The scientific process of an independent peer review has been responsible for getting us to the scientific progress level that we all can benefit from today. What is missing is a similar process applied to our social discourse to achieve such levels of objectivity.
Could it be that by simply objecting to any misbehavior during a disagreement or discussion that we can find objectivity or get closer to it? Well, I think so, and I think that I can prove it.
I believe that by objecting to any misbehavior in real-time during a disagreement, we begin to activate a transparent process for dealing with more subjective viewpoints that, cause misbehavior.
Being subjective seems to leave us believing that we are oh-so-right which can and has resulted in some terrible deeds in the past and also just general misbehavior and incivility during disagreements. Such incivility as the use of absolute and dogmatic language and thinking where you are wrong and I am right. Along with tone, shouting, swearing, sarcasm, steamrolling, ignoring, sulking, nagging, blaming, threatening, etc., etc, we have all been there!
It seems to me that when we are angry we are at our most subjective. By beginning the objecting process during a disagreement in real-time, it allows for an open discussion on our behavior itself rather than just on the content of the discussion. Effectively it enables us to split the conversation into two parts:
A: The scope or content for whatever disagreement we may have
B: The behavior in how we deliver this content.
Also having the option of a final democratic process whereby we use a panel of our peers to openly and independently scrutinize and adjudicate any objections raised, ensures we are always putting out high-quality behavior and information, taking us that much closer to objectivity.
Object123 is my proposal to begin the objectivity process to reduce our subjectivity and the misbehavior it can cause.