rethink PERFECT

Rethink Perfect – And the reason I converse

Rethinking perfection can take a long time and much consideration I have found.
This is a concept that I have been investigating for as long as I can remember.

I first met perfection the moment that I owned up to a theft that I did not commit at the age of 6, to another time when one of one my teachers was carted away with a breakdown when I was 12, after telling us that we should be listening to music like “I am a rock, I am an island” instead of “yummy yummy yummy I’ve got love on my tummy”. 

Or another time at 13 when a teacher, with a pronounced lisp, tried explaining to us about “Self Actualizzzation”, which at the time would have had to be the biggest word I had ever heard. Or the teacher who tried to explain at 15 that he should not be giving us marks for our essays.

All of these concepts, some 40 years on, now make so much more sense to me but at the time I was dumbfounded by them yet I can still remember them as clearly as yesterday. I obviously felt that if I store them for now that they will make sense to me at a later time.

That is what Rethink Perfect means to me and the reason why I converse. You never know what gems one might find after reconsidering them. I explain it like this.

I have conversations to convert my (perfect) concepts, through feedback, into what I can reconsider as possible solutions to my problems.

Maybe all feedback is perfect. I mean, I can’t disagree with what someone else thinks, can I? It might be only the delivery that I can fault. And if I cannot disagree with what they think then can I agree with it either? Hmm… interesting!

Rethink Perfect is about filtering out the content from the delivery and allowing it to be reconsidered and reconstituted into what I will eventually become, maybe.

I hope this is worth reconsidering for you.

I have avoided kissing ass most of my life. Where I live is not as important to me, so I can avoid ass kissing there. I have mostly worked for myself also. At present I am in transit and have options to board at my mums place or my brother’s. If I cannot get one to consider my concept I can always go stay with the other.

I am really talking about using a DFM (Direct Feedback Moment) within a personal relationship or with workmates. These relationships are much more balanced and should not have any power plays over the other. But even in personal relationships a woman can have much more power over the man with regards children, and rightly so as initially she does so much more in their delivery. It really is a matter of educating boys as to their position in this area and never to consider themselves equal. I consider that if us men work hard enough in assisting women with her children then maybe, just maybe after around 10 years we may have earned the same status that a woman holds. If boys were educated along this lines they might no be so disapointed when things go wrong. In Australia we have a 5 to 1 ratio of males suiciding than women and I think this could be one of the main problems.

I just think we can prepare so much more before we enter into relatoinships and accommodation, jobs by getting these people consider our points in these power sharing positions.

I mean we are all adults yet some peopel are still wondering how they got themselves into such compromised positions. I thnk a lot of people think it is a bit like Russina roulette and all a matter of luck. I consider it to be all in our control to avoid such situations where people can potentially take advantage of holes left in agreements.

This is a tool I am suggesting as an approach to solving what I consider a problem in conversation.

I call it a Direct Feedback Moment or DFM and I think it can be used once two people agree upon it format. DFM is a break to be applied when we take a conversation out on the highway of free expression.

What I have noticed when we hit a disagreement in a conversation one or both can start to use dogma in delivering their feedback.
i.e. “you’re wrong” or “you’re a trouble maker” or even “I disagree…because”. What started out as parallel talking of “I think this..” is now in a state of perpetual statements of fact.

But how do we put on the brakes? Well what if we agreed to call a DFM to bring the conversation back in direct feedback or parallel talking and thinking rather than spiraling out of control using dogma.

I think that is why EDB created the 6 hats to avoid this dogmatic state.
What I am proposing is to let the conversation flow but have an agreed method of dampening the discussion when we sense it.

What to look out for as a sign of dogma is when the “I think..” is getting left out and the tone of impatience of course. Calling a DFM is as simple as saying “I would like to give a DFM (Direct Feedback Moment) and at this point I can give my direct feedback starting with “I think…” or suggest that the other person give me a DFM.
They then have the choice of closing the conversation with “your feedback is worth considering” or restating their dogmatic statement starting with “I think….” Then I have the option of continuing the conversation or closing it with “your feedback is worth considering”

What about this for a new method of conversing

Called DFM where, if I am talking to you we activate the DFM any time. That is Direct Feedback Mode.

How it works:
So the conversation is going along in parallel with you saying
“I do it this way because of that reason “ and then I say
“Yeah well I do it this way because of that…” etc the only reason we do it that way because
we don’t have the tools to risk a more direct approach, I reckon.
What if I called a DFM knowing that when I do you cannot disagree with it and that you have to close the DFM
with “Worth considering”.
So then the way is open for me to tell you what I think directly.
ie “I think you should have spoken to your mum directly about that issue because of this reason”
All you can now do is ask questions or close the DFM and we move on to the next issue.
But at no point can you disagree with my feedback.

When you think about it, it is like me serving someone a meal and asking them what they thought of it.
Then they say in DFM that they think it was over cooked or too sweet. Then I say no it wasn’t I thought it was just right!
I cannot disagree with them or I just taint the results and get into a feedback loop.

All DFMs must start with “I think..” or “To me…” etc as it is only MY feedback and I don’t represent the world or people generally

More Rules of DFM

· One has to call a DFM as a warning for the other to prepare not to disagree

· One has the right to refuse a DFM

· The feedback must be Direct

· Failure to stick by the rules requires an apology

· One can challenge the other to use a DFM when we think they are being overly indirect.

My mum reckons that I am still partly responsible for Thomas’s (my older brother) break up with Ann Marie,
his girlfriend of a few months.
Even though they got back together after the gold coast break up that both Tom and mum accused me of being responsible for.

I can’t disagree with her feedback. That is hard to be in the state of not disagreeing and
not agreeing…ouch! But I guess she is certainly helping me consider the situation and her feedback.

Can I be partly responsible for his breakup?

What is your feedback. What would be nice is if you could share your feedback but then again she probably
wouldn’t want to hear it.

Funny how she sees me partly responsible for Thomas’s life and love life, a man of 53 years of age can still blame someone else for his lot.
I guess this is really an insight into why we (or family) are so fucked up as people.

But wait I can’t disagree with her feedback and she has give no reasoning
so I can’t even disagree with that. And have no real complaints with her delivery.

This is confusing

Steve I did a bit of considering last night and came up with this.

I think your Concept was that the letter was too long and also too familiar from someone
that has never talked to the guy…”rude”. That once again I would get rejected and not receive a reply and get the consideration that I deserve.
[acceptable]

I think that your Convert was that I should have written a short and
sweet email ie you told me to write “Tony has a passion for smoking prevention and I have a campaign that does that.”
[not acceptable]

The Converse could have gone like this if we had of conversed. That I could have prepared more by considering how he could actually help me. Ie get a plan together and ask him for a contact in that area possibly.

What I would like you to consider…
Was my concept in writing to Tony:
Was to spring board my mind and passion back into Quitober leaving NewWok on the shelf for now.
With Quitober nearly dead and buried I had nothing to lose and possibly something to gain, inspiration!

I am now thinking I might have one last plan of attack to get Quitober going.
I try a state run campaign starting with Qld.
I have a state minister contact on the sunshine coast that I can contact and get him to help me put the
proposal to the state government and starting with Brisbane City Council.

Ie State gov will support the running of the campaign throughout the Brisbane Council and in return the Council supports
the trialing of bans for outdoor smoking.

Maybe Tony Quint has a few contacts in Qld State Gov and around Australia that I could try.

Right, so from now on to help you uphold your agreement and me uphold mine, I suggest
if one of use feels like the other is trying to convert them we can distil the concept to its bare bones.

That is we stop the discussion to focus on finding the concept, identify it and find the fear related to it.

That is the price of one of us trying to convert the other. And that can take weeks which it used to do with kate.
The only difference was that we did not have this agreement in the first place.

From Steve
yeah to some extent, and i did say it, i think your email was rude. 

i.e. “your my man” etc – but it doesn’t seem like he has taken it that way.  so i was premature to make that judgement.

yeah and to some extent that you’d get rejected because of your approach (yobbosih) as opposed to disinterest or content. but again I’m probably underestimating the guy and his ability to discern approach from content, and that he’d appreciate your gumption. also underestimated you to make those calculations and still send your email. (afterall its your concept)

The desire to be always right is not a bad thing it just has a few cracks in it. And as Leonard Cohen says “There is a crack in everything, that’s how the light gets in” and afterall it is only a desire isn’t it? Unchecked by friends and family the cracks can grow but as far as a desire goes, I think it is probably the key to human survival (and prosperity) for this long and probably a while to go.

Steve, unlike when Avian said “You can’t always think that you are always right all the time”, to me, like it was a bad thing and I should stop doing it. Imagine driving on the road and everyone didn’t want to be right all the time? Unike those young, drunk guys, that leave the road at 150km an hour, who may have lost some of the desire just before hitting the power pole. No, I am greatful for this very prescious desire that has kept me alive and well for this long.

It’s amazing, really!

Ego is not a dirty word, it is just the decision making process that we use to make our moment to moment decisions, I reckon. It is what lets us get some runs on the board or starts the ball rolling. Otherwise we would just be sitting there waiting for perfect to arrive before we make that decision. Instead we create a “perfect” in our head and another decision is made.

So, how many of these “perfect” decisions do we make daily? Well, it could be around 20 decisions a minute or 20,000 in an 18 hour day. This is my take on my world and how I get through the day. Now I am wondering if this is true for us all. Do we all live in a “perfect” decision making world? And if so what are the consequences of such an “ego” process in how we live with others?

Email to Hugh MacKay Author of “What Makes Us Tick? The ten desires that drives us.” from the ABC Big Page
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/bigideas/stories/2010/3038586.htm
Hi Hugh,
I saw the last of your talk today on the ABC and once again I thought your ideas
are very sound, simple and to the point.

Can I ask you what do you think of the desire to be right?
I guess that is my focus having started my quest with a thought that
“ I could be wrong”. To me it is dogma that causes most of the problems in the world
and we don’t need only religion or politics to be dogmatic. Everything we do or say has a degree of it.
Even in this email here I have the desire to be right or perfectly right even (it sure would make my life easier as I could rest up from thinking then).
Confusing the difference between our opinions and truth is, I guess, my definition of dogma.

I think righteousness is a red line that runs in all of us but effects us in polar ways from the nagging of a woman to the silence of a man, both actions reflecting their desire to be right.

Anyway I would love to hear your thoughts on this if you had a minute.

And as usual, any feedback much appreciated.

Regards,

Des Sherlock
resident rethinker

Rethink Perfect Living with the Desire to be Always Right. PO Box 609 Nth Melbourne 3051 RethinkPerfect.com Twitter.com/RethinkPerfeect des@rethinkperfect.com Mobile: 0417 712 601