rethink PERFECT

Some say that a successful startup is all about the execution, while
others say it is all about the idea and the business model one starts with.

I reckon both are very important, the idea and the execution of 10,000 sub-ideas mixed
with timing, time and patience can make this single idea a success.

I had a dream the other night where I started singing “You have to know when to hold ‘em…” and yes I think a successful startup comes about by knowing when to either hold or fold the idea and/or hold or fold the execution  of the sub-ideas. 

I also think that making these decisions can best come about through consensus and
creating an environment where we are not afraid to dispute an idea and that we can feel
confident that no one is acquiescing but actively agreeing or disagreeing.

Finally, making sure we stay focused and not to start “…count your money while sitting at the table. There’ll be time enough for counting when the dealing is done!”

Rhetorical question mark is the combination of an inverted exclamation and an inverted question mark.

Rhetorical questions are a strange animal. They can throw us especially when someone manages to sneak in an absolute like “always”, “every”, “any”, “all” “never, “can’t”, and “don’t”. Like “Can’t you do anything right ¿”

From Wikipedia
“A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question that is asked in order to make a point. The question is used as a rhetorical device, posed for the sake of encouraging its listener to consider a message or viewpoint. Though these are technically questions, they do not always require a question mark.”

More on Wikipedia On Its Grammar:“In the 1580s, English printer Henry Denham invented a “rhetorical question mark” for use at the end of a rhetorical question; however, it died out of use in the 17th century. It was the reverse of an ordinary question mark, so that instead of the main opening pointing back into the sentence, it opened away from it.”
In this case I am suggesting inverting it as such ¿ , so that it is a combination of an inverted exclamation and question mark.

Maybe it is time to bring back a rhetorical question mark but I think such a mark is needed more so as a word, in an actual conversation, to warn us of this very clever ploy, especially on unsuspecting listeners.

I think that the best answer to such a rhetorical question could be “I am sorry but I prefer to hear what you actually think about me. i.e. That you seem to think that I cannot do anything right any of the time, right¿”

Or better still get an agreement on the use of rhetorical questions during serious conversation and especially on not including such absolutes as listed above.

I asked a guy the other week what conversation is for and he replied, “for enjoyment”.
Sure, conversation is enjoyable but sex also is for pleasure but it also has a fundamental purpose, procreation.

Besides giving us pleasure, is there also a fundamental purpose to conversation?
*Intercourse can be used for describing Sexual relations and conversation.
The conversation I am talking about is the “one we need to have…” or what we refer to when we say “on the converse……” or for when we are “conversely speaking…”

I believe that there is a fundamental use for this conversation and it is to simply convert!

Convert what into what, do I hear you say?

To convert my own concepts into “our” concepts or in other words, into agreements and
possible solutions to problems that we did not fully realise existed.

If this is true, then I think that it is imperative that we make sure that we don’t try
to use conversation to try convert each other’s concepts.

Most of these conversations, it seems to me, can consist of one or more of the following coercive “tools” that are used by one or all to try convert or subvert other peoples views rather than the converting of our own.

Tools like rhetorical questions, statements of so-called facts, absolute language, gossip, little accountability for supplying evidence or the seeking of the other’s version, tone, volume, anger and even aggression and violence.

I guess these tools have been around for as long as we first learned to use language, however if we ever want to eradicate or just reduce the disputes and conflicts in our own lives, I believe that we need to learn to deal with such behaviour from ourselves and others, so that we can have more satisfying and enduring intercourse.

I was told today that there are two types of anger, by my barber.
“What, righteous anger?” I suggested and he reiterated “yes there is a right time for anger and a wrong time”.

I told him that if he really thinks that, that he was setting himself up as a God, in my view.
That is, a law unto himself, as he gets to decide what and when his anger is right and can justify just about any of his anger and condemn anyone else’s.
In other words his anger can be okay but other people’s is not.

I think that all anger is understandable but not acceptable. I don’t think that I can ever justify my anger, though I do believe that it is possible to understand it.

I would be interested if anyone could argue against this statement?

Can anyone argue that life is not about learning to draw our own boundaries?
To me, complaining to or about someone’s behaviour before we drew our line is unreasonable and is probably the first boundary needed to be drawn by each and agreed to.

How we go about drawing the rest of our boundaries, the devil in the detail.

I was discussing this point with someone recently who agreed that we should draw up our own boundaries and then they proceeded to tell me how I should draw up mine. WARNING! WARNING!

At this point I should/could have informed her what my boundaries are i.e. That I prefer to draw up my own without her direct advice. Hearing what her boundaries are is fine but my line is drawn at being told what my boundaries or other peoples, should be.

Sharing with each other our own method is acceptable to me, like “this is what I do and why and how I like to be treated…” but not actively trying to convert the other. i.e. “You can’t do it that way, you should do it this way….”

Boundary drawing will be part of my next conversation, and I will draw up mine by letting them know how I draw mine and how I would prefer to hear their boundaries.

What’s conversation for?
For example I converse to convert my own concepts. AKA to increase my consciousness.

His reply: What’s that? I’ve been married 10 years and have 3 kids, I don’t know what that is and I am not interested!

CEOs

The measure of an animal’s consciousness, according to David Eagleman, author of Incognito is that if it looks like a jumble of input and output subroutines, then the less it gives evidence of consciousness.

He doesn’t say this but his definition could also  extend to people. Maybe we are only as conscious as our last awareness performances.

Eagleman sees consciousness as a level-of, and like a CEO of a huge multinational organisation with thousands of workers and departments. Where the CEO simply moderates and directs the individuals and their departments. And like CEOs we get good levels of consciousness and some not so good levels.

In Eagleman’s book he quotes Leslie Orgel’s second law:
“Evolve solutions; when you find a good one, don’t stop!”

I guess, like consciousness, it is not so much about finding the “right” solution but to continue to rethink perfection.

So maybe we should not be so focused on “innovation” in business but simply on becoming more aware or more conscious of the customer problem and the subsequent evolved solution.

David Eagleman, author of Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain, reckons that our brains are made up of a team of rivals.
Starting with the rivals of the left and right side of our brains to a multitude of small rival subroutines that contribute to our complicated decision making.

A team of rivals can be an individual struggling within or a couple throwing ideas off each other.

If rivalry and diversity of thinking parts within our own mind is crucial for decision making, then maybe that same rivalry is just as important in the teams that we form in business and in personal relationships.

My theory on who we are and why we are here.

1. We have been programmed to over react (sub-conscious):

– Think of a child crying hysterically from day one

2. We have a the ability to become conscious of our over reactions:

– Think of our parents teaching us to reduce our reactions:
* Note: an “under reaction” is an over reaction , just in the negative.

3. We have the intelligence to develop our own processes to reduce our own over reactions even further:

– Think of Rethink Perfect

Finally…
4. We have the ability to understand these principles above and the potential patience and determination  to prepare for our own child’s development even before we find our mate, and based on this process above, can dramatically increase their Reaction Reduction, asymmetrically or exponentially, if we get an opportunity to apply them.

What about simply 6 things that will clean out the dead wood in your life.
Easy to say a life time to master.

1. Speak with more ADJUSTABLE language and listen out for people’s non-adjustable (all knowing) language.

2. Be more ACCOUNTABLE for your thoughts and actions and listen out of non-accountable (blaming others) views.

3. Stop putting up with actions or views that you find not ACCEPTABLE and
ensure that your actions and words (tone, volume and rhetoric) are acceptable and that people are not just acquiescing.

4. APPRECIATE people’s reactions and contributions even if you don’t necessarily agree or like their delivery.

5. ACKNOWLEDGE people’s contributions even if you don’t agree or like their views.

6. APOLOGISE more (rather than attacking) for not liking or agreeing with other people’s views or actions.

Better still get an agreement with any “green wood” (what is left after the dead wood is gone) to help each other
to apply the 6As (rules of engagement) in the future.