Editor's note
While the Internet has opened up the world, it has also profoundly rewritten the mechanism of social comparison. In the information recommendation stream on social platforms, the highlight moments of other people’s lives seem to come one after another. This issue of the Thought Roundtable tries to ask: How has the logic of online comparison changed? How should young people anchor their own value coordinates? I hope everyone can see that there are mountains beyond the mountains, and also see the path under their feet; use the shining light of others as a reference yardstick, rather than a test paper to judge oneself. At the same time, we look forward to families, schools, platforms and society working together to build a more diverse reference system.
——————————
After using your mobile phone for three minutes, you may see three kinds of life: a doctor from a famous university posts his acceptance certificate from a top journal, a blogger shares his daily life of a million-dollar annual salary, and a sojourner posts about the sunset of another city. They scroll across the screen, and on the other side of the screen may be ordinary young people who are still worrying about rent or papers.
Social networks rewrite an ancient and everyday psychological process – comparing yourself to others. It breaks through the boundaries of time, region and class, turning "excellent people" from specific references around us into content that is repeatedly pushed and continuously exposed by algorithms. A large number of people with high education, high income and a bright life are more likely to be seen under the logic of traffic. As a result, the pressure for upward comparison is unprecedentedly amplified. We are no longer just competing with the "neighbor kids", but with the "winners in life" selected by the entire Internet.
How to view those who are better than oneself, how to view the relationship between platforms, "excellent people" and oneself has become an important window for observing the mentality of young people and the social environment in which they live.
Comparison is reshaped: from "acquaintance circle" to "algorithm theater"
Comparison itself is not the problem. Comparison and imitation are the only way for human socialization: by referring to others, we confirm our position, calibrate our direction, and acquire paradigms. However, in the context of the deep involvement of social networks in the lives of young people, the comparison has changed.
Compared with traditional offline acquaintance comparison, online social comparison presents three different new characteristics.
First, the reference object moves from "finite" to "infinite". Offline we only compare ourselves with people we know, and no matter how big the frame of reference is, there are limits; but on social networks, an ordinary young man may encounter Ph.D.s from prestigious universities, top anchors, upstart entrepreneurs, global travelers... There are almost unlimited reference objects, and there will always be someone "better".
Second, comparative information moves from "complete" to "edited". Comparisons in traditional societies are based on relatively complete information—you know that there is little behind your neighbor's respectability. But "excellence" on the Internet is clips that have been edited, screened, and carefully packaged. We can see the highlight moments, but we cannot see the long suffering and price behind them, nor can we see the dull and frustrated daily lives of a large number of ordinary people. Comparing your entire unmodified life with a carefully selected fragment of someone else’s life is an unequal comparison in itself.
Third, the field of comparison shifts from “private domain” to “performance”. Offline comparison takes place in real interactions, with a human touch. The Internet is a public exhibition ground. Algorithms and traffic push everyone to compete to show their bright side, and "excellence" becomes display content used to gain likes and attract onlookers. You are not only the one who watches and compares, but you may also become the sample that others use to compare.
The most direct impact of these changes on young people’s self-evaluation is the “outsourcing” of self-evaluation. Our sense of value is increasingly tied to external references, likes and traffic data, and the standards of evaluation are quietly taken over by algorithms. When the frame of reference continues to drift and rise higher and higher, self-evaluation will easily fall into two imbalances: either self-deprecation and anxiety and internal friction in "others are so good"; or deviating from the true self in the fantasy of "I can be like that". The reference object is others, the measurement standard is flow, but the "I" being evaluated is often out of focus.
The difference is not "excellence", but "can it be reduced to a process"
It’s also about sharing one’s own excellent state. Why can some content inspire people and become role models that can be learned from? But some content only arouses people’s anxiety and makes people feel inferior the more they watch it? The core difference between the two is not whether the sharer is really excellent, but whether this "excellence" can be broken down into a process that ordinary people can refer to and try.
The meaning of a role model is to demonstrate, it opens up a possibility, rather than simply exerting pressure. The path we took, the methods we used, the pitfalls we stepped on, the struggles we experienced, and the price we paid. It allows people to see "someone has come this way step by step" and translates "excellence" into a path that can be learned and imitated.
Those carefully packaged displays do just the opposite. It only selects the best-looking and most eye-catching results, hides the hard work, trial and error costs and luck behind them, and simplifies "excellence" into a glossy label. The primary goal of this type of content is to gain traffic, not to help grow viewers. It doesn't care whether people who watch it can learn something, it just wants to capture people's emotions and retain their attention. What is created in the end is not direction, but anxiety. The more you feel like you're not good enough, the more likely you are to be attracted to this type of content.
In short, role models make you "want to be a better version of yourself", while packaging content that only highlights highlights makes you "feel bad about who you are now." The two may come from the same outstanding person, but the difference lies in whether the content retains the true and complete picture of the person, and whether the content clearly explains how to take this road; it also lies in the viewer's question: Is this excellence the complete experience of hard work along the way, or is it a highlight clip specially shot for everyone to see?
Keep yourself safe: what should be compared and what should not be compared
For young people, the question is not "whether to compare", but how to establish clear boundaries and distinguish what is comparable and can be learned from, and what is incomparable and does not need to be compared. You can try to establish several "boundaries":
Compared with hard work, not compared with the starting point. Family background, talent, luck, and the dividends of the times are conditions that are difficult to choose independently at birth, and there is no need to compare them. However, the methods of doing things, continuous persistence, timely review and adjustment, and continuous self-optimization are things we can learn to control. Change your focus from "He has better innate conditions than me" to "What are his ways of doing things worth learning?" Comparison will no longer be a consumption, but become a nutrient.
Compared with growth, not with position. Change the frame of reference from "compare the present with him" to "compare progress with the past self." Comparing yourself with your past self is a stable and long-term evaluation yardstick; comparing with others horizontally, it is best to only focus on a specific ability, and do not use other people's entire lives to benchmark yourself.
More important than these boundaries is the core that anchors your self-worth. The self-worth of young people should not be suspended on the crest of traffic, but should be rooted in perceptible reality - real interests, tangible growth, concrete relationships, and stable love. Go back offline more often, to real interpersonal connections, where there is more warmth, there are boundaries for reference, and there is a place for oneself.
Finally, we should advocate a new value attitude towards the excellence and success of others, which is to "appreciate without feeling inferior, and work hard without feeling inwardly". We must see the excellence of others and sincerely appreciate it, because it proves that there are more possibilities in life; at the same time, do not be kidnapped by this excellence. The shining of others does not mean that you are worthless at the moment. "Excellent" is used to calibrate the direction, not to declare good or bad. At the same time, a broader understanding of "success" should also be promoted. Success also includes inner certainty, abundance of relationships, and a sense of control over life. When young people no longer use a single ruler to measure themselves, when those bright displays on the platform are no longer the only coordinates, only then can young people maintain their self-worth and maintain inner self-consistency in front of a large number of outstanding samples - they can see that there are mountains outside the mountains, and they can also see the road under their feet, which belongs to them.
(The author is Wang Jikun, associate researcher at the School of Psychology and Cognitive Science, East China Normal University)
Source: China Youth Daily November 09, 2026 Page 06
