Social Media, Relationship Capital, and That One Friend Who Only Argues
I have a theory I’d like to explore and see if others are talking about it.
In social media, especially Facebook it seems, there are people who rarely interact with posts, except to argue.
I could post the video to a new song, or a photo of my family at a recent event, or simply a silly meme, and I won’t see these folks at all.
But then I’ll share thoughts on something that stopped their scroll and they just couldn’t move on until they dropped in and left their dissenting opinion.
Typically they feel a bit aggressive and condescending, maybe because they come out of nowhere to argue. And if you push back, they accuse you of not being open to “a discussion” or “conversation.”
Despite their avoidance of everyday, positive interactions, their “drop-in dissent,” it would seem, warrants a change of mind or niceties rather than calling them out.
I’ve seen some folks call them trolls. I don’t think that’s exactly it.
We’re friends in some fashion, after all. This isn’t some stranger trolling me.
Sometimes I think they’re coming from a good place and want to be heard.
But I also think it’s not completely genuine.
Because, when you don’t take the time to interact positively and regularly, why would you drop in to “argue?”
I’ve been thinking about this for a few years now. The first time I brought this up to a friend who was acting like this, they didn’t seem to understand my feelings on the interaction.
Over the years, especially since 2016 and 2020, I feel like I see it more and more.
We can think of it as social capital, relationship capital, or investing in relationships before having debates or discussions.
I got to wondering, is this something others are talking about?
So I did when any curious Gen-Xer does, and I took to the internet. I used a generative AI tool called Perplexity to help me “talk through” what I was thinking, and help me find sources.
Social or Relationship Capital Research
While there isn’t specific research I could find that directly addressed my theory about argumentative users on social media, several studies and trends suggest that this phenomenon is indeed recognized and discussed in various contexts.
Here’s an overview of some relevant insights (sources linked at the end):
- Negative interactions on social media are a well-documented issue. Research has shown that negative interactions on social platforms like Facebook can lead to decreased well-being and increased stress levels for users.
- The concept of “trolling” or deliberately provocative online behavior is widely recognized. Some individuals engage in argumentative or aggressive behavior online for various reasons, including seeking attention or emotional reactions from others.
- Social capital is an important concept in social media interactions. Studies have found that positive interactions and supportive behavior on social networks can increase social capital, while negative interactions can deplete it (1). I think of this like putting money into a savings account. If it’s there, we can use it. If not, we’re in trouble.
- The phenomenon of “keyboard warriors” — people who are confrontational or aggressive online but may not behave similarly in face-to-face interactions — is often discussed in relation to social media behavior.
- Facebook’s algorithm may inadvertently promote controversial or argumentative content. Posts that generate more engagement, including heated debates, may be given more visibility, potentially amplifying negative interactions.
- Some research suggests that certain personality traits, such as narcissism or a need for attention, may correlate with more argumentative or aggressive online behavior.
- The concept of “relationship capital” in online interactions is gaining attention (this makes me very happy!). Building positive relationships before engaging in debates or discussions is seen as a valuable approach in online communities.
Building Relationship Capital Before Debating
Let’s build on that last point.
Are there benefits to investing in a relationship, no matter how shallow or tertiary, before debating?
TL;DR: Yes.
Based on the search results, investing in relationship capital before engaging in debates or discussions can offer several benefits.
Improved trust and credibility: Building relationship capital helps establish trust, integrity, and authenticity between parties. This foundation of trust can make debates more productive and less confrontational.
Enhanced communication: Strong relationships facilitate more open and transparent communication. This can lead to better understanding and more effective exchanges during debates.
Increased willingness to listen: When there’s a positive relationship, people are more likely to genuinely listen to each other’s perspectives. This can lead to more constructive debates and potential for finding common ground.
Reduced conflict: Good relationship capital can help mitigate potential conflicts that may arise during debates, as there’s already a basis of mutual respect and understanding.
Long-term sustainability: Investing in relationships before debates can contribute to the long-term sustainability of professional and personal connections. This is particularly valuable in ongoing collaborations or recurring discussions.
Improved outcomes: Research suggests that relational capital can lead to better performance and innovation in organizations. This implies that debates grounded in strong relationships are more likely to yield positive results.
Faster problem-solving: Stephen Covey’s concept of the “Speed of Trust” suggests that strong relationships based on trust can accelerate problem-solving and decision-making processes.
There were a few business benefits to investing in relationship capital as well, but this thought experiment was really all about personal relationships.
By investing in relationship capital before engaging in debates or discussions, we can create a more conducive environment for productive exchanges, potentially leading to better outcomes and sustained positive interactions.
The Bottom Line
While my specific theory about users who primarily interact to argue isn’t explicitly addressed in the available research, the broader concepts I’m thinking about — social capital, relationship building, and negative online interactions — are certainly topics of ongoing discussion and study in the context of social media behavior.
I truly am all about conversation*. I love discussion, even debate. And when people get passionate, I get excited.
However, I’m also all about investing in people and their everyday humanity, not just popping in to argue.
When I see something I disagree with from someone I realize I haven’t interacted with as I peruse my feeds, I scroll by. Then I invest time with them so I can have more serious discussions later. It’s really quite simple.
A note from Perplexity on my original question: It’s worth noting that these observations may not apply universally, as social media experiences can vary greatly depending on individual networks, privacy settings, and the specific communities one engages with on platforms like Facebook.
*At least, I try to be. I’m a fallible human with flaws and biases. I strive to be curious, but I’m also an emotional being. So I’m sure there are times when I seem like I’m not open to discussion. And there are some topics that aren’t open to opinion. Like being anti-LGBTQ+ or pro-fascist.
Sources:
