Why Good People Clash: Dissecting Social Media Conflicts
Over the last decade, social media has evolved from a space for connecting with friends and family into a battleground of ideas, where fierce debates and ideological clashes are the new norm.
Many assume that conflicts arise because others ignore “the facts,” believing that harmony would follow if everyone simply accepted the truth.
But is that always the case? I’d argue otherwise.
The Three Pillars of Disagreement
During my graduate studies in sustainability, I noticed recurring patterns of disagreement among experts despite sharing a common goal of building a sustainable future and dealing with the same facts.
They couldn’t agree on what sustainability meant. Even when they reached a consensus on the definition, they couldn’t agree on how to measure it. Even when there was agreement on definition and measurement, disagreements emerged about whether specific actions promoted or hindered sustainability.
Later, as I started my academic journey in social sciences, I realized this pattern wasn’t unique to sustainability or only among academic researchers.
Most human disagreements — academic or non-academic, online or offline — boil down to one or more of three core issues: morality, measurement, and causality.
Digging even deeper, all three issues share a common root — uncertainty.
Uncertainty in Morality: What Should We Do?
Morality may seem solid at first glance — a clear guide to what is right and wrong. However, it is a social construct shaped by time and place. A behavior deemed moral in one era or society might be viewed as immoral in another. This fluidity means that their interpretations can diverge widely even when people align on basic moral principles.
For example, although people share the moral principle of valuing societal well-being, they often disagree on how to maximize it. Some emphasize immediate needs, arguing that alleviating poverty and improving the lives of those suffering today should be the priority. In contrast, others contend that we must prioritize tackling challenges like climate change to ensure long-term well-being for present and future generations.
These conflicts are definitely not about facts. In fact, they are not even about a lack of moral values but divergent interpretations of shared principles.
Uncertainty in Measurement: How Should We Define and Quantify?
Suppose we reached a consensus on interpretations of shared principles. Would the fighting stop? Not really!
The next hurdle is measurement: defining and quantifying key constructs.
Take fairness, for instance. How do we define it? Is it treating everyone equally or giving more to those most in need? And once defined, how do we measure it? By outcomes? By opportunities?
Even in everyday situations — like dividing household chores, splitting a bill, or deciding on work promotions — people often disagree on what’s “fair.”
The measurement uncertainties create situations where even morally aligned people find reasons to fight. Definitions and practical benchmarks for fairness, justice, or responsibility are neither universal nor absolute. These uncertainties fuel endless debates in personal and societal contexts.
Uncertainty in Causality: What Causes What?
Even with consensus on morality and measurement, we’re left with the biggest challenge: causality.
Causality is difficult, if not impossible, to prove because it requires counterfactual evidence: observing what would happen if we could simultaneously exist in two (or more) identical worlds, differing only in the factor of interest.
Take Bee and Sea, a married couple wondering if their relationship makes them happier. To know for sure, they’d need to compare their current happiness to a counterfactual world where everything else is the same as in this world, except they are not married. Such comparisons are impossible because counterfactuals are, by definition, unobservable.
I find that causality lies at the heart of most human disagreements, both online and offline. This is because people often intuitively construct counterfactuals to confirm their preconceived notions. This often leads to disagreements that fundamentally revolve around whose counterfactual is more plausible.
Fighting in the Age of Social Media
Presumably, the uncertainty in morality, measurement, and causality has driven disputes as long as humans have existed. But social media adds a dangerous twist to the issue.
Instead of helping people realize and appreciate uncertainty — a fundamental aspect of the human experience — it amplifies certainty. It makes individuals more convinced of their perceptions of morality, measurement, and causality and more hostile to others’ perceptions. People begin to see those who disagree with them as existential threats rather than collaborators in gaining a more useful understanding of the human experience.
To make things worse, in places that lack strong social and political institutions, the hostile environment — created by a toxic interaction between algorithms and tribalistic human nature — turns intellectual disagreements into violence.
A Path Toward Civil and Productive Fighting
What can we do to reduce the toxicity of human disagreements in the age of social media?
I want to focus on two things.
First, experts need to help people realize that disagreements often arise from uncertainty about morality, measurement, and causality rather than bad intentions or not believing in facts. This is easier said than done; nevertheless, a necessity.
Second, experts should create accessible online content that helps people gain a fundamental understanding of statistical and causal inference — essential tools to deal with uncertainty.
While knowledge of these concepts may not directly address moral dilemmas, a broader understanding of ideas like confidence intervals can illustrate that measurements and predictions — even those made by the brightest minds using the best resources — carry inherent uncertainty.
Also, learning the circumstances under which correlation implies causation can prevent oversimplified conclusions. Understanding counterfactual reasoning can improve the quality of debates on societal issues such as gun laws and immigration policy.
Of course, these efforts will not end hostile online and offline conflicts. This is, at least partially, because most humans naturally prefer certainty over uncertainty. Certainty provides comfort, reinforces collective identities, and makes life meaningful. Even many scientists, who are trained to embrace uncertainty, succumb to this tendency.
Nevertheless, if we can help people recognize and appreciate uncertainty and equip them with the appropriate tools, we may foster greater compassion and reduce the hostility in human disagreements.
That’s not asking for too much, is it?
** If you found this article interesting, please consider following me! Also, please consider becoming an Email Subscriber so that you receive an email next time I post something!**
Interested in learning about how to attempt to know the unknown? 🤔
Here are some suggestions:
