My 5 house rules on LinkedIn

I have recently posted a short summary of my personal rules of participation in the everyday life of the LinkedIn community - in 5 points. It was a personalized code in its simplest (deliberately) form, which allows me to navigate through the heated, sometimes fierce discussions. It has proven its worth especially in times of doubt or... high pressure, which is not difficult to reach. In such situations, instead of immediately tapping on the keyboard with the aim of "I'll show this bastard," I take a deep breath and leave my computer aside to give myself time to switch from emotion to reason. It also allows me to check my own rules, and then return to the discussion. Already with a pure and calm mind I try to reflect on what the interlocutor wanted to say and how to give a short, simple and substantive answer (which is not easy at all, unlike waffling). And the best thing is that with the self-discipline of following these 5 rules, very occasionally I have to get away from the keyboard because of emotions. The mind is calm all the time, even if the other side is throwing knives and grenades and calls me “hater” only due to fact that I dare to have different opinion.

This short post has been met with great response. After 48 hours it had nearly 35,000 views and many supportive comments. It is a joy to witness, because it shows how many of us take the culture of discussion seriously. But a post is just a post, it comes and it goes. Although it had many hits, over 75,000 after a month, it has already gone with the wind. It has lived longer than your average LinkedIn publication, because until the end of the calculation, the statistics system was still recording new readers (after a month LI stops providing data). So I decided to elaborate on this code and publish it as a regular and always available article. First of all, I need this for myself, so I can finally order and discipline my mind. But I also want it to inspire others to think for themselves and define "what am I doing here". Here, that is LinkedIn, because it is not the answer to the ultimate question of the meaning of life. So let's go and see those 5 principles.

1) Everyone who participates in a discussion has good intentions

What does "good" mean? It isn’t necessarily the overwhelming desire to be good, do well and help the world. I am not that naive. But I am convinced that starting any exchange of sentences no one has the intention to harm, cause conflict and annoy others. I suppose that each of these activists wants to simply share their opinion (less important), experience (more important) or conclusions from this experience (most important!). Someone whose intention from the beginning would be to create conflicts and intentionally deny everything, insult others, etc., probably must be a psychopath. And the number of psychopaths is statistically insignificant. Besides, LinkedIn is not the best place for them. It is much easier for them to work in a regular and more massive web space, where the thrash talk and flame war potential is much broader - politics, football, celebrities, cure for hallux, athletes, cars, fashion, etc. Hence the frequent appeals not to transfer these topics to LinkedIn. It's not about caste purity, but filtering everything that goes straight to the pauperization of space, pointless Real Madrid vs Barcelona superiority fights, pretentious raptures over the beauty of a kitten, a puppy or a sunset, and the abuse of infantile emoticons. Besides, the general Internet space provides anonymity, which allows the real psychos and ordinary haters to have a field day. LinkedIn works with your profile, with your name, which is a positive filter.

In summary - the statistics and nature of LinkedIn space works for us. Despite the high level of activity, I have not yet encountered psychopathic actions (although people are frustrated a bit, but it is their problem how to express that frustration, not mine...). Therefore it is very healthy and statistically true to assume that the man on the other side is OK. Starting the discussion, the weapons I have remain at ease, out of reach of the hand, and the sun shines alike for all of us. Our faces smile with kindness, not grinned fangs. That is how I imagine the "interlocutor". Starting a discussion I have a clean mind and I am curious what I will find out. But that's another point.

2) Everyone has something to offer, which I don’t know or have already

I read a lot. Always have. These are very different books in quite large numbers by this time. Already at a young age I began to sense something vaguely, which I later verbalized the following way: in every book there is at least one phrase that is not in any other. Of course, on pure mathematics, this sentence is unsubstantiated. But this is not about mathematics of course, but a rather important thought. The thought that makes the mind open to the inspiration of every one, in every place and in very different ways. There are no worthless books. Even if someone's arguments (professional or literary) are meaningless and graphomaniac, they can influence me "indirectly", simply by creating associations and significant thought patterns. Besides, to distinguish graphomania from good work... you have to know both.

Now it is much easier to understand the essence of Point 2. Moreover, here I am using the word EACH strictly aligned with logic and mathematics. It is a common mistake to recognize only "great" experiences that affect entire companies, countries, continents and the cosmos. Well... Even if one participated in another one of the hundred million quadrillion processes of introducing a new product, it is clear that in his process, in his company, with his product, his customers and in this particular market environment, something unique has happened and there are factual numbers describing this process. What is interesting, very often people themselves do not realize how interesting and unique things they were doing, mindlessly depreciating their experience. EVERYTHING has something unique within, and the discussion gives you a chance to get to know it. Even if it was a small piece of a puzzle, it could be the one that would change our lives, or at least enrich it with the hard knowledge "how others do it."

3) Together we are looking for answers to the questions we have

After reading points 1 and 2, the logical sequence is easy to predict. If he's OK and he knows something interesting, which I do not know, a natural step is for me to want to know it. For if you do not want to know, you are not in the discussion; hence, this article is not for you, so you’re not reading it. And if you’re reading it, it is for you. You can do it in two ways. Method 1: electrocute and torture people to make them give up the knowledge (burning with fire also works). Method 2: cooperate. I choose the second method (well, I have no technical ability to electrocute everyone…). Here comes Grice's fundamental rule of communication. Let me repeat after prof. Tokarz: "Conversation is a kind of human cooperation, the course of which is determined by rationality of the participants. Cooperation can only be rational if the participants' actions are to some extent predictable. Predictability entails the existence of rules that people have to keep if they want to be reasonable". I would not put it better. All the more so, because it smoothly goes to rule number 4.

4) Not everyone is a master of words; I seek intentions and thoughts hidden behind the words, and not focus on words alone, they can be imperfect

Since communication is a form of cooperation, it also contains the element of effort to understand the intent of the interlocutor. Words can be broken, especially when they are just written words. We do not see the partner, and we do not experience all the elements that envelope the nonverbal expression of emotion. Therefore the communication is dominated by short, careless and quick forms of expression, almost like text messages. We know that too from our work. How many unexpected conflicts are caused by e-mail correspondence for all the above reasons? Both parties have good intentions, but after two e-mails a world war is triggered, especially when we add a foreign language element to this. We know all of this, but when we switch from "e-mails at work" mode (they trained us a little, we know what is going on) to the “LI discussion”, our reason and memory often escapes us. We turn off the reason, and let the emotions loose. If we understand the essence of points 1, 2, and 3, then we should be able to focus on the thought that someone transmits to us, not on the form itself. When we master it, we can do it even if the other party has already got visibly emotional. Because even if they are already rude and conflicted, they can still talk quite to the point! I try to keep the two spheres separate at the same time. The sphere of emotions I consciously and consistently ignore, possibly turning into a joke, even self-ironic, which helps the other party finish in peace and conclude the skirmish with a draw. At the same time, I consistently keep to the subject matter, looking for what we have in common, which helps to clearly define where we differ in opinion. And then we part in harmony, albeit our opinions differ. Do I always manage to handle it this way? Of course not; sometimes I do better, sometimes worse, but to fail completely is an extremely rare case. Thanks to that, I have a growing circle of contacts, from which I can learn new things and count on their substantive remarks on my content, even if we are very different. It’s a win-win and I try not to take too much offence, because it's unhealthy. The issue of offence is already mentioned in Rule 5, the last one.

5) If, in spite of points 1-4, someone is emotionally involved and goes into "quarrel" mode, I leave the discussion after step 3 the latest

In many of the LI debates, there is a predominant need for victory. This victory is often measured by "who has the last word". It's just like the wars of the past – the victor claims the battlefield, the defeated leaves. But how does it translate into practice today? Well, the content of the exchange of sentences dries up quite quickly, yet the "discussion" continues on and on. I deliberately put the word in quotation marks, because the longer it lasts, the more it looks like a pub brawl, not a conversation. And with each loop of me-you-me-you the emotions grow, and the minds shrink. You will learn nothing but the last word / battlefield will still be mine... The meaning and the benefit of it? None. What’s worse yet, that "fool" is already in our books (he thinks about us the same way, of course), and when we meet again in another forum, then we fight him right away, because we still have bones to pick. It does not matter what he writes (although perhaps very wise), because we just have to kick his bottom as a matter of principle. Am I exaggerating? Oh, I do not think so.

I can handle it in a simple way. First of all - it's not a battlefield. Secondly - I do not measure my success with the last word and I do not need it (in my eyes I'm smart enough, tall and handsome, and I do not have to prove it to the world at any given time, and definitely not with “the last word”). And third, seeing the disappearance of substantive arguments at the expense of emotion and aggression of the interlocutor, I leave the discussion in the third step. Yes, I simply stop, without clenching fists and comments like "you voted for Trump!". Sometimes I only add “thank you” at the end of the conversation, sometimes not even that if the interlocutor is only trying to offend. I assure you that it saves a lot of unnecessary emotion, life is simpler and healthier. Except that you have to be consistent and watch yourself - write with substance and when you see the first signs of a fight, leave without a fight. This way you also gain a lot of friends in the LI space because... we prevent the process of creating  enemies before it even starts.

At this point two different quotes come to my mind. The first is from Arthur Schopenhauer: “Disputing can make even honest men unjust and malicious. So let us cease”. Isn’t it great? The second is, on the other hand, closer to all the boys and girls from the military and war movie enthusiasts: "Roger. Out". Both allow us to leave the battlefield without any loss or looking at old-fashioned medieval battle traditions.

Go ahead, follow and share 5 rules if you wish.

PS. I try not to post on the forum after 11:00 PM, because the mind is tired by that time and easy to do something stupid...

PPS The post mentioned sparked a very interesting discussion, which resulted with  a series of additional advice suggested by the debaters; let me show them my respect below, quoting with the name, of course:

I never respond impulsively, Igor Legowski

I will never present other people’s thoughts, quotes or ideas as my own, Mieszko Mateusz S.

I do not put any more energy into discussions and being on LI, than into relationships with relatives in the so-called off-line. Anna Balion

Remember, it’s a professional business space, not a gossip web page (all due respect), Micha? Pi?tkowski

It’s no use posting on a Friday night [as you are tired], Micha? Stankiewicz

Never sell in private messages, Katarzyna Janus-Cichacz

After 11PM the only thing most people do well is sleep, Pawe? Gniazdowski

If I know as much about something as a first grader I never participate in the discussion, Adrian Mazur

Never do your personal dirty laundry online, Tomasz Ka?u?ny

Never comment on manipulative posts, Jerzy Cichowicz

Take personal responsibility for your own post and moderate the discussion, Marek Gonsior.