The zero-sum trap

This week, I’m sharing a piece inspired by my recent experiences on LinkedIn, a social network I'd never really used until this year (but it can probably be applied to so much of our communication today!). I originally wrote this with the idea of publishing it on Linkedin, but I find it also fits in well with the overall theme of my blog. So here goes.

Lately, every time I open LinkedIn, it feels less like a professional network and more like a battleground. People aren’t just sharing opinions—they're tearing down others.

Those in favor of remote work are bashing companies that want employees back in the office (or labeling workers who timidly admit they actually kinda missed in-person work as privileged and out of touch). On the other side, remote workers are dismissed as lazy and entitled. Post after post calls out the “telltale signs” of AI-generated content, ridiculing people for using the technology and condemning their supposed lack of originality and work ethic. And then there was one particularly scathing post where the writer felt compelled to declare their hatred for those who end their posts with "my 2 cents". (Apparently, this is either a humble-brag or a failure to take responsibility for one’s own words. Who knew?)

These posts generate a lot of engagement and ignite endless arguments. It’s as if we’ve decided that everything must be a zero-sum game. For one perspective to be valid, the other must be obliterated. But what does that accomplish?

Sure, we live in uncertain times. Competition is high, industries are shifting, and the ground beneath our feet feels less stable than ever. And let's not even mention the geopolitical hellscape we’ve entered. But does that really mean the only way to win is by making someone else lose? That the best way to prove a point is by ridiculing those who see things differently?

I wrote about this recently in Are we listening?—how often we engage in conversations not to understand but to confirm our own views, treating discussions like battlegrounds instead of opportunities to learn. And this feels like an extension of that. Instead of curiosity, we default to dismissal. Instead of nuance, we reach for absolutes. Instead of thoughtful discussions, we’re reducing complex, meaningful topics into screaming matches, where the loudest voice wins and the actual substance gets lost in the noise.

The moment we turn everything into a zero-sum game, we all lose. So maybe the next time we feel the urge to dunk on someone for their take on remote work, AI, or—God forbid—their choice of sign-off, we could pause for a moment. Not to agree, necessarily. Just to remember that the conversation isn’t about winners and losers. It’s about making sense of the world and what we build together.

Because if LinkedIn is a reflection of how we engage with the world, then the way we show up there—how we debate, disagree, and discuss—matters more than we think.