rethink PERFECT

I think that…..some people believe that some thoughts are fact.
That some of the opinions that they hold are somehow more than just opinions but a fact or a certainty.

For example a in the 16th centuary it was believed that there were only white swans and the black swan was used in a saying similar to the saying “as rare as hens teeth” or in this case, “a rare bird in the lands, and very like a black swan.” Both were presumed not to exist. That is teeth in hens and black swans. That was before Europeans visited Australia where we only have black swans. After that they had to drop that idiom.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb wrote his book on the subject in 2007 called The Black Swan.
Taleb regards almost all major scientific discoveries, historical events, and artistic accomplishments as “black swans”—undirected and unpredicted. The irony is the some people I mentioned above like to believe in facts or certainty, until disproven. Usually referring to “hindsight” and its benefits. Unfortunately, it seems that no matter how many times this “black swan” thinking is exposed as a fallacy, they continue to believe in such, so called facts. I say that people that refer to hindsight have no desire for foresight.

Now days there are still some people that believe that the explanation for gravity is now a fact or certain and not a theory any more. They have formed this belief/thought/fact simply because they have never heard of a better explanation. They hold on to this belief even when scientists are modifying our universe by adding “Dark Matter” and “Dark Energy” to balance their equations. Something smells fishy to me.

I am pretty sure that Albert Einstein was not too happy with Gravity as he knew it. Finding a unifying theory was the goal that he never achieved I believe. Maybe it’s time to  drop Gravity, or at least go back to understand that it is not a fact, but just another thought to be believed or not.

“I am a pink elephant” is a thought of mine to be believed or not. Or maybe it can be just let to stand to reason along with gravity and see if it fits or falls away. This is what I call Rethink Perfect thinking.

I define "reasonable uncertainty" as:

The point when I am in disagreement with someone and have the choice to:
1. Work and invest time and effort to expand my own understanding so as to convert my own ideas
so that we can get an agreement. (move towards the Agreement Point in green zone)
or
2. I can give up and go into the red/resentment zone in my diagram. I simply create a thought image that I believe,
such as "they won’t listen" and move on to my next failed relationship.
or
3. I can wait for more information to reveal itself, which could take years. But once found I can then pump that into
the conversation to get an agreement or until the other person uses option 2. on me in which case there is nothing I can do
in my view, unless we had an agreed process to address such a situation.

I define "reasonable certainty" as:

an agreement formed using an agreed framework. Where the topic was scrutinised with no room for obsequiousness, sycophants, or
abuse and priming. Just thorough debate till we nut out a subject and still leave it open to be revisited if new information comes to hand.

Sakoz: I define ‘unreasonable certainty’ as:" Unwittingly believing a false thought and being as certain about it as one is certain about ones existence and gravity."

Rethink Perfect: Interesting… I define "unreasonable certainty" as when one loses one’s cool and believes a certain thing or person has caused it.

How do you define "reasonable certainty" and "reasonable uncertainty" Sakoz?

So what is a complaint?
As simple as this question may sound,  I think that most people will not be able to answer this question successfully.
Is it a problem that we did not foresee? An action that has led to our resentment?

What is the purpose of a complaint?
Is it an expression to ensure that we can avoid the issue in the future. Surely then the most responsible complaint I ever make would be to avoid the problem in the first place? Maybe!

Resentment is not a complaint! I think it is the result of not complaining responsibly and making sure that the problem never occured in the first place. It is the internal frustration for how we can be so stupid to allow such problems to occur. It does not solve the problem that complaining responsibly can and can result in revenge and as the saying goes, “if you go down the path of revenge, take two coffins”.

So what can we do to avoid the resentment?
Simply find the complaint by including the evidence and make an agreement with whom ever was responsible for creating it so that it does not happen again. Get an acceptable apology from the perputrator so that you can feel confident that from now on it will be less likely to occur again.

PS I forgot to mention when you try to complain responsibly prepare for the failure.

An Ideal Relationship Moderated by the Rethink Perfect Counterbalance

1. The square is an ideal relationship with the fullest are used

2. The parallellagram is a compromised relationship, area is reduced, that occurs at times
in diagram 2 when the two people enter into the resentment or RED area and have a bitter dispute.

Keeping the relationship out of resentment, caused by a bitter dispute, is obviously the goal.

A Relationship being Compromised, bypassing the Rethink Perfect Moderator

Legal disputes happen in our courts every day but what about our personal, petty clashes that occur in the workplace and home on a daily basis. How can we resolve them?

Imagine someone has an issue with you and has accused you of doing or saying the wrong thing. What if you disagree with their accusation? How does one resolve such a situation and is there a simple process that we can agree to use?

I recently had a problem like this, where I was accused of doing wrong by someone. They claimed to be the victim and only had their memory as evidence. I explained to them that we live in a civilised society where we deem everyone to be innocent until proven guilty.

I say that the belief that we are all “innocent until proven guilty” is the default or neutral position required from us all. In law they do it by splitting people up. Some act as prosecutors and others act as the defence, and we have the Judge and sometimes the jury. The problem is that the accuser in the petty dispute usually sets themselves up as the victim, prosecutor, judge and jury.

Needless to say the accused does not look like they have much of a chance to clear their name. My accuser’s response was “In science they begin with an hypothesis and search out the evidence”. Unfortunately as she has now become the judge and victim her scientific judgement seems also clouded. It looks like she left out a step or two in the scientific process.

1. Ask a Question
2. Do Background Research
3. Construct a Hypothesis
4. Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
5. Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
6. Communicate Your Results
   ref Science Buddies

I would even consider adding one more step at the start i.e. to observe. Her very nature to get the scientific process so wrong, I think, is another indication of her entrenched bias.

So how do we get around such entrenched bias in our society and what process can we use to help us solve petty disputes without having to write a scientific paper on every daily personal conflict?

Below is my suggestion that comes from an ancient text that is much more a legalistic than scientific approach.

1. First get an agreement, before any disputes occur, on the following process, so that they willing agree to use it during the next dispute and will be well aware of their responsibility.
2. Go directly to the person that I have the dispute with and tell them of my issue using Adjustable, Accountable and Acceptable language.
3. Get their version of events in equally acceptable language if possible
4. If we are unable to resolve the dispute bring a witness or two to establish each other’s point of view and to get some feedback from the observer/s.
5. If still unable to resolve the dispute bring the issue up before our extended common group. That may be a club, family, workplace etc.
6. If I am still unable to resolve the dispute after all of this then it is time to part company with them

The fact that I would be willing to go to this effort to resolve our dispute gives me kudos that I must have really believed I have a valid case.
But ultimately our peers decide. If the person that had the dispute with me or I had with them did not have such a valid case, I somehow doubt it would ever get to step 5, as such a threat to be exposed as a fraud, in front of our peers, can have a huge effect on our behaviour, especially if we are in the wrong or unsure. It seems like a great way to reel in our egos and to stop the malicious gossip that most people seem to revert to release them of the tension that such disputes cause but does not go a long way to resolve them.

This procedure is a couple of thousands years old but I am not aware of any group or organisation that uses such a method to resolve our personal disputes today.

How’s this.

After first trying to fill out my details on the Organ Donor Register website and failing.
Then ringing them up to confirm what address they had associated with my
Medicare Card and changing it.
Then going back online and registering again because they cannot register me as an
organ donor over the phone.
Finally I get a letter with all the details that I filled out online including my
DOB, new address, Medicare Card Number, and they ask me to sign it and post it back to them.

But here is the clincher even if I sign it they will not take my organs if my family do not give me their permission to donate when the time comes.

All of this just to donate my organs.
Is it any wonder that we only had 309 Australians (yes, you read correct) donate their organs last year. We have around 6 million people registered on the Organ Donor Registry thanks mainly to the Road Transport Authority and people ticking the box when we get our licence.

All this kerfuffle to get people to sign up when the bottleneck is turning 6 million willing candidates into actual donors via the health system and government red tape.

Australia has 13.8 donors per million where some countries like Spain has 34 per million donors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_donation

Free  PDF Download ( Rethink Perfect pdf )
Online reader  ( rethinkperfect )

Sponsored by Tripcover Car Rental Excess Insurance

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.

From free to full-service, CreateSpace offers on demand self publishing options to meet your needs and budget. Sign up free now.

This is from Nicola Roxon department press release on organ donor rates 25% increase.
Not mentioned is that $151M has been assigned to get a mere increase of 80 donors.
Hey that works out to be $1.8M per donor.

http://www.health.gov.au/internet/ministers/publishing.nsf/
Content/94AB0ECE4C0F0775CA257914001704C9/$File/ck041.pdf

“In 2010, Australia achieved a 25% increase in deceased organ donors and a 17% increase in transplant recipients compared to 2009, with 309 deceased organ donors resulting in life-saving and life-improving transplants for 931 Australians.

“Australia continues to build on the strong outcomes achieved in 2010, with 231 organ donors having saved or improved the lives of 688 people by the end of August this year,”

Ms King said.

“This represents a 15% increase in deceased organ donors and in transplant recipientson the same eight month period in 2010.”

Open letter to Nicola Roxon, Minister for Health

Hello Nicola,

I registered today to donate my organs on the Australian Organ Donor Register Registration website. (yes believe it or not that is what your website is headed) .

I subsequently learned that doing this does not give me the right to donate and that I still need to get permission from my mum or other family member to finally have my organs accepted.

I find this incredible. I am 52 years of age, healthy and I want to decide for myself to donate my own organs to needy recipients.

The restrictions placed, on me, by these rules could explain why only 309 people were accepted to donate last year. All 309 people needed permission from their family. 309 translates to 13.8 donors per million Australians. These numbers and your rules are appalling and an insult to Australians generally.

Can you please change this rule so that I have this right to donate my organs without anyone else’s consent?

If not, I would be willing to take this further so that I get my rights to decide to donate my organs.

Thanks for your time.