When I started on Twitter it was about talking with my online friends from the US. It was about having deep debates. Someone would ask a question or share a link and many would reply. We used to have long talks between five or six people. It was good conversation.

Well, the conversation is dead.

Nobody is listening anymore, nobody is replying anymore, and everyone’s talking more than ever.

At some point earlier today, my stream showed 37 tweets with links in a row. Thirty-seven. Not one engagement.

I’m going to venture a guess on why this happened (and there’s no turning back):

Deaf Success

Success and deafness are positively correlated.

I’m not saying that my friends and I have all succeeded, but most of us have become more popular in the last year or so. More popularity means more people talking to you. The paradox here is that the more you connect, the more you ignore (that’s why I consciously keep my reciprocal relationships limited).

In other words, the more people you talk to, the less you talk to each of them. Unless you are broadcasting (not that there’s anything wrong with that).

Are you broadcasting?

Take It Outside

Most real one-on-one conversations between my friends and I happens outside of Twitter. But I still miss the debates and multiple conversations that used to happen inside.

Utilitarian Networking

Each new generation of social media users is usually the most active when it comes to conversation. Every six months or so, you see new bloggers join the scene and start engaging others aggressively and building their own networks. The thing is that once the utility of that network plateaus, people stop spending time in it.

We are utilitarians, which is great for business but sucks for friendships.

Conclusion

If there’s an entrepreneur out there that’s looking for a good business opportunity, then this is it. I want a tool that focuses regularly on conversations with people that are not necessarily friends, with less noise and limitations. And if this tool already exists, please let me know which is it, because Twitter doesn’t work for that anymore.

The Rule of Diversification

Mentors are not gods.

They don’t know everything, nor they need to for the mentorship to work.

A mentor is not supposed to guide you in every aspect of your life, just on the one or two he excels at. You diversify to get the best out ones there.

Diversifying also means that if you outgrow a mentor, you still have the others that will serve as a reality check. You only outgrew one, you don’t know everything.

The Rule of Weakness

You are not weak at everything. Chances are you are strong enough at most things to do them by yourself. Being mentor-addicted is even worse than being mentor-less.

Don’t expect one mentor to fulfill every need either, that’s a quick way to ruin the relationship.

Remember the rule of Diversification and focus only on looking for guidance on your weaknesses.

The Rule of Chemistry

Your mentor does not need to be famous, rich or powerful. A good mentorship it’s about what you find valuable, not the world.

A mentor must have time for you, understand you, and see you as a promise, not a burden. What good are mentors if they can’t share their wisdom?

Don’t look for mentors trying to impress society. Let chemistry choose for you, you can impress the world later.

**************

This post is dedicated to Holly Hoffman, Monica O’Brien, Clay Hebert, Jun Loayza, Andrew Norcross, Ben Casnocha and Colin Wright. Friends and mentors that challenge me to be the best I can be. You play a big part of my growing process, and for that I’m grateful.

You can subscribe to Raven’s blog here. Follow Raven on Twitter here.

Raven is one of my favorite debaters, and writing for her was very refreshing. Writing about writing is always a delight, and for that I thank you, my friend.

Do read my guest post “Writing vs. Communicating” here.

A recent study shows that we trust our friends recommendations less and less lately:

In some cases, social networks themselves may be contributing to the decline in trust. Platforms such as Facebook and Twitter have allowed people to maintain larger circles of casual associates, which may be diluting the credibility of peer-to-peer networks. In short, the more acquaintances a person has, the harder it can be to trust him or her.

People in the comments are looking for the reason behind this, that the article doesn’t give.

Don’t worry, I’m here to help.

Remember, you heard it from the Owl first.

The part that still doesn’t work, that’s not as good as the previous situation. Yet.

They do that, because if they have any chance of stopping you, they have to cut you off at that moment.

Adjusting means usually ending up in a better situation. Maybe you are changing job, girlfriend, or moving to a different country. Whatever it is you are doing, it’s because you consider it the right move.

Cowards see it too, and therefore they acknowledge the little window opportunity that they have to make you stay as one of them. They need the company.

You have two choices: either don’t show them the adjusting part, or realize that most criticism comes at the point where they can still be skeptical.

Adjust accordingly to ignore them.

It applies to almost any field: love, friendship, business networking, whatever.

When previous knowledge about the other person and expectations come into play, the reciprocity is harder to maintain.

This is why I recommend to focus on people in your same level of popularity, and why reaching out to the famous and successful ones is much less effective.

This is why unawareness of somebody’s job and financial situation makes meeting with them and getting to know them a more authentic experience.

This is why even the most interest driven relationships can work so well.

There is no morality when two people decide the rules.

Nevertheless, I do advise to avoid worshiping, pleading and neediness when meeting someone new because it makes the game uneven.

Most meetings with people I looked up to were more disappointing than meetings with others in my same situation.

In fact, my most valuable connections occured when neither side had any sort of expectation at all.

Going further of either side’s expectancy disrupts the relationship’s balance. They are weak links in every sense of the word.

Colin Wright wrote a very good piece on the topic, read it here.

Also, thanks to Ryan Knapp for the discussion that sparked the post.

- There’s a fine but very visible line between disagreeing and calling out.

- People don’t like to hear the truth. The odds that my calling out will spark honest self-criticism instead of a defensive stance are very low. Letting them be is a more time-efficient decision.

- Most criticism is incomplete. I can’t know what that person’s abilities, reasons, limits and values are. I may be wrong, and I would be hurting us both in the process.

- I believe in long term success. Those who are doing things wrong will eventually stagnate. Those who are doing things right will thrive.

- It underestimates the reader. People are smart enough to know who you’re talking about, or at least to take the advice and be aware from that point on. I don’t care about that person doing something wrong. I care about everyone else following that person. It’s not about changing behaviors, it’s about opening eyes. If no one follows, that person will be forced to stop or be ignored.

- Drama sells but doesn’t help.

It comes down to questioning its effectiveness. It may feel cool to do it, and it may help with popularity, but does it work?

Integrity beats traffic for me.

I’ve talked about arrogance being somewhat positive before, but there’s one important reason why it can get you far:

Arrogant people don’t take advice.

It’s not that they don’t want to learn or grow.

It’s not that they don’t practice or work hard.

It’s not that they think they know everything.

They just trust themselves more than others. And I think that’s great.

Reasons why this is a good decision:

- When people give advice they may understand your actions, but your feelings and thoughts will never be as clear to them as they are to you.

Arrogant people know that they can be wrong. But so can others. They will consider what you’re saying, but they won’t give it more credit just because “we should listen to others.” They will give it credit if it’s really something new to them.

I’ve found that my mother for example, the person who knows me more than anyone in the world, has seen this knowledge decrease with the years. My true passions, values, interests and ideas of the world are becoming less and less understood and predictable by people around me. So, should we really follow others’ advice?

- People’s advice is affected by some very human limitations. To name a few:

• Familiarity. People consider “good” what’s familiar to them, what they are used to doing. Consider this when listening to advice.
• Interests. If we can learn something from Freakonomics, it is that people act differently depending on what they can get from it.
• Ignorance. Sometimes people just don’t know enough. But this hasn’t stopped them before.
• Fear. Sometimes people don’t want to see you happy. It can remind them how unhappy they are.

Here’s the thing: Arrogant people listen. They really do. But they understand that advice is overrated, because the information available to outsiders is insufficient and twisted. They see how wrong others can be.

Arrogance is about responsibility.

About being the cause of your victories and failures.

About feeling satisfied with your decisions and stop pointing fingers when something goes wrong.

Arrogant people, can always be held accountable.

Final Note: Language is incompetent. Don’t like the word arrogant? Suggest another one, invent one if you want. But let’s refrain ourselves from debating “definitions” and just get the underlying message.

Because you need to be aware.

Because you are active.

You are in a constant search for material. Regardless of what you write about, you’re still turning on a switch in your brain that others keep dormant.

As long as you are consistent, the benefits will overcome the stupidity (and boost the cleverness) of any topic.

Subscribe to Gen Pink here. Follow Elysa on Twitter here.

Do read my guest post “Watch Out With Labels.”

Side note: Elysa is organizing a panel for SXSW 2010. Check it out and vote for it if you like it.

Thanks Elysa for letting me guest post, I truly appreciate it.