What is an Identificationship?

A lot of people spend part of their lives complaining about being deceived or lied to, abused or judged.

But what if you had a relationship/friendship/partnership where you both have agreed to
be responsible for what you hear rather than the speaker being responsible for what they say.

Then you would have what I have called an identificationship.

Where you could both feel secure to do what we do naturally, identifying where you differ or disagree without the fear of being abused, blamed or judged, because what either listener finds unacceptable, at any time for their ears, has already been accepted as just that, unacceptable, no questions asked. Protecting our ears early enough now becomes the issue and how we go about doing it.

Rethink Perfect is the culmination of firstly identifying of the listener’s responsibility and where the process of protecting my ears has led to the development of a number of tools to help in the process.

I believe that an identificationship can stop the deterioration of poorly managed ears in a relationships and increase the talent of identification.

“I can relate with that” can just as easily be substituted with “I can identify with that”.
But what does “relate” mean? What does it mean when she says we need to relate more.
Relate what, in this case? “Relate” in this case means to talk more. But talking isn’t identifying is it? But talking does potentially allow us to identify, especially if that is the goal of both.

I think that we have been put on this earth not to multiply but to identify (ourselves and others).

That is, it is not all about multiplication but rather the name of the game is identification.

That we should not be trying to form “relationships” but “identificationships”.

By agreeing to identify only, where and why we disagree, we form an identity that is all our own and allows us to identify someone that could be suitable for us to possibly mate/partner with. ie personal and business.

To participate in the identification process effectively I think we need a few things:

· An agreement that this is what we are doing, ie identifying only

· An agreement on a process of how we go about identifying (I suggest Rethink Perfect)
and ensuring that we don’t stray into blaming or judging what we actually identify.

For example for me to identify my mate I would be looking for someone that is trying
to identify also and be well on the way to understanding this process.

It is my theory that by identifying where we disagree we can deal directly and proactively with anger.

I think that getting angry is the result of failing to identify or identifying and trying to resolve the disagreement at the same time. The less we have identified the more angry that we get. I think anger is the domain of people being slack and incompetent and failing to understand and learn that we are put here to identify and let me be the first to put up my hand here.

Being angry is like shitting in one’s pants……understandable but not acceptable.

Most of us, unfortunately, are not house trained.

Imagine using the layout of the underground as a metaphor for our brains and the learning process. However, also imagine that we did not have this plan above to help us and we needed to map the routes and locations ourselves. There seems to me to be two different ways to approach how to do this.

1. We could get on every train and get off at each junction until it all becomes clear in our mind.

2. We could ask others that have already got onto these trains and that have gone down these junctions and get them to describe what they saw and how far it is etc.

To me, life is probably a combination of both approaches. I have to admit that I do prefer the second approach for myself as it seems to me to be lot quicker to map all the routes though it may not be as accurate as doing it all myself. But I can always go down any sections that seems to have some errors or inconsistencies.

Getting on and off every train that comes along can be very time consuming and tiring but I do believe that this is the more common approach to mapping our mind routes. Learning to read the route and destination signs on the trains also helps in the whole process.

The only problem with this analogy is that in our case there are probably thousands or millions of routes to take and understand in our minds and taking all of these routes in one lifetime may be impossible, so enlisting the help of others that have been down these “tracks” seems to me to be the most effective way to do the mapping.

Finding the right people to ask and how we go about wording our questions and comments is going to help get the the best answers. How we listen for the answers and how they are delivered is probably going to also improve our chances of building up a more accurate and effective picture or route plan.

To me, blaming and being angry go hand in hand. Most of us woudl agree, in the cold light
of day, that blaming is not acceptable, along with the resentment and anger that accompanies it.

In my view most of us tend to blame for someone else’s incompetence or lack of awareness and I see this as a form of incompetence, in itself. But what about the the blaming of someone that blames? I call this secondary blaming and it is something that I have been trying to deal with for most of my life.

You see, I rarely blamed someone for their incompetence but would blame them for
blaming me, for mine. I now see that all blaming is the result of incompetence and something that we can all learn, with a bit of instruction, to deal with.

People will happily follow the loser and think nothing of it, but when it comes to leading the winner it becomes all too hard.

I guess that explains,  when it comes to startups, why there are far, far more losers than winners. Its not easy to spot the difference until after the fact.

But the writing is on the wall.
Ie. Losers are easy to follow, winners make you lead and that is hard.

In a world of egos duelling and where the other seems to be the one to blame
for an issue or dispute that arises, it is nice to know that there is an alternative
way.

Imagine we had an agreement from our opposite partner/s in crime (business or personal) that we agree to identify any potential disagreements, that could occur, beforehand.

Basically that we agree to prepare before the dispute occurs. What this would do is get
us to be more proactive now in our thinking or as the saying goes “a stitch in time saves
nine” (saves nine stitches more, later).

Now of course we cannot foresee all potential disputes and prepare for all possible failures that may occur, however, because we have this agreement, it would mean that no one person could blame the other for any dispute occurring, as you both simply did not prepare or prepare well enough for the dispute to not occur. And with the blame game out of the way, you could then both focus on what you could have done to avoid the dispute occurring,
using  “…with the benefit of hindsight” tool.

ie. With the benefit of hindsight what would you have done differently and what would you hope your partner would have done differently?

So how is it that nobody can cause a problem?

Well, I was speaking to a person that works for a nameless multinational company with 8,000 staff and they had just completed a huge change over in systems. Now she tells me that there needs to be a change back to some degree. I asked her how could this happen and she said that they already had the figures to prove that this problem was going to occur but that “nobody had the courage of their convictions to speak up”.

Yes, that is right “NOBODY”. Nobody caused this problem because nobody spoke up…..nobody did anything and now nobody stuffed up. I repeat nobody!

I guess when somebody has the courage to put up their hand and say “somebody did not speak up” then they will be able to identify what, where and why these errors occurred, in my view.

You see the same nobody that did not speak up about the problem is the same nobody that
now is not willing to identify why it occurred. And this cultural problem will continue to allow such issues to continue to occur over and over again, wasting resources and people’s
sanity.

I think that relationships and the conversations that we have are all about identifying where we disagree/agree on a particular point. By identifying what, how and why we disagree helps us form new and more suitable thinking for that topic in our own time and space.

So instead of simply “agreeing to disagree” I say lets “agree how and why we disagree” and
compare our reasoning.

I was speaking to a young guy the other day and he was telling me that he trusts in the person where as I told him that I trust in the agreements that I make with the person. We could then agree that this is fundamentally where we disagree.

I think he prefers to assume that the other person will agree with his way of thinking rather than explicitly identifying where they may disagree on an issue such as “commitment”, for example.

But I guess that if they do not have an agreement to specifically identify where they disagree on the issue then I guess that is all he can do is assume that they agree. Otherwise he could be accused of interrogating her or hijacking the conversation.

Even if they did agree to identify where and why they disagreed they will also need to agree upon a process or way to go about identifying such disagreements. Presently I use Rethink Perfect as this process of identification.

Ultimately I believe that this process of identifying is the way we form our identity.

I learnt two things tonight,

1. To understand, more clearly, the conformism mechanism on the mating cycle

2. Learn how to explain when I stop expecting.

1. First learning:
I think the conformism mechanism is driven by fear, in that women have a choice of 2 behaviours.

1. Wait for a guy to initiate conversation: That way she gets the sample of the bulk of men or majority that are participating around the middle of bell curve.

2. Or initiate with the chance of striking an outlier (one that has chosen not to initiate) that is either incredibly smart and aware or is on the other side of the long tail curve and is a incredibly shy and/or psychopath and unstable.

It is no wonder that women choose behaviour 1?

But wait there is more. What if you were a psychopathic outlier guy and realised that women were selecting by the above process then you chose to try blend into the majority of the bell curve, i.e. to conform and start initiating. Then this would throw out the whole principle of the majority of women’s tactics.

I think that this is what happens and the majority of women have not realised this.

2. Second Learning:

That when one truly is willing to drop one’s expectation one will be able to tell by discovering the explanation of that particular issue.