THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DIGITAL CONFLICT: Can We Coexist in a World of Diverging Beliefs?

by Shred Shreedhar

The other day, a WhatsApp group admin mentioned that anyone in the group could say or post anything, even if it hurt religious, political, cultural, or personal sentiments. His advice was simple: "If you don’t like it, just ignore it and move on." Yet, I’ve noticed how the same individual, when confronted with views that challenge his own beliefs, reacts strongly—often insulting others in defence of his sentiments.

?

It made me wonder: Why do people engage in these toxic exchanges? Is there a deeper psychological or philosophical force at play? Could it be that such arguments serve as a stimulant in an otherwise monotonous life? For some, these confrontations may be a source of excitement, giving them a sense of validation, power, or even superiority. This is not uncommon. Is it confirmation bias—the tendency to seek out information that aligns with our pre-existing beliefs—fuels the desire to win an argument, while the adrenaline rush that accompanies heated debates can act as an addictive emotional trigger?

?

Think about it: we live in an era of constant stimulation, and for some, provocative and controversial conversations online provide a thrill that distracts from life’s more mundane aspects. Could this be why some people wake up each day excited to dive into discussions that are offensive, insulting, or even sexist? It's not just about expressing opinions; it’s about the high that comes from the conflict itself. They feel invigorated, with the digital battlefield providing them a stage where they can assert dominance or gain attention.

?

Interestingly, when others join the fray to defend or counter these provocations, it forms a cycle of escalating insults, almost like a ritual of modern-day tribalism. Isn’t it fascinating how quickly people rally behind their tribe? I have read that psychologists call this in-group favouritism—the preference to support one’s group at the expense of others. In this case, it’s not just about agreeing on ideas, but about reinforcing a collective identity. It’s a primal instinct, deeply rooted in our need for belonging and validation.

?

But it wasn’t always like this, was it? I remember when we met in person—our conversations were different. We chose our words with care, understanding that a face-to-face exchange carried with it a responsibility to respect one another’s feelings. Even when we approached sensitive topics, we knew when to stop, drawing a clear line between healthy debate and outright insult. Why has this sense of empathy and respect eroded in the digital world?

?

Did the anonymity and distance offered by online interactions lead to a diminishing sense of accountability? There’s something about being behind a screen that emboldens people, allowing them to disregard the emotional consequences of their words. In the absence of real-world consequences, people are more likely to dehumanize others—the concept of online disinhibition effect. With fewer social cues to rely on, empathy can become an afterthought.

?

But the bigger question is: Are we losing our ability to coexist with differing ideologies? Can we truly embrace diversity while accepting that others will always hold beliefs that challenge our own? I believe we can. There’s so much we can learn from our differences if we approach them with curiosity rather than hostility. The richness of human experience lies in our diverse perspectives, and we can grow if we’re willing to listen, even when it’s uncomfortable.

?

Now, imagine a WhatsApp group where everyone shares the same views. Wouldn't it become monotonous? Where’s the growth in constantly hearing echoes of your own thoughts? Conversations would soon stagnate, and we’d miss out on the beauty of learning from others.

?

So, while the digital universe may foster a culture of insensitivity, it doesn’t have to. It’s up to us to decide whether we engage in meaningful dialogue or perpetuate the cycle of provocation and division. What do you think? Is there a way forward where we can bridge our differences, or are we doomed to be locked in endless digital battles?

?

THE END