None of us like people who don’t think like us, who stand against our actions, our ideas, and the freedoms we feel entitled to. In fact, this ‘dislike’ situation easily turns into anger and hatred when it comes to communication and easily becomes a quarrel.

These effects, which are felt more passively in daily life, have reached a completely different dimension when it comes to social media. I’m sure everyone has at least once had a heated argument with someone who doesn’t think like them on social media, got angry, and pressed the buttons with trembling hands while tweeting.

So what is it that angers us so much, turns us against each other, and makes us intolerant? Let’s take a closer look.

In order to better understand what is going on, we have two guests; Cin Ali and Cin Ayşe

These two people do not know each other. It cannot be said that they have much in common in life. But social media is very powerful in this regard; somehow they find themselves ‘talking’ about a topic on Twitter. What they talk about can be any topic. Let’s call it ‘eating avocado’ because it’s not what it’s about.

• Cin Ali confidently said, “Eating avocados is nonsense. Eating and selling avocados should be banned,” he says.
• Cin Ayşe gets very angry about this because she loves to eat avocados. He answers immediately; “It’s ridiculous not to actually eat avocados. If you don’t want to die early, you have to eat avocado, but what do you know. Shut up, don’t talk!”
• Cin Ayşe is enraged by these conversations, which she sees as a threat to her freedom to eat avocados. Because this is clearly an attack on their personal freedom and ideas.
• Cin Ali, on the other hand, states that avocado is not that beneficial for human health; He learned something about the avocado trade harming the ecological balance, and he has good reasons. He gets angry at these reactions.

But the fight escalates as both of them cannot explain themselves in a healthy way due to the sharp language of the argument and the anger it creates.

This pointless and pointless discussion between Cin Ali and Cin Ayşe has a very effective explanation in psychology.

You have witnessed that when you tell a child not to do something, he stubbornly does it. When you say you can help a friend with something he/she has done wrong, you may have gotten the answer ‘no need, I can do it’…

There is a situation called ‘reactance’ that explains the reason for all these behaviors. According to this theory, which is also known as the ‘Psychological Reactivity Theory’, when a person encounters a prohibition or implied expressions that he believes will limit his or her freedoms, he or she has a tendency to ‘obstinately do’ that behavior and take back his freedom. While doing this, he exhibits an aggressive attitude.

This prohibition or expressions that imply a ban create feelings of anger and hatred in people. Any person, an offer, rules or regulations can create this reaction in people.

The reaction that occurs is so instinctive, powerful and real that some studies have found that people’s heart rates change at these moments, and that anger and hatred are physically reflected in the human body.

Let’s go back to Cin Ali and Cin Ayşe and adapt this situation and find out what went wrong;

• When Cin Ali says that eating avocado should be banned, Cin Ayşe sees this as a great threat to her freedom. As such, he gets angry and feels hatred towards Cin Ali.
• Cin Ali’s answer and expressions such as ’empty speech’ also anger Cin Ali because she also uses her freedom of expression in her own way and someone restricts her behavior and interferes with her freedom by saying ‘don’t speak’. So she gets angry too, she.

They both behave this way because of a natural reaction of human psychology. It doesn’t matter at this point which one is right and which one is wrong. What goes wrong is actually completely hidden in the language of communication.

Isn’t there a solution for this, are we going to eat each other like this?

You wouldn’t believe it, but there is a very easy solution to this situation. Correcting our expressions. For those who say how, I briefly summarize a research conducted on this subject;

People passing by on the street say ‘we have a survey, it’s very simple, it will only take 5-8 minutes of your time, come on.’ They went with such an approach and the participation was 70%. Then ‘it’s your decision to participate or not, but we have a survey. It will take 5-8 minutes. Would you like to participate?’ they asked. The participation rate increased to over 90% after these statements were added.

In other words, a positive effect is observed when it is stated that the freedom of choice and behavior is in the hands of a person, even during a very simple offer.

The solution is not to be silent, not to speak, not to express our ideas; While expressing it freely, it continues to do so in a language that everyone can freely do and that does not contain insults, hatred and anger.

In fact, freedom of expression is exactly that. We have the right to think and say whatever we want. However, as it is banned, restricted, threatened, unfortunately this situation has a negative effect rather than a positive effect.

In short, we tend to hate anyone who doesn’t think like us because we see their thoughts and actions as threats to our own freedoms. But it doesn’t have to be like that. It shouldn’t be that hard to accept that everyone can exist with their own ideas and behaviors…

Sources: 1. Understanding Psychological Reactance, 2. Persuasion and Psychological Reactance: the Effects of Explicit, High-Controlling Language, 3. Persuasive Storytelling by Hate Groups Online: Examining Its Effects on Adolescents, 4. Characterizing Reactance in Communication Research: A Review of Conceptual and Operational Approaches, 5. From Reactance to Political Belief Accuracy: Evaluating Citizens’ Response to Media Censorship and Bias