# Conflict, Reorganization and RTP
**URL:** http://discourse.iapct.org/t/conflict-reorganization-and-rtp/2806
**Category:** CSG2005
**Created:** [January 18, 2005, 2:14pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/conflict-reorganization-and-rtp/2806 "2005-01-18T14:14:07Z")
**Posts on this page:** 9
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Bruce\_Gregory6](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory6)
#### Post date: [January 18, 2005, 2:14pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/conflict-reorganization-and-rtp/2806/1 "2005-01-18T14:14:07Z")
[From Bruce Gregory (2005.0118.0910)]
I offer here a simple HPCT interpretation of RTP. A student is
disrupting the class. The teacher wants the student's control hierarchy
to reorganize in a way that leads to a reduction in disruptive
behavior. The teacher sends the student to the RTC. This sets up a
conflict in the student's control hierarchy. The hierarchy has
conflicting goals: (1) engaging in disruptive behavior and (2)
returning to classmates in the regular classroom. Conflict leads to
persisting error which in turn leads to reorganization. We cannot
predict that this process will lead to the reorganization desired by
the teacher, but it will lead to reorganization and by encouraging
conflict the procedure accelerates reorganization.
The enemy of truth is not error. The enemy of truth is certainty.
---
### Author:  [@BJORN\_SIMONSEN](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/BJORN_SIMONSEN)
#### Post date: [January 19, 2005, 10:17am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/conflict-reorganization-and-rtp/2806/2 "2005-01-19T10:17:07Z")
[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.01.19,11:15 EST)]
> From Bruce Gregory (2005.0118.0910)
> I offer here a simple HPCT interpretation of RTP. A student is
> disrupting the class. The teacher wants the student's control hierarchy
> to reorganize in a way that leads to a reduction in disruptive
> behavior. The teacher sends the student to the RTC. This sets up a
> conflict in the student's control hierarchy. The hierarchy has
> conflicting goals: (1) engaging in disruptive behavior and (2)
> returning to classmates in the regular classroom. Conflict leads to
> persisting error which in turn leads to reorganization. We cannot
> predict that this process will lead to the reorganization desired by
> the teacher, but it will lead to reorganization and by encouraging
> conflict the procedure accelerates reorganization.
Maybe I misunderstand your comment, but....
I would prefer this mode of expression: "The teacher wants the student to
control his perceptions in a way that leads to a reduction in disruptive
behavior". I don't think he insists on reorganization in the student's
hierarchy.
I am not sure the student wished a disruptive behavior. In PCT we don't
choose our actions, we all have our purposes and we "choose" our purposes. I
think the student could "choose" a lot of purposes that could bring about
disturbances. I also think the teacher would do a bad job if he sends the
student to RTC before he did a test to experience why the student carried
out actions that he experienced as disrupting.
Let us say you are correct. The teacher had done the test and he "knew" that
the student had a wish to disturb (seems to me to be extraordinary). When he
arrives RTC, the situation is different. The disturbances are different and
it is just an assertion that the student still wishes to disturb. - What I
am trying to suggest is that sending the student to RTC doesn't with
certainty cause a conflict for the student.
Maybe you have changed your mind.
[From Bruce Gregory (2005.0118.1345)]
> > Martin Taylor 2005.01.18.12.41
> > But I don't think
> > it likely that reorganization can be controlled, or even influenced
> > by directing attention to the place where the problem exists.
>
> From Bruce Gregory (2005.0118.1345
> I agree.
Bjorn
---
### Author:  [@\_Erling\_Jorgensen](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/_Erling_Jorgensen)
#### Post date: [January 19, 2005, 4:06pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/conflict-reorganization-and-rtp/2806/3 "2005-01-19T16:06:23Z")
[From Erling Jorgensen (2005.01.19 1100 EST)]
> [From Bruce Gregory (2005.0118.0910)]
> I offer here a simple HPCT interpretation of RTP. A student is
> disrupting the class. The teacher wants the student’s control hierarchy
> to reorganize in a way that leads to a reduction in disruptive
> behavior. The teacher sends the student to the RTC. This sets up a
> conflict in the student’s control hierarchy. The hierarchy has
> conflicting goals: (1) engaging in disruptive behavior and (2)
> returning to classmates in the regular classroom. Conflict leads to
> persisting error which in turn leads to reorganization. We cannot
> predict that this process will lead to the reorganization desired by
> the teacher, but it will lead to reorganization and by encouraging
> conflict the procedure accelerates reorganization.
I agree with your basic assessment of the key mechanism involved
in RTP. It is setting up a benign conflict that may lead to
reorganization.
One caveat is in how you phrase the first of the potentially
conflicting goals. The student has a goal of engaging in behavior,
which additionally the teacher views as disrupting the class.
Whether the student’s goal is actually to disrupt (which is
certainly possible), is an empirical matter in a given situation.
I suspect that those previous instructions of saying “I see you
have chosen to go to the RTC room,” were a gentle way of helping
to induce the conflict.
There was also a “buy-in” component, coming from the class
supposedly agreeing at the beginning of the year to use such
procedures, for behaviors that could be classed as “disruptive.”
The effect of such a buy-in, if it occurred, would be to help
make the leaving itself one of the student’s (admittedly peripheral)
goals – in a sense saying, “fairness dictates that I go along
with what I previously agreed to.” If this component is operative,
it would increase the internal conflict further – i.e., “I both
want to be with my classmates, and have agreed not to be.”
Another way of describing this component of the process would be
as follows. It attempts to enlist the student him/herself as
an enforcer of the procedure of leaving, thus minimizing the
very real potential for a power struggle between the student
and teacher. Admittedly, the teacher is a back-up enforcer,
asserting the rule if the student will not.
As an aside, it is this latter feature which led to PCT assessments
of RTP as, technically, “coercive.” While legitimate, I believe
that was an overly narrow focus on the relevant dynamics. And
I believe the indiscriminate use of that term led to some
misunderstandings and/or hurt feelings, among those that have
seen RTP do a lot of good.
One other point should be noted, or at least flagged for further
consideration. In the RTP process, I believe there may also be
an additional “up a level” component, related to the teacher’s
question of “What are you doing?” However, as we’ve recently
noted (again), that component has yet to be defined very well,
in terms of a model.
In general I agree with you, that the mechanism is reorganization,
not realization. The “aha” realization, where it occurs, is an
event that follows _after_ reorganization, and may even serve as a
marker (of decreasing error) that reorganization has successfully
occurred.
But let’s nor forget the standard no-need-for-reorganization
operation of the hierarchy, in terms of altering reference signals.
(E.g., “That behavior is not acceptable. Do something different.”)
I think the “What are you doing?” question might lead to such
run-of-the-mill changes in reference standards for the student –
unless, of course, by that point it’s too late in the process,
and any changing (by reorganizing or by switching references)
will have to take place in the RTC room.
Hope this adds some clarity to the ongoing discussion.
All the best,
Erling
NOTICE: This e-mail communication (including any attachments) is CONFIDENTIAL and the materials contained herein are PRIVILEGED and intended only for disclosure to or use by the person(s) listed above. If you are neither the intended recipient(s), nor a person responsible for the delivery of this communication to the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by using the “reply” feature or by calling me at the number listed above, and then immediately delete this message and all attachments from your computer. Thank you.
\<\<\<\>\>\>
---
### Author:  [@Bruce\_Gregory6](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory6)
#### Post date: [January 19, 2005, 9:52pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/conflict-reorganization-and-rtp/2806/4 "2005-01-19T21:52:00Z")
[From Bruce Gregory (2005.0119.1650)]
Erling Jorgensen (2005.01.19 1100 EST)
One caveat is in how you phrase the first of the potentially
conflicting goals. The student has a goal of engaging in behavior,
which additionally the teacher views as disrupting the class.
Whether the student's goal is actually to disrupt (which is
certainly possible), is an empirical matter in a given situation.
Yes, I quite agree. Some students intend to disrupt, but I suspect that in most cases disruption is a side effect of achieving other goals.
I suspect that those previous instructions of saying "I see you
have chosen to go to the RTC room," were a gentle way of helping
to induce the conflict.
Yes, I think that makes sense. (Bill and Rick will think differently.)
There was also a "buy-in" component, coming from the class
supposedly agreeing at the beginning of the year to use such
procedures, for behaviors that could be classed as "disruptive."
The effect of such a buy-in, if it occurred, would be to help
make the leaving itself one of the student's (admittedly peripheral)
goals -- in a sense saying, "fairness dictates that I go along
with what I previously agreed to." If this component is operative,
it would increase the internal conflict further -- i.e., "I both
want to be with my classmates, and have agreed not to be."
Yes, indeed. Good point.
Another way of describing this component of the process would be
as follows. It attempts to enlist the student him/herself as
an enforcer of the procedure of leaving, thus minimizing the
very real potential for a power struggle between the student
and teacher. Admittedly, the teacher is a back-up enforcer,
asserting the rule if the student will not.
As an aside, it is this latter feature which led to PCT assessments
of RTP as, technically, "coercive." While legitimate, I believe
that was an overly narrow focus on the relevant dynamics. And
I believe the indiscriminate use of that term led to some
misunderstandings and/or hurt feelings, among those that have
seen RTP do a lot of good.
I agree.
One other point should be noted, or at least flagged for further
consideration. In the RTP process, I believe there may also be
an additional "up a level" component, related to the teacher's
question of "What are you doing?" However, as we've recently
noted (again), that component has yet to be defined very well,
in terms of a model.
I suspect that asking, "What are you doing?" is unlikely to be taken as anything more than a covert accusation. The teacher knows full well what the student is doing in most cases.
In general I agree with you, that the mechanism is reorganization,
not realization. The "aha" realization, where it occurs, is an
event that follows \_after\_ reorganization, and may even serve as a
marker (of decreasing error) that reorganization has successfully
occurred.
But let's nor forget the standard no-need-for-reorganization
operation of the hierarchy, in terms of altering reference signals.
(E.g., "That behavior is not acceptable. Do something different.")
I think the "What are you doing?" question might lead to such
run-of-the-mill changes in reference standards for the student --
unless, of course, by that point it's too late in the process,
and any changing (by reorganizing or by switching references)
will have to take place in the RTC room.
As far as the model is concerned, there seems to me no alternative to reorganization. Telling the student to do something different will have no effect unless the student is organized in such a way is a well defined alternative to achieving the same goals. Switching references can only happen if the hierarchy contains some logic of the form If A do B or C.
Thanks for the post.
The enemy of truth is not error. The enemy of truth is certainty.
---
### Author:  [@Martin\_Taylor2](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Martin_Taylor2)
#### Post date: [January 19, 2005, 10:56pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/conflict-reorganization-and-rtp/2806/5 "2005-01-19T22:56:35Z")
[Martin Taylor 2005.01.19.17.55]
> [From Bruce Gregory (2005.0119.1650)]
>
> > Erling Jorgensen (2005.01.19 1100 EST)
> >
> > One caveat is in how you phrase the first of the potentially
> > conflicting goals. The student has a goal of engaging in behavior,
> > which additionally the teacher views as disrupting the class.
> > Whether the student's goal is actually to disrupt (which is
> > certainly possible), is an empirical matter in a given situation.
>
> Yes, I quite agree. Some students intend to disrupt, but I suspect
> that in most cases disruption is a side effect of achieving other
> goals.
All cases, nicht wahr?
Martin
---
### Author:  [@Bruce\_Gregory6](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory6)
#### Post date: [January 19, 2005, 11:30pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/conflict-reorganization-and-rtp/2806/6 "2005-01-19T23:30:13Z")
[From Bruce Gregory (2005.0119.1828)]
> [Martin Taylor 2005.01.19.17.55
>
> > [From Bruce Gregory (2005.0119.1650)]
> >
> > > Erling Jorgensen (2005.01.19 1100 EST)
> >
> > Yes, I quite agree. Some students intend to disrupt, but I suspect
> > that in most cases disruption is a side effect of achieving other
> > goals.
>
> All cases, nicht wahr?
This is not obvious. Some students may intend to be disruptive.
The enemy of truth is not error. The enemy of truth is certainty.
---
### Author:  [@Martin\_Taylor2](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Martin_Taylor2)
#### Post date: [January 20, 2005, 1:47am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/conflict-reorganization-and-rtp/2806/7 "2005-01-20T01:47:55Z")
[Martin Taylor 2005.01.19.20.35]
> [From Bruce Gregory (2005.0119.1828)]
>
> > [Martin Taylor 2005.01.19.17.55
> >
> > > [From Bruce Gregory (2005.0119.1650)]
> > >
> > > > Erling Jorgensen (2005.01.19 1100 EST)
> > >
> > > Yes, I quite agree. Some students intend to disrupt, but I suspect
> > > that in most cases disruption is a side effect of achieving other
> > > goals.
> >
> > All cases, nicht wahr?
>
> This is not obvious. Some students may intend to be disruptive.
Ah-- didn't notice you said "side-effects". Sorry. I was thinking of
all behaviour as being the control of perception, and the disruptive
behaviour as therefore being in the service of control of some other
perception -- which I interpreted as the "other goals".
In other words, you are suggesting that in most cases the student
either does not perceive their behaviour as disruptive, or is not
controlling for the level of disruption. That's quite possible. I
guess whether it's true could only be determined by investigating
each instance and counting.
I'd guess, however, that most would perceive that their behaviour was
disruptive, at least after having had that fact mentioned. Whether
they would be controlling for the level of disruption would be the
question. I'd be a bit surprised to find that many of them didn't
care whether they were being disruptive or not, or the degree to
which they were.
It would surprise me less to find that the level of disruption was
controlled in the same way that the angle of the car's steering wheel
is controlled in the service of a perception of the car being
properly in its traffic lane. No side-effect, but not the perception
of primary interest. The student's controlled perception of primary
interest might be, for example, perceiving that the teacher paid
attention to him, and disruption the method. Not a side-effect, but
not the perception of primary interest.
Martin
---
### Author:  [@Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers1)
#### Post date: [January 20, 2005, 4:58pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/conflict-reorganization-and-rtp/2806/8 "2005-01-20T16:58:12Z")
[From Bill Powers (2005.01.20.0935 MST)]
Bruce Gregory (2005.0118.0910) --
> I offer here a simple HPCT interpretation of RTP. A student is
> disrupting the class. The teacher wants the student's control hierarchy
> to reorganize in a way that leads to a reduction in disruptive
> behavior. The teacher sends the student to the RTC. This sets up a
> conflict in the student's control hierarchy. The hierarchy has
> conflicting goals: (1) engaging in disruptive behavior and (2)
> returning to classmates in the regular classroom. Conflict leads to
> persisting error which in turn leads to reorganization. We cannot
> predict that this process will lead to the reorganization desired by
> the teacher, but it will lead to reorganization and by encouraging
> conflict the procedure accelerates reorganization.
One dubious assumption here is that if it were not for the teacher's action
in sending the student to the RTC, there would have been no conflict and no
reorganization. However, I think your interpretation is generally right --
the hope is that reorganization will happen and the student will come
peacefully back to class, though it's not clear why that should be the
expected result.
I'm not sure this is all there is to it. Much is going on in the background
that is essential if a good outcome is to be expected. Teachers are
encouraged to avoid taking punitive attitudes, and especially to avoid the
idea that going to the RTC is a punishment (though, as you mention, being
separated from one's peers could be considered punishing since it
presumably causes some error). Also, the RTC teacher's approach is
exceedingly important. My own recommendation would be for that teacher to
be skilled in the use of MOL. In fact, going to the RTC should be
understood to be nothing more than a chance to explore personal problems in
a setting more appropriate than that of the classroom.
You should get hold of Ed's latest book -- somebody say what the title is,
I've forgotten. You'll find some indications of reorganization of RTP
there, and since I'm in a very friendly relationship with Ed, I will be
speaking to his people at the annual RTP meeting and doing what I can to
encourage use of the MOL, as well as greater understanding of PCT. The
IAACT group, by the way, has been trying very hard for the last four years
or so to make the shift from Glasser to PCT, and the people in that group
have done wonderfully well. They have embraced PCT to a greater extent than
the RTC group has done -- but that can easily change if we're patient and
don't give up.
Best,
Bill P.
---
### Author:  [@Philip\_J\_Runkel](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Philip_J_Runkel)
#### Post date: [January 24, 2005, 5:27am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/conflict-reorganization-and-rtp/2806/9 "2005-01-24T05:27:49Z")
Hey Bill: Well, I've now read more of my e-mail, and I find that you
were very successful in demonstrating MOL. Good good. And I see that
you are in good standing with Ed Ford again. I am very glad to hear
that. Yes, I liked his latest book better than the earlier. And when
is the RTP meeting you will be attending? --P