Why is talking to people on social media like talking to a brick wall?

Discuss (or ignore)!

Talking to people, in general, is like talking to a brick wall in my experience.

You're right Maxil. People don't seem to understand the concept of questions anymore, they just read sentences then sit there like a lemon until they next want to broadcast some narrow, self-obsessed shite about themselves. Fuck 'em all!

People are brainwashed and stupid, but think they're smart. A recipe for supreme asshattishness.

Because you mostly associate with morons?

There are plenty of intelligent people and interesting groups on social media that you can converse with and take part in. It's just a matter of wading through all the bullshit and being super picky with who you talk to and who you keep on your contacts list.

Social media is great so long as you use it properly and don't become addicted to it. This whole thread just reeks of bitterness.

This is how people are naturally - the impetus to change. It's psychologically and emotionally preferable to stonewall new and invading truths than it is to allow them to evict the old.

On Social Media this is even easier to perform. Text lacks the affecting weight and imprint of face-to-face speech, and ignoring it is as simple as looking away.

Good point Tiberius! We live in an era where short attention spans are increasingly catered for.

It's something that's struck me in the age of both social media and 'meetup' sites, where a lot of people seem incapable of having both chit-chat AND organisational skills. Maybe it was always like this, it just seems particularly obvious now!

I don't think some people even know how to communicate anymore. To have a conversation usually involves the other person contributing something to the discussion. I asked a friend how his Christmas was and all I got was "it was fine thanks." I've noticed that people ask less and less questions which shows that they really couldn't care less about you or what you've got to say. Some of them are more than happy to waffle on about their own life until the sun comes up, though. Then there are the ones that only post about three or four words, killing the conversation and making the other person feel like a complete idiot for even getting in contact in the first place.

Spoken language is only 30% of communication. The rest is usually based on instinct or tribalism. They tend to respond to what taps into a shared cultural narrative. Anything you say or try to communicate that they feel doesn't, and they usually either laugh it off in incredulity or get weirded out and never really think to understand.

Most arguments are a clash of rhetoric, ego and logical fallacy. They are not a truly dialectical because their purpose is to 'win' the argument, as opposed to discovering the truth.

Arguing on social media seems to made up of the former, with social 'prizes' in the form of ego-stroking 'likes' and replies which reinforce posters' belief systems. Most of these arguments end in a kind of shit-flinging deadlock. On occasion an argument is trounced or swamped, those who don't receive those rewards often become more bitter, entrenched and conspiratorial, developing a kind of siege mentality. This is often worsened by the victors' gloating or posting of antagonistic memes.