I was on vacation last week in Vermont, counting Subarus, eating maple flavored everything and generally minding my own business, when I got an email from a friend in the industry. His email contained a link to an article's comments where he and I had been publicly besmirched by a disgruntled compster who has never mastered playing nicely with others in the sandbox. While the specifics of what was said about us is not relevant, it did highlight for me a valuable lesson regarding public discourse; and showed that no matter the merit of a particular idea, if you cannot convey yourself in a relatively respectful manner, you will never gain ground influencing people as to the worthiness of your cause.
Perhaps I should start at the beginning to explain how we got to this point.
There is a man who works in the industry that I shall refer to as Dick. That is not his real name, but frankly he has always just seemed like a Dick to me, so that is the moniker we shall employ. Dick claims to be the CEO of a consulting firm that is not, as best as I can tell, registered in his state as any form of legal entity; not a corporation, LLC, Partnership, or even a registered Fictitious Name. Dick has an idea that he believes would be great for workers' comp. The scheme itself, on a broader scale and under other applications, has definite merit, but in my opinion for workers' comp it is not now nor ever will be feasible. I won't even mention the specifics of it here, as it is not worthy of broader mention in this blog, but suffice it to say that, in my opinion, the idea just won't work.
I wrote an article sometime back saying just that. I outlined why I thought the notion was a non-starter, and why the concept would not work. Dick's response was immediate and could only be described as less than professional. He assured me he had three college degrees, and that I was both an idiot and a despicable person. His response was so vitriolic, so personal, that it really provided the basis for the lesson we discuss today.
That lesson is this: People should be able to state different opinions without being subjected to verbal and personal assaults. We should be able to debate without taking personal offense. And we should be able to disagree without being disagreeable.
I will admit, I am no saint on the issue. I have from time to time slipped to the personal affront in ongoing discussions in my blog and on LinkedIn. That usually occurs with lengthier exchanges that evolve (or decay) as they progress. That rarely occurs, however, in the base article itself. In that format we should be able to call an idea stupid, while not questioning the intelligence or motivation of those who promote it. It's called debate. It is called discourse.
But Dick calls it abominable.
It has been well over a year since I have written on the topic. I haven't even given it much thought, as many other topics have come and gone in that time. Yet, this past week, Dick posted, in comments to another bloggers article, that my friend and I were interfering with his progress in gaining acceptance and that we were “protecting vested interests who pay for [our] travel to conferences, golf outings, and what have you.” He basically said we are on the take, and that could be the only possible reason we do not agree with his stellar idea. We both responded to his baseless (and libelous) accusations.
While both of us travel extensively, those travel expenses are largely covered by our companies, and the only reward for my friend is the occasional comped conference pass. Trust me when I tell you that it is a small reward for the work this particular guy does for the industry. I myself am sometimes compensated for my presentations. In certain situations I receive nominal compensation that covers some of my time and travel expense on the road. Ironically, in most of those situations the payment comes from a state agency for a conference they have held. That must mean Dick believes the regulators are buying me off to maintain the status quo in order to thwart his efforts at fame and fortune. That is a great argument to make when you are trying to persuade the same people that your path is a better one for the industry.
We have to face it. Dick's topic never comes up at these events. It never comes up anywhere. Dick is an idiot if he thinks his mission is the center of our universe.
His reply to our responses, which was typical in form for him, was to call me a dinosaur and a “right wing bigot who shoots down any idea that does not comport to [my] narrow worldview”.
Certainly sounds open minded and non-judgmental to me. Oh, and he confirmed that he is very intelligent, and I am still very stupid. He also laughingly told me to “stay away from him”, even though I have not touched his topic in a year and a half. He seems unnaturally focused on the two of us, commenting as recently as yesterday about the “two guys in work comp [who] insist my idea is stupid and ridiculous”.
Of course, if it was only two people in the industry who thought it was stupid and ridiculous, I would daresay that the idea would probably be in use today.
This is what happens when adequate IQ trips over extraordinarily low EQ – the rating for Emotional Intelligence; we suffer the rantings of a pedantic, guileless man-child who possesses an overly developed sense of entitlement. Even if a person is not a pedantic, guileless man-child who possesses an overly developed sense of entitlement, it certainly does not further his cause by sounding like one.
Dick should read a book about winning friends and influencing people. It might help him on his holy path of righteousness.
So, we should all endeavor to remember that none of us is perfect, and we all have different ideas. We should be allowed to discuss, analyze and even criticize without it becoming personal, even libelous. You will never slander your way to a positive outcome, of that you can be certain. There are those who will perceive that I am not following my own advice within the confines of this article. They are partially correct; except Dick remains unidentified, tucked away in blessed anonymity. Only the lesson he teaches us is shining in the light of the public eye.
And that, my friends, is how you can really have fun with Dick, when his ideas are inane.