I knew better, but I recently left a comment on a popular writer's Substack post. The writer and the topic don't really matter. What matters is that, as a result of that initial comment, I spent the rest of the day and evening arguing furiously with strangers on the internet.
Why? Why do I and many thousands of other people feel so compelled to participate in these unproductive virtual conflicts, despite knowing full well that they accomplish nothing other than upsetting ourselves (and maybe some anonymous strangers)?
I looked into it, and neuroscience has a few explanations.
The Diathesis-Stress Model
Diathesis is a fancy word for “tendency,” and the Diathesis-Stress Model is actually a lot more straightforward than it sounds. It simply theorizes that whether and how someone develops a psychological disorder depends both on that individual’s diathesis for it and the stressful events that trigger it. So, for example, if you have a tendency for depression, you might be okay until you experience a painful breakup or the death of a loved one. At that point, you would suffer more and longer-lasting depression than someone who went through the same experience, but did not have the same diathesis.
A diathesis can be for chronic conditions like depression, or acute issues like emotional reactivity. This, in part, explains why some people feel such a strong compulsion to argue on the internet while others do not. Reading a comment that expresses a point of view we believe is factually or ethically wrong is a stressor. But that stressor triggers the impulse to ignore our other obligations in order to type furiously on the computer keyboard for as long as it takes to make our point depends on our diathesis for emotional reactivity.
The HPA Axis
The term “emotional reactivity” may evoke an image (or memory) of someone “blowing up” or “flying off the handle.” Those simple terms actually describe a complex sequence of events happening inside the brain.
Neuroscientists often use the term “HPA Axis” to refer to the stress-response mechanism. H is for hypothalamus, P is for pituitary gland, and A is is for adrenal cortex. Together, these three structures within the endocrine system release hormones that influence the levels of important neurotransmitters within the brain. In other words, they control how upset we get.
The more sensitive a person’s HPA axis is, the more likely they are to react strongly to stressors. This sensitivity is governed by a variety of factors, including genetic predisposition, thought patterns, the presence of external stressors, and lifestyle factors like hunger and lack of sleep. This is why, if you’re “already having a bad day,” you’re much more likely to respond angrily to an internet comment than if you were feeling cheerful, rested, and relaxed.
Our Stone Age Brains
The size and structure of the human brain stopped changing around 300,000 years ago. So, while the external trappings of our lives may look different, what happens between our ears is stuck in the Stone Age. To our Paleolithic amygdala, reading an adversarial internet comment feels just like an unknown cave dweller appearing out of nowhere and shouting at us. It’s an attack, and our survival may depend on how we respond.
The way we respond to perceived threats used to be called “the fight or flight response.” This has expanded to “fight, flight, freeze, fawn,” which is less catchy, but a more accurate summary of the range of responses.
Fight - When someone comes at you with “fighting words” on the internet, it may feel like an attack, but there’s (usually) no physical danger. Therefore, we often feel emboldened to respond with a high degree of aggression (especially if responding anonymously).
Flight - In the real world, the safest response to an attack is often to run away. On the internet, this is summarized by the advice, “Don’t feed the troll.” Just click away, keep scrolling, and recognize that the angry voice in your head is not leading you into a fight with any worthwhile outcome.
Freeze - This is a common response to real-life trauma, but less common on the internet. However, if you see a truly horrifying or aggressive piece of content, it can “stop you in your tracks,” which would be analogous to the Freeze response.
Fawn (AKA Flop or Friend) - In some cases, placating or adopting a submissive posture to an enemy can be the safest course of action. It’s not uncommon to see writers take this approach toward aggressive commenters.
What’s the Answer?
Because our ancient brains don’t really grasp the difference between a real experience and an experience mediated by technology, the research-based suggestions for dealing with internet-based issues are largely the same as those for dealing with real-world issues.
Mindfulness Practice
Mindfulness sounds simple: Focus your attention on something neutral and keep it there. However, this means that instead of engaging with your thoughts and feelings, you have to simply observe them as they come and go. As Shakespeare would say, ay, there’s the rub.
No, it's not easy, but mindfulness is as beneficial as it is challenging. Researchers have consistently found that practicing mindfulness meditation techniques can reduce emotional reactivity by mitigating over-sensitivity of the HPA axis. In other words, it trains the brain to stay calm longer, and to return to a calm state more quickly. If there’s a magic bullet for over-reacting, mindfulness is it.
Implementation Intentions
It is a cruel trick of biology that we can’t solve a problem while we’re upset about it. That’s because when we experience a stress response, our body diverts resources towards survival mechanisms (like the muscles we would use to fight or run away), and away from the parts of our brain that we would use to resolve whatever is causing the stress.
In short, stress makes us stupid, and the more stressed we are, the more stupid we get. An implementation intention takes this stupidity into consideration by encouraging us to do the problem-solving ahead of time. Formulated as a simple “if-then” statement, an implementation intention is a decision you make while you’re calm, in anticipation of a future trigger. “If I read a comment on the internet that upsets me, I will take a deep breath and close the browser window. I will not respond.” This way, when you experience the trigger, you don’t have to figure out what to do, you just have to follow the plan you made earlier.
Obviously, this takes commitment, consistency, and practice, but it can be effective both in reducing the intensity of emotional response, and in mitigating the potential damage caused by acting unwisely in the heat of the moment.
ACT
ACT - Acceptance and Commitment Therapy - is a modern take on the philosophy of Stoicism, which taught that distress is rooted more in our interpretation of reality than in reality itself.
The Acceptance part of ACT is the idea that we should accept our thoughts and feelings rather than viewing them as absolute truths or trying to change them. By doing so, we reduce their power over our actions.
The Commitment part of ACT is the recommendation that we commit to values-based behavior, even when experiencing discomfort. This entails figuring out what our core principles and beliefs are, and then making the personal decision to act according to those principles, no matter what.
Test Time
Mindfulness, implementation intentions, and ACT are all solid approaches, and they play well together. After doing the research to write this blog post, I actually feel a little better about my chances of not getting provoked into responding the next time I see some egregiously false comment on the internet.
I’ll test these techniques for a few months and see how it goes. If you’ve tried any of them yourself, leave a comment and let me know how it went for you.