Summary of OBjECT – 7 Agreeable ways to be Objectionable as using the 6 principles of the book Made to Stick

1. Simple, find the core:
The core idea of this book is to OBjECT and that we were born to object, and often. Most people (adults) do not object directly, in real-time but prefer to complain after the fact and indirectly (to everyone else except the person involved). This book wants to highlight the down side of this and assist to change this behavior.

2. Unexpected, counter-intuitive
The unexpected part of this is that we are encouraging objecting and the objectionable behavior of conflict and discomfort that can come with this.
We are also encouraging open, objectionable behavior so that it can be objected to and thus reduced.
The irony is that when we object to objectionable behavior it is usually done objectionably also. Both need to be rectified, moderated and reduced.

3. Concrete, (putting a man on the moon in 10 years)
We have measured that anger is objectionable along with the signs of anger, such as rhetorical questions, also tone, volume and other forms of objectionable behavior like lies, ignoring, lack of appreciation etc etc.
We want to openly deal with objectionable behavior through our detailed
processes, agreeable apology, going before our peers etc

4. Credible: tested ideas
We measure objectionable behavior and measure its reduction. We have a 7 step (DECARRT), agreed-to process to ensure that we have a credible system to rely on. We also have an agreed-to method of giving an acceptable apology when we get angry or generally behave objectionably.

5: Emotions:
All the emotions that come with conflict are exposed, looked at and dealt with. ie the drama of a court room with the janitor pitted against the CEO.

6: Stories:
We will have lots of examples in our company and partnership of stories
Ie Train, Crane and Rain stories so far. And will will have many precedents
with in the organisation as we proceed. The best story I have is how I objected to the doctrine being preached within a christian religious group and was swiftly removed for “asking too many questions and undermining other member’s beliefs”.

Maybe objectivity can only be measured relatively, in the context of a conversation and not by measuring the person’s objectivity.  As the saying goes, it takes two to tango, and whatever level of objectivity exists, maybe we can only see it within the space of a conversation, where it can be more accurately measured.

Preparing the ground for such a conversation is an imperative I believe, and getting agreed-to rules of engagement before we begin or early on in the conversation will result in this high level of objectivity, I believe. The rules of engagement or my proposed agreements are that we above all be daring and be willing to object when we seem to step outside any agreements we have made. The agreements I am referring to are the 6 principles for how we proceed to object.

So, as an example, when we object, we agree to do so within the confines of six principles and be willing to object, in real-time, when we deem that we step outside of these principles. Even at this point you could object but without knowing or agreeing to the six principles, it is likely that I would thank you for your objection and request you do so using these, yet to be proposed principles.

Let’s clear this up now and here are my proposed principles for how we object and ultimately measure objectivity:
That we Dare to object;

• Daringly
• Enjoyably 
• Consideredly 
• Accountably 
• Reasonably 
• Responsibly
• Transparently.

Each principle will have its own chapter explaining these proposals. And ultimately I am suggesting that by agreeing to and using these principles during conversation, we can test, measure and ultimately increase our levels of objectivity….maybe.

The Object Principle ie the ultimate principle of this dissertation, I think, is to get a group to actively agree and encourage the individual to expose what values or principles that are not in common, within.

It is in the exposing of these uncommon principles within organisations where all the trouble lies, I think.

I believe the founders of America designed their system exactly for this and we can see the struggle play out daily in the media.

I recently had a discussion with my brother on agreements and collaboration in relationships. He posed that collaboration came first and I posited that agreements did.

In the end he did concede that in order to have explicit collaboration we are going to need explicit agreements. But granted to be able to get such explicit agreements we are going to need a high level of explicit collaboration.

They seem to feed upon each other and indicate to me that not only may we not be using all of our vast wealth of brain capacity but also not using our vast ability to explicitly agree and collaborate.

My theory is that relationships, both personal and business are agreement machines and the quality of the agreements can be confirmed through the collaboration.  So, the greater the suite of tools and process for getting our explicit agreements (our collaboration), means we should end up with better and more explicit collaboration and vice versa.

What was your last explicit agreement and how did it effect your collaboration?

Funny, there are so many agreed-to specific and intricate rules of engagement in chess, even down to the very second one takes to making a move…..so too, I believe, couples should be continuing to develop, agree and re-agree to their own rules of engagement before engaging in any disputes.

Chess is a wonderful game of battling wits as too is a relationship, in my opinion, and it can be so much fun if we can get and manage such agreements and not devolve into a dispute, conflict, ultimately a fight and quite possibly violence or murder even.

From the book Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari.

I’ve understood this idea of fictional agreements for a while now. ie that money is an agreement. Even Dong, the currency for Vietnam is a derivative of “dong y” meaning to agree.

And the creation of our agreements for treating each other etc. but the problem with fictional abilities is that we can create false narratives that are not agreeable. So all our institutions were set up to counter these false narratives.

Personally having the skills to expose these false and non-agreeable narratives is what everyone should aspire to cultivate. It is the conversation skill of making sure, I believe.

So it is almost like we developed two skills at the same time, some 50,000-100,000 years ago, to have this ability of making sure and to making unsure, agreeing to believe a narrative and and outright lying.

But what Yuval Noah Harari seems to have left out so far is what society has created from fictional is now true and legal.

Just try go to the USA boarder and explain you don’t need a passport because boarders are only fictional concept. You cannot!

Look how hard we struggle to believe in the fictional value of  cryptocurrency now.
It is a very volatile currency and belief.

I think we need to practice being fictional and practice exposing or objecting to fictional narratives.

“What if” being the biggest phrase in the English language and “we can’t “ being the biggest lie.