How To Trust: It Requires Common Goals and Personal Disclosure, Among Other Things

.

I Met Ed ( in person )

At my recent lunch with Ed of Blawg Review, we discussed many things. Of course, given that we are both anonymous blawgers, among the topics of discussion: "trust". Interestingly enough, as you can expect, it took a large amount of trust for the two of us to come together. Of course, there were several conditions that we required . . . me more than him, as we met in my town. We meet in a fairly discreet location, we withheld our true identities, we resisted the urge to engage in more familiar conversation about family, background, education and such.

To Ed I'm Kael and to me he is Ed. Even though that is fairly "surface", our trust had to be much deeper to engage in a face to face meeting. I'm sure many attorneys (and others) in the Las Vegas legal community would have loved to be a part of that encounter (mainly for juvenile, negative blog 'spew' that would enable them to entertain one another bragging about who was able to uncover the masked Kael.) I've written many times here about the value of anonymity. (See HERE and HERE). Anonymity brings with it my honest opinions. There is value to that. Many in this Las Vegas legal community disagree with me on that point, however there are many that agree. I get daily e-mails to that effect (both ways). Nonetheless, given the great desire out there to unmask me, you can only imagine my apprehension in meeting Ed.

The Risk

.

So, the obvious question begs, why would I risk it? Well, the simple answer is that there was a certain level of defiance and mystery, though the main reason was . . . because I like Ed and I'm not going to be beat down into a closet, well completely anyway. I don't take shit sitting down. Sorry, but that is my answer.

I would not be honest if I told you it was a simple and uncomplicated adventure, though. There was apprehension. If Ed and I had not been able to build a degree of 'online trust', I would likely have backed out of the meeting altogether. The 'clincher' . . . I knew that Ed valued his anonymity just as much as I did, thus I felt security in our mutual understanding.

Just prior to our meeting, my mind was racing about who, in fact, Ed was and what his motivations were in meeting me, a lowly blawger in Las Vegas. It was only after a good amount of research about Ed that I had agreed to meet, anyway. However, the morning of the meeting my mind went to some dark places (e.g. Is Ed just a front to find out who I am? Is Ed connected to Las Vegas deeper than I know and would he know my face? Would Ed record our conversation? Would Ed take pictures of our encounter through a 3rd party, just to expose me?) Sounds paranoid, it is.

However, as my readers know, I've taken great risk to discuss some of the issues in the Las Vegas legal community and I've exposed myself to potential ridicule, loss of personal income and potential harm to myself and others. Am I exaggerating? You'd know the answer is 'no', if you truly are part of the legal community here. Your naivety may tempt you otherwise.

Understanding Trust

.

So, what 'trust' was required to meet Ed? How was that developed? What was the basis for the trust? What was the basis of our individual risks? Were our risks in a face-to-face relationship the same? Where do we go from here? These are all questions that I am still answering. One thing is for sure, though, from what I can tell, Ed is a quality person that gives to the Blawgosphere for the sake of development and self-understanding (realization). Because of his motivation for anonymity amidst his desire to meet face-to-face, I believe I am only beginning to understand the complexities that make up "Ed", the persona, not the individual.

What do I mean by persona? You see, all I know of Ed is what Ed allows me to see. While I've seen 'him' (the opinions and thought of Blawg Review), I have not seen 'him' (the man that may have been married and raised children). But the only Ed that I want to see is the Ed that he allows me to see. The same is true, from my end. Thus, our trust and our relationship is based upon the information that each allows the other to see. Much too often, I believe that our collective, societal opinion of a 'trusting relationship' is FULL DISCLOSURE. I disagree. I think that our curiosities about others and our desires to place judgments upon others is the basis (in part) of the relationships in which we engage. Our trust is therefore contingent upon the amount of disclosure we make to the other entity, instead of simply taking whatever disclosure is given and either finding a basis for commonality, or not. The terms 'keeping it real' and 'puttin' my heart out there' are all too commonly the basis for our understanding of what it means to 'trust'. We don't have to 'keep it real' to establish trust. We only have to identify the boundaries and the common goals, then allow for the personal disclosures to build the trust. Yes, personal disclosure is the key to trust, not TOTAL disclosure.

You should know, that after meeting Ed, given a little more disclosure by us both, it became quite clear after 5 minutes of discussion that I had made the right decision to meet in person. Ed, while his motivations for anonymity may differ from mine in their specificity, they were all very much the same in their degree and meaning. In other words, he had the same 'skin in the game' as I did. So, if I was ever going to meet anyone face-to-face, this was the guy, he truly understood me. He valued 'our' anonymity because he valued his own anonymity. WHOLA! The basis of our trust and disclosure, and the resultant beginning of the relationship.

Lunch - The Next Step In The Relationship

We had a very long lunch and were both very satisfied with not discussing who we were. Rather, we discussed what we are (or what we wanted the other to know we are). Initially, this may seem dishonest, as certainly we both withheld important information. However, I found it made us trust each other easier, as we did not disclose facts that would create pre-judgement (e.g. religion, education, marriage, children, where we were raised). We only knew one thing: we were lawyers that blawged (of course, all opinions related thereto).

Can that be a basis of a relationship? Sure. Certainly not for a marriage and maybe not for a partnership. However, we were able to trust each other from a standpoint of 'colleague' or 'fellow blawger' or 'writer' or 'lawyer' or 'guy that cares about "xyz"'. That is how we established common ground. That is how we created the basis of our trust. Once we established 'common ground', we had a basis for trust and thus a basis for a relationship.

The Future of Anonymity & The Business Relationship Parallel

What does the future hold? I don't know. Certainly it will include maintaining a friendship with Ed, sharing ideas about the Blawgosphere, law, the Internet, marketing, etc. (e.g. areas of interest to both of us and to which we both bring a certain amount of experience).

This overall experience is a good microcosm of business relationships, of every relationship, in general. While in business you know names and companies, you really NEVER know the other person, the company identity (maybe because it evolves pursuant to the entire persona of Management and the Board in this unique dance of personalities). So, while you think a blawger 'tweetup' may not be relevant to, or real in, our daily activities, you are wrong. It is VERY REAL in all aspects of trust and relationships.

Clear parallels between 'tweetup' trust and 'face-to-face' trust exist. Relevant and irrelevant personal information is withheld and shared with you and from you in both of these settings on a daily basis. Why? In business, the basis of the relationship is the relationship. Again, control of the disclosed information is, well, professional. Some may argue that information about a person's personal life is more relevant in this setting. I would not. Why would they argue this? In an effort to take elements of a multi-faceted personality and make that single distasteful element define the person (this is generally to allow for more control in the business relationship). The person seeking this information usually wants to be able to diagnose the transaction/relationship and gain the upper hand.

You may be able to learn something from this idea relevant to a business relationship, negotiation and the like, but this theory will gain you nothing in understanding the relationship of Ed & I. Why? Just because a person has personal beliefs that are different than yours does not mean that you can't be 'best business friends'. A Catholic that cheats on his wife, a Mormon that drinks alcohol and a Jew that reads the Talmud daily can all be in the same 'circle of trust', depending upon the basis for which the trust was established. What is the foundation? While the relationship may never extend beyond those parameters, it likely does not need to in order to produce engaging and productive conversations, collegial humor, stimulating cutting-edge innovations and the like.

What Do We Know?

So, trust is trust. It may feel different when anonymous, but on one level it is still just good ol' fashioned common goals and personal disclosure, no matter the name or the identity.

.