Thank you Mark Zuckerberg, today I broke free from my chains!

This morning, I was commenting on an interesting LinkedIn post from a prospect. Although clearly written by AI, it delivered relevant content on how to communicate better.

Next to it, there was an image of a block of wood over an abyss with an interlocutor on each side, conveying the idea that communication is a bridge. I commented: “The image is correct. Etymologically, “communication” is the action of putting in common. In this sense, I liked the image of the bridge, in which each interlocutor is responsible for putting in common his part, his pillar of the bridge.”

I did this, and on the recommendation of my friend Alexandre Bastos, I uninstalled the Facebook and Instagram apps from my cell phone. I felt better. Got a minute? I’ll explain why.

By Vincent Parachini, Managing Partner of Halifax Consulting Latam

If communicating is putting in common, why is there so little listening nowadays?

Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta, announced that he will change the content policies of his platforms that currently have content moderation (Instagram, Facebook and Threads), along with the end of the use of fact-checking in publications.

We live in an era where reactive and polarized communication dominates the public and private landscape. Digital platforms have shaped the way we connect and consume information.

And this is the point: we go from communicating to consuming information, having the impression that we are communicating.

While they offer undeniable benefits, these platforms also fuel phenomena that strongly disrupt objective communication.

Learn about the origin of evil or how Social Networks exploit human physiology

Our communication is profoundly influenced by our nervous system and our base instincts. The human brain is divided, simply, into three major areas: the reptilian brain, responsible for automatic and survival reactions; the limbic system, where emotions predominate; and the neocortex, responsible for rational thought and language.

When we communicate, our limbic system often reacts before the neocortex can process the information, and our perception is shaped by mental shortcuts—so-called cognitive biases.

The algorithms of these platforms are designed to maximize engagement. They prioritize content that generates intense emotions — especially anger, indignation, and fear. The logic is simple: the more time we spend interacting, the more data we provide, and the greater the profit generated. But the relational cost is high.

For example, a user who interacts with a polarizing post receives MORE similar content, creating a reinforcement cycle. This cycle, called the “filter bubble,” exacerbates confirmation bias — the tendency to seek out and believe information that validates our pre-existing opinions while ignoring contrary evidence. Therefore, the more exposures to the same account, the more “true” it seems to us.

In addition, preference bias also comes into play: we prioritize content that is easier to consume or that reinforces our sense of belonging. Thus, communities become increasingly homogeneous, enclosed in “echo chambers” that hinder dialogue between different groups.

Confrontational culture and “dumbing-down”: the social cost

The combination of these dynamics creates fertile ground for the spread of fake news. Research shows that false information spreads faster than true information, as it often appeals to intense emotions. This is compounded by our physiology, activating negativity bias – the human mind pays more attention to negative information, as historically this helped survival – when we are faced with content that evokes fear or anger, the limbic system activates the fight or flight response, decreasing our capacity for critical analysis.

The result? An environment where communication ceases to be a channel of connection to become an arena of confrontation. We see this daily in inflammatory comments, divided groups, and even in the breakdown of personal and professional relationships.

But in my view, there is another, much more serious problem: nothing new is created in the identical. To learn something, you need to be open to the different and embrace the confusion and bewilderment in which the new leaves you. The more exposed you are to what is different, the more enriched your reflections on your usual tasks are, allowing you to make new connections between familiar subjects. This is called: Serendipity.

Serendipity is the occurrence of fortunate and valuable discoveries in unexpected ways, usually while searching for something completely different.

Spending time on social networks will not learn anything new, as they are programmed to eliminate the possibility of serendipity, leading to cognitive impoverishment, to a flattening of the world in which we live.

The hegemony of the reactive and opinionated culture or the insurmountable objection: the commercial cost

See your rational faculties as a muscle, the more they are trained, the more insightful you become.

In a nutshell, social networks reinforce their existing opinions and preferences, desensitizing, disabling, weakening our critical sense, our ability to reason, to arbitrate and to doubt what we see, hear and feel.

If everything is judged, supported, decided in a click, during the furtive moment of a Like, if having an opinion is more valued than having a reflection, we become hostage to our automatisms.

If our clients normalize this in their buying processes, since, as people, they are members of social networks before having a corporate position, they are more likely to give their opinion on your value proposition even before evaluating it objectively.

For us business leaders, that’s having an additional demon to fight: an insurmountable objection. Because if there is no room to evaluate objectively in the customer’s head, there is no way to overcome his objections.

Why is it relevant to know this as a (commercial) leader? – Let’s learn from Ana

Let’s illustrate with an anecdote.  Ana, commercial director of a large technology company, participates in a strategic meeting with her team. During the discussion, a team member questions the feasibility of a proposed strategy. Feeling threatened, Ana interprets the comment as a personal attack. Without realizing it, she responds defensively, disrupting the creative flow of the meeting and undermining the team’s confidence.

What happened here? Ana was a victim of negativity bias and her instinctive physiological response. Their listening was compromised, and the opportunity to foster productive discussion was lost.

For (commercial) leaders, awareness of these mechanisms is vital. If you’ve been reading me this far, you can’t doubt your intent to be a benevolent leader and you have to ask yourself, “how do I get out of this?”

When we talked about it, Ana, my coachee, became aware of the impact of her biases and the relevance of “taking back control of her decisions” given the current context. So he asked me for a “new” book to learn about how to master his impulses. He was surprised by my answer: “Meet Pericles, read Aristotle and Plato”

The Old at the Service of the New – The 3 Sieves of Socrates as a guide to self-control

History has attributed to Socrates the following parable: The 3 sieves.

“Before speaking, pass your words through three sieves. What I am about to say:

1. Is it true? (Objectively based on facts)
2. Is this kind? (Empathically compassionate with the other and their challenges)
3. Is it useful? (Functionally it serves to advance our common understanding)

I find that Socrates’ 3 sieves offer a practical framework for leaders who want to lead with intentionality and develop deliberate mindful listening and response. It works for you to reflect and cultivate a rational response to life’s injunctions. But it can also be a guide to cultivate this ability in others.

For instance.

1. Is it true?
   Before reacting, challenge the validity of the information.
   • Example: A customer complains that the price of a service is too high. Instead of responding defensively, you can ask, “What are the costs you would have if you didn’t find a service like ours?”
2. Is it kind?
   Evaluate whether the information or response contributes to the progress of the relationship.
   • Example: In a sales meeting, an employee criticizes the team’s approach in an internal presentation, expressing doubts about the chances of success of the plan. Redirect: “What specific suggestions do you have for us to improve this?”
3. Is it useful?
   Reflect on the emotional impact of the answer.
   • Example: A team member states that “no one understands the company’s new strategy.” Engage with: “What examples or direct customer feedback can you share with us that illustrate this difficulty?”

Benevolent Leadership and the “Mental Gym”: An Antidote to Ambient Polarization

I have always believed that leadership was a privilege and a responsibility. He always called me to be at the service of others. And I could only really understand how to do it when I realized that everything starts with “Self-leadership”.

Corporate endomarketing imposes many injunctions on us, they even put them on the walls of offices. These are the famous values. We have to be “collaborative, creative, have a spirit of ownership, challenge the status-quo, etc.

None of this becomes a reality if we don’t understand how we function and how we learn. Being a benevolent leader requires constant self-vigilance. It requires hours and hours of “Mental Gym”.

Are you going to the Gym? Do you like how your body looks? Do you feel like you’re making progress as you can run, jump, row, swim longer? I completely understand. I learned to like it. I hated that. Let me ask you a question: “And your mind, how many hours a week does it train?”

The essential point is that it takes many more hours to train your mind to have critical and rational control of your impulses than your body to be able to run 15 km.

“Let’s go Mental training then?”

How do you deal with conflicting information in your daily life? How long do you take before responding to a catchy opinion that clashes with your beliefs?

When is the last time you asked to understand an opinion different from yours, instead of answering immediately?

And finally, when are you going to really break free and uninstall Facebook and Instagram Apps?

I did it today, thanks to my friend Alexandre and I feel very grateful for that.

About the author:

As Managing Partner of LATAM at Halifax Consulting, Vincent is dedicated to driving strategic growth and enhancing business productivity in Latin America. A former CEO with more than 15 years of experience managing international business at BIC, 25 years in sales, and 8 years in training and consulting, he is passionate about helping companies achieve their goals through customized solutions and actionable insights.

---

Did you like this article? Share it

•