eBook Cover

A Test of a First Rate Intelligence
F. Scott Fitzgerald famously said that “The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.” Rethink Perfect is a “test of a first-rate intelligence”. I like to think it is the combination of the “glass half full” AND “glass half empty” thinking. Or, the art of being pragmatic AND a dreamer, able to hold both opposing or contradictory outlooks at the same time. Being able to find the balance, however fleetingly, between false dichotomies such as right and wrong, good and bad, love and hate, perfect and failure is the goal of Rethink Perfect thinking.
What is new, I think, is my application of Rethink Perfect on relationship theory and the tools that have been spun off by being able to plan for perfect relations and prepare for the failure.

Seeking Dissent and Diversity
In Think Twice, Michael Mauboussin’s book on harnessing the power of counter intuition, talks about on page 34 seeking out dissent by finding data from “….reliable sources that offer conclusions different than yours. This helps avoid a foolish inconsistency”. And “when possible, surround yourself with people that have dissenting views. This is emotionally and intellectually very difficult but is highly effective in exposing alternatives.”
Rethink Perfect is designed to reduce the emotional and intellectual difficulty of having relations with people with dissenting views.

In Guy Kawasaki’s book Enchantment, he talks about having a diverse team.
” A diverse team helps make enchantment last, because people with different backgrounds, perspectives, and skills keep a cause fresh and relevant. By contrast when a naked emperor runs a kingdom of sycophants and clones, the cause moves towards mediocrity.”
Rethink Perfect is my way of encouraging and maintaining diverse views, together.

The upside of uncertainty and how we like to be treated

The upside of uncertainty between friends colleagues and lovers
is learning to explain how we like to be treated in a certain way or detail.

When I ask this question, “How do you like to be treated?” my prediction will be stunned
silence although last night I got “to be respected and worshipped”.
Upon rethinking what will we get…?

ie What is “respect” & “worshipped” to you?

So maybe the sub-title of this book is:

“The Upside of Uncertainty and the Certain Way we Like to be Treated”

Competitive Thinking

Is thinking competitive?

If it is then maybe the only time that conversation is not competitive is when we are not thinking while conversing or conversation by script or by rote.

I wonder if it is possible to find the worlds most normal conversation.
I propose an experiment where we tally up the most common questions asked when we first meet someone. The goal being to find the most normal (and predictably boring)
conversation. ie.

• Q. How are you?
  • A. Fine thanks
    • Reply. Awesome!
• Where do you live/where from
• What do you do
• Are you married
• etc etc

Why are We More Advanced than Apes and other Species?

Do apes have explicit agreements with each other? I don’t think so. I think they lack the language to make such explicit agreements and they live a more implicit existence.

Do people have explicit agreements with each other? Once again I would say more implicit generally, relying more upon politeness, conformity, customs and culture to keep each other in line. But of course as we get to know each other more explicit agreements are formed, for example signing the agreement on a marriage certificate is pretty explicit not to have sex with anyone else.

Maybe this is what makes us different than apes that we form relationships based upon explicit agreements rather than solely relying upon implied ones.

If this was the case then the more explicit agreements that we formed and used then the more advanced from the apes we are, maybe.

I wonder if I can get this explicit agreement any such advanced humans?

Hmmm… what do you think? Please share your feedback.

Thoughts on my ebook title

Rethink Perfect:
Processing Uncertainty Between Friends, Colleagues and Lovers

The good thing about this title is that it poses the question:
Why process Uncertainty? Or what is the Upside of processing uncertainty

The Upside of Uncertainty Between
Friends, Colleagues and Lovers

The good thing about this title is that it poses the question:
What is the upside of Uncertainty between friends, colleagues and lovers?

· The answer is that it creates conversation which can be fun if done fairly

· It gives us something to do

· It helps reduce it (uncertainty) and control its effects.

· It gives us something to work on together

· It will be around a life time (maybe) so no shortage

· It allows us to face our fears of losing self and other

· It’s all seem to know, when I think about it.

Why Converse?

Do we converse to seek an agreement?

agree

verb (used without object)

1.to have the same views, emotions, etc.; harmonize inopinion or feeling (often followed by with ): I don’t agree withyou.

2.to give consent; assent (often followed by to ): He agreed toaccompany the ambassador. Do you agree to the conditions?

3.to live in concord or without contention; get along together.

4.to come to one opinion or mind; come to an arrangement orunderstanding; arrive at a settlement: They have agreed onthe terms of surrender.

5.to be consistent; harmonize (usually followed by with ): Thisstory agrees with hers.

Conversation Competitions

Can one lose or win a conversation?
I guess there are many reasons that people have conversations but I do believe that there is an ultimate goal of finding solutions. When egos come between people, “winning” and avoiding “losing” can take precedence over finding solutions, maybe.
My definition of what conversation is for is to “convert concepts into possible solutions by getting agreements”. These solutions, in the form of agreements, can be tainted as we allow our egos to override the ultimate goal.

If you participated in this conversation could you win or lose it?
Why not try and see. Or maybe that is why most people do not participate in such types of conversation, as they are afraid of “losing”. I think we can only really lose by having such a fear of losing and not participating because of it.

If Conversation is Competitive What is the Goal?
I think it is competitive and I also think the goal is to deliver the better content with the best delivery. For example, a great delivery but not so great content is something like:
“I think the world is flat according to the information that I have available to me”.
On the other hand great content but not so good delivery is something like:
“Your wrong mate, I have seen to world from a plane and it curves!”
The best delivery and content, to me, would be something like:
“From my experience and various other resources, I have formed the opinion that the world is round, but apparently not perfectly.”
Game, set and match!
Finally, getting an agreement (Reasonable Certainty) on the content through the fine delivery, is the ultimate goal, maybe. Any takers?

Do we need rules of engagement to make conversations fairer?
Controlling our egos can allow us to find these solutions and agreements more efficiently. I am proposing we use a 6A framework as part of these rules of engagement for controlling our ego.

Loyalty and Taking Sides
With every good competition comes a chance to take sides or sit on the fence. Changing one’s  mind is an option but can be seen as a sign of losing rather than gaining insight.

Points
You even have points in conversation.
That is good points and bad points

The Bluff
As with every competition, the bluff is an important tool to defeat one’s opponent.
Using factive verbs and certitude, such as stating “This is so…” as opposed to “I think that this is so…” or the old favorite “absolutely…” as they know something is absolute.

Cheating
With every competition there is the possibility of cheating. Cheating is going against the spirit of the game. Even if agreed rules are in place we need to keep an eye on each other similar to how it is done in golf with each player marking the others score card.

Loser
How many times have you just met someone and thought they were a “loser”?
Obviously not a “winner”.

Is Sex competitive?
Well we all know it is a race to see “who comes first!”

Can you name something that is not competive?
Painting? Well we have the Archibald prize for portraiture in Australia.
Writing? What about the Booker Prize?
Why do some people find it difficult to realise that conversation can be competitive also?
Or is that part of the nature of this competition, that even some of the candidates are not aware that it is a competition and therefore not prepared for such an event. That would explain why there are so many losers from this competition in the form of broken relationships and with so many repeat offenders.

Competing against oneself
To behave better than your last encounter

More Competitiveness 
Good looks, botox,  breast implants, facelifts, fashion, all part of how we compete.
Height, weight, age, occupation,  place of residence, even the car we drive are yet more signs of “winning” and “losing”. Accents and how we say something lets us compete even further so why shouldn’t what we say during conversation also be competitive. Well I think what we say during conversation is probably the most competitive of all of the things I have mentioned.
Unfortunately for most, “awareness” has been deemed a handicap for me or anyone else that wishes to enlighten themselves, with the less aware telling me that I am “thinking too much” or “too deep”. I guess it is all part of the competition and their way to try to win and deem others as loser. A bit of irony to me.

Two More Competitive Questions
Is awareness competitive?
And is conformity competitive?
If conformity is competitive then if one wins at it does it effect our awareness ability?

The End! or the end of the beginning.

Gravity and The Pink Elephant

I think that…..some people believe that some thoughts are fact.
That some of the opinions that they hold are somehow more than just opinions but a fact or a certainty.

For example a in the 16th centuary it was believed that there were only white swans and the black swan was used in a saying similar to the saying “as rare as hens teeth” or in this case, ”a rare bird in the lands, and very like a black swan.” Both were presumed not to exist. That is teeth in hens and black swans. That was before Europeans visited Australia where we only have black swans. After that they had to drop that idiom.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb wrote his book on the subject in 2007 called The Black Swan.
Taleb regards almost all major scientific discoveries, historical events, and artistic accomplishments as “black swans”—undirected and unpredicted. The irony is the some people I mentioned above like to believe in facts or certainty, until disproven. Usually referring to “hindsight” and its benefits. Unfortunately, it seems that no matter how many times this “black swan” thinking is exposed as a fallacy, they continue to believe in such, so called facts. I say that people that refer to hindsight have no desire for foresight.

Now days there are still some people that believe that the explanation for gravity is now a fact or certain and not a theory any more. They have formed this belief/thought/fact simply because they have never heard of a better explanation. They hold on to this belief even when scientists are modifying our universe by adding “Dark Matter” and “Dark Energy” to balance their equations. Something smells fishy to me.

I am pretty sure that Albert Einstein was not too happy with Gravity as he knew it. Finding a unifying theory was the goal that he never achieved I believe. Maybe it’s time to  drop Gravity, or at least go back to understand that it is not a fact, but just another thought to be believed or not.

“I am a pink elephant” is a thought of mine to be believed or not. Or maybe it can be just let to stand to reason along with gravity and see if it fits or falls away. This is what I call Rethink Perfect thinking.

Reasonable Certainty and Uncertainty Defined

I define "reasonable uncertainty" as:

The point when I am in disagreement with someone and have the choice to:
1. Work and invest time and effort to expand my own understanding so as to convert my own ideas
so that we can get an agreement. (move towards the Agreement Point in green zone)
or
2. I can give up and go into the red/resentment zone in my diagram. I simply create a thought image that I believe,
such as "they won’t listen" and move on to my next failed relationship.
or
3. I can wait for more information to reveal itself, which could take years. But once found I can then pump that into
the conversation to get an agreement or until the other person uses option 2. on me in which case there is nothing I can do
in my view, unless we had an agreed process to address such a situation.

I define "reasonable certainty" as:

an agreement formed using an agreed framework. Where the topic was scrutinised with no room for obsequiousness, sycophants, or
abuse and priming. Just thorough debate till we nut out a subject and still leave it open to be revisited if new information comes to hand.

Comparing Certainties

Sakoz: I define ‘unreasonable certainty’ as:" Unwittingly believing a false thought and being as certain about it as one is certain about ones existence and gravity."

Rethink Perfect: Interesting… I define "unreasonable certainty" as when one loses one’s cool and believes a certain thing or person has caused it.

How do you define "reasonable certainty" and "reasonable uncertainty" Sakoz?

How to Complain Responsibly

So what is a complaint?
As simple as this question may sound,  I think that most people will not be able to answer this question successfully.
Is it a problem that we did not foresee? An action that has led to our resentment?

What is the purpose of a complaint?
Is it an expression to ensure that we can avoid the issue in the future. Surely then the most responsible complaint I ever make would be to avoid the problem in the first place? Maybe!

Resentment is not a complaint! I think it is the result of not complaining responsibly and making sure that the problem never occured in the first place. It is the internal frustration for how we can be so stupid to allow such problems to occur. It does not solve the problem that complaining responsibly can and can result in revenge and as the saying goes, ”if you go down the path of revenge, take two coffins”.

So what can we do to avoid the resentment?
Simply find the complaint by including the evidence and make an agreement with whom ever was responsible for creating it so that it does not happen again. Get an acceptable apology from the perputrator so that you can feel confident that from now on it will be less likely to occur again.

PS I forgot to mention when you try to complain responsibly prepare for the failure.

An Ideal Relationship without Resentment

1. The square is an ideal relationship with the fullest area used.

2. The parallelogram is a compromised relationship, area is reduced, that occurs at times
in diagram 2 when the two people enter into the resentment or RED area.

Keeping the relationship out of resentment is obviously the goal.

A Compromised Relationship with Resentment