from [ Marc Abrams (991129.2347) ]
In a recent discussion with Bruce Gregory he brought up a very intriguing
point.
Do we set up conflict on purpose? For instance, Are one of the purposes of
laws to stop us from controlling and bring "choice" into the matter.
Bruce just brought it up without any extensions or opinions at the time. I
think it's kind of interesting.
Any comments?
Marc
[From Rick Marken (991130.0840)]
Marc Abrams (991129.2347) --
Do we set up conflict on purpose?
Yes. Football games are purposefully produced interpersonal
conflicts; diets are purposefully produced intrapersonal
conflicts.
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken
[From Rick Marken (991130.1415)]
Marc Abrams (991130.1227)--
OK, those [conflicts] seem obvious. Any ones you can
think of that may not be as apparent?
Anytime you find yourself "stopping to think about it" you are
in a conflict. Some conflicts that I have run into today: take
out the trash now or later? listen to this radio station or
keep searching? write this report or play on the net? meat loaf
or teriyaki bowl for lunch?
All conflict occurs for the same reason: higher level control
systems try to control their perceptions by specifying
incompatible states for lower level outputs or reference
signals. You can't both take out and not take out the trash;
you can't both listen to KKGO and search for another station.
Conflicts are resolved either when the stronger of the higher
level control systems wins, when disturbances push the lower
level perception to one side of the conflict or when you go
"up a level" and see the conflict from the point of view
of systems above the higher level systems that are creating
it.
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken
[From Rick Marken (991130.1545)]
Me:
Conflicts are resolved either when the stronger of the higher
level control systems wins,
Bruce Gregory (991130.1725 EST)--
This doesn't really resolve the conflict, does it?
Right. It doesn't. The conflict still exists but the system
has "made a decision" (selected one state for the lower
level perception).
Me:
when disturbances push the lower level perception to one
side of the conflict
Bruce G.
How does this end the conflict?
Right. That doesn't resolve it either. The only way to
actually resolve a conflict is to change the higher level
systems that are creating the conflict. And this requires
"going up a level".
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken
from [ Marc Abrams (991130.1227)
[From Rick Marken (991130.0840)]
Yes. Football games are purposefully produced interpersonal
conflicts; diets are purposefully produced intrapersonal
conflicts.
OK, those seem obvious. Any ones you can think of that may not be as
apparent?
What about inner personal conflicts or decisions?. If we think of decision
making as conflict resolution then new ways of looking at "decisions" might
be in order.
I went to a management text this morning on decision making and replaced the
words "decision making" with "conflict resolution" and replaced the word
"decision" with "conflict" and "decide" with "resolve"
What happens from a PCT perspective is sorta interesting. If you make a
simple statement. "I need to decide what course to take". You are literally
left swinging in the wind. What do I need to think about to make this
decision? If I amend the sentence to read "I need to resolve what course to
take." The first question I have is "What needs to be resolved"?, "Between
what courses?", and "Why?". Certainly a clearer line of sight to resolving
the problem.
Decisions are conflicts. A very interesting perspective.
Any thoughts
Marc
[Norman Hovda (991130.1055)]
From [ Marc Abrams (991130.1227)
[snip]
Decisions are conflicts. A very interesting perspective.
And resolution tends to follow the path of least resistance?
nth
from [ Marc Abrams (9911301438) ]
[Norman Hovda (991130.1055)]
And resolution tends to follow the path of least resistance?
Hmmm. I don't know. How would we know that?
Marc
[From Bruce Gregory (991130.1725 EST)]
Rick Marken (991130.1415)
All conflict occurs for the same reason: higher level control
systems try to control their perceptions by specifying
incompatible states for lower level outputs or reference
signals. You can't both take out and not take out the trash;
you can't both listen to KKGO and search for another station.
Conflicts are resolved either when the stronger of the higher
level control systems wins,
This doesn't really resolve the conflict, does it? Unless the gain or
reference level for the "losing" system is set to zero, it seems to me
that conflict persists.
when disturbances push the lower
level perception to one side of the conflict
How does this end the conflict?
or when you go
"up a level" and see the conflict from the point of view
of systems above the higher level systems that are creating
it.
That I understand.
Bruce Gregory
from [ Marc Abrams (991130.2001) ]
[From Rick Marken (991130.1545)]
Me:
> Conflicts are resolved either when the stronger of the higher
> level control systems wins,
Any ideas about how "winning" takes place? I know this is venturing beyond
our current knowledge but I'm interested in any conjectures you might have
about this.
Bruce Gregory (991130.1725 EST)--
> This doesn't really resolve the conflict, does it?
Right. It doesn't. The conflict still exists but the system
has "made a decision" (selected one state for the lower
level perception).
seems resonable
Me:
> when disturbances push the lower level perception to one
> side of the conflictBruce G.
> How does this end the conflict?
Right. That doesn't resolve it either. The only way to
actually resolve a conflict is to change the higher level
systems that are creating the conflict. And this requires
"going up a level".
Rick, I think you have wittingly or unwittingly laid out a game plan for the
development of a business consulting firm.
It could be a very interesting approach. Decisions viewed as conflicts and
resolved by going up a level. Not quite this simple, but the basis for some
interesting proposals. 
Marc
[From Rick Marken (991201.0950)]
Marc Abrams (991130.2001)--
Any ideas about how "winning" takes place? I know this is
venturing beyond our current knowledge but I'm interested
in any conjectures you might have about this.
"Winning" is just a way of describing what happens in a
conflict between control systems when one system is able
to get the contested perceptual variable into the state
it wants. We know how this takes place; it takes place
when the winning system is so much stronger than the
other system that it can nullify the effects of that
system on the contested controlled variable.
Best
Rick
---
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken