“Anger is understandable but not acceptable”.

In other words (mine) any problem that we learn to understand the cause means we do not HAVE TO accept the effects.

For example when the Black Death ravaged a large town or city in the 14th century, because of the lack of understanding it was accepted that it was a potential death sentence by the majority of the inhabitants. But as it was understood that the cause was poor sanitation and the spread of bacterium not a curse or witch craft (superstition), then it became less acceptable until finally such large scale plagues have been eradicated (hopefully).

The point being that the more that we understand the causes of anger the less that we have to accept the devastating effects as a given. If you think anger is a given, then I suggest a good read is The Anger Habit:Proven Principles to Calm the Stormy Mind by Carl Semmelroth and Donald Smith. Their explanation helps improve our understanding on anger and reduce our superstition that its effects are inevitable.

Through this thinking, the cause and effect becomes the problem not the perpetrator and victim. Getting an agreement on this premise before a conversation can go a long way to starting off this process of helping each other understand and moderate each other’s anger, I think.

My latest reply to the flying Solo article:
I am an Introvert now they tell me

Maybe everyone here that claims to be an introvert is simply aware that participating in groups is fraught with potential obstacles, as they have very few, if any explicit rules of engagement with the people that they would be working closely with. Aware that most discussions/conversations end up either as overly obsequious where no one is saying what they really mean or in an unresolvable dispute of some sort or another.

It sounds like you have all given up. I am in a similar position only that I have developed a set of rules of engagement and am now waiting to see if I can get an agreement to use them.

I am an extrovert in the waiting.

Reply at http://www.flyingsolo.com.au/live-smarter/business-psychology/i-am-an-introvert-now-they-tell-me

Love your work!

https://rethinkperfect.wordpress.com/2011/11/04/organ-donor-outrage/

Hi Tony,

Kevin Rudd has allocated $151 M to increase organ donor rates the we get an increase of
25% or 80 new donors for 2010. Yes that is not a typo 80 more than 2009.
that works out at $1.8M per new donor.

The outrage is that I need to get my mum’s permission to donate my own organs even
after I have registered on the Organ Donor Register.

Imagine we have over 1.5 million registered donors on this register and we all need
to still get our mum’s or family members permission to donate.
Surely this is a terrible restriction on my rights to donate my organs and if removed would allow so many more
registered donors to have their desires met to donate.

I hope you can help me get my rights to donate my own organs.

Des Sherlock
General Manager

Amibro Pty Ltd ABN: 90 098 221 580 Suite 243, 1B 192 Ann Street Brisbane QLD Australia 4000 des 0417 712 601

Reply:

Dear Mr Sherlock

Thank you for your email to the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon Tony Abbott MHR. Mr Abbott has asked me to respond on his behalf.

The Coalition appreciates the time and effort that many Australians put into sharing their views. Your comments have been carefully noted.

On behalf of Mr Abbott, I thank you for your letter.

I invite you to stay up to date with Coalition news and policy announcements via the Liberal Party website www.liberal.org.au and to keep in touch with Tony Abbott via his personal website www.tonyabbott.com.au.

Yours sincerely

Office of the Hon Tony Abbott MHR

Leader of the Opposition

I was recently asked by someone the following of what I consider a rhetorical question:

“How can I agree to something I don’t yet fully understand.?”

Just change the word “agree” to “like” and I think you will have the answer. In my book I refer to an agreement as Rethink Agreements and define them as “what you and I consider acceptable to us for now” in other words “like”.

I like dealing with my own stress by getting feedback from others

I don’t like people dealing with my stress or using my stress to divert their attention from their own stress.

I don’t like people using rhetorical questions on me and do like them telling me what they think and why.

I like people speaking to me with Adjustable, Accountable and Acceptable language. etc, etc.

I only agree with what I like and I disagree with what I dislike. Now that seems pretty simple to me.

Rethink perfect is an agreement proposal that states that conversation is for converting.
But not for converting other people or their problems but for converting my own problems, through their feedback, into a conversion or convergence of ideas – that is an agreement and a possible solution to my problem.

My book, Rethink Perfect has a few roposed rules of engagement to help convert (our own problems) and is influenced by EDB and parallel thinking and talking. Free download at http://rethinkperfect.com

Here is my latest proposal for a conversation.

ME: Hello, I would like to converse with you but only as I would have you converse with me.

OTHER: Really, and how would you have me do that?

ME: To only try to convert your own problems, through my feedback, into agreements and possible solutions to only your problems.

Conversation on the principles of separating the behaviour from the person and then the problem from the behaviour.

From Peter Crocker’s Article on Flying Solo:

I am an introvert. Now they tell me!

Peter Crocker

Hi all. Thanks so much everyone for such thoughtful comments – we are complex beasts! I tend to agree with a few comments saying that projecting labels on other people isn’t generally helpful, as we all have shades of grey in our personality traits. However I find labels and explanations such as these very helpful for understanding certain behaviours within myself. Thanks again, Peter

Desmond Sherlock

Separating the person from the behaviour (an old one but a good one) is basically what I was intimating Peter. Taking it even one step further and separating the behaviour from the problem, would be my latest take on this. (I can explain further if anyone is interested)

15 Oct 12 | 23:09 AEST

Peter Crocker

Now I’m intrigued 🙂 I’d be happy to hear an explanation of these points if you have time?

Desmond Sherlock

Drat, you called my bluff.
Ok, let’s see if I can explain it for this situation Peter.

Let’s first separate the person from the behaviour
And we get a person that acts introverted. But we still can tend to see the behaviour as the problem.
I don’t think it is. And I think the whole discussion was about that, defending the behaviour.

If we separate the problem from the behaviour then HE (observer) has the problem with the behaviour.
That problem is HIS alone not in the behaviour.
Then all we have is two sets of behaviours, extroversion and introversion and no judgment
or bias to favour either.

HE now has the problem, (the problem is his alone) his perception of such behaviours.
If HE wants to remove HIS problem HE could start a conversation with the person’s displaying introversion or extroversion.
HE could propose a solution to help HIM out of HIS problem.
Then a converse solution could be proposed by the other, etc, etc.
Until they got an agreement.

Neither person or their behaviours is the problem but the problem is still HIS,
and I am sure that HE will want help to remove it and do it in a nicer way because of this.

(sorry, the best I can do first up, I am still working on explaining the idea)

16 Oct 12 | 00:19 AEST

Peter Crocker

Thanks Des, I’m still trying to get my head around this but i like the sound of this part “all we have is two sets of behaviours, extroversion and introversion and no judgment or bias to favour either”. That would be the ideal, but at the risk of sounding defensive :), I think there is a tendency in general society to under value the positives of introversion.

Desmond Sherlock

Good point peter and now we are entering into attributing “general society’s” behaviour as THE problem.

If you agreed to apply the principle of separating the problem from behaviour then you will allow them to have their behaviour (not see it as negative either) and you have the problem.

Now if you can learn to explain to the people in general society, with that behaviour, the principle of separating the problem for behaviour, then they might be able to help you out of your problem.

And so the movement begins.

1. Separate Maria from her behaviour
2. Separate her behaviour from your problem
3. Get an agreement for future behaviour (possible problem of yours).

1. Apologise for not having an explicit agreement in place on how you prefer to be treated.
2. Propose an agreement, from now on, for how you would like to be treated.