, the format certainly encourages the presentation of visually appealing content. Again, this need not be negative, and may even be positive in Raymond’s case, but even so, he is presenting a curated image, and it is one that others will internalize into their perception of him.

Conclusion

This may seem to be a negative starting point from which to go into future online encounters, but try to take it as a comfort that the problems of communication via social media are not entirely novel. There are no easy conclusions for a topic such as this, as self-regulation and a scout mindset are the only evergreen tools, but at its root, all human communication is flawed. It has been said that in terms of technology, “anything that is developed before we turn 35 is exciting, and whatever comes after that is treated with suspicion,” which I take as still more proof that the problems we face today are not new ones, simply this generation’s version of an internal problem (Bell). If Socrates was worried about the invention of writing in the same way that we are currently concerned about social media, perhaps we can take the continued educations of humanity as proof that not all dire predictions about newfangled systems come true (Plato).

While I remain hopeful that social media has not created a new behemoth, I am aware that it effectively funnels the preexisting conflicts of perception, self-perception, image-making, and our relationship with the truth into a perfect storm. The ability to remain anonymous, the soldier’s instinct to protect and preserve identities and beliefs, the broadest ability to engage in human history, the lack of organization and moral structure, the sheer variety of communities and discussions, and the unusual combination of near-infinite storage and the sensation of ephemerality should not be taken lightly, especially in combination. With an honest and realistic perspective in mind, we should ensure that bad behavior on the internet is not excused in the way that bad behavior while inebriated so often is. In both conditions, the core of the individual remains unchanged, and the suggestion that their actions should be exempt from the situational norms and morals due to a superficial agent remains a flimsy excuse. While the root causes of human miscommunication and misperception may be unavoidable, remaining aware of how we use roles and refusing to cling to logic that places the blame for perceived issues only on social media platforms or only on individuals can go a long way towards improving our collective perception of one another.

Resources

Bell, Vaughan. “Don’t Touch That Dial.” Slate, February 15, 2010.

Buber, Martin. I and Thou. Translated by Walter Kaufmann. New York, Scribner, 1970.

Galef, Julia. The Scout Mindset: Why Some People See Things Clearly and Others Don’t. New York, Portfolio/Penguin, 2021.

Kolbert, Elizabeth. ‘Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds.” The New Yorker, February 19, 2017.

Martin, Nicole. “How Social Media Has Changed How We Consume News.” Forbes, November 30, 2018.

Plato, Phaedrus, trans. Robin Waterfield (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).