"Online feuds" as a national sport? A social psychologist explains why Ukrainians engage in intense arguments on the internet.

In Ukrainian social networks, there isn't a week that goes by without a public dispute, as exemplified by the loud excerpt from journalist Vitaliy Portnikov's interview regarding mobilization (not all commentators watched the video).

In just one month, we, as a society, managed to argue over at least four "fertile" topics. In particular, there was no hesitation in criticizing the partially AI-generated book cover from the "A-BA-BA-HA-LA-MA-HA" publishing house, and there was backlash over Mazepa's saber in the ring in Riyadh and the Hanukkiah on Maidan.

Why are these "arguments" so popular, why are Ukrainians so combative behind screens, and is this a unique trait of ours? Political psychologist and leading researcher at the Department of Mass and Community Psychology at the Institute of Social and Political Psychology of the National Academy of Educational Sciences of Ukraine, Vadim Vasyutinsky, explained to Telegraph.

Self-affirmation at the expense of others. Why is this popular?

The level of this phenomenon is approximately the same across different societies, says Vasyutinsky. However, it is somewhat less prevalent in democratic societies, where citizens have already become accustomed to freedom of speech, which is a long-standing tradition.

"Why does it seem that we have relatively more of this phenomenon? We are a young democracy that has only recently gained this freedom. Thirty years is quite recent in a historical and psychological context. Internal needs do not change in a year or two; they are a generational issue. When people who were deprived of the opportunity to express themselves freely finally get it, they initially feel afraid and hesitate to say anything. They start to act. And in many cases, they act inadequately, abusing this freedom," Vasyutinsky noted.

The second aspect is psychological. The basis for the abuse of freedom and the insult of others lies in a need for self-affirmation. According to the psychologist, every individual needs self-affirmation in society. This trait varies from person to person: some assert themselves at every turn, while for others, the need is less noticeable.

"This need originates in childhood and becomes most pronounced during adolescence, when a child tries to become an adult. In this pursuit, they learn to be independent, achieve results, and take responsibility for them… When a teenager needs self-affirmation, to express themselves, to attract interest and admiration in adequate ways — in intellect, art, sports — they face fewer problems. However, only a minority — about 10%, perhaps 20% — can gain recognition through such adequate methods. The majority lack those methods to attract attention," says Vasyutinsky.

As a result, some teenagers, especially boys, resort to self-affirmation by humiliating others. The idea is that if I humiliate those around me, I elevate myself in my own eyes and assert myself.

This behavior among teenagers persists in a certain portion of adults.

"They are most willing and effective in using this method of self-affirmation through the humiliation of others. This is a minority. But it is a very noticeable minority. They are usually active. In offline settings, such individuals are often disliked and feared," Vasyutinsky explains.

The Internet has made such individuals more noticeable

Before the internet, this behavior was not as noticeable. Yes, the need for self-affirmation through the humiliation of others existed, but the network allowed such individuals to manifest themselves.

"The internet has given each of us the opportunity to declare ourselves to the world. Now you can do it any way you want, to whomever you want, wherever you want. For instance, you can harshly criticize a politician, a singer, a blogger, or anyone conscious. Insult them, humiliate them, and feel satisfied." You have satisfied this need, thinking, 'What a great job I've done.' And not just in your own eyes, but also in the eyes of those who will read it," the psychologist shares.

The ability to declare oneself to the world is tempting. It provokes people to assert themselves aggressively.

"Those specialists who assess someone objectively usually do so in a non-aggressive manner. There may be political battles and discussions, but for the most part, they do not use profanity and avoid humiliation. More often, it is incompetent individuals who resort to humiliations, compensating for their lack of competence (which they are unaware of). They suppress others through aggressive pressure and force," Vasyutinsky explains.

This is compounded by the anonymity of online communication. People hide behind their anonymous avatars and do not reveal their identities.

"Many of them derive satisfaction from being able to express their opinions anonymously, writing anything they want. Social psychologists have long noted this characteristic of internet communication. Such heated discussions online are much harsher than in real life," the expert points out.

On the internet, nothing is restricted; you are not dependent on that person. Anonymous communication feels almost unreal. On the other hand, it also satisfies our need for self-affirmation.

The effectiveness of harsh expressions in online disputes is highly exaggerated.

However, people feel that they have said something somewhere? and that it is immediately accepted as truth.

Why society will always argue

Regarding the situation with Portnikov, he indeed touched on some complexes of a significant part of society that does not want to fight, Vasyutinsky states. This was a case where Portnikov poured salt on an open wound.

"But here, a portion of people reacted, desperately avoiding that very participation. People try to explain it somehow. They do not want to think that they are cowards and scoundrels; instead, they should somehow interpret and justify it. One of the popular justifications is, 'Why should I fight when the children of deputies do not fight?' I don't know the percentages, but that (the assertion that the elite and their children do not fight – Ed.) is not entirely true. Portnikov effectively devalued this argument… He often employs a somewhat ironic tone regarding many issues. And here, he also vividly demonstrated it. Not only did he say that you should fight, but he also slightly mocked these so-called ordinary people. This caused outrage. Formally, it was not entirely correct," the psychologist explains the reaction received.

At the same time, there is a dichotomy of "us vs. them" — we unite with our own and oppose ourselves to others. The inherent dream of many ideologists that people will one day unite is very naive.

"That will never happen. It may happen temporarily if aliens invade Ukraine; then people will unite for a while. I do not believe that humanity will ever meet aliens; the probability is almost zero. This means that humanity will never fully unite," the psychologist concludes.

How to negotiate better

Vasyutinsky admits that it is difficult to give any advice here. After all, if a person needs to vent their anger, they need to do so.

"They can do this at home, with family. Or they can do it online. If you have to choose where to do it, it's better to do it online. So I can't even say: don't vent. Holding negative emotions inside is not recommended; they need to be released on someone or something. When the internet did not exist, people were advised to make a model of their boss and hit it. In this sense, the internet even performs a certain psychotherapeutic function. Because some people do not know how to build their emotional self-regulation in any other way," the psychologist notes.

As for public figures, opinion leaders, politicians, and journalists who set the tone for discussions, there is one piece of advice. It is essential to avoid overly radical opinions and judgments. They can only be justified in extreme situations.

"When we say we need to understand or justify Putin, that is unacceptable. The objective situation is: either we or they… But in other contexts, when there is no such need, in evaluating relationships among Ukrainians, one should express their thoughts correctly. It is necessary to be knowledgeable, that is, to have a vocabulary, without resorting to insults and humiliation," Vasyutinsky explains.

The psychologist concludes that in matters not concerning the enemy, one should be as moderate as possible.

Earlier, "Telegraph" reported on how paramedic Ptychka addressed Ukrainians and urged them to avoid disputes.