[Martin Taylor 2007.01.28.12.18]
[From Rick Marken (2007.01.27.0930)]
I think what is controlled by each party in such conflicts is not the discussion per se (which, I agree, is a metaphorical entity) but, rather, what the other person says.
That, according to Layered Protocol Theory, is what is controlled by both parties in all verbal conversations. More generally, what is controlled in any social interaction is what the other person does, including what they say, how they gesture, what their facial grimaces might be, and ...
Why is a discussion a "metaphorical entity" when other perceptions are not? I perceive that we often have discussions on this e-mail list. I perceive myself having a discussion with my friend. I could certainly control for not having the discussion, if I want. Why is it metaphorical?
What A wants is to hear B say "The war in Iraq is the central front in the war on terror" and what B wants is to hear A say "Of course there is no such thing as a war on terror". This is the conflict and I see it as an effort at behavior control.
Yep, as is most social interaction. There is conflict only if what A want to perceive B saying or doing causes some conflict among B's own controlled variables. If I (A) say to someone (B): "Would you mind opening the window, please?" I expect them to open the window. That's behaviour control, I think. It's based on the perception by A that B would have a controlled perception of A's attitude, with a reference that A should be perceived as well-disposed toward B.
A having a controlled perception of seeing the window open, using the mechanism of controlling B's behaviour, could result in conflict if B is trying to avoid drafts. It also would fail in the less common situation of B controlling for not doing what A wants, regardless of what that might be. That's sometimes called "being bloody-minded". It happens, but it's rare, except among politicians who control for seeming to be against whatever the other party favours.
In verbal conflicts, one party is using words as the actions aimed at bringing an aspect of another person's behavior (what the person is saying) to a reference state. Of course, this is usually not successful,
On the contrary, I think it is usually successful, but we notice more readily those cases when it is unsuccessful. People often have a reference value of "good" for a perception of their relations with someone else -- in fact, with most of their social contacts. A commonly deployed mechanism for maintaining this perception near its reference is to be seen to be doing something the other person wants. I've never tried to observe how often this behaviour control is successful, but I'd be surprised if the successful occasions don't outnumber the unsuccessful occasions by more than a thousand to one.
This kind of behaviour control is unsuccessful when for B to say what A wants B to say (e.g. "OK, I'll open the window") would increase the error in some perception controlled by B (e.g. keeping out of drafts). B would probably say "No, I won't open the window". It could even be successful if B didn't want to open the window. If B was trying to keep out of drafts, but really wanted to please A, B would have an internal conflict, which might be resolved in favour of B saying "OK". Intrapersonal conflict could easily result in elimination of a potential interpersonal conflict.
So I have to question: " behind interpersonal conflicts there are likely to be intrapersonal ones." Since intrapersonal conflicts are almost universally present, this statement is rather like "Behind every criminal you will find a childhood in which he sometimes disagreed with his father."
particularly when both parties are controlling for what they want to say; then it's a true conflict and what the other person says is just a disturbance.
What the other person says is likely to be a disturbance whatever the hearer is controlling for. Disturbance is likely to lead to some action. Conflict arises if that action fails to reduce (or perhaps increases) the error in whatever controlled perception led to the originator saying what they did.
Martin