Edward De Bono claims in one of his latest books “Think before it is too late”, that if we can understand the brain’s mechanisms then we can create the thinking “software” to cope with these processes. He also talks about self organising systems and how our brain is one. Self organising systems can simply be explained as systems that take the path of least resistance.
Rethink Perfect is about understanding the brain’s mechanisms to be always right or more so its desire to be always right. Being right combined with the desire to be always right forms our path of least resistance in our thinking and also forms a major problem, I think. Our desire to be always right is so strong that we seem to insist in making what is not right into “right” so that we can claim that we have found the path of least resistance.
If we don’t have the patience required to find what is actually “right” or the honesty to say that it is “not quite right”, then we will continue to create falsehoods to others and most importantly ourselves.
So what thinking software am I proposing to counter this problem? Well, I think that it already exists and is called “conversation”. It is through conversation that we can convert our concepts, through people’s feedback, from what we thought was right into something that more closely resembles “right”. If this does not come so easy to us as we still strive to be right through our desire to be always right, then there are a number of tools that we can also use, in conversation, to counter these desires.
Rethink Perfect has a number of these tools that, once agreed to, can counter our desires and get us a little closer to perfection or more so move a little bit further away for imperfection.
The problem of right, seeing the truth for what it is and being right is nicely and succintly put.
However, any interest one might have in sitting down and having such a conversation to find “what is right” begs the question: where does that motivation to have that patience and to want to be honest about “what is right” come from?
From self-reflective observations of my own behavioural or neurological or neurochemical or whatever other actions, I feel that the mechanisms of our minds are very good at being sneaky and self-serving, such that layer upon layer of deceptions and convenient half-truths often form the bedrock of our beliefs (and our beliefs about our beliefs), our views of the world and the mental and neural “cross-references” which affirm and re-affirm to our own mind that they are, and therefore I am, right.
Sadly, I know of no real mechanism to ensure our honesty, or our honesty about how honest we are.
Hey Dean great to get your feedback, that that is all I think it takes to solve this conundrum. That is, my desire to hear your feedback regardless if I agree with it or not and showing that appreciation of course. I guess this is where personal relationshps come in. The effort required to continue to catch us out from our “sneaky” thinking is a life long one, I think and what makes it enjoyablle for me is if we have agreed rules of engagement.
I have to admit my brother and I have been working on this subject for the last 20 years with him as my feedback option. During this process we have had to develop agreed rules of engagement so as we did not kill each other but also to give us the joy of conversing. It is a tight and narrow rope to walk but we are getting there. Now if I could have a similar relationship with a woman I would be very happy indeed.
I am in the process of putting down all of these concepts in this book
Rethink Perfect – A nonbinding agreement for personal relating hopefully you will have a look some time and help me put the ideas together, through your feedback, into a usable and acceptable thought.