Conflict reduction

CSGnet Archive CSG2001
1

[From Rick Marken (2001.10.11.1250)]

Bruce Gregory (2001.1011.1459)

I love the way you use Bill Powers' sound advice to make Bill
Williams wrong. He is the one who needs to change not you!

Me:

I wasn't saying that Bill Williams was wrong (or right).

I should add that I was also not suggesting that it is Bill Williams who needs
to change, not me. One can't reduce conflict by deciding that it's the _other
person_ who should change. One can only reduce conflict by deciding to change
oneself. That applies to everyone, myself included, of course.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
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

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.1011.1742)]

Rick Marken (2001.10.11.1250)

I should add that I was also not suggesting that it is Bill Williams who needs
to change, not me. One can't reduce conflict by deciding that it's the
_other
person_ who should change. One can only reduce conflict by deciding to change
oneself. That applies to everyone, myself included, of course.

Exactly. You said it much more clearly than I did.

3

[From Rick Marken (2001.10.11.1520)]

Bruce Gregory (2001.1011.1740)

The problem, as I see it, is that while _you_ can take responsibility, it
doesn't work to adopt the position that the other person would be better
off if _he_ took responsibility.

I completely agree. That's why I replied as I did to Bill Williams post in the
first place. Bill Williams (11 October 2001 12:30 CST) had said:

I makes it still harder, for some people anyway, that pointing out
that there are some legitimate grounds for complaint risks being
charged with "blaming the victim."

It sounded to me like Bill was suggesting that people (like me) who were
charging him with "blaming the victim" should change their ways. That is,
Bill seemed to be suggesting that the conflict between us could be reduced if
I changed. And he was certainly right. But I'm the only one who can decide to
change my own behavior. I was just pointing to another approach to reducing
conflict, an approach that relies on a decision to change the behavior of the
only person who can change that behavior: oneself.. Of course, one runs the
risk of sounding impudent when one offers such a suggestion. It could sound
like I was saying "You should change, not me". that, of course, was not my
intent.

I am quite aware of my own contributions to conflicts on the net and I am
continuously trying to change my behavior so as to reduce them (including
leaving the net for a while when all else seems to fail). But I do think it's
worth it for people o understand the point I was trying to make about conflict
reduction, which I may have stated most clearly in one of my next posts:

One can't reduce conflict by deciding that it's the _other person_ who
should change. One can only reduce conflict by deciding to change
oneself. That applies to everyone, myself included, of course.

I'm glad to see that you now understand (Bruce Gregory (2001.1011.1742)) what
I was trying to say and agree with it.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
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

4

[From Bill Powers (2001.10.12.1002 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2001.10.11.1520)--

Glad to see you and Bruce Gregory working to reduce the tension. One of the
great revelations of physics for me was learning that you can't create
tension in a rope unless something pulls on the other end, and if you let
go of your end, there can't be any tension.

It's also hard to let go of the desire to score points. Here's an example:

>I'm glad to see that you now understand (Bruce Gregory (2001.1011.1742))
what
>I was trying to say and agree with it.

In other words, only Bruce G. learned something from the exchange?

Best,

Bill P.

5

[From Rick Marken (2001.10.12.0940)]

Bill Powers (2001.10.12.1002 MDT)

Rick Marken (2001.10.11.1520)--

Glad to see you and Bruce Gregory working to reduce the tension.

It's also hard to let go of the desire to score points. Here's an example:

>I'm glad to see that you now understand (Bruce Gregory (2001.1011.1742))
what
>I was trying to say and agree with it.

In other words, only Bruce G. learned something from the exchange?

Just shows how poor my communication skills can be. I can see that what I said
could be taken that wy. My actual intent when I wrote that was, if anything,
to put points on the board for Bruce (I suppose that could be taken in a bad
way, too, now that I look at it. It could sound like I think Bruce needs
points). Actually, what I said was just meant to be a "thank you" to Bruce
for understanding and agreeing. I wasn't thinking about whether I had "won" or
not. Having a discussion can be very difficult when it's carried out in the
context of concerns about winning and losing. I don't know what my current
score is; I haven't even been aware of being in the game. But I hearby turn
whatever point I have over to anyone who wants them.

Best regards

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
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