Free PDF Download ( Rethink Perfect pdf )
Online reader ( rethinkperfect )
Sponsored by Tripcover Car Rental Excess Insurance
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.
From free to full-service, CreateSpace offers on demand self publishing options to meet your needs and budget. Sign up free now.
The Object Proposal is my attempt to get a level playing field for personal and business relationships. It allows us to deal directly and in real-time with controversial issues when we don’t want to be walking on “eggshells” to avoid he resultant disagreements, arguments and conflict that come with them…… more>
So you would like to be more objective then Dare to object!
However, be careful and…
- are to object using grounds – (not coffee) but the reason you object ie
“I object on the grounds of hearsay evidence”
- Dare to object and not get angry. – It is easy to detect if one is angry.
ie Volume, tone, rhetorical or leading questions & with a lack of …….
(for more see DECARRT.com – The D is for Dare to object)
- Do not get scared – ie Get an agreement, upfront to Dare to object and an agreement to not get angry.
So, how do we become more objective (less subjective)?
I think it is simple, just start objecting!
Yes, that’s right…..object…..to what the extreme or far right and left are saying and doing, and we will find the object.
IF the center is the object or objective then we will not find it on the far left or far right. Object, every time we hear anything that sounds like absolute truth or dogma.
Find the objective truth, or at least a better way.
How I think we should object is another post.
Ask anyone in the world if they believe we all should be accountable and responsible and they will answer yes. So, why is there such a lack of accountability and responsibility in the world? I guess there are two reasons for this.
- Because when we are talking about being accountable and responsible we are talking about a certain level of, and everyone seems to have a different level that they deem appropriate for others and for themselves.
- Because of our bias towards ourselves. ie. We think everyone else should be more accountable and responsible to us than we necessarily should be towards others.
I was speaking with some people yesterday and we mentioned apologizing or saying sorry as a form of taking responsibility and being accountable. I went on to say that not only do we need to say sorry or apologize for our failures but give an acceptable apology for them. Siting last weeks public episodes of the United Airlines dragged off passenger and Sean Spicer’s comment about Hitler not gassing his own people.
The people that I was talking with initially deemed the idea of giving an acceptable apology as taking the idea of accountability and responsibility too far. But in the end if we give an apology that is not accepted then ultimately the issues are not going to be fully resolved.
Both Spicer and the CEO of United took about 4 attempts before their apology was within the realms of being acceptable. How do we know that? When the public criticism and ridicule subsided.
Understanding this idea of giving an acceptable apology and not just an apology or saying sorry, is the level of accountability and responsibility that we can all agree upon
and that we all hold each other to whether we like it or not.
PS Maybe we should also apologize for our failed attempts to apologize in the first place? Now that would be taking accountability and responsibility to the next level, maybe.