Conflict (and one more thing)

[From Rick Marken (2007.01.16.1020)]

Rick Marken (2007.01.16.0900)]

Bill Powers (2007.01.16.0615 EST)

But perceiving things differently can easily be responsible for the generation of the reference signals that cause the conflict, so the conflict results from the difference in perceptions.

Which is something I obviously know. To say now that that is what you were talking about all along is just, well, insulting. I guess you're confident that it's your science I care about and not your approach to scientific dialog.

It should also be pointed out that conflict usually _doesn't_ result from a difference in perceptions at the higher levels that generate the reference signals for lower level systems. Saying that the conflict results from a difference in perceptions controlled by the systems that generate the reference signals that cause the conflict is somewhat misleading, for two reasons: 1) it suggests that the conflict could be solved by controlling the same rather than different perceptions at this higher level, which is not the case and 2) it suggests that conflict always results from control of different perceptions at this higher level, which is also not the case since (according to the model) higher level systems control _many_ different perceptions -- as many as there are systems at that level -- and this rarely results in conflict (see my Excel hierarchy demo where 6 level 2 systems control 6 different perceptions by setting the references for 6 level 1 systems with no conflict expressed in any of the level 1 systems, and the same for levels 3 and 2).

Best

Rick (sticking with the model) Marken

ยทยทยท

---
Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

[From Bruce Nevin (2007.01.17 22:55 EST]

Rick Marken (2007.01.16.0900)--

[Bill Powers 2007.01.16.0615 EST] is something I obviously know.
To say now that that is what you were talking about all along is
just, well, insulting.

I sure don't want to add to your sense of aggrievement, Rick, but it's
relevant to remind you that I, too, do understand how conflict works,
and I am familiar with Tim Carey's book, I edited it.

I was not insulted by your lecturing me about something that I already
know. But that was because I was aware that you were resisting something
other than what I said. This is often the case, and so my responses are
to clarify what I intended you to understand me to say. (Trying to make
the difference between telling you and merely saying it to you.) I do
find it frustrating sometimes when you convert plain English into
something wrong that you can resist (a recent example is leaving out
that little word "can"), but I am not insulted by it. Your zeal is truly
laudable, the execution is sometimes wide of the mark, and we just have
to get on with it.

  /Bruce Nevin