Conflict

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2002.04.16.1000)]

David Goldstein wrote:

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.

I don't think that's a particularly helpful perspective. It looks to me like
both sides are equally comfortable about causing injury to the other side.

If they are going to continue exploding bombs all over the place in Israel,
I have no problem with what the Israelis are doing.

Well, then I think you had better become comfortable with a long, violent
conflict. It seems to me that what we have in the ME the equivalent of two
immature children fighting each other for the same toy. One kid is much
stronger than the other so the weaker kid fights dirty. It seems to me that the
first thing that should be done is to have a grown up step in and keep the
children separated. An international security force should be set up between
the combatants. Unfortunately, the strong kid doesn't want such an intervention
and, amazingly, the adults are going along with the strong kid. At the very
least, the strong kid's mommy should cut off his allowance if he doesn't stop
trying to take the toy away from the weak kid.

I think it's getting pretty clear that the Zionist idea of a safe homeland for
the Jews was kind of mishugana. It seems clear to me that the only safe
homeland for any religious belief is a land where religious beliefs (including
the belief that particular religious groups constitute a "race") are not taken
seriously.

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

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2002.04.16.1020)]

Me:

>I've already explained how PCT says that such a conflict can be solved; one
or both parties have to abandon their goals.

Stephen O'Shaughnessy wrote:

It seems to me the goals of one party are nothing more than a disturbance in
the system of the other party.

Hi Steve. Welcome to CSGNet.

It's actually the _actions_ of one party (A) ? not the goals ? that are a
disturbance to the variable controlled by the other party (B).

And said goal is an interpretation by the party under study.

In PCT, goals are real entities: reference signals. A conflict exists only if A
and B have different goals (different reference signal values) specifying
different states for the same perceptual variable. That is, A and B are in
conflict only if they are controlling for the same perception relative to
different reference specifications (goals). If A is not controlling for the
same perception as B, then A's actions may be a disturbance to the perception
controlled by B but there will be no conflict. This is what happens in a movie
theater when A's head gets in the way of B's view. This disturbance is easily
corrected by B moving his head. There is a conflict, however, if A is trying to
obscure B's view of the screen. Now A and B want the same perception (B's view
of the screen) in different states. When there is such a conflict, then one
person alone can solve it by simply "leaving" the conflict. For example, B can
move to another part of the theater or just forget about the movie. When a
conflict is solved by one party leaving the conflict then it looks like that
person _lost_ the conflict. But that's not necessarily the case. The person has
only "lost" if he still wants to achieve the goal that was abandoned. In that
case, the conflict hasn't really gone away; the "loser" is just waiting to
regain his strength to fight again later.

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

You betcha!

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

[Bill_Powers1]

Hi, David --

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

the other side.

I think we could go through the same exercise with the Palestinians. While
the suicide bombings and other attacks are terrible, they are really
ineffective as a way for the Palestinians to get what they want, so we have
to ask what keeps the militants from launching an all-out attack and wiping
out Israel. To get at those reasons, you'd have to ask what would happen if
such an attack were undertaken. As in my discussion of Israel, I won't try
to guess, but there are many reasonable possibilities. The Palesttinians
have inner conflicts just as the Israelis do, through different ones.

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.

I don't think they are killing as many as they could if they really tried.
Support for the suicide bombers is not universal, and as for Arafat
himself, I strongly suspect that he is reluctant to let the world see what
would happen if he forbade terrorism -- namely, nothing at all. He is a
leader who does what his followers want, and I doubt that he could make
them stop if he tried.

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.

Well, doesn't that make my point? Restraint is keeping yourself from doing
what you otherwise would do, so it is evidence of internal conflict.

I don't admire anything the Israelis have done in this conflict, any more
than I admire what Palestinian extremists have done. I think both sides are
acting with incredible stupidity and selfishness, and totally lack any
understanding of human nature.

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.

Do you admire that? Or are you saying that because the United States
government has acted with incredible stupidity, that makes it all right for
the parties in Israel to do the same thing?

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.

Funny, I've heard the same said about black people, Mexicans, and Asians in
the United States, with the point being that we should send them somewhere
else like back where they came from. Of course the Israelis can't say they
want the Palestinians to go back where they came from. Anyway, I'm afraid
that that is not the way the world is going. We share one planet and we had
better learn what that means, rather than spitting up into smaller and
smaller groups who treat all the others as enemies. The best solution in
the middle east would be for israelis and Palestians to decide simply to
share the whole country and live in peace and accept each other as human
beings. They could do that if they wanted to. The hard question is, why
don't they want to? Obviously they consider something else more important.
I wish they would all wake up and see what their religious cultures are
costing them and everyone else. As long as there is religious fanaticism on
both sides, no solution is going to work.

Your PCT friend, even though we disagree,

Well,. of course.

Bill

[Acree_Michael]

[From Mike Acree (2002.04.16.1210 PDT)]

Rick Marken (2002.04.16.1000)--

It seems to me that what we have in the ME the equivalent of two
immature children fighting each other for the same toy. One kid is much
stronger than the other so the weaker kid fights dirty. It seems to me that the
first thing that should be done is to have a grown up step in and keep the
children separated. An international security force should be set up between
the combatants. Unfortunately, the strong kid doesn't want such an intervention
and, amazingly, the adults are going along with the strong kid. At the very
least, the strong kid's mommy should cut off his allowance if he doesn't stop
trying to take the toy away from the weak kid.

This analysis illustrates George Lakoff's contention, in _Moral Politics_, that most of us hold, implicitly or explicitly, a family model of the state--or of the world, in this case. Conceptualizing the parent/state in a disciplinary role, as is done here, is the specifically _conservative_ model. The analogy of kids fighting over a toy is admittedly apt; on the other hand, I have problems with the notion of any other nation or group being designated as the grown-up. That entity may turn out to be just another really big bad kid. The difference is just that you've made a local conflict into a global one.

Mike

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2002.04.16.1500)]

Mike Acree (2002.04.16.1210 PDT)

The analogy of kids fighting over a toy is admittedly apt; on the other hand, I have problems with the notion of any other nation or group being designated as the grown-up. That entity may turn out to be just another really big bad kid. The difference is just that you've made a local conflict into a global one.

The same could occur in parenting: the parent who stops the fight might just beat the crap out of both kids. But in the case of the ME I think it's highly unlikely. The kids are definitely getting out of hand and are apparently willing to escalate the conflict without any consideration of possible side effects. And the parent (the international community) has no interest in conquering or destroying either Israel or Palestine. They just want this stopped.

A parent who stops a fight like the one in the ME doesn't do it just to protect the weaker kid; he does it to keep the fight itself from damaging the house (the world in which they all live). It also gives the combatants a chance to "think about what they are doing" and possibly go up a level and see that their religiously justified need to have the toy is destroying them and everything around them.

I think the international ("parental") consensus is that the fighting in the ME should be stopped immediately . The US and Europe have the power to stop the fighting and keep the parties separate. I think they should do this (whether one of the kids thinks they should do it or not) in order to protect their own house and to give the kids time to come to their senses (up a level), if they can.

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

[Acree_Michael]

[From Mike Acree (2002.04.16.1554 PDT)]

Rick Marken (2002.04.16.1500)--

I think the international ("parental") consensus is that the fighting in the ME should be >stopped immediately . The US and Europe have the power to stop the fighting and keep the parties >separate. I think they should do this (whether one of the kids thinks they should do it or not) >in order to protect their own house and to give the kids time to come to their senses (up a >level), if they can.

As Mayor Wagner of New York once said, "I don't necessarily disagree, and I don't necessarily agree, and vice versa."

Stipulating a benevolent, powerful parent (in Washington, in the sky, or wherever) can solve lots of problems--on paper. But there is some question whether that is what we have. Your "international community" appears to include just the U.S. and Europe. That's enough to raise doubts about whether our intervention would keep the conflict local. Perhaps the U.S. would have the power to stop the fighting just by ceasing to supply arms and aid; I'm not sure what other means you had in mind. And I don't know how you imagine the parties could be kept separate.

Obviously, both sides in this conflict need to go up a level. More precisely, _we_ need them to go up a level. That could be a problem; PCT might lead us to predict resistance to outside pressure to end the conflict. The desire to continue is one thing the antagonists share, and that we may be strengthening.

Mike

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2002.04.16.2030)]

Mike Acree (2002.04.16.1554 PDT)]

Obviously, both sides in this conflict need to go up a level. More precisely, _we_ need them to go up a level. That could be a problem; PCT might lead us to predict resistance to outside pressure to end the conflict. The desire to continue is one thing the antagonists share, and that we may be strengthening.

I agree. There's no telling what might happen if we send in a "peacekeeping" force.
I just wish my country wasn't taking sides in this thing. Ah well.

Best regards

Rick

···

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

[Stephen_O_Shaughness]

I received this from an email listserver I subscribe to. I thought some
might be interested given the current thread on this group. I have not
visited the site myself.

Steve O

Battle for the Holy Land

Making sense of the violence between Israelis and Palestinians, PBS'
Frontline goes behind the lines to help visitors understand at Battle for
the Holy Land, explained through trips to refugee camps, exclusive
interviews, and video excerpts and transcripts of the TV program.

On the Ground interviews the Israeli chief of staff and Palestinian militia
leaders; The Cycle of Violence traces key events since September 2000; Can
Anything End This Crisis? gives commentary on the conflict and an overview
of proposals for resuming talks; and The Combatants profiles political and
militant groups on both sides. Throughout, visitors can join discussions
about what is stacking up as the most perilous conflict of our time.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/holy/

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (980424.0945 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (980424.0530 EDT)--

As far as I have able to discern, conflict is a technical term in HPCT that
can _only_ be used properly in the case of a single organism.

I will just reply that you have to look farther because you are wrong about
that. Let's see how many others agree, on the basis of their understanding
of the HPCT model.

Best,

Bill P.

When the term

···

is used to describe interactions between organisms, it is ill-defined and
more likely to give the illusion of understanding than to be illuminating.

Best Offer

[Dag_Forssell]

[From Dag Forssell (940416.1025) Bill Powers (940416.0930 MDT)]

I am glad you liked the Keillor piece. He said a lot of relevance
here, such as "Nobody can be fascinating for long, but people can
be accurate and responsible for an entire career."

No conflict is worth dwelling on; once you realize there's a
conflict, you know everything about it that's interesting. It's
not interesting if you can prove with impeccable logic that you
are right, and the other guy can do the same for his own view. If
the conflict persists despite impeccable logic on both sides, the
problem is not at the logic level. The problem may be at a higher
level (principles, system concepts) or, come to think of it, at a
lower level (facts). The only place you DON'T need to look any
further is at the level where the conflict is obvious.

Thank you for your wonderful discussion of conflict and levels. I
shall find a way to incorporate the above in my "knee-jerk" way of
living and teaching. As a practical matter, that will take time
and practice, and it will likely always be far less than perfect.
But as a matter of what HPCT teaches us, it is of obvious and
immediate significance. Thanks!!!

Best, Dag

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2003.11.29.1010)]

Marc Abrams (2003.11.29.1231)--

Is everyone still convinced that 'conflict' exists _only_ as a problem of different reference conditions for the same perceptions?

You betcha!

So I am both asking for clarification and making a statement that it seems to me that 'conflict' can and usually does entail a combination of different reference conditions and perceptions.

Here's the clarification: PCT views conflict as the result of different systems trying to bring the same or very similar perceptual variables to different reference states.

Here's the reply to your statement: If it seems to you that conflict can result from a combination of different reference conditions and perceptions, then I suggest that you test this notion by building a working model that shows how such conflict works. In working models based on PCT, conflict occurs _only_ when two systems control the same or very similar perceptual variables. I don't understand how conflict could occur between two control systems that are controlling two different perceptual variables.

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

[Marc_Abrams1]

from [Marc Abrams (2003.11.29.1318)]

[From Rick Marken (2003.11.29.1010)]

I don't understand how conflict
could occur between two control systems that are controlling two
different perceptual variables.

Easy. I was controlling for a perception of trying to get some dialouge
going on the hierarchy. What was Bill's perceptions of my intent? His
perceptions caused him to have a set of reference conditions that were not
related to my perceptions and I believe the 'problem'was in not asking for
clarification (an attempt to adjust his perceptions). He did the same to
Bruce Gregory but changed his perceptions (ie. what he percieved what Bruce
was attempting to do) If you feel this is a mistatement _please_ tell me
what we were perceiving and what perceptions Bill and I were controlling for
in common. I think we simply perceived things differently. I'm interested
in trying to understand what actually happened not in adhering to any
doctrine.

Marc

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2003.11.29.1105)]

Marc Abrams (2003.11.29.1318)--

Rick Marken (2003.11.29.1010)]

I don't understand how conflict
could occur between two control systems that are controlling two
different perceptual variables.

Easy. I was controlling for a perception of trying to get some dialouge
going on the hierarchy...

I asked that you _demonstrate_ how this kind of conflict could work
using a working model, not verbal calisthenics. What I want to see is
a working model that implements your idea of how a conflict occurs
between two control systems controlling two different perceptions.

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

[Marc_Abrams1]

from [Marc Abrams (2003.11.29.1428)]

[From Rick Marken (2003.11.29.1105)]

I asked that you _demonstrate_ how this kind of conflict could work
using a working model, not verbal calisthenics. What I want to see is
a working model that implements your idea of how a conflict occurs
between two control systems controlling two different perceptions.

I hope my last post cleared up any questions with regard to this. I _was_
right in my assumption of what you were perceiving.

btw, you have been an excellent instructor and model for 'verbal
calistheics'.

Marc

[Bruce_Gregory4]

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.11.29.1437)]

Marc Abrams (2003.11.29.1357)

Rick, _this_ exchange is also a great example of what I am talking about and I am able to catch it in the middle rather than retrospectively. I think you perceive me as proposing an _alternative_ definition to the current one for PCT. I am not. Maybe I should be using the word 'disagreement' rather than conflict. Conflict is a technical term in PCT that means two or more control systems that have the same perception(s) and different reference conditions.and I have no quarrel with that. But I don't think that 'conflict' represents most instances of disagreements between people.

Have I made myself clearer?

Yes you have. But I have confidence that Rick can describe any disagreement in terms of PCT conflict.

Bruce Gregory

"Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no one was listening, everything must be said again."

                                                                                Andre Gide

[Martin_Taylor2]

[Martin Taylor 2003.11.29.1442]

From [Marc Abrams (2003.11.29.1231)]

Is everyone still convinced that 'conflict' exists _only_ as a
problem of different reference conditions for the same perceptions?

No. Im my view, conflict occurs when the environemntal feedback paths
used by two different control systems are not orthogonal. The
perceptions being controlled may in fact be orthogonal, but if the
actions of the control systems in question influence the same
environmental variables, then conflict can occur. To an outside
observer, it is to some degree (or even totally, if the perceptions
are orthogonal) the side-effects of the control actions that cause
the conflict.

Conflict, in PCT, means that control of one perception affects
control of another. The extreme case of this occurs when the two
perceptions being controlled are the same functions of the same
sensory variables (colloquially called "the same perception"). In
that case, there is no compromise possibility, whereas when the
perceptions are orthogonal, but the control loops use non-orthogonal
actions, usually both control systems CAN be successful, despite
mutual interference.

Of course, one could redefine "conflict" to refer only to the
situation in which the two perceptions being controlled are "the
same," but then the question is tautological, and the answer
unhelpful in understanding the interactions among independent control
systems. All it gives you is the exponential increase in the output
of the conflicted systems (if the control systems are linear).

Martin

[Bruce_Gregory4]

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.11.29.1450)]

Imagine that odd numbers are red and even numbers are green. I am
controlling my perception of oddness/evenness with a reference level of
"even." You, on the other hand are controlling your perception of color
with a reference of "red" We are each controlling a different
properties of numbers that appear on a computer screen. Are we
controlling the same perceptual variable? Is this an example of
conflict?

Bruce Gregory

"Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no
one was listening, everything must be said again."

                                                                                Andre Gide

[Bruce_Gregory4]

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.11.29.1508)]

[Martin Taylor 2003.11.29.1442

Once again I'm very impressed, Martin. You responded to my question
before you even had a chance to see it!

Bruce Gregory

"Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no
one was listening, everything must be said again."

                                                                                Andre Gide

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2003.11.29.1532)]

Marc Abrams (2003.11.29.1357)--

Rick, _this_ exchange is also a great example of what I am talking about and I am able to catch it in the middle rather than retrospectively. I think you perceive me as proposing an _alternative_ definition to the current one for PCT.

No. I don't think that. Though I wouldn't care if you were.

I am not. Maybe I should be using the word 'disagreement' rather than conflict.

I think we are in a conflict because the more you push to convince me of something the more I push back to convince you that that something is wrong, and vice versa.

Conflict is a technical term in PCT that means two or more control systems that have the same perception(s) and different reference conditions.and I have no quarrel with that.

Not at all. Conflict describes an observable phenomenon; a situation where two of more agents are acting to get the same variable into different states. The PCT model accounts for this phenomenon by assuming that the agents are control systems, controlling something like the same perceptual aspects of the environment relative to different reference specifications.

But I don't think that 'conflict' represents most instances of disagreements between people.

I have no idea. But many of the disagreements on this net are clearly conflicts; people want the same perceptual variable in different states. This was clear, for example, in the "Perception" thread, for example. One group were pushing (verbally) for the idea (1) that perceptual regularities are based on regularities in the environment; another group was pushing for the idea (2) that perceptual regularities are _not_ based on regularities in the environment. Ideas (1) and (2) can be viewed as two states of a variable that cannot be in both states at the same time. This conflict went on until some parties just gave up and went on to other things. No one one the conflict. But it was unquestionably a conflict.

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2003.11.29.1550)]

Bruce Gregory (2003.11.29.1450)--

Imagine that odd numbers are red and even numbers are green. I am
controlling my perception of oddness/evenness with a reference level of
"even." You, on the other hand are controlling your perception of color
with a reference of "red" We are each controlling a different
properties of numbers that appear on a computer screen. Are we
controlling the same perceptual variable? Is this an example of
conflict?

This is a nice example. You have created a situation where two
different perceptions are functionally identical. There is definitely
a conflict here, but the conflict exists only because the perceptual
variables odd/even and red/green are completely confounded. If I try
to keep my perception of red/green at green, that is precisely
equivalent to me trying to keep my perception of odd/even at even.

What you have done is created an artificial situation in which people
_could_ get into a conflict by controlling completely different
perceptual variables. It shows that it is possible for people to get
into a conflict even if they are controlling two completely different
perceptions. But it also shows how very unlikely such conflict is in
the real world, where people are more likely to get into conflict if
they are controlling the same perceptual aspect of the environment.

In a normal environment, where odd/even and red/green are completely
orthogonal, people controlling for odd/even are far more likely to get
into conflict with each other (people controlling for "even" would be
getting into conflict with those controlling for "odd") than with
people controlling for red/green. Indeed, odd/even controllers would
never get into conflicts with red/green controllers unless both were
placed into your odd environment where red/green and odd/even are
perfectly correlated.

Best regards

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400