Conflict and pseudo-conflict

CSGnet Archive CSG2003
1

[From Rick Marken (2003.12.01.1155)]

Bruce Gregory (2003.12.01.1247)--

> Rick Marken (2003.12.01.0930)

> The definition of conflict says that there is no solution to conflict
> because conflict is a state of impossibility; if there is a possible solution,
> then there is no conflict.

This strikes me as a bit odd. Just because there is a possible
solution, doesn't mean that the "parties" involved have found it, does
it?

Right. And while the solution is not found (or not accepted -- see below) the parties will be
in conflict. But I would call this a _pseudo-conflict_. It's a false conflict because,
contrary to our definition of conflict, there is a solution for the implied system of
equations that define the conflict.

Here's an example of a pseudo-conflict. I say 11*11 = 1001. You say, no, 11*11 = 121. We
are in conflict because we want the same perceptual variable -- the solution to the equation
11*11=x -- in two different states. This is a pseudo-conflict because there is a solution:
11*11 = 1001 in binary and 11*11 = 121 in decimal. If we can agree that we were looking at
the situation in terms of different number systems, then there is no conflict: we are
actually controlling different perceptions. If, however, we insist that we are both looking
at the situation in terms of the same number system, the conflict remains. I would say that,
in that case, the conflict changes from a pseudo-conflict to an _unnecessary conflict_.

Now that I think of it, many of the conflicts we see on CSGnet are probably unnecessary
conflicts of this sort. One group says "PCT says this" and another says "No, PCT says that".
One group says "PCT doesn't account for this" and another group says "PCT does account for
that". I think the problem is analogous to the two number system problem, where one symbol
(11) is used to refer to two different quantities (decimal 11 and binary 3). I think the
groups in conflict on CSGNet are often using one symbol (PCT) to refer to two different
theories.

Best regards

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Senior Behavioral Scientist
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

2

[Martin Taylor 2003.12.01 1630 EST]

[From Rick Marken (2003.12.01.1155)]

Bruce Gregory (2003.12.01.1247)--

> Rick Marken (2003.12.01.0930)

> The definition of conflict says that there is no solution to conflict
> because conflict is a state of impossibility; if there is a
possible solution,
> then there is no conflict.

This strikes me as a bit odd. Just because there is a possible
solution, doesn't mean that the "parties" involved have found it, does
it?

Right. And while the solution is not found (or not accepted -- see
below) the parties will be
in conflict. But I would call this a _pseudo-conflict_. It's a false
conflict because,
contrary to our definition of conflict, there is a solution for the
implied system of
equations that define the conflict.

I think we have to disagree again!

What you say is true only if the conflict is in the fact that two
control systems are trying to control the same function of
environmental variables. Bruce's comment excludes that case, so your
response is essentially irrelevant, since you made one of the parties
shift the perceptual function being controlled.

Bruce was questioning your comment that "if there is a possible
solution, then there is no conflict," by considering the case where
there IS a possible solution, but the parties (i.e the independent
control systems) are collectively not using enough environmental
variables (or lower-order perceptual control systems). So long as
they control by actions that bottleneck the degrees of freedom
available for control, the control systems ARE conflicted. If one or
other alters the environmental variables used in such a way as to
increase the available degrees of freedom sufficiently, then the
conflict has a possible solution. When that solution has been found,
there is no further conflict.

Trivial example. You and I are at a scenic viewpoint, and we want to
use the only telescope that we both notice. Conflict. But there
happens to be another telescope (perhaps it was hidden by a bush).
One of us happens to spot that there is another telescope, and goes
to it. Bingo--no comflict. Resolution was always possible, but
nevertheless there was conflict.

Of course, you can say that the perceptual environment changed in
that trivial example, but it's easy to generalize to more subtle and
complex cases, where "finding" the way out of conflict is possible
but not so easy--as witness so many of the real-world conflicts that
I, for one, would call real, and not pseudo.

Another point. If I may quote [From Bill Powers (2003.11.30.0730 MST)]

I think we need to keep in mind the "degrees of conflict" idea.

We do. We still haven't considered an appropriate PCT-technical term
for conflict (in everyday usage) that is not irresolvable with the
current set of controlled perceptions and environmental variables,
but in which the actions of at least one party make control by the
other difficult. In a later post, Bill (2003.11609 MST) asked "Well,
that was fun. What shall we solve next?", and in the same post said:
"I suppose if we made these equations differential equations, we
could include oscillatory results, too -- limit cycles and all the
rest of the dynamic effects."

I think he answered his own question.

Furthermore, some of the answer to labelling non-irresolvable
conflicts might come out of a consideration of the dynamics of mutual
interference.

Even without considering the dynamics, there are different cases to
think of. Think of the difference between businessman B controlling
for "I want to make a lot of money from selling X", which sets up a
competition with other sellers of X, and possible conflict if there
aren't enough potential buyers (or supply of) X, and "It's not enough
that I win, I want to see all the other sellers of X bankrupted." In
the one case, the conflict is a side-effect of each X-seller's
perception of their own sales, whereas in the other the perception
being controlled both by B and by C is the profit made by C. In the
first case the conflict is due to inadequate environmental degrees of
freedom, whereas in the other it is due to controlling the same
perceptual variable. Shouldn't those static cases, too, perhaps have
different technical labels?

Martin

3

Martin,

You say,

"Even without considering the dynamics, there are different cases to
think of.

.....................................................................

Shouldn't those static cases, too, perhaps have different technical
labels?"

It seems to me that it would to be helpful to have terms to distinguish
between such cases. However, I am more concerned about the accessiblity
of control theory techniques that would take us just a bit beyond the
application of basic control loops. I've just recently begun to work
with systems that compensate loop gain so that there can be a plausible
range in which the system will function. And, I'm finding that working
with control systems that include a mass-spring componate makes for a
challenging task. Not impossible, but difficult. At times in the past
publications like the Bug Books on electronics, and the Turbo User Group
were extremenly helpful in providing introductions to elementary techiques.
After extended reflection and experimentation I figured out how to
compensate loop gain to increase the range of stability. But, there surely
ought to be a more efficient way to learn about techniques that are only
slightly beyond the use of basic control loops.

Fairly simple measures can make astonishing, at least to me, improvements
in the functioning of control systems. But the perception of simplicity
comes after the fact.

bill Williams
UMKC

4

[From Bill Powers (2003.12.01.1601 MST)]
Martin Taylor 2003.12.01 1630 EST –
I think I join you in disagreeing about pseudo-conflicts. It’s only after
the resolution of a conflict is found that it seems “pseudo.”
People will fight just as hard over pseudo conflicts as over real ones –
because before the solution is found, they are real.

The “one variable in two states” way of putting it applies
anywhere in the loop. It can apply to lower-level reference signals
(that’s what I mean, Martin) selected by conflicting higher systems. It
can apply to environmental variables (the two people arriving on opposite
sides of a swinging door, mentioned in B:CP). It can apply to the means
chosen to reach identical goals for identical perceptions: I try to turn
left to get to Santa Fe, you try to get me to turn right to get to the
same place.

More generally, it’s a “N-variables in N+1 states” problem, and
that’s because it’s a degrees-of-freedom problem. Martin still takes the
trophy home.

Though you might read “Degrees of freedom in social
interactions,” in LCS I for a step in the right direction.

Best,

Bill P.

5

[From Rick Marken (2003.12.01.1530)]

Martin Taylor (2003.12.01 1630 EST) --

I think we have to disagree again!

I think we actually agree again!

What you say is true only if the conflict is in the fact that two
control systems are trying to control the same function of
environmental variables.

Yes, that was how my example worked. But I agree with your example, too.

Trivial example. You and I are at a scenic viewpoint, and we want to
use the only telescope that we both notice. Conflict. But there
happens to be another telescope (perhaps it was hidden by a bush).
One of us happens to spot that there is another telescope, and goes
to it. Bingo--no comflict. Resolution was always possible, but
nevertheless there was conflict.

I agree that this is another example of what I call a pseudo-conflict. It's
really
equivalent to my example, given your nice, generic definition of conflict,
viz.
"conflict exists in a set of N control systems when the number of reference
degrees of freedom is greater than the number of degrees of freedom in the
set
available for perceptual control". In both our examples the number of
degrees of
freedom in the reference set _was_ equal to the number of degrees of freedom
in
the set available for perceptual control. The parties to the conflict just
didn't
know of the existence of these degrees of freedom (the extra telescope in
your
example; the alternative number system in mine). Your definition of
conflict
makes it unnecessary to worry about the details of why the degrees of
freedom in
the set available for perceptual control does or does not equal the degrees
of
freedom in the reference (goal) set. That's what was nifty about your
definition
of conflict, I think.

some of the answer to labelling non-irresolvable
conflicts might come out of a consideration of the dynamics of mutual
interference.

I don't quite get what's wrong with calling a non-irresolvable (I think it's
easier to call it resolvable) conflict a _pseudo conflict_. If it's
resolvable
it's not really a conflict. It's more like a problem to solve.

I think the interesting question is whether one can look at real world
conflicts
and know whether they are resolvable (i.e.. a pseudo-conflict) or not. The
solution to both of our example pseudo-conflicts required knowledge beyond
that
possessed by those in the conflict. If any of the parties to our example
pseudo-conflicts had known about the extra degree of freedom available for
perceptual control (the different number system in my example, the extra
telescope
in yours), there would have been no conflict in the first place.

I guess I'm inclined to think that, as long as the parties act as though the
number of degrees of freedom in the set available for perceptual control is
less
than the number of reference degrees of freedom (whether it _really_ is
less, or
not), they are in conflict. And the conflict is real, even if the
possibility of
solution (the extra degree of freedom of perceptual control) exists. They
are
conflicts that can be solved through the discovery of that extra degree of
freedom.

So I would say that what we described are examples of conflicts that _can_
be
resolved by means other than changing goals (reducing the number of
references
relative to the number available for perceptual control). The problem is
that,
when one is in a conflict, one can't know whether or not it is actually
resolvable
-- whether the extra degree of freedom exists. The only _sure_ way to
resolve a
conflict, then, is to eliminate it by reducing the number of one's own goals
(references). But people can get lucky and resolve conflict without changing
their
goals. All they has to do is find that extra degree of freedom -- the other
numbering system, telescope or promised land -- that solves the conflict.
When
these extra degrees of freedom exist, the conflict turns out to have been a
pseudo-conflict. But watch out if the pseudo-conflict snark turns out to be
a real
conflict boojum instead.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Senior Behavioral Scientist
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

6

[From Rick Marken (2003.12.01.1620)]

Bill Powers (2003.12.01.1601 MST)–
Martin Taylor 2003.12.01 1630 EST –

I think I join you in disagreeing about pseudo-conflicts. It’s only
after the resolution of a conflict is found that it seems “pseudo.” People
will fight just as hard over pseudo conflicts as over real ones – because
before the solution is found, they are real.

As you can see from [Rick Marken (2003.12.01.1530)] I disagree with me
about it too, and for exactly the reasons you mention.
Conflict is conflict. And the only way to solve it is to reduce the
number of reference (goal) degrees of freedom until they are less than
or equal to the number of perceptual degrees of freedom.

More generally, it’s a “N-variables in N+1 states”
problem, and that’s because it’s a degrees-of-freedom problem. Martin still
takes the trophy home.
That’s what I was trying to tell him, too;-)
Best

Rick

···

–

Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.

Senior Behavioral Scientist

The RAND Corporation

PO Box 2138

1700 Main Street

Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138

Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971

Fax: 310-451-7018

E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

7

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12l.01.1940)]

Rick Marken (2003.12.01.1620)

Conflict is conflict. And the only way to solve it is to reduce the
number of reference (goal) degrees of freedom until they are less than
or equal to the number of perceptual degrees of freedom.
More generally, it's a "N-variables in N+1 states" problem, and that's
because it's a degrees-of-freedom problem. Martin still takes the
trophy home.
That's what I was trying to tell him, too;-)

Great. We all agree that its a degrees-of-freedom problem. Still, Ken
does have a point. Learning that your problem involves
degrees-of-freedom may not be all that great a comfort. Stop wanting
that is easier said than done. At least in my experience.

Bruce Gregory

"Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no
one was listening, everything must be said again."

                                                                                Andre Gide

8

[From Bill Powers (2003.12.01.1914 MST)]

Bruce Gregory (2003.12l.01.1940)–

Still, Ken does have a point.
Learning that your problem involves

degrees-of-freedom may not be all that great a comfort. Stop
wanting

that is easier said than done. At least in my
experience.

It sure is. But there’s another aspect of conflict. I think that people
who have been in conflict about something for extended periods don’t
realize they are in conflict. They talk about what they would like to do,
and about how bad it feels not to be able to do it, but they still don’t
do it. Clear goal, big error, no action. What could produce that
situation, other than complete paralysis of the motor systems?
One way it could be produced is for a second goal to exist, diametrically
opposed to the first one, cancelling the urge to move toward the goal
with an equal urge to move away from it. We tend to be aware of the
“good” side of the conflict, or at least what we think is the
good or socially-acceptable side, and to ignore the goals that lead the
other way and actually prevent any successful action.
When the method of levels bogs down, in my experience the reason has
always been a lurking conflict. The way I approach it (see the Vancouver
tapes for a demo of exactly this phenomenon in a volunteer) is to first
try to encourage awareness of the conflict. This usually happens when the
volunteer finds reasons for not doing the “good” thing. We
talk about that for a while, and then I remind the person of the first
side, then the second side, then the first side, patiently keeping it up
until the person pauses and says something like, “You know, I don’t
think I can really do both of those things at once,” or something
equally appropriate. This seems very dumb, but it clearly illustrates
what it’s like to switch back and forth between viewpoints at the same
level, and then what it’s like to jump up a level and see both of the
viewpoints at once. No matter how obvious the conflict is, when the
person switches back and forth from one side to the other, the conflict
itself is not being perceived. The difference is obvious when the
level-change occurs. The conflict doesn’t seem to last much beyond
that.

Actually, Kenny was present at that workshop and saw the demo I’m talking
about. You have to watch for the moment when resolution seemed to start.
There were no fireworks, just a kind of relaxation. Then the whole thing
didn’t seem like a problem any more. At least that’s how I perceived what
was going on. Do you agree, Kenny?

Bruce, when you talk about “stopping wanting” something, the
image I get is of fighting to overcome your desire for something. I agree
with you that this is hard, and in fact I think it just doesn’t work as a
general method. That’s more like trying consciously to take sides in a
conflict and helping one side prevail over the other. In my experience,
what usually happens is that the other side just pushes back harder and
there is a relapse sooner or later, but sooner rather than
later.

What seems to work better, at least as it comes out in the MOL, is to
bring both sides into awareness. Both sides of real conflicts are
“good” sides; there are reasons for each. The only permanent
solution is to find the viewpoint or viewpoints that were in charge when
the goals were established, so the same means that were used to create
the conflict can reorganize and unmake it. Fortunately, all that seems
required of the conscious person is to become aware from the right point
of view. The rest seems to be automatic.

I speak like a big expert on this subject, but there are people with more
experience than I have with the MOL, by this time. It would be nice to
hear from them. Of course many people have informal experience with
conflicts and resolving conflicts; it would be nice to know if their
experiences jibe with mine.

Best,

Bill P.