Somewhere between scrolling online and the block button, social media turned a childhood defense mechanism into a mass psychological phenomenon.
By Maya G.K. Courtney
An old friend stops liking or commenting on our posts on social media. We notice but say nothing. A few weeks later we see he has posted something we disagree with, so we leave a measured response. It’s not combative, just a different view. He replies once, coldly, and then blocks us. Another friend posts a meme we find politically insensitive. We react immediately, leaving a scathing comment and then blocking her.
These are people we’ve known for years. Perhaps we’ve grown distant recently, but there were no harsh words or harmful actions before the abrupt end of the friendship. But with a quick word and press of a button, they are out of our lives, gone without leaving any trace.
These acts of impulsive ostracism are not new. They are recognized as a psychological defense called splitting. Psychological splitting refers to a process where individuals try to protect themselves from the discomfort of ambivalence. Holding mixed feelings can be so intolerable that the psyche resolves that tension by sorting the world into good or bad, black or white. In short, it creates a strict binary of what is acceptable or intolerable, or splitting things into being either good or bad.
Unfortunately, social media is organized around hard binaries. We like or reject, follow or block, amplify or denounce, belong or are expelled. Online content is designed to reward fast, emotionally charged, morally simplified reactions, pushing users toward this binary perception of the world. We scroll through images, memes, and short videos (many thirty seconds or less). These online posts engage our emotions within one fifth of a second, often leaving our thoughts to arrive after our judgments have been rendered.
We like, follow, and admire some, but then vilify, block, and disparage others. Eventually, what was once idolized is discarded, and the original poster is brilliant until they disappoint us. A movement is pure until it is contaminated while a friend is safe until they post the wrong thing. A public figure is heroic until a contradiction appears. Our whole idea of a person collapses under the weight of their last post.
The internet does not merely divide people into camps; it teaches the mind to experience reality as sortable. These binaries do not merely organize content, they organize perception. The content on the screen becomes less a mixed, complicated subject than an object to be classified. In this sense, the deepest binary of social media is not good versus bad, but idealization versus devaluation. The platforms turn ambivalence into friction and judgment into participation. It causes users to split.
But what happens to children raised online and subjected to this binary culture? Splitting is common in children as they lack the emotional regulation and understanding necessary to hold onto contradictions. As children grow and normally develop, this trait is lessened as we gain the capacity to tolerate ambivalence.
Adolescence is a time meant to deepen our capacity for ambivalence, while also exploring our identity. Existing studies tell us that adolescents using online platforms have an increased likelihood of developing depression and anxiety, but no studies exist to track the effect social media may have in the development of maladaptive traits like splitting
Adolescents are not the only ones at risk. While these online platforms may interfere with the healthy development of children or adolescents, there exists just as great a risk to adult users. Social media use is just as capable of pulling adults back toward a more primitive way of perceiving, especially under conditions of stress, outrage, shame, group threat, or moral panic – all common themes used to increase engagement online.
While social media did not invent splitting, it has industrialized the conditions under which splitting becomes useful. It rewards immediacy over reflection, moral certainty over curiosity, and public classification over private thought. Social media has not only amplified splitting, it has also quantified it. It has taken a psychic defense mechanism and embedded it inside a global system of measurement, reward, and punishment. The result is splitting at scale: a psychological defense mechanism turned into mass manipulation.
How do we protect ourselves against this dynamic?
First, we need limits on children’s ability to access these platforms. Honestly, everyone should avoid these platforms, but if that isn’t possible, here are a few ways to counter splitting:
Make Children and Adolescents Bored. Kids and teens need plenty of sleep, physical activity, and boredom. It is in boredom that creativity is born and reflection occurs, and in self-reflection we see that we are not perfect. When we can see and embrace our imperfections, we can accept them in others. This is a vital step in developing healthy relationships.
Healthy relationships should allow for disagreements and reconciliations, and social skills should develop without the active metrics of likes, shares, and follows. Having active counts of approval and rejection interferes with an adolescent’s ability to know what they actually feel and think. It also teaches young people to live by approval and rejection.
Platforms Should Reduce Scoring and Increase Mixed Responses. Ideally, platforms should hide like counts by default, limit follower-count visibility for users, or reduce the prominence of quote-posting and ratio mechanics. If we want less splitting, we need fewer public instruments for measuring social worth. Platforms could also give us ways to pause, reflect, or contextualize nuance. Not every thought needs to become applause or condemnation.
Teach (and Learn) Ambivalence. This is key. Parents and educators must teach children and adolescents how to deal with ambivalence, but it’s just as important for adults to be regularly reminded:
Someone can be wrong without being evil.
A movement can be necessary and flawed.
A person can cause harm and still be human.
I can feel hurt without needing to destroy.
I can disagree without expelling.
Slow Down. This is probably the most important thing we can do as we engage online. Since our emotions outpace our reason, we should watch for strong emotional reactions. When we have an immediate emotional response, be it anger or outrage, it is a sign we need to slow down and engage rationally. Ideally, platforms should build in prompts before reactions, in effect rewarding reflection by slowing down virality. Until that happens, we must remain aware when interacting with online platforms and find tools to remain aware of our feelings and manage our stress before we react. Take a deep breath, walk away from our device, or scroll away from emotionally manipulative content.
The best way to tackle this phenomenon would be if social media platforms stepped in to protect their users from psychological harm. They could do this by slowing the reaction loop, reduce public scoring, hide or limit engagement metrics for minors, interrupt outrage-sharing, and create more room for context before condemnation. Unfortunately, there have been many studies published, some since the late 1990’s, showing a negative impact on mental health due to online engagement. In that time Big Tech have put minimal protections in place and those only after lawsuits and regulatory scrutiny.
Ultimately, we have to make every effort to hold conflicting feelings and sit with our ambivalence. Nothing is ever only good or bad, there are hidden layers and depths to be found everywhere, and when we slow down and allow ourselves to stay with uncertainty, we make our world bigger.
