Controlling for conflict

[Martin Taylor 970708 15:00]

A practical situation has arisen around my cottage up North, that seems
to have interesting theoretical implications. In a sentence: If a
person (P) is controlling to perceive himself in conflict with another
person (Q), what can Q do to alter the situation, assuming Q has a
reference not to perceive herself in conflict with anyone?

The obvious answer is "go up a level" and try to find out what P is
controlling for that generates the reference to perceive conflict.
Having gone up a level, Q might generate a disturbance to that
higher level perception, of a kind that cannot be compensated by
P's unwanted actions. But ordinarily, going up a level is easiest
with the cooperation of the other person, and in this situation,
by definition, the other person is non-cooperative.

The way I see the real situation, P has a general problem with controlling
his perceptions relating to social situations. (P is an adult, who
seems to be acting as one might expect an early adolescent to behave).

One way of effecting control is to exert what we technically call
"overwhelming force" against another person, and that cannot be done
unless there is a conflict. In the absence of conflict, P may be able
to control some perceptions, but not those that relate to ensuring that
he can get his way when dealing with other people. So P needs
to perceive the existence of conflict and the successful exertion
of power that overcomes the conflictual resistance.

If Q refuses to play, P's reference to perceive conflict at the lower level
is not satisfied, which puts P and Q into conflict in respect of P's
need to perceive conflict--a paradox. P is likely to escalate the
"annoying" behaviour until Q does fight back, allowing P to perceive
conflict, and then by overwhelming Q, to perceive control by the application
of force. But if Q does play, by objecting to P's actions, P can then
overwhelm Q directly. Either way is uncomfortable for Q, who is
unable to control some perception she had been controlling effectively.

I suppose Q could pretend to be controlling some perception that she
actually doesn't care about, and allow P the victory in that perception.
P seems to search for perceptions Q is controlling (where Q is, for this
sentence no specific person, but individual others in general). In other
words, P is a general nuisance. In the specific case I am thinking of,
only occasionally does this nuisance cross the line into illegal
behaviour (a minor stabbing, for instance). So it is impossible to
bring to bear any sanctioned social "overwhelming force" (i.e. police
action) against him. Since he ordinarily expects to perceive (and
does perceive) the disapproval of other people, the normal social
disturbance to a self-image perception cannot work. When P decides
on a particular person Q as a place to find the necessary conflict,
he is likely to search for disturbances that seem to matter to Q,
so that he can apply the overwhelming force.

This analysis could be quite wrong, and one would need to perform The
Test to check it out.

But to attempt The Test in this situation could be quite dangerous
to the Tester, and rather hard to do even if it were not dangerous--
because if the controlled perception is related to generically poor
control in the Tested situation, a disturbance is going to be resisted
in an ineffective way, leading to a result: "probably this is not the
controlled perception" when it actually is, but with marginal control
and much side-effect.

The situation is real, and potentially dangerous to an old lady. I'm not
at all sure how to go about dealing with it in the real situation. Nor am
I sure of my analysis of the theoretical situation within HPCT.

Perhaps Dick Robertson might have some view on the issue of self-image
control where the reference self-image might well be "bad-ass".

Martin

[From Bruce Gregory (970708.1540 EDT)]

Martin Taylor 970708 15:00

Since he ordinarily expects to perceive (and
does perceive) the disapproval of other people, the normal social
disturbance to a self-image perception cannot work. When P decides
on a particular person Q as a place to find the necessary conflict,
he is likely to search for disturbances that seem to matter to Q,
so that he can apply the overwhelming force.

One question would be, why would someone want to control for the
disapproval of others? The simplest answer is that this is a
perception that one _can_ successfully control for. One might
conjecture that P would really prefer to control for a different
perception, but success with controlling this alternate
perception has been limited. Absent an ability to control for
this hypothetical perception, it seems unlikely that P will
relinquish control in the one domain where control _is_
possible.

Bruce

[From Rick Marken (970708.1400 PCT)]

Martin Taylor (970708 15:00) -

If a person (P) is controlling to perceive himself in conflict
with another person (Q), what can Q do to alter the situation

The obvious answer is "go up a level"

I think the obvious answer is "get the hell outta there":wink:

I suppose Q could pretend to be controlling some perception that
she actually doesn't care about, and allow P the victory in
that perception.

Yeah. But P might be able to tell Q is fooling; that could be
a problem.

only occasionally does this nuisance cross the line into illegal
behaviour (a minor stabbing, for instance).

The "minorness" of a stabbing (a perception) depends on one's gain
for controlling for getting stabbed. For me, personally, the only
"minor" stabbing is the one that doesn't happen.

So it is impossible to bring to bear any sanctioned social
"overwhelming force" (i.e. police action) against him.

Why? Is he Superman? Surely the Mounties can still get their man.

Since he ordinarily expects to perceive (and does perceive) the
disapproval of other people, the normal social disturbance to a
self-image perception cannot work.

Expectation has nothing to do with whether or not a variable will
act as a disturbance. If he is controlling for "disapproval" then
disapproval will not be a disturbance; but approval should be.

But to attempt The Test in this situation could be quite
dangerous to the Tester

I agree. I think an observational form of the Test (as you seem
to have done) is sufficient to warrent getting the hell out
(assuming that producing that perception doesn't conflict with
control of other perceptions -- like staying up there).

The situation is real, and potentially dangerous to an old lady.
I'm not at all sure how to go about dealing with it in the real
situation.

If your analysis is even close to being correct I think the old
lady should get the hell out of there -- at least until the
idiot leaves or is hauled away by the police.

Best

Rick (I'm liberal, to a degree) Marken

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

You gave us the analysis. Can you give us some more data?

For example, what is the relationship of this older lady and the man in
question? Is she the mother, he the son? Is she the wife, he the
husband? As suggested by Rick's comments, it is hard to imagine why
she wants to stay in a relationship with the person unless she feels
some sort of family obligation.

Your analysis of person P does not remind me of a real person. From
your description, he wants to experience himself as being powerful over
other people. If the other person submits, he should be satisfied.
Also from your description, he may want to experience himself as being
rejected by other people. (Why? Sometimes a person will reject another
person if he believes that the other person is about to be reject him.)
If the other person rejects him, he should be satisfied. But then he
won't experience himself as being powerful over the other person.
So, the two goals of being powerful and being rejected are in conflict.

As I said, this does not sound like a real person to me. This is why I
asked for more data rather than your analysis.

This example illustrates one of the difficulties of describing case
studies. It is very hard to do so in a way that is nontheoretical.

Are you presenting it because you want to help the old lady? Or, do
you want to help the man in question? Or, do you think it is pointing
up some kind of shortcoming in PCT concepts?

···

From: David Goldstein
Subject: Re.: Controlling for conflict
Date: 07/09/97