Conflict Resolution

CSGnet Archive CSG1998
1

[From Bruce Gregory (980501.1000 EDT)]

One of the things I find valuable in the PCT model of conflict is the
opening it provides to approaches to conflict resolution. Conflict arises
when two systems are attempting to maintain the same perceptual variable in
two different states. The importance of a hierarchical model is that it
tells us that the reference levels involved are not _sui generis_, but
rather are the outputs of higher level systems. True conflict resolution
requires, not compromises as to the reference value of the perceptual
variable in dispute, but rather finding ways in which the goals of higher
level systems can be met without requiring the unachievable outcome in
dispute.

Best Offer

2

[From Bill Powers (980502.0328 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (980501.1000 EDT) --

True conflict resolution
requires, not compromises as to the reference value of the perceptual
variable in dispute, but rather finding ways in which the goals of higher
level systems can be met without requiring the unachievable outcome in
dispute.

This is a useful observation, but it's going to cause terminological
problems if we don't figure out out to say this right. Tim Carey is, of
course, right in saying that different people's perceptual variables can't
conflict; they're in different systems. Yet conflict does happen. How can
we model what's going on here?

"What's really happening" is a model that includes what's going on inside
and well as outside the brain. So what's really happening in a conflict?
When one person tries to bring a perceptual signal to a reference level,
another person finds that one of his perceptual signals departs from its
reference level. When the second person corrects the error and brings that
perceptual signal back to its reference level, the first person experiences
an error. As both participants in the conflict try to correct their own
errors, the efforts needed to do so get larger and larger, but the errors
don't get smaller.

There won't be any conflict unless the environmental variable in my control
loop affects the environmental variable in your control loop. They don't
have to be the same environmental variable, but the more closely they're
related, the more likely is a conflict.

The "environment" of a control system includes all control systems at lower
levels. If two higher systems are controlling their perceptions by setting
the same lower reference signal (and receiving the same lower perceptual
signal), conflict is possible without involving an environmental variable
outside the nervous system.

So when we talk about "perceptual variables" in conflict, what we have to
mean is the perceptual variables that can't be simultaneously brought to
their respective reference levels because of a conflict between physical
variables in the environment or signals at lower levels.

Does that fix it up?

Best,

Bill P.

3

[From Bruce Gregory (980502.1407 EDT)]

Bill Powers (980502.0328 MDT)]

So when we talk about "perceptual variables" in conflict, what we have to
mean is the perceptual variables that can't be simultaneously brought to
their respective reference levels because of a conflict between physical
variables in the environment or signals at lower levels.

Does that fix it up?

Very nicely. Thanks.

Best Offer

4

[From Bruce Gregory (980503.1148 EDT)]

Bill Powers (980502.0328 MDT)

There won't be any conflict unless the environmental variable in
my control
loop affects the environmental variable in your control loop. They don't
have to be the same environmental variable, but the more closely they're
related, the more likely is a conflict.

I want to thank you again for this post. You made a profound difference in
my understanding of conflict.

Best Offer

5

[From Rick Marken (2008.09.06.1025)]

Bill Powers (2008.09.01.1309 MDT)]

If you're depressed because of a true
conflict (likely) then the conflict is such that there is no solution, given
the way you state the problem. That's what you need to find.

One way to narrow the conflict is to come up with solutions that appear to
satisfy the stated conditions, and see why they won't work for you.

1. Work hard for Obama, knowing that McCain might win and disappoint you.
What's wrong with doing that?

Because I lose all the money I spent supporting O and I lose my
country as well. But I think Ted Cloak came up with a solution to that
one. But even that is not a solution for me. I think regardless of
what I do, the thought of McCain/Palin winning this election is just
too depressing. I have to figure out how to stop worrying and love the
bomb. (On that note, I highly recommend watching "Dr. Strangelove"
again; it holds up frighteningly -- but hilariously-- well. Sellers is
simply amazing).

2. Avoid disappointment by giving up working for Obama, knowing you will not
admire America if McCain wins. What's wrong with doing that?

Knowing that I will not admire America if McCain wins. Apparently this
is depressing whether I support Obama or not. Even more depressingly,
I have learned that I can't emigrate to Canada, probably because of
their national healthcare system into which I have not paid. Maybe
Australia?

Don't worry about finding the conflict. Just ask yourself, "Well, what IS
wrong with that?" Look for the answer that already exists, not a theoretical
or logical answer.

OK, what's wrong with all of them is that there are just a ton of
people who see the world so differently than I do that I might as well
be living on a different planet. I wouldn't mind if there were just
one or two of their types but apparently nearly 50% of the country
perceives the world in a way that is completely different from me.
What I saw of the Republican convention looked like a Nuremberg rally
to me. But many people -- perhaps not a majority but too many for
comfort -- saw this as a normal political convention. And the
candidate for highest office doesn't "believe in" evolution. This is
just astounding. Apparently empirical evidence is less important than
texts written by ancient cultures. This just can't be happening in
2008, can it?

I can see now that I am not depressed because of a conflict; I know
exactly what to do and I do it: I try to work against ignorance though
research and writing.. The problem is that the level of ignorance in
the US is too great; it is an insuperable disturbance; there is just
too much ignorance, mainly disseminated through the media, and I can't
do anything to reduce it. (Linda and I were just reminiscing about a
time when the media had things on like Aeschylus' _Agamemnon_; now
that I think about it, look at the nosedive that Greece took after the
Golder Age; just like the US). So while I have no problem acting, I
haven't had much success in reducing ignorance. I suppose I could try
to change the way I go about things but I don't think there is really
any way to see success in my lifetime. I think the best thing to do is
just to change my goal (or reducing ignorance).

Then we can iterate again if necessary.

Actually, I feel better already (again). I see that my goal of living
in a country made up of intelligent, graceful, community oriented
people is what is causing the problem. I just have to alter this goal
a bit -- from country to "circle of friends", say -- and I'm right on
target. I will support and vote for Obama just because he's in my
circle of friends; I just won't expect much from the country. I'm glad
Obama is more optimistic than me; what a guy!! A truly great man. Too
bad the country isn't worthy of him; if he doesn't get the presidency
I'll still be happy to have him (and Michele and the kids) over for
dinner.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

6

[From Bill Powers (2008.09.06.1319 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2008.09.06.1025) --

I should probably read your post more times, but I'll do it slowly this time and see if anything pops up.

I think regardless of what I do, the thought of McCain/Palin winning this election is just too depressing.

OK, you know that's not PCT so I'll ask some questions about that. When you think of M-P winning, you get depressed. When you get depressed, what is it that you want to do? I'm asking about just the depressed state itself, not the particular thing you're depressed about. I guess I'm asking what the state of depression IS for you. Feelings in the body, of course (which ones?) and also the reference signals, the cognitive part. How would you describe the various thoughts that come up when you feel that way?

> 2. Avoid disappointment by giving up working for Obama, knowing you will not
> admire America if McCain wins. What's wrong with doing that?

Knowing that I will not admire America if McCain wins. Apparently this
is depressing whether I support Obama or not.

Does this mean there's no conflict between the reason for depression and supporting Obama?

Even more depressingly, I have learned that I can't emigrate to Canada, probably because of their national healthcare system into which I have not paid. Maybe Australia?

When you think about emigrating for a while, what kinds of background thoughts come up?

> Don't worry about finding the conflict. Just ask yourself, "Well, what IS
> wrong with that?" Look for the answer that already exists, not a theoretical
> or logical answer.

OK, what's wrong with all of them is that there are just a ton of
people who see the world so differently than I do that I might as well
be living on a different planet. ...
I can see now that I am not depressed because of a conflict; I know
exactly what to do and I do it: I try to work against ignorance though
research and writing.. The problem is that the level of ignorance in
the US is too great; it is an insuperable disturbance; there is just
too much ignorance, mainly disseminated through the media, and I can't
do anything to reduce it.

Insuperable obstacle, you say. When you think about pushing against an insuperable obstacle, what comes to mind? Is this something you like doing, or not? Or both? You see ignorance and you "can't do anything to reduce it." Does that mean you'll stop trying, stop working against ignorance? Are there two sides to working against ignorance?

I suppose I could try to change the way I go about things but I don't think there is really any way to see success in my lifetime. I think the best thing to do is just to change my goal (of reducing ignorance).

OK, what would be the advantages do changing that goal? If you try to imagine actually changing it, how does that seem to you? Is there any sense of relief, or anything positive about it? I suppose there must be some reason to mention this possibility -- what would it do for you?

And of course there's the other side of that -- on the other hand ...

You're probably ahead of me here, but see what kinds of answers come up. Over.

Best,

Bill P.

7

[From Rick Marken (2008.09.06.1900)]

Bill Powers (2008.09.06.1319 MDT)--

Rick Marken (2008.09.06.1025) --

I think regardless of what I do, the thought of McCain/Palin winning this
election is just too depressing.

OK, you know that's not PCT so I'll ask some questions about that. When you
think of M-P winning, you get depressed. When you get depressed, what is it
that you want to do? I'm asking about just the depressed state itself, not
the particular thing you're depressed about. I guess I'm asking what the
state of depression IS for you. Feelings in the body, of course (which
ones?) and also the reference signals, the cognitive part. How would you
describe the various thoughts that come up when you feel that way?

The depression varies from mild sadness to anger. What I want to do
also varies, from wanting to lash out to wanting to leave. The
cognitive part has to do with hypocrisy, which I dislike more
intensely than any of the things people are hypocritical about.
Related to that, perhaps, is that I dislike confabulation: the ability
to either ignore data or verbally twist it into something else. Maybe
I dislike it because I am (or was) so easily seduced by it I have
learned to be very skeptical of stories; that may be why I am so into
research. I admire good storytelling. But when it comes to
understanding, what I admire is the ability (or willingness) to test
the stories (models) against data. I guess I dislike the attitude that
will not let experience temper belief; that admires a belief in what
one is told, particularly when it fits one's prejudices.

Even more depressingly, I have learned that I can't emigrate to Canada,
probably because of their national healthcare system into which I have not
paid. Maybe Australia?

When you think about emigrating for a while, what kinds of background
thoughts come up?

Getting away from what I would call the religious zeigeist that I see
all around me. The religious zeitgeist is the apparent willingness to
believe without empirical test. I imagine that it is different in
other places but, of course, it probably is not (though surveys
suggest that things are much better now in almost every industrialized
nation except the US).

Insuperable obstacle, you say. When you think about pushing against an
insuperable obstacle, what comes to mind? Is this something you like doing,
or not? Or both? You see ignorance and you "can't do anything to reduce it."
Does that mean you'll stop trying, stop working against ignorance? Are there
two sides to working against ignorance?

I do like working against my own ignorance. The first step is
accepting one's ignorance and knowing that working against it is a
constant process of trying to gain understanding (rather than the
understandingness that comes from untested belief). I can't reduce it
in others because I can't force people to have an empirical attitude.
I don't know if there are two sides to this but I can see that there
are two things that could be called "working against ignorance": 1)
working against my own, which I enjoy doing and will continue and 2)
working against others', which is frustrating when I slip into doing
it.

I suppose I could try to change the way I go about things but I don't
think there is really any way to see success in my lifetime. I think the
best thing to do is just to change my goal (of reducing ignorance).

OK, what would be the advantages do changing that goal? If you try to
imagine actually changing it, how does that seem to you? Is there any sense
of relief, or anything positive about it? I suppose there must be some
reason to mention this possibility -- what would it do for you?

I think I got it in the paragraph above; the goal I should change is
getting others to approach life with a recognition of their own
ignorance and taking a scientific approach to reducing it. The goal I
don't need to change is the one of reducing my own ignorance through
scientific research.

You're probably ahead of me here, but see what kinds of answers come up.
Over.

I'm not ahead of you. These questions were great and I think I made
some realizations (had some up a level moments) that were useful.
Maybe I can use them to become more tolerant of people who don't
approach life as I do, skeptically. Who knows? The problem is that
the religio-ideological approach to life, which is so often a
hypocritical fantasy, is very often also the cause of harm, either
directly or indirectly, to others. This makes me sad but harm, direct
or indirect, has been caused by scientific types too, I suppose. So
maybe I should just lighten up.

This is really fun. I'm happy to continue if you are willing.

Best

Your patient

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

8

[From Bill Powers (2008.09.07.1141 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2008.09.06.1900) --

The depression varies from mild sadness to anger. What I want to do
also varies, from wanting to lash out to wanting to leave. The
cognitive part has to do with hypocrisy, which I dislike more
intensely than any of the things people are hypocritical about.

OK, then look at the disliking and tell me what it's like when you're doing it (as opposed to telling me what you dislike or why). While you're disliking these things, what is going on inside? You say it ranges (in intensity?) from mild sadness to anger. Is this also like a scale of how much you want to do something, a feeling of wanting to act in some particular way? If it is, what keeps you from carrying out the action?

Related to that, perhaps, is that I dislike confabulation: the ability
to either ignore data or verbally twist it into something else. Maybe
I dislike it because I am (or was) so easily seduced by it I have
learned to be very skeptical of stories; that may be why I am so into
research. I admire good storytelling. But when it comes to
understanding, what I admire is the ability (or willingness) to test
the stories (models) against data. I guess I dislike the attitude that
will not let experience temper belief; that admires a belief in what
one is told, particularly when it fits one's prejudices.

It's the disliking that caught my attention, rather than what it was about, as well as the mention of sadness and anger as a continuous scale. For me, anger is a desire to do something fairly energetic to something, and I usually have reasons not to do that. Is that how it is with you, too? If this general situation is of long standing or has recurred over a long time, then the reasons for not doing what you feel like doing must also have been there for a long time. What are they? Are they important? As important as the disliking? Is it OK with you to dislike these things forever?

As you can see, I'm trying to narrow down to two directly opposing urges to action, at the highest level we can find. What do you see in there that fits the description?

That's probably enough of my comments. The other points will come up again. Your turn.

Best,

Bill P.

9

[From Rick Marken (2008.09.08.2200)]

Bill Powers (2008.09.07.1141 MDT)--

>Rick Marken (2008.09.06.1900) --

The depression varies from mild sadness to anger. What I want to do
also varies, from wanting to lash out to wanting to leave. The
cognitive part has to do with hypocrisy, which I dislike more
intensely than any of the things people are hypocritical about.

OK, then look at the disliking and tell me what it's like when you're doing
it (as opposed to telling me what you dislike or why).

It's like feeling that things suck. It's like being pissed but a little milder.

While you're
disliking these things, what is going on inside?

A bunch of sensations of dislike.

You say it ranges (in
intensity?) from mild sadness to anger. Is this also like a scale of how
much you want to do something, a feeling of wanting to act in some
particular way? If it is, what keeps you from carrying out the action?

Yes, it's like wanting to act. What keeps me from carrying out the
action is my desire to not get arrested;-)

It's the disliking that caught my attention, rather than what it was about,
as well as the mention of sadness and anger as a continuous scale. For me,
anger is a desire to do something fairly energetic to something, and I
usually have reasons not to do that. Is that how it is with you, too?

Yes.

If this general situation is of long standing or has recurred over a long time,
then the reasons for not doing what you feel like doing must also have been
there for a long time. What are they? Are they important? As important as
the disliking? Is it OK with you to dislike these things forever?

That last one is a good one. I would say "yes, it is OK". I think I
will live my life disliking the path the country is on, assuming it
stays on this path. It is OK with me to dislike these things forever.

As you can see, I'm trying to narrow down to two directly opposing urges to
action, at the highest level we can find. What do you see in there that fits
the description?

I see a desire to fight against the awful ideology and the desire to
avoid getting hurt in some way as I do it. I guess I also see the
paradox of wanting to hurt people who I dislike because they are doing
hurtful things. Tough for me, I guess.

That's probably enough of my comments. The other points will come up again.
Your turn.

That's the best I can so for now. Your turn.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

10

[From Bill Powers (2008.09.09,-732 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2008.09.08.2200) --

> OK, then look at the disliking and tell me what it's like when you're doing
> it (as opposed to telling me what you dislike or why).

It's like feeling that things suck. It's like being pissed but a little milder.

As an MOL interviewer, I don't how you feel when you feel "things suck" or what "being pissed" is like as an experience. Could you explain more about that?

> While you're
> disliking these things, what is going on inside?

A bunch of sensations of dislike.

Is "dislike" a sensation, or a cognition? If it's both, I think you've described some of the cognitions already, but what are the sensations?

> You say it ranges (in
> intensity?) from mild sadness to anger. Is this also like a scale of how
> much you want to do something, a feeling of wanting to act in some
> particular way? If it is, what keeps you from carrying out the action?

Yes, it's like wanting to act. What keeps me from carrying out the
action is my desire to not get arrested;-)

What is the action you're not carrying out? Are there other reasons for not doing it beside not wanting to be arrested?

> It's the disliking that caught my attention, rather than what it was about,
> as well as the mention of sadness and anger as a continuous scale. For me,
> anger is a desire to do something fairly energetic to something, and I
> usually have reasons not to do that. Is that how it is with you, too?

Yes.

I understand that to mean that action you're not carrying out is like a physical attack on something or someone. If that's the case, can you describe what sort of attack (or "energetic action") comes to mind?

> If this general situation is of long standing or has recurred over a long >time, then the reasons for not doing what you feel like doing must also have >been there for a long time. What are they? Are they important? As important >as the disliking? Is it OK with you to dislike these things forever?

That last one is a good one. I would say "yes, it is OK". I think I
will live my life disliking the path the country is on, assuming it
stays on this path. It is OK with me to dislike these things forever.

OK, and is it all right to keep yourself from carrying out the energetic action forever, too?

> As you can see, I'm trying to narrow down to two directly opposing urges to
> action, at the highest level we can find. What do you see in there that fits
> the description?

I see a desire to fight against the awful ideology and the desire to
avoid getting hurt in some way as I do it. I guess I also see the
paradox of wanting to hurt people who I dislike because they are doing
hurtful things. Tough for me, I guess.

What is tough for you? By that, did you mean a sort of resigned acknowledgement that this state of being is unpleasant but nothing can be done about it? (When I suggest interpretations like that, I'm not urging them on you, just asking. MOL interviewers don't mind being wrong).

Can you sort of sum up this state of affairs that you're willing to have going on indefinitely?

Best,

Bill P.

11

[From Rick Marken (2008.09.09.0920)]

Bill Powers (2008.09.09,-732 MDT)--

Rick Marken (2008.09.08.2200) --

It's like feeling that things suck. It's like being pissed but a little
milder.

As an MOL interviewer, I don't how you feel when you feel "things suck" or
what "being pissed" is like as an experience. Could you explain more about
that?

That's the best I can do. I'm not a poet fer chissakes;-)

Is "dislike" a sensation, or a cognition? If it's both, I think you've
described some of the cognitions already, but what are the sensations

Just tension in the gut, pretty much.

Yes, it's like wanting to act. What keeps me from carrying out the
action is my desire to not get arrested;-)

What is the action you're not carrying out? Are there other reasons for not
doing it beside not wanting to be arrested?

Actually, I only do the really bad stuff in my mind. In my mind I just
want to scream out that we are being taken over by fascists because
people are so stupid. And that's what I do, to a somewhat lesser
degree, on the net and in letters to the editor. I suppose I should do
it in other forums as well. So I guess I don't really not do what I
want to do.

I understand that to mean that action you're not carrying out is like a
physical attack on something or someone. If that's the case, can you
describe what sort of attack (or "energetic action") comes to mind?

Yes, but the physical attack is in my imagination; I just verbally on
the net; that is sort of my reduced action.

OK, and is it all right to keep yourself from carrying out the energetic
action forever, too?

Yes.

I see a desire to fight against the awful ideology and the desire to
avoid getting hurt in some way as I do it. I guess I also see the
paradox of wanting to hurt people who I dislike because they are doing
hurtful things. Tough for me, I guess.

What is tough for you? By that, did you mean a sort of resigned
acknowledgement that this state of being is unpleasant but nothing can be
done about it? (When I suggest interpretations like that, I'm not urging
them on you, just asking. MOL interviewers don't mind being wrong).

But you are right. That is precisely what I meant.

Can you sort of sum up this state of affairs that you're willing to have
going on indefinitely?

My hopeless fight for what is good (from my perspective, of course).
For liberal ideas. For universal, single payer healthcare, for
increased government support of scientific research, for the end of
tax breaks for religious organizations, for publicly financed
elections, for the end of unilateral support for countries that
practice apartheid, for massive increases in government support for
education at all levels, for massive increases in unemployment
insurance (or a generous negative income tax), for no more death
penalty, for gun control, for complete nuclear disarmament and
international control of nuclear materials, for no more wars of
aggression, etc etc. Some of these things have come about; others
haven't. But I'll keep working for them, unless the fascists make it
dangerous and then I'll either shut up or move somewhere that has a
somewhat more enlightened population. I know it is somewhat hopeless
and I fight from a crouch but it can go on indefinitely for me; it's
not really that bad (for me anyway; perhaps it's not good for you;-))

Your turn.

By the way, I figured out which program to use in my student research
so I'm all set.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

12

[From Bill Powers (2008.09.09.1623 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2008.09.09.0920) --

> As an MOL interviewer, I don't how you feel when you feel "things suck" or

> what "being pissed" is like as an experience. Could you explain more about
> that?

That's the best I can do. I'm not a poet fer chissakes;-)

Is that a little bit of the feeling? Sort of annoyed, at the lower end of the scale? Anything behind that?

> Is "dislike" a sensation, or a cognition? If it's both, I think you've
> described some of the cognitions already, but what are the sensations

Just tension in the gut, pretty much.

>> Yes, it's like wanting to act. What keeps me from carrying out the
>> action is my desire to not get arrested;-)
>
> What is the action you're not carrying out? Are there other reasons for not
> doing it beside not wanting to be arrested?

Actually, I only do the really bad stuff in my mind. In my mind I just
want to scream out that we are being taken over by fascists because
people are so stupid.

Is that the extent of the energetic action that you want to do, in your mind? I know you don't do it, but are there other things, too, when you think about it now? What's the really bad stuff (you don't have to say what it is -- it 's sufficient that you're aware of it).

And that's what I do, to a somewhat lesser
degree, on the net and in letters to the editor. I suppose I should do
it in other forums as well. So I guess I don't really not do what I
want to do.

Do you do everything you want to do?

> I understand that to mean that action you're not carrying out is like a
> physical attack on something or someone. If that's the case, can you
> describe what sort of attack (or "energetic action") comes to mind?

Yes, but the physical attack is in my imagination; I just verbally on
the net; that is sort of my reduced action.

Are you saying that it's the physical things that come to mind that you hold back from doing? Why don't you do those things, too? Would you go ahead and do them if you wouldn't be arrested? Or would you still hold back for some reason?

> OK, and is it all right to keep yourself from carrying out the energetic
> action forever, too?

Yes.

>> I see a desire to fight against the awful ideology and the desire to
>> avoid getting hurt in some way as I do it. I guess I also see the
>> paradox of wanting to hurt people who I dislike because they are doing
>> hurtful things. Tough for me, I guess.
>
> What is tough for you? By that, did you mean a sort of resigned
> acknowledgement that this state of being is unpleasant but nothing can be
> done about it? (When I suggest interpretations like that, I'm not urging
> them on you, just asking. MOL interviewers don't mind being wrong).

But you are right. That is precisely what I meant.

Doesn't that sound like a sort of depressed state when you think about it's going on indefinitely? Is that OK with you?

> Can you sort of sum up this state of affairs that you're willing to have
> going on indefinitely?

My hopeless fight for what is good (from my perspective, of course). [followed by many examples].

So you don't mind feeling hopeless?

I know it is somewhat hopeless and I fight from a crouch but it can go on indefinitely for me; it's not really that bad (for me anyway; perhaps it's not good for you;-))

"Not really that bad", you say. What does that mean to you? When you observe that thought, what's the place you're looking at it from? Is it like saying "You can take it, Rick, there are worse things..." -- I don't want to do too much guessing here. What would you say is your attitude toward the Rick who says it's not too bad to go on this way?

Fighting from a crouch is an interesting image; what does it call to mind as you think of it? I get a picture of someone cornered, at the end of his strength... but again, that's me.

Over.

Bill