rethink PERFECT

Jim you wrote:

“If I spend my time converting my concepts in order for others to agree, am I not just chasing agreement? I think it is ok to disagree”

I wouldn’t say “just chasing” agreements Jim.
I think by using the words “just chasing” one can devaluate the action.

I would say that I am explicitly seeking agreements when I try to convert my concepts.
I prefer to convert my own concepts rather than convert other peoples and would like others to treat me that way also, that is convert your own concepts using my feedback also.

I think that It is a major undertaking to attempt to convert our own concepts.
It takes humbleness to think that our concept can be converted further and is not perfect as it is.

I approach the seeking of agreements it in a way that I would like others to approach it with me
How we go about seeking the agreement is the most important thing for me.
For example, the way we use language is so important in this goal or quest.
We could use leading language like “don’t you think…”
use rhetorical questions, or step it up a bit and threaten, raise our voice swear or finally use physical violence.

Coercion seeming to be more the “chasing” of agreements, ie so desperate to convert the other that we will say or do just about anything to achieve it.

“From now on…” is one of the most powerful agreements that I have gotten with my brother Steve. It is what we have agreed to use when we want to pose a concept that we wish the other to help convert.

This agreement is a potential break though in how we will relate from now on, as it means that we will no longer feel compelled to use sarcasm or rhetorical questions to begin to convert our concepts. We still might fall back into our old ways on occasion but by making this agreement we will be able to identify when this occurs.

It also means that we have a much more superior method than
By crafting a possible solution first and having the courage to ask the other to help them convert our concept we are by passing the dispute process that can be so inefficient, taking up so much time energy and can be emotionally scaring.

This agreement is also built upon our previous agreement that we only try to convert our own concepts not the others.

Previously we might have complained like “ I’m sick of the way you do that…” or firing off rhetorical questions like “why do you always do it …..”.

So instead of trying to convert him or his actions, I get him to help me convert my concepts by giving me his feedback on my “From now on I would like us to…” statement.

How we delivers the feedback is another story and agreement, that I will cover in chapter 6 DFM –Direct Feedback Moment

What people call “creating” or “innovation” I am now tending to explain it as “Converting Our Concepts”. That is, using conversation to convert our own concepts. In Alan Rowe’s book Creative Intelligence he talks about; “A quantum leap is needed to deal with changing external forces”, and goes on to say that “Leaders who are concerned with significant change need to convince their organisations to accept new ideas”. Now some or most of you will probably agree with this but I don’t. What I am about to propose, I think, is potentially a quantum leap that can assist with this creativity that he mentions.

I don’t think that we need to convince organisations or convert anyone in them. I think we need to convert our own concepts only, through the feedback from the people in these organisations. This is not the same thing. I think this is a paradigm shift in how we converse with each other. Understanding that the conversation is made up of converse ideas where we are conversely speaking. We are not in agreement. We are using the conversation to form agreements. But by converting our own concepts, during conversation, and not others, we can approach the conversation with a completely different attitude. If we are trying to convince others, we spend more time trying to convert their ideas and not our own. It is a very static, dogmatic and egoist approach that is similar to the title of Edward de Bono’s book, I Am Right You Are Wrong. Only de Bono had his tongue firmly placed in his cheek when choosing this title.

Rowe goes on to say, “Using the right words is especially important when trying to convince employees to accept personal risk. This is more easily said than done” I agree with you Alan and I think changing the concept of convincing or converting employees is the shift that is needed.

This is my concept only and I certainly could be wrong and am open to any feedback. I only have one agreement on this concept so far and it is yet to be tested. So I am not trying to convince anyone here. What I am saying is if anyone can help me convert this concept further I would be truly grateful to receive your feedback.

1. Learn why we converse. (done)
2. Then learn how to do it. (in the process)
3. Find someone whom I can “converse” with that knows 1 & 2
4. Or find someone that is keen to learn a better way.
5. Hopefully the person is female so we can have sex with the option of procreation.
6. Sell the idea so that I can fund No. 5
7. Teach offspring No. 1 & 2
8. Die fulfilled

Alfred Kinsey, a famous sexologist from the 40’s & 50’s derived a scale for rating our sexual preferance based on our history.
Unlike what we still use today, that is, polar types of either hetrosexual and homosexual desires. He describes it more like this:

“Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories… The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects.

While emphasizing the continuity of the gradations between exclusively heterosexual (0) and exclusively homosexual (6) histories, it has seemed desirable to develop some sort of classification which could be based on the relative amounts of heterosexual and homosexual experience or response in each history […] An individual may be assigned a position on this scale, for each period in his life. […] A seven-point scale comes nearer to showing the many gradations that actually exist”

So where do you come on the Kinsey Scale? I guess I am about a 2 from my history. Nothing perfect about me.

My mother complains to me about her harrowing memories of her step father tormenting her and beating her mother (aggression). She also once complained that she did not have a relationship with my father as he didn’t talk to her (withdrawal).
For 26 years I have worked on how to avoid these two behaviors and she reckons I am crazy. Women!

What makes us different than other mammals?
Maybe it is our knowledge of our mortality and of our ability to choose to procreate.

Of course a mammal is aware that if it zags when it should of zigged it could wind up as dinner for a hungry predator. But I don’t think that they know that they are doomed to eventually die regardless of their evasion skills. Also, do mammals actually understand that when they have sex that it will result in producing offspring?

Gorillas and lions in the wild, for example, know that they should kill the babies when they take over the group, so that they can sire their own offspring. Is this knowledge of procreation or just a hate of unfamiliar offspring? I think it is the latter.

So, what does this mean if this is right?
Well, our knowledge of procreation and morality is not by instinct but of our general knowledge. for example my mum and dad thought she was pregnant at 21 and went to see the doctor. The only problem was that she hadn’t even had sex yet!
Her lack of knowledge of sex did not make her much different than any other mammal, I think. But to claim that a gorilla or lion knows that they can procreate through sex would be making them smarter than my mum and dad. possible but unlikely.

So maybe the only reason that we have sex is out of desire and gratification. And that generally we are no different than other mammals, being driven by our desires only. We then have a choice to use the knowledge bank that we can draw upon to inform us of our mortality and potential to procreate.
Some use this knowledge more than others. In other words some of us choose to remain more mammalian while others choose to dip into this knowledge reservoir. I guess we are all different in this way.