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.
“Stop the Line manufacturing is a technique introduced by Taiichi Ohno (of Toyota Production System fame) in which every employee on the assembly line has a responsibility to push a big red button that stops everything whenever they notice a defect on the assembly line.”
Initially, people did not understand the idea as the dogma at the time was to keep the line moving at all costs. Taiichi’s idea was by stopping the line and fixing inefficiencies you were proactively building a better process.
Some managers took up his idea and some did not. The managers that took up the idea their productivity dropped by a shocking amount. They were spending so much time fixing defects on the line rather than producing cars. The managers that did not take up his idea thought they were vindicated for taking their stance.
Before long though, something strange started to happen. The managers that took up Taiichi’s ideas and fixed the defects on the line as they went, started producing their goods faster, cheaper, and more reliably than stubborn conservative managers. To the point where they caught up and out performed them. This went on to make Toyota one of the leading car manufacturers in the world.
Now, imagine if we did that for all our conversations? Where we all could push an imaginary big red button during our conversations when ever we felt offended by someone’s behavior. Where we could adjust and fix, in real-time each others behavior processes, during conversation, that were causing offense and defect in communication?
I am suggesting that Object123.com is that BIG RED BUTTON for Stop the Line Conversation
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>
Who can deny that all conversation is an exchange of some sort or another, from the exchange of pleasantries, “Nice day, isn’t it?” to exchanging of proposals, “If I come back to you will you welcome me and marry me”
The exchange in in the sharing or our thoughts and or ultimate proposals.
So how do we make this exchange fair and equal, where we both gain more than we put in? Well, for exchanging pleasantries we generally use reasonably standard social mores to help as there is not much to be lost and gained. But for grand proposals it is a different matter, where we could lose or gain possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars, or even our life and the lives of our future children could be lost. It is in this area where we are going to need more explicit agreements, in my view, on how we go about both engaging and disengaging with our proposals. This is where the Object Principle comes in.
The Object Principle – How we disagree well, together
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 ……. Enjoyableness, Consideration, Accountability, Reasonableness, Responsibility, Transparency
(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.