Chapter 18 sheds light on how problems both within a person and
between people can arise as a result of people being control
systems. Namely that the attempt to control variables with different
goals results in conflict. This insight has profound implications
for understanding how such problems arise and for how they can be
resolved, not only at a personal level, but also at the level
societal and global conflicts.
Some points that were of interest in understanding the mechanisms of
conflict were:
a virtual reference value will arise from conflicting systems,
that does satisfy either system
there will be a "dead zone" around virtual reference where
there will be no control
conflict will be at a single level; over same class of
variables
these systems send conflicting reference signals to a
lower-order system, which receives a vector of those signals
There wasn’t really any discussion of how still higher levels are
the root of conflict resolution, which, I believe, is the basis of
MoL.
I’d be interested if folks could provide additional examples of
intra-personal conflict.
Religion seems to fit Bill’s definition of a system which is based
upon control of behaviour through rewards and punishment. However,
does it contain the seeds of its own destruction as it has been very
“successful” and persistent, for many thousands of years? If it is
declining that only seems to be due to the progress of scientific
knowledge, disproving its tenets, rather than due to control of
behaviour issues.
I share Bill’s dislike for society organised along the lines of rule
of law and incentives, but am not quite sure what alternative he is
proposing; Anarchy?
[David Goldstein (2013.11.23.10:43)]
[From Rupert Young (2013.11.23 15.30 UT)]
I think this a pretty good summary.
Rupert asks: "I'd be interested if folks could provide additional examples of
intra-personal conflict."
Some examples from patients that I am seeing:
A man–To continue cheating or to stop cheating on his wife.
A child–To keep specific other children as a friend or not.
A woman–To stay married and move to Texas or to divorce and stay living in NJ.
A woman–To continue to be socially noninteractive and serious or to be more socially interactive and funloving and spontaneous.
A man–To keep on lying to his wife or to be honest and truthful.
A very important thing in MOL Therapy is to help a person identify when he/she is in internal conflict. I express it as: A person wants a certain experience and doesn’t want it. It is harder than one might think .
Besides religion, most methods of parenting involves the use of rewards and punishments.
···
On Saturday, November 23, 2013 10:33 AM, Rupert Young rupert@MOONSIT.CO.UK wrote:
[From Rupert Young (2013.11.23 15.30 UT)]
Chapter 18 sheds light on how problems both within a person and
between people can arise as a result of people being control
systems. Namely that the attempt to control variables with different
goals results in conflict. This insight has profound implications
for understanding how such problems arise and for how they can be
resolved, not only at a personal level, but also at the level
societal and global conflicts.
Some points that were of interest in understanding the mechanisms of
conflict were:
a virtual reference value will arise from conflicting systems,
that does satisfy either system
there will be a "dead zone" around virtual reference where
there will be no control
conflict will be at a single level; over same class of
variables
these systems send conflicting reference signals to a
lower-order system, which receives a vector of those signals
There wasn’t really any discussion of how still higher levels are
the root of conflict resolution, which, I believe, is the basis of
MoL.
I’d be interested if folks could provide additional examples of
intra-personal conflict.
Religion seems to fit Bill’s definition of a system which is based
upon control of behaviour through rewards and punishment. However,
does it contain the seeds of its own destruction as it has been very
“successful” and persistent, for many thousands of years? If it is
declining that only seems to be due to the progress of scientific
knowledge, disproving its tenets, rather than due to control of
behaviour issues.
I share Bill’s dislike for society organised along the lines of rule
of law and incentives, but am not quite sure what alternative he is
proposing; Anarchy?
I agree with David, Rupert. Very nice post. And David’s examples of intrapersonal conflict are also excellent. I just want to quickly address you last question, which is a very good one:
RY: I share Bill's dislike for society organised along the lines of rule
of law and incentives, but am not quite sure what alternative he is
proposing; Anarchy?
RM: It’s taken me quite some time to figure out what Bill was getting at in this chapter, but my current take on it is that interpersonal conflict is not a result of any efforts to control behavior but, rather, from efforts to control behavior arbitrarily. People really can’t live without controlling other people’s behavior; we are a social animal which means our survival, as individuals and as a species, depends on coordinating our efforts. Coordination requires interpersonal control; individuals have to agree to be controllers of others and to be controlled by others. But the important part is agreement; consent of the governed and all that. This kind of control is going on, quite benignly – often magnificently – in orchestras, businesses, dances, etc. In an orchestra, the members agree to be controlled by the score written by the composer and by the nuances of play demanded by the conductor; and the conductor agrees to do the controlling (leading). There is all this agreement to mutual control in order for all to control for the higher level goal of producing the music that could no have been created by everyone just doing what they wanted whenever they wanted to; anarchy is cacophony.
The problem is that when many people are parties tot he agreement not everyone will see the agreement the same way or even buy into the agreement. I think this is why people have so much trouble with government, even with a government that nominally govern (control) with the consent of the governed. Even though there is not completely arbitrary control, since there is at least some effort to get agreement (from the governed majority, say) to the controlling (enforced rules) that will be exerted by the government, there will always be a minority, perhaps a sizable one, that doesn’t agree to the rules and, therefore, feels arbitrarily controlled – they are in conflict with the controlling done by the majority approved government.
I think this is the problem that all societies have to deal with; the problem of minorities who don’t buy into the rules of the governors (controllers) even if those rules (and who the governors are) were agreed to in some principled way, such as majority rule. But I’m quite sure anarchy is not the solution. Arbitrary control (dictatorship) is definitely not the solution either. Indeed, there will never be a perfect solution.But is one wants a society with a minimum of interpersonal conflict, I think the goal should be a cooperative society; one where people see that giving up some control by agreeing to be controlled by others, the managers and leaders who themselves agree not to arbitrarily control those who they have been appointed to lead, makes it possible to produce results – to control for things like like the symphony or the computer chip – that could not have been controlled by any individual alone.
So I think the material in the chapter on Conflict and Control is the start at providing a scientific justification for this wonderful sentiment from Bertrand Russell:
The only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation. B. Russell