Forums: Discussions for entrepreneurs and small business.

Two of the most difficult concepts to define are the subjective and objective frames of mind. People constantly move back and forth between the two, being subjective or being objective. Analysis usually involves the objective framework, but people say that "the heart" (emotions) is (are) subjective.

You can`t be in business, and probably not live life in general, without someone telling you to be more objective. It often comes out in phrases like, "It`s just business, y`unnerstand." Or "Don`t take it so personally." Conversely, if you`re skilled at being objective, people often tell you you`re overly analytic and have no emotions.

I propose that when you get all the way down to the very basics of life and mind, things are pretty cut and dried. Similar to a computer, a human being develops their understanding of experience based on what they like, and what they dislike. It`s the pain-pleasure structure.

What we like or dislike---what gives us pleasure or pain---is totally subjective. Nobody can demand that we justify, reason out, or argue what it is we like or dislike. We can maybe explain how something relates to our past, but there`s no way someone else can experience what you like or don`t like. It`s completely subjective.

If that`s the case, then we have a clue!

Stipulating that like and dislike (pain and pleasure) are totally subjective, then we can say that objectivity is the opposite. And so we would remove all likes and dislikes.

To be objective means to think, feel, and evaluate something *without* raising your own likes and dislikes to a high value. They can be taken into account, but only as a secondary consideration.

So: How good is your business idea? How good is your business plan?

As you think about the answers, watch how little or how much you include what you personally like or don`t like about life, things, stuff, and business. How much does your analysis depend on whether other people like what you like?

What if they don`t?

How interesting. Can you give an example of this in pratice?

—paula

Alright, let`s say you and I sit down and evaluate a business we decide to start. I`ll write content, you design Web sites, graphics, and layouts. What we want is to analyze the potential market for this business. Another option is to say we`re already in business, but we`re not getting any customers and we want to know why---to analyze why.

We have something to drink, and I come out of the box and say, "Well, I think the problem is that your graphics aren`t very good." (I thought I`d use a hot-button example for the purpose of demonstration.)

Then you tell me it`s probably not a good idea because I don`t write very well, and we likely wouldn`t make much money.

Many people would attempt to explain the subjective opinions on the basis of their just "feeling that" we`re both being subjective, or overly personal. What I`m suggesting is that if we introduce the concept of like/dislike, we can begin to point directly to where the discussion has become subjective---personalized.

When I make a judgement in the third-person plural, and say "your graphics aren`t very good," I`m implying an objective judgement. Your response would be, "according to whom? On  what standard?"

It`s an implied process. But if we flesh it out in formal language, holding to a rigid standard, I should properly say, "I don`t like your graphics."

Now everything becomes much more clear. In the same way, you might say that you don`t think we would build a viable business because you don`t like the way I write.

So let`s get rid of the like/dislike. How would we examine your art or my writing without using anything involving what you or I like and dislike?

Wouldn`t we ask each other something along the lines of how many articles have I sold, or how many graphics layouts have you been paid for?

Too many people think that the money itself is "causing" the objective evaluation. I`m saying that the money is an after-the-fact indication that someone ELSE likes or dislikes our products. In OUR analysis, we`re not using what you or I like and dislike, we`re using the likes and dislikes to total strangers.

In science, known for being objective, we don`t factor in human likes and dislikes at all. (Well, maybe quantum physics....) Nobody cares whether or not someone likes or dislikes gravity. When 2+2 comes out to 4, nobody cares if a human being likes the answer. It`s the answer regardless of like or dislike.

I think it`s one reason many hard scientists tend to look at psychology as a pseudo-science, in that so many psychological experiments return a value of like or dislike (attraction/avoidance, incentive/punishment, etc.).

What I`m suggesting is that if we turn a spotlight on the movement in and out of a discussion of the speaker`s opportunity to express what they like or don`t like, we can more clearly see the difference between subjective and objective thinking.

Oh okay, I thought you meant something like this but I wasn`t entirely sure.

Are you familiar with English Prime or "E-Prime" as its usually called? It is a style of writing/speaking that dispenses with all forms of the verb "to be," forcing just the kind of linguistic accuracy you`re suggesting here. It completely does away with passive voice and other grammatical constructs that obscure the true subject of the sentence.

(And, it just makes for tight writing. I should write my biz plan in E-Prime actually.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-prime

interesting stuff for sure.

—paula

Hi Paula, thanks for the note on E-Prime. I`m not familiar with it, and read the linked info.

One thing I`d like to clarify, though: This isn`t about the language itself and eliminating this or that word, term, or phrase. It`s about what goes into forming a mind---what creates our sense of thinking, or what are the building blocks to creating a person.

We can easily speak or write language without any of the "to be" terms, but I think we still could just as easily be captured in a subjective framework. What I`m interested in is how to distinguish between subjective thought and objective thought.

Think about all the times in life where it`s important to be objective. So how do we learn that? How would we develop a course syllabus for 5 yearolds on how to think objectively? Do toddlers have the capacity to be objective? If not, how come? I think it revolves around this internal use of "like/dislike."

Well, I guess my only point was that E-prime can be a useful tool in the clarification process.

personally, I doubt the existence of objectivity. I think physics has progressed to the point where it demonstrates that regardless of how objective an observer might be, how pure the math, there is still an underlying relationship between any two given entities.... and relationship is fundamentally subjective.

I know that in my own life, learning to identify what I like and dislike has been a serious challenge for a variety of reasons. Not knowing what one likes/dislikes removes anything like motivation or a sense of personal agency, or at least in my case that was true.

I`d be interested to know why you "like" objectivity and "dislike" subjectivity?

—paula

No...it`s that the integration of like and dislike forms subjectivity. The separating out like and dislike forms objectivity. :-)

Don`t confuse objectivity with absolute truth, either. We can`t know absolute truth, just as we can`t know all of reality. We can make statements about reality, and those statements can be subjective evaluations or objective analyses. If they`re objective they likely tend to be more truthful.

Unless we`re talking about how we like something. Then we make a statement and all anyone else can do is accept is at face value. If I say I like apples, you have to assume I`m telling the truth. You can`t "prove" it in any objective way.

But if I say apples are healthy foods, it doesn`t matter if you or I like them. We can objectively make some tests to prove if they`re healthy or not, then determine how true or false is that statement.

There ya go, Rich. :-) That`s the main observation. If it`s true, and I think it`s a definitive concept, then it offers a pathway to actually teach children the difference between subjective and objective, and how to more objective.

I think one of the biggest problems we face in today`s culture is the widespread lack of objectivity. Everyone believes their personal opinion is exactly the same as the truth. If anyone disagrees, they`re told they`re being hateful or "throwing mud," or some other attack phrase.

I`d also wonder how many people come up with an idea for a business, then abandon it because of everyone else`s opinion. Or they invest their savings into a business that a basic objective analysis would`ve suggested wouldn`t work.