Conflict

[From Kenny Kitzke (2002.04.01)]

<Rick Marken (2002.03.30.0900)>

Once again, Rick, you bring onto this forum issues such as religion,
politics, etc., to seemingly try to make points about PCT issues such as
"conflict." I don't mind

<Gee, then why even bring it up?>

My answer is plain in the rest of my sentence that you left out: "I don't
mind, but others on this forum do."

The record shows that a number of CSG forum members (steadily shrinking and
now under 100 souls) do not think that discussing religion (even politics or
using analogies concerning Hitler, Clinton, Bush, etc.) or beliefs in God are
appropriate on a scientific forum like this. When you write this way, it
upsets certain people and some have either quit posting or left the forum
completely. I miss their contributions.

When I have responded to your references to God, and religious beliefs and
practices, which I sometimes find inaccurate and prejudicial and therefore
feel a need to refute, I usually get criticism for "preaching" or dealing
with "spiritual" stuff on a scientific forum. Sometimes, people have
recognized your instigation of such discussions, but often they just pile on
me for what I wrote in response. This even seems to have happened again.

So, since you are the only one on the forum that I can think of who regularly
brings up religious (or political) examples (which get into high level
personal references that often lead to high gain verbal assaults on the forum
and to hurt feelings) to make points about PCT, I was simply seeking your
cooperation in not using them. I think my statement which followed pointed
this way:

"And, in so doing, it seems that an un[in]tended consequence (I assume) is to
create conflict in this forum." And, Bill Powers seems to have at least
understood my plea though it apparently escapes you.

Now, this is totally selfish request of mine and totally consistent with PCT.
I am hoping to change the environment I experience through your posts.
Then, I don't have to decide not to respond (even though I care about the
subject and disagree with what you write) so as not to be perceived as some
kind of religious freak pushing my religion on this forum and get attacked.
I intend never to be the one to _start_ a thread on this forum that has a
religious or spiritual basis. I try to respect those who do not want their
CSGNet mailbox filled with such discussions. There are hundreds of such
forums and I spend far more time on them than I do on CSGNet.

But, if your persist, I will continue to choose to respond. And, I'll take
the heat from Bryan and any others who don't like what I say in response.
Such is life.

Since I don't mind discussing your perceptions on religious topics with you,
especially when they illustrate PCT understandings, and certainly if I think
they are inaccurate, I also made an offer which you ignored:

"If you want to discuss this "tragic irony" which you perceive, I'll be happy
to do so privately."

<It looks to me like you do mind and I suspect that this is because you are
controlling for seeing wisdom in the story of Exodus. My post was a
disturbance
to that perception.>

Sure, I mind, otherwise I would not have responded. But, you go and guess
what reference perception I am controlling with my action. If there is
anyone who should know how risky this kind of speculation is, and how it can
create "conflict," it should be you. But, no, you don't apply PCT, you
imagine a reason and act on your imagination. Why not respond privately and
ask me?

David responded to your similarly inaccurate imagination on what at least
some people who celebrate Passover are controlling.

The strangest thing to me in this exchange is that you solicited a response,
I responded (I think I was the only one to do so) and agreed with the "tragic
irony." I even agreed that God can be perceived as a "terrorist" under
certain definitions. I will admit I purposely used the term "evil doers"
thinking you would connect it to DubU and his reaction to the terrorists.
But, I also put a smile in there.

The only disagreement I expressed was with your conclusion:

<I'd say the odds of anyone figuring out how to solve this conflict are
somewhere between zero and zero.>

"While you say that, the Bible says otherwise." This is a fact. It is not
my opinion.

Lastly, I asked for your cooperation in avoiding highly charged personal
issues on the forum that are not essential to important concepts within PCT
such as "conflict" Aren't there plenty of examples of conflict in the news
every day that are not so personally charged that would provide adequate
examples of PCT in real life situations and applications?

It does not appear that your cooperation will be forthcoming. And, I will
continue to not solve my problem with your "religious oriented" posts by not
responding to avoid some heat from you or anyone else on the forum. Nor,
will I continue the dialogue you began on this forum about the celebration of
Passover or what it or God teaches by it publicly. I will respond to you
privately on those matters.

Have a great day! The problems in Israel will not be solved by you or by
anyone on this forum.

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2002.04.01.1315)]

Dear All (But especially Kenny),

[From Kenny Kitzke (2002.04.01)]

I was to understand that there are no "rules" for CSGnet, such as one finds
in Yahoo groups (TRDEV, ROINET, etc.), but that there are some generally
held advisories about what is appropriate regarding posts to the net. Must
we ensure that we have a separation of Church and PCT???

Rick mentioned in your last note,

<It looks to me like you do mind and I suspect that this is because you are
controlling for seeing wisdom in the story of Exodus. My post was a
disturbance to that perception.>

I guess there are at least two levels of communication on this net. Those
topics directly related to and carefully contextualized in PCT, and just
people communicating about what they feel viz � viz about things they
perceive. At the first level, we have often gotten ourselves into trouble
by not using the correct terminology. I think many have agreed that to do
so is better, myself included. But I sometimes defer posting, because I
really don't want to haul out the glossaries, etc., in order to comment on
a post. Such is life.

At second level, posts that reflect our contributions to the general
discussion about the things we perceive should not and have never been
forbidden. This level includes news (9/11, Israel, linguistics, etc.) and
so on. It's just stuff. So long as it doesn't get long-winded.... Ooops,
I guess it has! Mayb here is a reason:

Kenny:

But, if your persist, I will continue to choose to respond. And, I'll take
the heat from Bryan and any others who don't like what I say in response.
Such is life.

Conflict is natural. Conflict is the outcome of two living control systems
using the same social environment (word space) to control their respective
perceptiosn.

Y'know, my earlier background was in theatre. How many times did I recite:
"The basic purpose of theatre is to ENTERTAIN (not to teach, clarify,
proselytize, etc.) The central focus of good theatre, what makes it
intrinsically compelling, is CONFLICT. No TV show, play, or even epic poem
is interesting unless there is a good measure of conflict. Now, since news
is often folded in with stories, we can also say that good news or good
stories are intrinsically conflictive. Otherwise, it ain't gonna get
published/aired. So, it seems no stretch to consider the
Israeli-Palestinian stories of conflict would make good fodder for the
beginning of a thread on Perceptual Control and how it often leads to
uncontrollable strife and unresolvable conflict. That was what I perceived
Rick's message to be about.

Neither of these levels of communication are served well by categorical
assertions of dogmatic facts, such as:

Rick:
<I'd say the odds of anyone figuring out how to solve this conflict are
somewhere between zero and zero.>

Kenny:
"While you say that, the Bible says otherwise." This is a fact. It is not
my opinion.

Earlier post from Kenny:

Yes, I see irony and lessons from God on how men should live without
_conflict_.

IMHO, in the real world, this is impossible. A world without conflict,
that is an incredibly naive, idealist, and unfounded wish (much as I would
enjoy that vacation for the first two weeks, but then leave and go back
home and get back to work).

<Rick Marken (2002.03.30.0900)>

Once again, Rick, you bring onto this forum issues such as religion,
politics, etc., to seemingly try to make points about PCT issues such as
"conflict." I don't mind

<Gee, then why even bring it up?>

My answer is plain in the rest of my sentence that you left out: "I don't
mind, but others on this forum do."

I think that (now this is opinion....!) the original post would have been
OK, but it seems that YOU originally took in the direction that now you
disparage. Hmmmm.... Let it drop, Kenny. So will I now, everyone else.

Cheers,

BT

[From Kenny Kitzke (2002.04.04)]

<Rick Marken (2002.04.01.0930)>

<I think that, to the extent that PCT applies to real life, it's going to
apply
to things that are personally charged to people. Indeed, I would expect that
this would always be the case when PCT is applied to "real" situations. Aren't
"real situations" just "tracking tasks" that people take very seriously. The
events in the Middle East are nothing more than the rubber band demonstration
of
conflict writ large: instead of a too taught rubber band we have people
blowing
each other to pieces because they want to place the same "knot" over different
"dots".>

Agreed. And, this is exactly my point. If you want to discuss how PCT can
help people understand conflict (of any type) why not explain it in terms of
models we have data and analyses for, instead of using a complex problem with
high-level, belief and systems references that people will literally kill
others for to defend?

Why not, Rick, use your knowledge of PCT to help resolve the conflicts that
occur just over the understanding of PCT and RTP which cause alienation in
the CSG world? Perhaps when you show how PCT helps resolve a conflict over
the use of the words "I see you have chosen", so that people will cooperate
with one another, we'll move you up to the "Peace in the Middle East through
PCT" guru.

<Why be so pessimistic? I happen to think that PCT really could help solve the
problems in the Middle East. What good is PCT if it can't help us solve a real
world problem to which it so clearly applies? Why not be optimistic? Why not
believe that we really can solve such problems? Why not believe that PCT
really
is useful? A solution in the Middle East can be found; all the contestants
have
to do is go up a level see that there are more important things than the
belief
systems that make it important that the "knot" be over "my dot".>

See my comment above. Also, it was you who seemed to be the ultimate
pessimist:

<<I'd say the odds of anyone figuring out how to solve this conflict are
somewhere between zero and zero.>>

To think that PCT can by itself solve the problems of human relationships
strikes me as incredibly naive. If I am wrong, just have some of the people
from CSGNet who won't even talk to one another any more become cooperative
friends again. Perhaps then we can explore the greater power of PCT for
solving entrenched conflicts that have existed for thousands of years.

[From Rick Marken (2002.04.08.0910)]

Me:

I think that, to the extent that PCT applies to real life, it's going to apply
to things that are personally charged to people...

Kenny Kitzke (2002.04.04)

Agreed. And, this is exactly my point. If you want to discuss how PCT can
help people understand conflict (of any type) why not explain it in terms of
models we have data and analyses for,

I was, indeed, trying to explain the conflict in terms of such a model: PCT.

instead of using a complex problem with
high-level, belief and systems references that people will literally kill

I was trying to explain that, from a PCT perspective, apparently complex
conflicts, like the one in the Middle East, are not complex at all. The Middle
East conflict is simply the rubber band conflict writ large. Two groups involved
want the "knot" (the "holy land") over (actually, _under_, in this case)
different "dots" (different "peoples").

Why not, Rick, use your knowledge of PCT to help resolve the conflicts that
occur just over the understanding of PCT and RTP which cause alienation in
the CSG world?

PCT shows that there is no way to resolve such conflicts if by "resolving" you
mean finding some clever means of getting all parties what they want. Real
conflicts can only be resolved by eliminating the ultimate cause of the conflict:
the conflicting goals in the systems that are parties to the conflict. The rubber
band conflict is resolved only when one or both parties to the conflict stop
controlling for having the knot over the dot. That is, the conflict is solved
only when one or both parties stop "playing the game" and let go of their end of
the rubber bands. In the Middle East this is equivalent to the Jews and/or the
Palestinians abandoning the holy land as being for Jews or Palestinians only. I
think the chances of such a solution are rather small. Most likely, there will be
a two state solution, which will make no one happy. Both parties will experience
some error and there will be periodic wars, as is the case in the Balkans. I
personally think that the best solution is to form a secular democracy in the
region, much like the US. Of course, that solution would require that the vast
majority of the people in the region go "up a level" and see that there are
"higher level" perceptions in life (such as life itself), above being Jewish or
Palestinian.

Perhaps when you show how PCT helps resolve a conflict over
the use of the words "I see you have chosen", so that people will cooperate
with one another, we'll move you up to the "Peace in the Middle East through
PCT" guru.

I've already explained how PCT says that such a conflict can be solved; one or
both parties have to abandon their goals. Since the conflict you mention seems to
be over, I think that must have happened. But ending a conflict doesn't mean that
people will start to cooperate. They just stop fighting. The facilitation of
cooperation is a separate and, I think, far more complex problem than resolving
conflict.

Me:

Why be so pessimistic?...

Kenny:

...Also, it was you who seemed to be the ultimate pessimist:

<<I'd say the odds of anyone figuring out how to solve this conflict are
somewhere between zero and zero.>>

Good point! I guess I have to count myself as one to whom I was addressing the
question. Optimism is a bit of a struggle these days. But I do think it's the
only way to remain sane.

To think that PCT can by itself solve the problems of human relationships
strikes me as incredibly naive.

I agree. PCT by itself can't solve anything. I believe, however, that PCT
provides an excellent framework in which to _evaluate_ proposed solutions.

If I am wrong, just have some of the people
from CSGNet who won't even talk to one another any more become cooperative
friends again.

That's not a job for PCT. That's a job for the people involved, if they want the
job. All PCT does is explain what's going on. It doesn't tell us how to get to
wherever you or I may think we should be getting to.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
marken@mindreadings.com
310 474-0313

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2002.04.08.1149 CDT)]

Hi,

[From Rick Marken (2002.04.08.0910)]

I agree with the rest of this post, but wanted to highlight this except [my
emphasis]:

...Of course, that solution would require that the vast
majority of the people in the region go "up a level" and see that there are
"higher level" perceptions in life (such as *life* itself), above being
Jewish or Palestinian.

Actually there is a case study by Laura Blumenfeld, whose father was shot
by a Palestinian. Her book is called Revenge: A Story of Hope (ISBN:
0684853167). Ah, but there is a sweet twist, a twist in the revenge, she
writes about. Due to time and the potential to raise sales for Amazon I
quote this editorial:

"In 1986, a Palestinian terrorist shot author Laura Blumenfeld's father.
More than a decade later, Blumenfeld, a reporter for The Washington Post,
decided to find the man who tried to kill her dad; she also wanted to learn
about vengeance. "I was looking for the shooter, but I also was looking for
some kind of wisdom," she writes. "I wanted to master revenge." Blumenfeld
interviews a variety of people, from religious figures to assassins, about
the meaning of revenge. The heart of the book, though, is her own journey
to find the man who pulled the trigger. First she locates his family and
learns vivid details about his life--he was a standout in his
public-relations course at the University of Bethlehem. Blumenfeld's own
emotions aren't far from the surface of this narrative. When she meets the
shooter's own father, for instance, she asks herself: "Am I supposed to
shoot him now?" Finally she begins a creepy correspondence with the gunman,
who is in prison. Their letters back and forth are oddly compelling--at
first the shooter doesn't know her real identity, though she eventually
reveals it. In the end, Blumenfeld says her quest helped her find hope in a
dangerous world, even as the final words of her book reflect upon September
11 and its immediate aftermath, when so many other Americans longed for
their own vengeance. --John Miller "

Then, she "came out" to the family afterwards, that she was indeed the
daughter of the man who was shot by the family member. They accepted her
amazingly, because they saw her as Laura, not a Jew, and she saw them in
their everyday lives as who they were, not Palestinian. In effect, she,
the shooter, and the shooter's family began to perceive higher perceptions
than being Palestinian or Jew, more likely that each person was perceived
by the other as a real person, not some political or religious object. I
saw the interview on one of the three morning programs, and would like to
read her book. A nice bit of research on reorganization, perhaps?

Cheers,

Bryan

[From Mary Powers 04/12/02]

[From Kenny Kitzke (2002.04.04)]

<Rick Marken (2002.04.01.0930)>

<I think that, to the extent that PCT applies to real life, it's going to
apply
to things that are personally charged to people. Indeed, I would expect that
this would always be the case when PCT is applied to "real" situations. Aren't
"real situations" just "tracking tasks" that people take very seriously. The
events in the Middle East are nothing more than the rubber band demonstration
of
conflict writ large: instead of a too taught rubber band we have people
blowing
each other to pieces because they want to place the same "knot" over different
"dots".>

Agreed. And, this is exactly my point. If you want to discuss how PCT can
help people understand conflict (of any type) why not explain it in terms of
models we have data and analyses for, instead of using a complex problem with
high-level, belief and systems references that people will literally kill
others for to defend?

Why not, Rick, use your knowledge of PCT to help resolve the conflicts that
occur just over the understanding of PCT and RTP which cause alienation in
the CSG world? Perhaps when you show how PCT helps resolve a conflict over
the use of the words "I see you have chosen", so that people will cooperate
with one another, we'll move you up to the "Peace in the Middle East through
PCT" guru.

<Why be so pessimistic? I happen to think that PCT really could help solve the
problems in the Middle East. What good is PCT if it can't help us solve a real
world problem to which it so clearly applies? Why not be optimistic? Why not
believe that we really can solve such problems? Why not believe that PCT
really
is useful? A solution in the Middle East can be found; all the contestants
have
to do is go up a level see that there are more important things than the
belief
systems that make it important that the "knot" be over "my dot".>

See my comment above. Also, it was you who seemed to be the ultimate
pessimist:

<<I'd say the odds of anyone figuring out how to solve this conflict are
somewhere between zero and zero.>>

To think that PCT can by itself solve the problems of human relationships
strikes me as incredibly naive. If I am wrong, just have some of the people
from CSGNet who won't even talk to one another any more become cooperative
friends again. Perhaps then we can explore the greater power of PCT for
solving entrenched conflicts that have existed for thousands of years.

            * * *

And so on and so forth. I think it is a mistake to expect PCT to _solve_
anything - and also a mistake to get sarcastic when it does not. Explaining
is not solving - nor is it diminished by the fact that it is not. PCT
_explains_ the kind of organization that people have that creates conflict.
To put it simply, when people get pushed, they push back, because they are
controlling for a position that the initial push disturbed. Obviously Mr
Sharon and the West Bank settlers he encouraged do not know this, or if
they do, they prefer to ignore it, or want to delude themselves that they
can permanently overwhelm the opposition.

PCT suggests that conflicts might be resolved by all sides going up levels.
But that would require that the combatants be willing to learn PCT and try
the method of levels -to reach a level higher than their
religiously-justified beliefs in the righteousness of their causes. They
would have to want to resolve the conflict - just as some CSG and ex-CSG
members would also have to want to. The fact that this has not happened is
not because of flaws in the theory of perceptual control. Actually it is a
demonstration of the correctness of PCT that it is resisted by people who,
consciously or unconsciously, believe they have have something to lose if
PCT is correct.

Mary P.

···

At 05:49 PM 04/04/2002 -0500, you wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2002.04.12.1400)]

Mary Powers (04/12/02)

Actually it is a
demonstration of the correctness of PCT that it is resisted by people who,
consciously or unconsciously, believe they have have something to lose if
PCT is correct.

On that note, I think I have another demonstration of this in the form a paper
that was just rejected by the _Journal of Experimental Psychology_(JEP). The paper
was actually just a comment on another JEP paper:

McLoed, P., Reed, N. and Dienes, Z. (2001) Towards a unified fielder theory: What
we do not know about how people run to catch a ball. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 120, 135-987

This very cleverly titled paper about catching fly balls was brought to my
attention recently by Issac Kurtzer. My reply to this paper, with the equally
clever title "Fielder's Choice", was rejected for what seemed to me to be
non-substantive reasons. The worst the reviewers could find to say about it (and
only 2 out of 3 reviewers gave it a negative review) was that it "skirted the
issue" (without ever saying what the issue was that I was skirting). My impression
is that the editor (and reviewers) just didn't care to see it appear in JEP,
perhaps because they had something to lose?

If anyone is interested, I will send them the "Fielder's Choice" paper (in WORD or
PDF) and/or the review of the paper (in PDF, which is how they were sent to me) on
request. Then you can decide for yourself whether the reviewers and editor were
controlling for publishing only high quality papers (and mine didn't make the cut)
or whether they were controlling for something else.

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

[From Kenny Kitzke (2002.04.14)]

<Mary Powers 04/12/02>

<PCT suggests that conflicts might be resolved by all sides going up levels.
But that would require that the combatants be willing to learn PCT and try
the method of levels -to reach a level higher than their
religiously-justified beliefs in the righteousness of their causes.>

A wonderful theory Mary. I have been willing to learn PCT and have tried
MOL. And, it worked, at least once! But, I have only seen MOL used to
successfully resolve conflicts within a person. Have there been experiments
or case studies where MOL was used to resolve conflicts between two people?

<To put it simply, when people get pushed, they push back, because they are
controlling for a position that the initial push disturbed. Obviously Mr
Sharon and the West Bank settlers he encouraged do not know this, or if
they do, they prefer to ignore it, or want to delude themselves that they
can permanently overwhelm the opposition.>

So, is it your belief that if Ariel Sharon would go up a level and remove the
settlers from the West Bank to control for peace, the Palestinian terrorism
would end? Is that how simple it is?

<They would have to want to resolve the conflict - just as some CSG and ex-CSG
members would also have to want to.>

I suspect both the ME combatants and the CSG combatants would like to resolve
the conflict -- but just not in the way their opponents insist it be
resolved. The latter reveals a fallacy in thinking that knowledge of PCT or
use of MOL can always resolve conflicts even if there is a desire to do so.
More is involved and required.

While knowledge of HPCT and proficiency in MOL may be helpful in resolving
conflict that neither party wants, I proffer two other ideas: 1) this cannot
by itself always resolve every conflict and 2) there may be other ways that
can resolve conflict which require no knowledge of HPCT or the use of MOL.

<The fact that this has not happened is
not because of flaws in the theory of perceptual control.>

Great, I agree.

<Actually it is a
demonstration of the correctness of PCT that it is resisted by people who,
consciously or unconsciously, believe they have have something to lose if
PCT is correct.>

Not so sure what you really mean, especially if regarding the ME conflict?
They are not resisting HPCT or its possible correctness at all if they are
not aware of it.

Or, is it mostly sarcasm directed at non-PCT psychologists? That I might
understand, at least as a possibility. :sunglasses:

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2002.04.14.1515 CDT)]

Hi,

This has come up too often to be unnoticed. A fact of life, described very
well by PCT, is that there IS conflict. And that, conflict will never go
away. As a matter of fact, the test for life is to see if there IS
conflict. So, Kenny (on-line response), I would differ with you that the
goal of MOL is to remove conflict, since that goal very likely cannot be
achieved. The goal would be to REDUCE conflict, insofar as the conflict in
question probably requires more control actions than would be available to
reduce the error in yet other conflicts. A well-respected professor of
mine, Marty Siegel, summed it up pretty well: Everything is a matter of
tradeoffs.

I do not dispute the idea, of course, that you espouse below, because I
once believed that conflict could be removed. But understanding the
essential features of evolution, PCT and human nature suggests that all we
can do is attempt to reduce, but not ever remove conflict.

BT

···

[From Kenny Kitzke (2002.04.14)]

<Mary Powers 04/12/02>

<PCT suggests that conflicts..>

A wonderful theory Mary. I have been willing to learn PCT and have tried
MOL. And, it worked, at least once! But, I have only seen MOL used to
successfully resolve conflicts within a person. Have there been experiments
or case studies where MOL was used to resolve conflicts between two people?

<To put it simply, when people get pushed, they push back...>

So, is it your belief that if Ariel Sharon would go up a level and remove the
settlers from the West Bank to control for peace, the Palestinian terrorism
would end? Is that how simple it is?

<They would have to want to resolve the conflict....>

I suspect both the ME combatants and the CSG combatants would like to resolve
the conflict -- but just not in the way their opponents insist it be
resolved. The latter reveals a fallacy in thinking that knowledge of PCT or
use of MOL can always resolve conflicts even if there is a desire to do so.
More is involved and required.

While knowledge of HPCT and proficiency in MOL may be helpful in resolving
conflict that neither party wants, I proffer two other ideas: 1) this cannot
by itself always resolve every conflict and 2) there may be other ways that
can resolve conflict which require no knowledge of HPCT or the use of MOL.

<The fact that this has not happened is
not because of flaws in the theory of perceptual control.>
....

[From Rick Marken (2002.04.14.1330)]

Kenny Kitzke (2002.04.14)]

I have only seen MOL used to
successfully resolve conflicts within a person. Have there been experiments
or case studies where MOL was used to resolve conflicts between two people?

Sure. The rubber band conflict is solved when just one of the two combatants
realizes "I don't have to play this game" and lets go of his end of the rubber
band.

So, is it your belief that if Ariel Sharon would go up a level and remove the
settlers from the West Bank to control for peace, the Palestinian terrorism
would end? Is that how simple it is?

Yep! That would do it.

I suspect both the ME combatants and the CSG combatants would like to resolve
the conflict -- but just not in the way their opponents insist it be
resolved.

Of course! That's the point. There is no solution to a conflict at the level of
the conflict itself.

The latter reveals a fallacy in thinking that knowledge of PCT or
use of MOL can always resolve conflicts even if there is a desire to do so.

Actually, the latter (the fact that there is no solution to a conflict at the
level of a conflict, even when the parties to the conflict want such a solution --
in their favor -- reveals why it is a fallacy to think that anything other than
knowledge of PCT and use of MOL can resolve conflicts. Sharon wants the conflict
solved -- with the West Bank as part of Israel and the Palestinians gone. Arafat
wants the conflict solved, too -- with the West Bank and Israel as a Palestinian
state. The only way I can see to solve this conflict is for one or both parties
to revise their goals. And we know from HPCT that goals can only be revised by
systems that set those goals as the means of achieving other goals. Sharon and/or
Arafat will have to go up a level find reasons for revising their goals regarding
the West Bank.

More is involved and required.

What more is involved? Why do you think so?

While knowledge of HPCT and proficiency in MOL may be helpful in resolving
conflict that neither party wants, I proffer two other ideas: 1) this cannot
by itself always resolve every conflict and 2) there may be other ways that
can resolve conflict which require no knowledge of HPCT or the use of MOL.

I think there is no dispute about 1): simply wanting to resolve a conflict doesn't
mean that a resolution will be found. But I think you should explain 2): perhaps
you could explain _one_ other way to resolve a conflict other than by going up a
level (MOL) and revising the goal(s) causing the conflict.

Best regards

Rick

[From Marc Abrams (2002.04.15.0032)]

[From Rick Marken (2002.04.14.1330)]

Kenny Kitzke (2002.04.14)]

> I have only seen MOL used to
> successfully resolve conflicts within a person. Have there been

experiments

> or case studies where MOL was used to resolve conflicts between two

people?

Sure. The rubber band conflict is solved when just one of the two

combatants

realizes "I don't have to play this game" and lets go of his end of the

rubber

band.

Exactly how does a combatant "realize" what he/she needs to do to end or
reduce a conflict

> So, is it your belief that if Ariel Sharon would go up a level and

remove the

> settlers from the West Bank to control for peace, the Palestinian

terrorism

> would end? Is that how simple it is?

Yep! That would do it.

I don't. I think Arafat and his Arab cronies want to push Israel into the
Mediterranean. I don't think Israel should remain in the West Bank, and
should pull out the new settlers, but in 1973 Israel "won" this territory in
a war.

....Sharon wants the conflict
solved -- with the West Bank as part of Israel and the Palestinians gone.

I don't believe that. I believe Israel is more then willing to live
alongside a Palestinian State. They offered one to Arafat last year,
remember?

Arafat wants the conflict solved, too -- with the West Bank and Israel as a

Palestinian

state.

I agree, see above.

The only way I can see to solve this conflict is for one or both parties
to revise their goals. And we know from HPCT that goals can only be

revised by

systems that set those goals as the means of achieving other goals. Sharon

and/or

Arafat will have to go up a level find reasons for revising their goals

regarding

the West Bank.

> More is involved and required.

What more is involved? Why do you think so?

How do you "know" what their goals are? I think Sharon wants a safe and
_secure_ Israel. You don't. How do we know which one of us is right?

Marc

Hello all,

I guess it's time to introduce myself. My name is Steve O'Shaughnessy and
I'm a fulltime software developer and part time psychology student. I live
in Columbia City Indiana and work in Fort Wayne Indiana. I'm taking classes
at Indiana University/Purdue University Fort Wayne (IPFW) hoping to someday
get into graduate school in psychology.

I've only recently started learning about PCT (recently as in within the
last few weeks). Interestingly on the same day I was introduced to PCT by
Dr. Abbott I was involved in a class discussion with a different professor.
The topic of discussion was on the different schools of thought among
psychologies (It's a theory of personality class). We were lamenting on how
it would be nice if someone would develop a more encompassing or unified
theory. And then Dr. Abbott drops PCT in my lap. (How would PCT explain
synchronistic kinds of events?)

I've been working on getting up to speed on PCT. With only a few weeks
under my belt I haven't even scratched the surface. I have been lurking on
this group however. The following point got me thinking:

[From Rick Marken (2002.04.14.1330)]

[Kenny Kitzke (2002.04.14)]

I suspect both the ME combatants and the CSG combatants would like to

resolve

the conflict -- but just not in the way their opponents insist it be
resolved.

[From Rick Marken (2002.04.14.1330)]

Of course! That's the point. There is no solution to a conflict at the

level of

the conflict itself.

Is this true of all conflict? I'm not sure it is. What about a conflict
where one party is mistaken and can be shown their mistake? In my
experience most conflicts are of this type. A misunderstanding or
misinterpretation of one sides intentions. Do you have to go up a level to
see this? Do you have to go up a level to resolve it?

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2002.04.15.0908 CDT)]

Stephen,

The following point got me thinking:

[From Rick Marken (2002.04.14.1330)]

[Kenny Kitzke (2002.04.14)]

I suspect both the ME combatants and the CSG combatants would like to

resolve

the conflict -- but just not in the way their opponents insist it be
resolved.

[From Rick Marken (2002.04.14.1330)]

Of course! That's the point. There is no solution to a conflict at the

level of

the conflict itself.

Is this true of all conflict? I'm not sure it is. What about a conflict
where one party is mistaken and can be shown their mistake? In my
experience most conflicts are of this type. A misunderstanding or
misinterpretation of one sides intentions. Do you have to go up a level to
see this? Do you have to go up a level to resolve it?

Ah, but you illustrate exactly the point. A party who mistakes a conflict
cannot perceive it at the level of the conflict. One must go up a level to
control that perception, finding a solution at the level of goals or
principles rather than exerting wasted energy pushing at the blockage of
the conflict. To see the misinterpretation is what some other
psychological explanations would term "meta-cognitive strategies" if that
is helpful.

Further, what happens when a misunderstanding or misinterpretation is
resolved is *learning* or another feature of the PCT explanation called
"reorganization," where the perceptual hierarchy adjusts itself to reduce
the error that mounts up as the perceptual hierarchy is dealing with
conflict.

At least, in a few lines before I shove off, you have it right, but didn't
quite realize it was as simple as going up a level.

Also:

In all of this talk about Isreal, we have been talking about Isrealis and
Palestinians, but PCT is a model for a single living control system, or a
sole organism, such as the one punching the keys here. While we can talk
about the control actions of a political group, we have to remember that
control is at the level of individuals, and not something that happens with
a group. Although, I have been caught saying things like "social
environment," or "word space"... Control doesn't happen there, I think
rather control happens TO the social environment or word space, where
living control systems treat a conversation or the words they see in a
newsgroup as a "controlled variable." Kinda like stop-motion, action-stop,
etc. The most interesting thing about these kind of control actions is how
the feedback cycle seems to work sometimes and at other times is out of
sync with the rate of change of the controlled variable.

Bryan

[From Bill Powers (2002.04.15.0806 MDT)]

Steve O'Shaughnessy (2002.04.15) --

>I guess it's time to introduce myself. My name is Steve O'Shaughnessy ...

Welcome aboard, Steve, both to CSGnet and to the robotics project.

>What about a conflict

where one party is mistaken and can be shown their mistake? In my
experience most conflicts are of this type. A misunderstanding or
misinterpretation of one sides intentions. Do you have to go up a level to
see this? Do you have to go up a level to resolve it?

Let me attempt an answer in my usual way, long-windedly.

When a person is operating consciously "at the level of the conflict," as
the not-too-clear idea goes, the main problem is wanting to do two
incompatible things at the same time, like eat and not eat, fight and not
fight, and so forth. This generally comes about because goals that are,
taken alone, worthy of achievement require that the world (or the actor)
be in two mutually contradictory states. When a person is _in_ a conflict,
is it extraordinarily hard, without some aid, even to realize what the
conflict is. It is also, it seems, hard to grasp both sides of the
conflict: we are generally aware of one side, but the other side is not
often so clear.

An example in the Middle East is the desire on the part of the Israeli
officials to do away with the terrorist attacks that almost always kill
Israelis, as well as one or more Palestinians. This is clearly a worthy
goal; it would be a worthy goal even if the fatal attacks were being caused
by packs of wild dogs or by contagious diseases.

If packs of wild dogs or contagious diseases were the problem, the solution
would be clear: wipe them out at the source, so the danger is removed. But
in the real case, the source of the attacks lies in the Palestinian people:
the men, women, and children living in refugee camps who have grown up
there and were caused to be there when their parents and grandparents were
forcibly displaced from their former homes in Israel, 50 years ago or so.

Since the source of the attacks can be clearly identified, the obvious
solution is to wipe it out. Exterminate all the Palestinians and the
attacks will cease, permanently. This final solution would also give the
Israelis more "lebensraum" as well as removing the cultural and religious
disturbance of having non-Jews living in the midst of a Jewish state. So
why is this not being done?

One answer (I propose) is that there is an inner conflict that boils down
to two absolutely contradictory goals: exterminate the Palestinians, and do
not exterminate the Palestinians. Why not exterminate them? When you
uncover all the reasons for not destroying a million or two million (or six
million) mostly innocent people, you will see the other side of the
conflict -- the _inner_ conflict. It is the inner conflict that keeps the
Israelis from making peace with the Palestinians OR doing away with them
once and for all.

The conflict is probably more multidimensional than that, but the basic
idea is clear. When there is no inner conflict, there is nothing to hold
one back from taking effective action with as much vigor and cleverness as
required. So if a person does not take effective action, or at least use
the available means as effectively as possible, there must be some internal
constraint that is working in the opposite direction -- some important
reason for _not_ achieving the clearly desirable goal. When that reason, or
those reasons, are brought into the light, the first step toward resolving
the conflict has been taken. The first step is simply to see the true
nature of the inner conflict.

In my experience, that step is almost always sufficient in itself. I have
seen very few human conflicts that are not basically simple, resolvable by
elementary means that anyone in a normal state of mind could think
of. Unresolved conflict lowers our IQ. It reduces us to the state of
three-year-olds tugging at a toy they both want, screaming at each other
and not yet smart enough to think in terms of sequence: taking turns.

We fall into internal conflict when circumstances link two incompatible
goals together and make them mutually exclusive. There's no fanfare to
announce the genesis of a conflict: we simply find that whichever way we
decide to go, there's a pressing reason for not going that way. As a result
we become indecisive or paralyzed, unable to proceed in any direction. This
situation is an attention trap. We ponder how to achieve one goal against
our own resistance; we try harder only to find that we resist harder. We
try a different route to the goal, only to encounter ourselves standing in
the way and pushing back whichever way we go.

So, to get to the question at last, what about conflicts that arise from
simple misinformation? Unforunately, people don't often agree about which
information is correct. For example, I might explain to an Israeli settler
that the story about God promising Israel to the Jews is just an old myth,
and that it never really happened. Of course the settler would then say,
"Oh, I thought it was all true. Now that I see that it's not true, I'll
pack up my family and move back where I came from." Right?

The problem is that people pick the truths that serve their own purposes.
It takes a lot of training and self-discipline, not to mention adherence to
some very lofty ideals, to consider truth without reference to personal
rewards and punishments. Even then one must be continuously vigilant to
avoid letting prejudices, wishes, hopes, and desires tip the balance of
evidence. It's always easier to defend a belief than to seek knowledge and
understanding. How many people value knowledge and understanding more than
their own immediate welfare?

I'm sure there are cases where correcting misinformation can actually
resolve conflicts. But before that method or any other can work, a person
must realize first that a conflict exists, and second what the conflict is
really about. I claim that when those realizations occur, it doesn't
usually require any superhuman intelligence to find at least one obvious
solution.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Rick Marken (2002.04.15.1040)]

Marc Abrams (2002.04.15.0032)

Exactly how does a combatant "realize" what he/she needs to do to end or
reduce a conflict

First the combatant has to become aware of the conflict from a level above the
conflict. Once you realize that you are fighting over the location of a knot,
say, then the solution to the conflict becomes obvious: stop controlling for
the position of the knot.

How do you "know" what their goals are? I think Sharon wants a safe and
_secure_ Israel. You don't. How do we know which one of us is right?

I don't know exactly what their goals are (in terms of exactly what perceptions
are being controlled relative to what reference levels) but it's pretty easy to
tell that they have quite different goals (reference levels) for the _same_
perceptual variable (whatever it is). You could call that variable "the
security of Israel" in which case it's clear that Sharon has a high reference
for that variable and Arafat has a low one. You could also call it "the
inhabitants of Palestine", in which case Sharon wants that variable at "Jews"
and Arafat wants it at "Palestinian". There are probably many different
perceptions being controlled in this situation but the only ones that matter
(from the point of view of conflict resolution) are the ones for which Israelis
and Palestinians have different references (goals). The conflict won't be
resolved until one or both parties to the conflict stop controlling for those
perceptions.

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

[from Mary Powers 04/15/02

[From Kenny Kitzke (2002.04.14)]

<Mary Powers 04/12/02>

<PCT suggests that conflicts might be resolved by all sides going up levels.
But that would require that the combatants be willing to learn PCT and try
the method of levels -to reach a level higher than their
religiously-justified beliefs in the righteousness of their causes.>

A wonderful theory Mary. I have been willing to learn PCT and have tried
MOL. And, it worked, at least once! But, I have only seen MOL used to
successfully resolve conflicts within a person. Have there been experiments
or case studies where MOL was used to resolve conflicts between two people?

I believe that is what arbitrators and mediators do all the time. PCT,
after all, is about what people do - the ordinary stuff ordinary people do.
Like walking around. Drinking coffee. Doing homework. Blowing themselves
up. Arbitrating. It is a new explanation of the kind of organization that
people have that produces behavior and its consequences. The only thing new
about MOL is that it is a theory-based process, not a "gift" or a
collection of techniques, for helping people resolve conflicts.

<To put it simply, when people get pushed, they push back, because they are

controlling for a position that the initial push disturbed. Obviously Mr
Sharon and the West Bank settlers he encouraged do not know this, or if
they do, they prefer to ignore it, or want to delude themselves that they
can permanently overwhelm the opposition.>

So, is it your belief that if Ariel Sharon would go up a level and remove the
settlers from the West Bank to control for peace, the Palestinian terrorism
would end? Is that how simple it is?

No, it is not simple, nor is it my belief. Sharon would have to go up
levels, and Arafat, and a great many Israelis and Palestinians also.

<They would have to want to resolve the conflict - just as some CSG and ex-CSG
members would also have to want to.>

I suspect both the ME combatants and the CSG combatants would like to resolve
the conflict -- but just not in the way their opponents insist it be
resolved. The latter reveals a fallacy in thinking that knowledge of PCT or
use of MOL can always resolve conflicts even if there is a desire to do so.
More is involved and required.

While knowledge of HPCT and proficiency in MOL may be helpful in resolving
conflict that neither party wants, I proffer two other ideas: 1) this cannot
by itself always resolve every conflict and 2) there may be other ways that
can resolve conflict which require no knowledge of HPCT or the use of MOL.

Proffer or prefer? As far as 1) goes, no one knows. But to start out with
the hypothesis that sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't sound too
useful to me. Better to assume it always should work and then study the
failures. As for 2), see my comment above about arbitration and mediation.
There is nothing new in PCT about _what_ people do - what is new is _why_
- making sense of behavior, a phrase you may have heard of.

<The fact that this has not happened is
not because of flaws in the theory of perceptual control.>

Great, I agree.

<Actually it is a
demonstration of the correctness of PCT that it is resisted by people who,
consciously or unconsciously, believe they have have something to lose if
PCT is correct.>

Not so sure what you really mean, especially if regarding the ME conflict?
They are not resisting HPCT or its possible correctness at all if they are
not aware of it.

They don't have to be aware of HPCT in order to be honestly willing to
negotiate, which is a level up from being in conflict.

Or, is it mostly sarcasm directed at non-PCT psychologists? That I might
understand, at least as a possibility. :sunglasses:

It is directed at non-PCT psychologists, but it is not sarcasm. If you have
made your whole career writing and publishing and teaching input-controlled
behavior, or computed action, or anything other than the control of
perception and all that it implies, then accepting PCT means starting all
over again. A very few find that prospect exciting, or have seen enough
flaws in the conventional wisdom to make such a shift desirable. Others
actively reject it, but many simply do not see anything in it. I think that
is unconscious resistance.

Mary P.

···

At 11:55 AM 04/14/2002 -0400, you wrote:

from [Marc Abrams (2002.04.15.1454]

[From Rick Marken (2002.04.15.1040)]

Marc Abrams (2002.04.15.0032)

> Exactly how does a combatant "realize" what he/she needs to do to end

or

> reduce a conflict

First the combatant has to become aware of the conflict from a level above

the

conflict. Once you realize that you are fighting over the location of a

knot,

say, then the solution to the conflict becomes obvious: stop controlling

for

the position of the knot.

Rick, I fully understand your analogy to the knot, and I agree with it, but
it's an analogy. I am trying to find specifics.

> How do you "know" what their goals are? I think Sharon wants a safe and
> _secure_ Israel. You don't. How do we know which one of us is right?

I don't know exactly what their goals are (in terms of exactly what

perceptions

are being controlled relative to what reference levels) but it's pretty

easy to

tell that they have quite different goals (reference levels) for the

_same_

perceptual variable (whatever it is). You could call that variable "the
security of Israel" in which case it's clear that Sharon has a high

reference

for that variable and Arafat has a low one. You could also call it "the
inhabitants of Palestine", in which case Sharon wants that variable at

"Jews"

and Arafat wants it at "Palestinian". There are probably many different
perceptions being controlled in this situation but the only ones that

matter

(from the point of view of conflict resolution) are the ones for which

Israelis

and Palestinians have different references (goals). The conflict won't be
resolved until one or both parties to the conflict stop controlling for

those

perceptions.

Excellent point, thank you.

Marc

[From Dick Robertson,2002.04.15.1930CDT]

[From Kenny Kitzke (2002.04.14)]

<Mary Powers 04/12/02>

<<PCT suggests that conflicts might be resolved by all sides going up
levels.
But that would require that the combatants be willing to learn PCT and
try
the method of levels -to reach a level higher than their
religiously-justified beliefs in the righteousness of their causes.>>

<A wonderful theory Mary. I have been willing to learn PCT and have
tried
MOL. And, it worked, at least once! But, I have only seen MOL used to
successfully resolve conflicts within a person. Have there been
experiments
or case studies where MOL was used to resolve conflicts between two
people?>

I would say yes, if you can accept a very loose definition of MOL. On a
number of occasions I observed the late Carl Rogers facilitate an
interaction between two opposed combatants, reaching a condition with
which each could live. Of course that happened before PCT came on the
scene. But, looking back I believe that I can recognize the steps of
the MOL on the way to those solutions--with the benefit of my subsequent
understanding of PCT.

<I suspect both the ME combatants and the CSG combatants would like to
resolve the conflict -- but just not in the way their opponents insist
it be resolved. The latter reveals a fallacy in thinking that knowledge
of PCT or use of MOL can always resolve conflicts even if there is a
desire to do so.>

Kenny, I would agree with you in that paragraph all the way to the last
sentence. If Both parties to a conflict really desire to resolve it,
the MOL would be a powerful resource.

<While knowledge of HPCT and proficiency in MOL may be helpful in
resolving
conflict that neither party wants, I proffer two other ideas: 1) this
cannot by itself always resolve every conflict and 2) there may be other
ways that can resolve conflict which require no knowledge of HPCT or the
use of MOL.>

Yes, it's called conquest.

As several other commentators in this thread have pointed out, it
appears as if the people in control of the governmental apparatus in
both Israel and Palestine most desire to occupy the total territory and
not have the other state exist at all. But, there are strong hints that
this is not a universal goal in either group. However, the most
aggressive people seem always to come to the fore when there is conflict
with another group. Only when they are replaced--either because their
side has won and they no longer have a function, as when the Brits
kicked Churchill out after WWII, or the intellectual and merchant
classes on both sides perceive that they are on the path toward mutual
assured destruction, or an overwhelming outside force is brought to
bear--do you get resolution, either because of total surrender or
compromise.

But, in all this discussion why are we debating about how PCT applies to
individuals whom we only know as media icons? Isn't the simple answer
that all of them--like all of us--act to reduce perceived errors in
their systems concepts? It might be instructive if anyone in our group
can develop a method of inferring at least a rough picture of the
"nation" system-concept held by the two parties in the holy land--I'm
trying to remain neutral here--such that it could be modeled to make
predictions about what happens next, as Rick did with economics and
elections in our country a couple of years back.

I see such an endeavor, if someone can bring if off, as being more than
an intellectual exercise to demonstrate once more the utility of PCT.

I have descendants. I wonder how they will be affected by what is going
on in the ME right now. I wonder if there is anything I can do what
would improve their prospects for a better life. That leads me to
wonder whether I approve of the role of our government in the present
circumstances. I hate the vision of my grandchildren possibly marching
off to WWIV because the people in charge right now can only see the
brute force approach--but maybe they are right, since they might be
faced with a like kind on the other side. There are some striking
parallels, I think, between the present and the Roman empire in 200-300
AD. They too were faced with a population explosion beyond their
borders, which they met with superior force for years until they were
exhausted, both militarily and in ideas.

The big difference between the Germans and all the other people that
Rome encountered is that the Germans weren't impressed with Roman
culture. Instead of adopting it eagerly as did the other peoples they
simply moved in retaining their own culture until the internal and
external forces blended and took over. Does that remind you of anything
in the present situation? Can we apply HPCT to deriving any creative
NEW ideas that we might actually be able sell to those who determine our
country's current actions?

Best, Dick R.

Bill,

As usual, you seem to see one side of the Middle East conflict easier than
the other side.

If the Israelis are in conflict, namely, kill all the Palestinians or not,
it seems clear to me that the Palestinians are not in such a conflict with
respect to the Isrealis. They seem to be comforatable with killing as many
Israelis as they can.

If they are going to continue exploding bombs all over the place in Israel,
I have no problem with what the Israelis are doing. In fact, I admire the
Israelis for showing such restraint. When the US was attacked, we sent an
army into a county, kicked out the ruling government, put the terrorists in
jail and set up a government that was more to our liking.

Given the different birth rates between the Israelis and Palestinians, it
seems clear to me that it is in Isreal's best interest to allow the creation
of a separate state for the Palestinians. If the Palestinians became part of
Israel, and because Israel is a democracy, the Palestinians would soon be in
charge of the government.

The real queston is how to divide up the real estate. If the Palestinians
are not overly greedy, there is no reason why they shouldn't be able to
reach a compromise. It is really in Israel's best interest to do this.

Your PCT friend, even though we disagree,
David M. Goldstein, Ph.D.

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Powers" <powers_w@FRONTIER.NET>
To: <CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu>
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 11:35 AM
Subject: Re: Conflict

[From Bill Powers (2002.04.15.0806 MDT)]

Steve O'Shaughnessy (2002.04.15) --

>I guess it's time to introduce myself. My name is Steve O'Shaughnessy

...

Welcome aboard, Steve, both to CSGnet and to the robotics project.

>What about a conflict
>where one party is mistaken and can be shown their mistake? In my
>experience most conflicts are of this type. A misunderstanding or
>misinterpretation of one sides intentions. Do you have to go up a level

to

>see this? Do you have to go up a level to resolve it?

Let me attempt an answer in my usual way, long-windedly.

When a person is operating consciously "at the level of the conflict," as
the not-too-clear idea goes, the main problem is wanting to do two
incompatible things at the same time, like eat and not eat, fight and not
fight, and so forth. This generally comes about because goals that are,
taken alone, worthy of achievement require that the world (or the actor)
be in two mutually contradictory states. When a person is _in_ a conflict,
is it extraordinarily hard, without some aid, even to realize what the
conflict is. It is also, it seems, hard to grasp both sides of the
conflict: we are generally aware of one side, but the other side is not
often so clear.

An example in the Middle East is the desire on the part of the Israeli
officials to do away with the terrorist attacks that almost always kill
Israelis, as well as one or more Palestinians. This is clearly a worthy
goal; it would be a worthy goal even if the fatal attacks were being

caused

by packs of wild dogs or by contagious diseases.

If packs of wild dogs or contagious diseases were the problem, the

solution

would be clear: wipe them out at the source, so the danger is removed. But
in the real case, the source of the attacks lies in the Palestinian

people:

the men, women, and children living in refugee camps who have grown up
there and were caused to be there when their parents and grandparents were
forcibly displaced from their former homes in Israel, 50 years ago or so.

Since the source of the attacks can be clearly identified, the obvious
solution is to wipe it out. Exterminate all the Palestinians and the
attacks will cease, permanently. This final solution would also give the
Israelis more "lebensraum" as well as removing the cultural and religious
disturbance of having non-Jews living in the midst of a Jewish state. So
why is this not being done?

One answer (I propose) is that there is an inner conflict that boils down
to two absolutely contradictory goals: exterminate the Palestinians, and

do

not exterminate the Palestinians. Why not exterminate them? When you
uncover all the reasons for not destroying a million or two million (or

six

million) mostly innocent people, you will see the other side of the
conflict -- the _inner_ conflict. It is the inner conflict that keeps the
Israelis from making peace with the Palestinians OR doing away with them
once and for all.

The conflict is probably more multidimensional than that, but the basic
idea is clear. When there is no inner conflict, there is nothing to hold
one back from taking effective action with as much vigor and cleverness as
required. So if a person does not take effective action, or at least use
the available means as effectively as possible, there must be some

internal

constraint that is working in the opposite direction -- some important
reason for _not_ achieving the clearly desirable goal. When that reason,

or

those reasons, are brought into the light, the first step toward resolving
the conflict has been taken. The first step is simply to see the true
nature of the inner conflict.

In my experience, that step is almost always sufficient in itself. I have
seen very few human conflicts that are not basically simple, resolvable

by

elementary means that anyone in a normal state of mind could think
of. Unresolved conflict lowers our IQ. It reduces us to the state of
three-year-olds tugging at a toy they both want, screaming at each other
and not yet smart enough to think in terms of sequence: taking turns.

We fall into internal conflict when circumstances link two incompatible
goals together and make them mutually exclusive. There's no fanfare to
announce the genesis of a conflict: we simply find that whichever way we
decide to go, there's a pressing reason for not going that way. As a

result

we become indecisive or paralyzed, unable to proceed in any direction.

This

situation is an attention trap. We ponder how to achieve one goal against
our own resistance; we try harder only to find that we resist harder. We
try a different route to the goal, only to encounter ourselves standing in
the way and pushing back whichever way we go.

So, to get to the question at last, what about conflicts that arise from
simple misinformation? Unforunately, people don't often agree about which
information is correct. For example, I might explain to an Israeli settler
that the story about God promising Israel to the Jews is just an old myth,
and that it never really happened. Of course the settler would then say,
"Oh, I thought it was all true. Now that I see that it's not true, I'll
pack up my family and move back where I came from." Right?

The problem is that people pick the truths that serve their own purposes.
It takes a lot of training and self-discipline, not to mention adherence

to

some very lofty ideals, to consider truth without reference to personal
rewards and punishments. Even then one must be continuously vigilant to
avoid letting prejudices, wishes, hopes, and desires tip the balance of
evidence. It's always easier to defend a belief than to seek knowledge and
understanding. How many people value knowledge and understanding more than
their own immediate welfare?

I'm sure there are cases where correcting misinformation can actually
resolve conflicts. But before that method or any other can work, a person
must realize first that a conflict exists, and second what the conflict is
really about. I claim that when those realizations occur, it doesn't
usually require any superhuman intelligence to find at least one obvious
solution.

Best,

Bill P.

Thanks Bryan and Bill for your insight. My confusion stemmed from trying to
view the conflict as occurring between two individual entities rather than
the occurring within one. Within a framework of one system it's easy to see
how one would need to go up a level.

The current debate over understanding the Middle East has been confusing as
it appears the various points of view are trying to pull in variables
outside the locus of control for the entity being analyzed.

[From Rick Marken (2002.04.08.0910)]

I've already explained how PCT says that such a conflict can be solved; one

or both parties have to abandon their goals.

It seems to me the goals of one party are nothing more than a disturbance in
the system of the other party. And said goal is an interpretation by the
party under study. Thus the disturbing party could even cease to exist and
the conflict could remain. I'm thinking of a former co-worker who held
great animosity towards "the japs". This was based on his experience in the
South Pacific more than 50 years ago. His current conflict is obviously
based on some positive feedback in one of his control loops. But it's in no
way based on current "reality" in the world.

Can PCT be applied to multiple entity systems? Is this the attempt of this
current thread?

Steve O

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Bryan Thalhammer [mailto:bryanth@SOLTEC.NET]
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 9:09 AM
To: CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Conflict

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2002.04.15.0908 CDT)]

Stephen,

The following point got me thinking:

[From Rick Marken (2002.04.14.1330)]

[Kenny Kitzke (2002.04.14)]

I suspect both the ME combatants and the CSG combatants would like to

resolve

the conflict -- but just not in the way their opponents insist it be
resolved.

[From Rick Marken (2002.04.14.1330)]

Of course! That's the point. There is no solution to a conflict at the

level of

the conflict itself.

Is this true of all conflict? I'm not sure it is. What about a conflict
where one party is mistaken and can be shown their mistake? In my
experience most conflicts are of this type. A misunderstanding or
misinterpretation of one sides intentions. Do you have to go up a level to
see this? Do you have to go up a level to resolve it?

Ah, but you illustrate exactly the point. A party who mistakes a conflict
cannot perceive it at the level of the conflict. One must go up a level to
control that perception, finding a solution at the level of goals or
principles rather than exerting wasted energy pushing at the blockage of
the conflict. To see the misinterpretation is what some other
psychological explanations would term "meta-cognitive strategies" if that
is helpful.

Further, what happens when a misunderstanding or misinterpretation is
resolved is *learning* or another feature of the PCT explanation called
"reorganization," where the perceptual hierarchy adjusts itself to reduce
the error that mounts up as the perceptual hierarchy is dealing with
conflict.

At least, in a few lines before I shove off, you have it right, but didn't
quite realize it was as simple as going up a level.

Also:

In all of this talk about Isreal, we have been talking about Isrealis and
Palestinians, but PCT is a model for a single living control system, or a
sole organism, such as the one punching the keys here. While we can talk
about the control actions of a political group, we have to remember that
control is at the level of individuals, and not something that happens with
a group. Although, I have been caught saying things like "social
environment," or "word space"... Control doesn't happen there, I think
rather control happens TO the social environment or word space, where
living control systems treat a conversation or the words they see in a
newsgroup as a "controlled variable." Kinda like stop-motion, action-stop,
etc. The most interesting thing about these kind of control actions is how
the feedback cycle seems to work sometimes and at other times is out of
sync with the rate of change of the controlled variable.

Bryan