The Misuse of Therapy Language on Social Media: Understanding the Dangers of Weaponizing Psychological Terms.

Pop psychology is a genre of psychology that simplifies complex concepts and makes them accessible to the general public, often through media such as self-help books, articles, and social media posts. While pop psychology can offer valuable insights and support, it can also be prone to oversimplification, misinterpretation, and misuse of psychological concepts. On social media, in particular, there has been a surge of content that employs therapy language and psychological terms. Although these posts may initially seem helpful or empowering, they can be dangerous when shared by individuals who lack the qualifications to provide proper context or advice.

In a recent video where Chris Williamson interviewed psychologist Seerut Chawla about a statement she made—“some ways pop psychology lies to you, everyone you dislike is not a narcissist, every unpleasant experience is not trauma, having needs does not make you codependent, disagreement is not gaslighting, conflict is not abuse, taking offense is not being triggered, everything does not need to be normalized, speaking like an HR memo is not self-awareness”—I found her perspective thought-provoking. As a first-year student of integrated counselling and psychology, I have discussed these ideas with fellow students, in personal therapy, and with friends. In this post, I’ll share my thoughts on the misuse of therapy language on social media, its potential harms, and the importance of being mindful of our language choices.

Everyone you dislike is not a narcissist.

Narcissism is a serious personality disorder characterized by a lack of empathy, grandiosity, and a need for admiration. However, on social media, the term “narcissist” is often used casually to describe anyone who exhibits self-centred behaviour. Labelling someone as a narcissist without a proper diagnosis trivializes the disorder and can lead to unwarranted vilification of individuals who may simply be misunderstood or displaying normal human behaviour. When readers encounter social media posts that casually label individuals as “narcissists” without a proper diagnosis, it can lead to several negative effects. This misuse of terminology can spread misinformation about narcissistic personality disorder, causing readers to develop a distorted understanding of the condition. It may result in stigmatization, making it harder for those who genuinely suffer from the disorder to seek help and support due to fear of judgment. Moreover, readers may unjustly vilify or alienate individuals who have been labelled as narcissists, damaging relationships and creating unnecessary rifts between people. The casual use of the term can also normalize harmful language, perpetuate stereotypes, and inhibit empathy and understanding, ultimately undermining meaningful communication and personal growth. Readers may become quick to self-diagnose or label others, relying on oversimplified explanations for complex interpersonal dynamics.

Every unpleasant experience is not trauma.

Trauma refers to deeply distressing events that have a profound impact on an individual’s emotional and psychological well-being. However, not every unpleasant experience constitutes trauma, and conflating the two can undermine the gravity of true trauma and its effects. Misusing the term can diminish the experiences of those who have suffered genuine trauma, making it harder for them to receive the appropriate support and recognition they need. When social media posts casually label ordinary challenges or stressful situations as trauma, it can blur the lines between true trauma and everyday difficulties. This can lead to a lack of understanding about the serious and long-lasting impact that genuine trauma can have. By overemphasizing victimhood, these posts may inadvertently discourage individuals from developing resilience and coping strategies for life’s normal challenges. Such posts can also create a culture of oversensitivity, where readers may begin to see every discomfort or setback as traumatic. This can hinder personal growth and self-reliance while perpetuating a mindset that is less open to dealing with the complexities of life. Moreover, the casual use of the term may foster a sense of invalidation for those who have experienced true trauma, as their struggles become conflated with less severe experiences.

Having needs does not make you codependent.

Co-dependency involves an excessive reliance on others for emotional or psychological needs, often to the detriment of one’s own well-being. While co-dependency is a valid psychological concept, having personal needs and seeking support from others is a normal and healthy part of relationships. Misinterpreting the natural human desire for connection as co-dependency can have negative effects on individuals and their relationships. When social media posts or discussions mislabel normal help-seeking behaviours as co-dependency, it can lead to stigmatization of those who rely on others for support. This can discourage people from forming close, meaningful relationships for fear of being judged as codependent. Additionally, readers may begin to question their own needs and the support they seek from others, leading to feelings of guilt or inadequacy for wanting companionship or assistance. This misunderstanding can ultimately harm individuals’ emotional well-being by isolating them from necessary support systems and healthy relationships. It is important for readers to differentiate between genuine codependent behaviours and the natural interdependence that exists in healthy relationships.

Disagreement is not gaslighting.

Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation where an individual is made to doubt their reality or memory. In contrast, disagreement is a natural and healthy part of conversations and relationships. When disagreement is misinterpreted as gaslighting, it can stifle open dialogue and healthy debates, ultimately leading to misunderstandings and unnecessary conflicts. When readers encounter social media posts that label every disagreement as gaslighting, it can impact their perception of normal interactions. They may become overly cautious in their relationships, wary of any differing opinions for fear of being manipulated or dismissed. This can hinder open, honest conversations and inhibit the exchange of diverse viewpoints. Such misinterpretations can also erode trust in others and foster an overly adversarial view of relationships. Readers may begin to see any conflicting opinions as malicious, rather than opportunities for growth and mutual understanding. This can lead to increased division and discord, both online and in real life. By approaching social media posts about gaslighting with a critical eye, readers can distinguish between genuine manipulation and ordinary disagreements. Seeking information from qualified sources can help provide clarity and promote a more nuanced understanding of healthy communication and relationships.

Conflict is not abuse.

Conflict is a natural aspect of human relationships and can often lead to growth and understanding when addressed constructively. On the other hand, abuse involves a pattern of harmful behaviour, such as physical, emotional, or psychological harm. Confusing conflict with abuse can have serious consequences for readers and their relationships. When social media posts blur the line between ordinary conflict and genuine abuse, readers may struggle to navigate disagreements or misunderstandings in their own relationships. They might avoid necessary conversations for fear of being accused of or experiencing abuse, which can hinder resolution and personal growth. This misinterpretation can also result in the dilution of true abuse’s gravity, making it harder for those in abusive situations to be taken seriously and seek the support they need. Additionally, readers may become overly cautious or defensive in their interactions, seeing abuse where there is none or avoiding conflicts altogether. This can lead to a lack of trust and open communication, potentially damaging relationships and limiting opportunities for deeper understanding and connection. By approaching social media discussions about conflict and abuse with discernment, readers can better differentiate between the two and seek appropriate guidance when needed. Being mindful of the nuances of these concepts can lead to healthier relationships and more constructive conflict resolution.

Taking offense is not being triggered,

Being triggered involves experiencing intense emotional or psychological responses due to past trauma. In contrast, taking offense is a reaction to a perceived insult or slight. Although both are valid responses, conflating the two can diminish the experiences of those who have been genuinely triggered and make it harder to engage in open discussions about challenging topics. When readers encounter social media posts that blur the line between being triggered and taking offense, it can impact their ability to understand and navigate complex emotional reactions. Misinterpreting every offense as being triggered may lead readers to perceive benign comments as traumatic, causing them to avoid meaningful conversations and discussions that could promote growth and understanding. This conflation can also invalidate the experiences of individuals who have genuinely been triggered by past trauma, minimizing their struggles and potentially deterring them from seeking support. Additionally, readers may become overly cautious in their interactions, fearing that they may trigger someone unintentionally, which could stifle open and honest communication. By approaching social media content about being triggered with a critical perspective, readers can better differentiate between the two concepts and gain a more nuanced understanding of emotional responses. This awareness can foster more respectful and empathetic interactions while preserving the integrity of discussions around challenging topics.

Everything does not need to be normalized.

Promoting acceptance and understanding of diverse experiences is important, but not all behaviours or situations need to be normalized. Discernment is necessary to determine which situations require normalization and which should be approached differently. Over-normalizing certain behaviours can lead to a lack of accountability and may prevent individuals from seeking necessary help or making positive changes. When readers encounter social media content that over-normalizes certain behaviours, they may struggle to differentiate between what is healthy and what may be problematic. This can lead to confusion and inhibit their ability to seek help when needed, as they might dismiss potentially harmful situations as acceptable. Over-normalization can also discourage readers from holding themselves or others accountable for harmful actions, which can hinder personal growth and meaningful change. Furthermore, readers may become desensitized to certain behaviours or issues, reducing their ability to recognize when intervention or support is necessary. This lack of discernment can perpetuate harmful patterns and make it challenging for individuals to address their own needs or those of others effectively. By critically evaluating social media content and seeking information from reliable sources, readers can develop a more nuanced understanding of which situations should be normalized and which require a different approach. This thoughtful perspective can foster healthier relationships and support individual and collective well-being.

Speaking like an HR memo is not self-awareness.

True self-awareness entails a deep comprehension of one’s emotions, thoughts, and behaviours. When individuals speak in corporate or sanitized language, it may not necessarily indicate genuine self-awareness. This approach can create a barrier to honest and authentic communication, hindering the ability to engage with others on a deeper, more meaningful level. When readers encounter social media posts or discussions that favour sanitized language, they may struggle to connect with the content on a personal level. The lack of genuine expression can make it difficult for readers to relate to the speaker or fully understand their perspective. This barrier to authentic communication can limit opportunities for meaningful connections and reduce the impact of the shared experience. Furthermore, readers may begin to adopt this style of communication themselves, potentially sacrificing their own authenticity in the process. Over time, this can lead to a lack of depth in conversations and relationships, as individuals may shy away from expressing their true thoughts and emotions. By approaching social media content with an awareness of the importance of genuine self-expression, readers can better appreciate the value of authentic communication. This can foster more meaningful interactions and allow individuals to connect on a deeper level, enriching their personal and social experiences.

The misuse and weaponization of therapy language on social media can have a range of negative effects on individuals. Casual use of clinical terms such as “narcissist” or “gaslighting” can lead to misdiagnosis and stigmatization of individuals who may not meet the criteria for such labels. This misuse can erode trust in genuine mental health discussions and professionals, as people may become sceptical of legitimate concerns if they perceive the terms as overused or misapplied. Additionally, being mislabelled or accused of harmful behaviour can cause emotional distress and damage relationships. Such accusations may create unnecessary rifts between individuals and strain their ability to communicate openly and honestly. Misinterpreting common social interactions as psychological issues can hinder healthy communication and problem-solving, leading to misunderstandings and conflict. It is important for individuals to approach therapy language on social media with discernment, seeking information from qualified sources and avoiding making hasty judgments based on casual or misapplied terminology. This careful approach can help preserve the integrity of mental health discussions and foster a more respectful and empathetic online environment.

Language is a powerful tool that shapes our perceptions and interactions. The misuse and weaponization of therapy language on social media can be harmful, leading to misunderstandings, misdiagnoses, and emotional distress. It’s important to approach online discussions with caution, be mindful of our language choices, and strive for accuracy and empathy in our communication. Let us work towards a more respectful and nuanced understanding of mental health and emotional well-being in our digital spaces.