Glasser's Choice Theory

[Fred_Nickols1]

[From Fred Nickols (2007.10.02.0954 ET)]

Regarding Glasser's "choice theory"...

I don't know what Glasser's motives or aims are and I'm not in a position to apply the test to him to check all that out. And it's been a while since I've read Glasser's stuff, although I still have the books. But, on that clearly ill-informed base, I will hazard this opinion:

It seems to me that one lesson of PCT, especially in light of the hierarchy, is that a great deal of behavior is NOT a matter of choice or choosing. I do not, for example, "choose" to have my heart beat or breathe. Nor, going up the hierarchy, do I "choose" to do a lot of things of which I am consciously aware. I didn't, for example, "choose" to compose this message; I simply started writing it (and then came back at the end to insert this sentence).

I am questioning, of course, Glasser's use of "choose" and "choice." For me, and most people I know, "choosing" implies "choices" and some kind of rational, analytical activity for choosing between or among those choices. To be sure, some situations in my life can be characterized in that way but many, many more cannot. Picture yourself in a fast-paced, heated debate with someone else. I don't know about you but I have a hard time applying the concepts of choice and choosing to that kind of activity.

Of course, someone can always argue that choosing isn't always a conscious activity. I suppose that might be the case but what am I to do with that?

···

--
Regards,

Fred Nickols
Managing Principal
Distance Consulting
nickols@att.net
www.nickols.us

"Assistance at A Distance"

[Jim_Wuwert]

From Jim Wuwert (2007.10.02.1020EST)

Along the same lines, I am a basketball referee. I choose to blow my whistle or not blow my whistle. Sometimes, that choice is made in milliseconds, much of what you are doing in a debate. You are still choosing, aren’t you? If not, then what is it?

Jim Wuwert
School Counselor
Cook Elementary School
336-727-2784 (work)
336-727-8458 (fax)

-----“Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)” CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU wrote: -----

To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
From: “nickols@att.net” nickols@ATT.NET
Sent by: “Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)” CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Date: 10/02/2007 10:05AM
Subject: Glasser’s Choice Theory

[From Fred Nickols (2007.10.02.0954 ET)]

Regarding Glasser’s “choice theory”…

I don’t know what Glasser’s motives or aims are and I’m not in a position to apply the test to him to check all that out. And it’s been a while since I’ve read Glasser’s stuff, although I still have the books. But, on that clearly ill-informed base, I will hazard this opinion:

It seems to me that one lesson of PCT, especially in light of the hierarchy, is that a great deal of behavior is NOT a matter of choice or choosing. I do not, for example, “choose” to have my heart beat or breathe. Nor, going up the hierarchy, do I “choose” to do a lot of things of which I am consciously aware. I didn’t, for example, “choose” to compose this message; I simply started writing it (and then came back at the end to insert this sentence).

I am questioning, of course, Glasser’s use of “choose” and “choice.” For me, and most people I know, “choosing” implies “choices” and some kind of rational, analytical activity for choosing between or among those choices. To be sure, some situations in my life can be characterized in that way but many, many more cannot. Picture yourself in a fast-paced, heated debate with someone else. I don’t know about you but I have a hard time applying the concepts of choice and choosing to that kind of activity.

Of course, someone can always argue that choosing isn’t always a conscious activity. I suppose that might be the case but what am I to do with that?

–
Regards,

Fred Nickols
Managing Principal
Distance Consulting
nickols@att.net
www.nickols.us

“Assistance at A Distance”

All e-mail correspondence to and from this address
is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law,
which may result in monitoring and disclosure to
third parties, including law enforcement.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER

[Bill_Powers1]

Along the same lines, I am a
basketball referee. I choose to blow my whistle or not blow my whistle.
Sometimes, that choice is made in milliseconds, much of what you are
doing in a debate. You are still choosing, aren’t you? If not, then what
is it?
[From Bill Powers (2007.10.02.0922 MDT)]

Jim Wuwert (2007.10.02.1020EST) –

Interesting posts started by Boris Hartman. If you think about it, why
should we be worried if Glasser is teaching some PCT principles? It’s
good for more people to learn about PCT, and surely we don’t want to keep
it for ourselves!

Glasser thinks that you have to simplify an idea to the kindergarten
level before the average person can understand it. I completely disagree.
The problem with simple examples is that they’re not simple: look at
Glasser’s diagram of a car that is supposed to make PCT easier to
understand. It’s so full of distracting images that it obscures more than
it reveals. What’s so hard to understand about saying that we compare
what we want with what we’re experiencing, and act to make the difference
smaller? Glasser seems to think that everyone is dumb but
himself.

As to choice theory, isn’t it really conflict that he’s talking about?
You see that there are two things you can do; you can see good reasons
for each of them, but you can’t do them both at once. So you have a
dilemma and have to resolve the conflict.

The basketball referee, if he’s any good, does not have a conflict. If he
sees someone traveling, he blows the whistle to stop play and assess the
penalty. There is no “choice” to be made, unless he has some
doubts about what he saw. Then the whistle is likely to be delayed while
he makes up his mind. Conflict slows down and even stops control. But if
there’s no conflict, there’s no choice to be made. You just do what
works. The referee see the foul and stops play. Blowing the whistle is
how you stop play. No conflict, no choice.

The idea that there is a choice any time more than one thing might happen
is simply wrong. If you stop a moment and think of all the things you
might be doing other than reading this, you will realize that you don’t
have to make choices very often. You could be buying tickets to fly to
China, couldn’t you? Of course you could, but you’re not “choosing
to go on reading instead of buying plane tickets to China.” You’re
not (or you weren’t) even thinking about buying plane tickets to China.
You could fill a page with a list of other things you might be doing. And
not one of them, like pouring coffee over your head, requires a choice to
keep from doing it.

Glasser is using choice in the sense of voluntary, purposeful action as
opposed to accidental side-effects of action. But changing the word isn’t
all you have to do – you also have to understand how negative feedback
control works, which most people can do if you credit them with two brain
cells to rub together, and if you understand it yourself. Glasser doesn’t
see the difference between purposive action and conflict. He thinks they
go together. So the problem is his lack of understanding, not anyone
else’s.

What I do object to is teaching people wrong things about how control
systems work. If Glasser wants to teach PCT, let him, but I hope he
learns to do it right.

Best,

Bill P.

[Jim_Wuwert]

From Jim Wuwert (2007.10.02.1210EST)

How could the referee get better at reducing conflict in a game? I am not referring to the conflict with the players, but the conflict that goes on inside his own head about blowing the whistle. How does he reduce conflict to become a good referee? Specifically, what strategies can he practice outside the game to help him perform better in the game?

Jim Wuwert
School Counselor
Cook Elementary School
336-727-2784 (work)
336-727-8458 (fax)

-----“Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)” CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU wrote: -----

Along the same lines, I am a basketball referee. I choose to blow my whistle or not blow my whistle. Sometimes, that choice is made in milliseconds, much of what you are doing in a debate. You are still choosing, aren’t you? If not, then what is it?
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
From: Bill Powers powers_w@FRONTIER.NET
Sent by: “Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)” CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Date: 10/02/2007 11:47AM
Subject: Re: Glasser’s Choice Theory

[From Bill Powers (2007.10.02.0922 MDT)]

Jim Wuwert (2007.10.02.1020EST) –

Interesting posts started by Boris Hartman. If you think about it, why should we be worried if Glasser is teaching some PCT principles? It’s good for more people to learn about PCT, and surely we don’t want to keep it for ourselves!

Glasser thinks that you have to simplify an idea to the kindergarten level before the average person can understand it. I completely disagree. The problem with simple examples is that they’re not simple: look at Glasser’s diagram of a car that is supposed to make PCT easier to understand. It’s so full of distracting images that it obscures more than it reveals. What’s so hard to understand about saying that we compare what we want with what we’re experiencing, and act to make the difference smaller? Glasser seems to think that everyone is dumb but himself.

As to choice theory, isn’t it really conflict that he’s talking about? You see that there are two things you can do; you can see good reasons for each of them, but you can’t do them both at once. So you have a dilemma and have to resolve the conflict.

The basketball referee, if he’s any good, does not have a conflict. If he sees someone traveling, he blows the whistle to stop play and assess the penalty. There is no “choice” to be made, unless he has some doubts about what he saw. Then the whistle is likely to be delayed while he makes up his mind. Conflict slows down and even stops control. But if there’s no conflict, there’s no choice to be made. You just do what works. The referee see the foul and stops play. Blowing the whistle is how you stop play. No conflict, no choice.

The idea that there is a choice any time more than one thing might happen is simply wrong. If you stop a moment and think of all the things you might be doing other than reading this, you will realize that you don’t have to make choices very often. You could be buying tickets to fly to China, couldn’t you? Of course you could, but you’re not “choosing to go on reading instead of buying plane tickets to China.” You’re not (or you weren’t) even thinking about buying plane tickets to China. You could fill a page with a list of other things you might be doing. And not one of them, like pouring coffee over your head, requires a choice to keep from doing it.

Glasser is using choice in the sense of voluntary, purposeful action as opposed to accidental side-effects of action. But changing the word isn’t all you have to do – you also have to understand how negative feedback control works, which most people can do if you credit them with two brain cells to rub together, and if you understand it yourself. Glasser doesn’t see the difference between purposive action and conflict. He thinks they go together. So the problem is his lack of understanding, not anyone else’s.

What I do object to is teaching people wrong things about how control systems work. If Glasser wants to teach PCT, let him, but I hope he learns to do it right.

Best,

Bill P.

All e-mail correspondence to and from this address
is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law,
which may result in monitoring and disclosure to
third parties, including law enforcement.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER

[Fred_Nickols1]

[From Fred Nickols (2007.10.02.1308 ET)]

From Jim Wuwert (2007.10.02.1020EST)

Along the same lines, I am a basketball referee. I choose to blow my
whistle or not blow my whistle. Sometimes, that choice is made in
milliseconds, much of what you are doing in a debate. You are still
choosing, aren't you? If not, then what is it?

I would say that if you consciously entertain the decision to blow or not
blow your whistle, you may be said to be choosing. If you do not entertain
that decision consciously, and simply blow the whistle with no conscious
forethought, then I don't think you are choosing.

I suspect that you blow your whistle when you witness something that calls
for that response on your part. IF X then Blow Whistle. So, part of what
you do is monitor for X and if X occurs, you blow your whistle.

However, I think there are indeed times when you do choose NOT to blow your
whistle. I once sat next to Jess Kersey on an airplane and chatted briefly
about his work as an NBA referee. He told me that if he called every
infraction he saw, the game would never finish. He had to make choices
about which ones to call (i.e., blow his whistle or not). He said that, as
a practical matter, he focused on the ones that seemed to evidence some kind
of malicious intent or other egregious aspects.

Regards,

Fred Nickols
Managing Principal
Distance Consulting
nickols@att.net
www.nickols.us

[Dick_Robertson]

[From Dick Robertson,2007.10.02.1310CDT]

[From Fred Nickols (2007.10.02.1308 ET)]

From Jim Wuwert (2007.10.02.1020EST)

Along the same lines, I am a basketball referee. I choose to
blow my
whistle or not blow my whistle. Sometimes, that choice is made in
milliseconds, much of what you are doing in a debate. You are still
choosing, aren’t you? If not, then what is it?

OK, maybe it’s first of all a semantic issue. If a higher order system changes the ref value to a subsidiary system and hence there trickles down a flow of changes that results in overt behavior, couldn’t you say that the organism made a choice? However, if you want to keep the term for what the individual has in consciousness, as Fred seems to be doing, it seems justified as a way of avoiding confusion.

Best,

Dick R

···

I would say that if you consciously entertain the decision to
blow or not
blow your whistle, you may be said to be choosing. If you
do not entertain
that decision consciously, and simply blow the whistle with no
consciousforethought, then I don’t think you are choosing.

I suspect that you blow your whistle when you witness something
that calls
for that response on your part. IF X then Blow
Whistle. So, part of what
you do is monitor for X and if X occurs, you blow your whistle.

However, I think there are indeed times when you do choose NOT
to blow your
whistle. I once sat next to Jess Kersey on an airplane and
chatted briefly
about his work as an NBA referee. He told me that if he
called every
infraction he saw, the game would never finish. He had to
make choices
about which ones to call (i.e., blow his whistle or not).
He said that, as
a practical matter, he focused on the ones that seemed to
evidence some kind
of malicious intent or other egregious aspects.

Regards,

Fred Nickols
Managing Principal
Distance Consulting
nickols@att.net
www.nickols.us

[Bill_Powers1]

How could the referee get better
at reducing conflict in a game? I am not referring to the conflict with
the players, but the conflict that goes on inside his own head about
blowing the whistle. How does he reduce conflict to become a good
referee? Specifically, what strategies can he practice outside the game
to help him perform better in the game?
[From Bill Powers (2007.10.03.0808 MDT)]

Jim Wuwert (2007.10.02.1210EST) –

As you describe it, there is a conflict between wanting the game to go on
and wanting to stop the game for a penalty. One way we eliminate conflict
is to invent rules for determining what to do. One of the first rules of
etiquette I learned was to take the piece of cake that is nearest to me
on the plate, when it’s offered. Before learning that rule, I was in
conflict between wanting the biggest piece and not wanting to look
greedy. I didn’t particularly like the rule, but it let me just take a
piece of cake without vacillating. I was still greedy inside, but at
least I didn’t look greedy. Of course I didn’t choose that rule for
myself, other than through accepting it from someone else.

The best way to eliminate a conflict is to work out a systematic way to
arrive at a decision. Then you don’t have to make a choice; just follow
the rule and do whatever it says to do. But the best rule for one person
is not always the best rule for another. Only you can know all of the
reference conditions that are important to you. That’s why you start with
random reorganization, testing every new possibility (by doing it or by
imagining it) and making changes until all those other control systems
stop objecting. You don’t need to be told to do that; we all work that
way.

Of course you have to be reorganizing the right things. Perhaps, for a
given referee, the conflict is not between continuing or stopping play,
but between making a quick call and making a bad call, or between
appearing competent and appearing indecisive, or between having the
spectators like him or hate him. The referee simply has to explore all
the possibilities until the real conflict, the “core conflict,”
is found. From your way of describing it I get a hint of “good
referee, bad referee” or even “good person, bad person” as
being involved in the conflict. The conflicted referee has to look at
what’s good and bad about both sides, trying to see both sides at once.
This will lead to reorganizing at the next level up, because that’s where
you have to be in order to see both sides at once.

The biggest problem people have with conflict, in my opinion, is that
they try to fight it instead of trying to resolve it. Their attention is
on the struggle, so what they reorganize is their way of struggling, not
the cause of the struggle. If you reorganize the cause of the struggle,
the struggling stops. And that feels very good.

What I’m saying is that if you reorganize the right things, rules for
avoiding decisions will occur to you, and if you keep going they will
evolve into useful rules. I don’t know what yours would turn out to be,
but you will know when you see them. Trust your reorganizing system to
produce new possibilities when the old ones don’t work. This is how MOL
works, in case you didn’t notice: I have suggested ways to resolve your
conflict without giving you any solutions to reject.

You’ll notice that Fred Nickols reported the rule that an NBA referee
adopted – look for malicious intent before blowing the whistle. That
means he no longer has to decide whether to blow the whistle. If there’s
malicious intent, blow it. See? No decision to make. Evidently this NBA
ref is not conflicted about his ability to perceive malicious
intent.

Best.

Bill P.

[_Boris_Hartman]

Hello Bill,

Glad for your excellent answer.

Bill wrote :
Interesting posts started by Boris Hartman. If you think about it, why
should we be worried if Glasser is teaching some PCT principles? It's good
for more people to learn about PCT, and surely we don't want to keep it for
ourselves!

Boris wrote :
I agree with you Bill and I'm with you. And because of that I can't just
stand and watch, how your 40 or 50 years of work is not respected in the way
it should be. I would like that your place in the history in development of
psychology ia adequate to your devoted work. Many people on the world are
talking about control in behavior. But they mostly beleive it's Glasser's. I
was among them. In Choice Theory according to Erling, he even tries to hide
the origin of control theory. Is he really trying to promote PCT ? I think
he is trying to hide it's origins.

I agree that Glasser is O.K. with teaching some principles of PCT, and to do
it well, but I'd like him to tell the World, where basic idea of these
principles is coming from, as he did in the beggining when he wrote Control
Theory. Why shouldn't he continue and really promote those PCT principles,
with your name, where it's necessary to cite, instead of hiding some
principles under his words and keeping people in false beliefs.

Bill wrote :
What I do object to is teaching people wrong things about how control
systems work. If Glasser wants to teach PCT, let him, but I hope he learns
to do it right.

Boris wrote :
That's a very good wish Bill. I beleive that on day Glasser will understand
the nature of control and how human being really works. But till then, I
think it's right to name his sources for any idea he include in his theories
on his way to enlightening point. And I think that somebody must tell him
what is right and what is wrong.

Best,

Boris

[Jim_Wuwert]

(From Jim Wuwert 2007.10.03.12:05EST)

First of all, admitedly, if you could not tell, I am a basketball referee. While officiating a game in the back of my mind I am thinking that I want to do a good job because if I do a good job, someone will eventually notice, and maybe I will get the better games or even the games that pay more money. That is the good/bad thing I have going on. Additionally, I am thinking during a play, I want to get the call correct. Videotape does not lie. If my game is being taped, I hope that when it is reviewed by my supervisor that I got the call correct. A correct call would be one that is backed up by the rules. Sometimes a correct call may be to not blow the whistle. Sometimes it may mean to blow the whistle.

So, as I referee I am thinking about getting better games and also wanting to get a call correct? Are you suggesting that I move away from the good/bad referee and move toward developing a plan for resolving my conflict with making a correct call and not an incorrect call. Perhaps if I spent more time reviewing the rules, I would feel more confident that I am making the correct call. Is that taking it up a level?

I am looking for something that works and I feel that would work.

So, could I apply this same thing to a marital relationship. If I am in conflict with my spouse, it may help for me to look for the cause of the conflict. If we are having problems communicating. Perhaps, I could look at my communication style and change it. The new communication style may help us resolve the other problems. Maybe I need a plan for what type of communicator I want to be in the disagreements.

Am I getting it?

Jim Wuwert
School Counselor
Cook Elementary School
336-727-2784 (work)
336-727-8458 (fax)

-----“Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)” CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU wrote: -----

How could the referee get better at reducing conflict in a game? I am not referring to the conflict with the players, but the conflict that goes on inside his own head about blowing the whistle. How does he reduce conflict to become a good referee? Specifically, what strategies can he practice outside the game to help him perform better in the game?
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
From: Bill Powers powers_w@FRONTIER.NET
Sent by: “Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)” CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Date: 10/03/2007 11:15AM
Subject: Re: Glasser’s Choice Theory

[From Bill Powers (2007.10.03.0808 MDT)]

Jim Wuwert (2007.10.02.1210EST) –

As you describe it, there is a conflict between wanting the game to go on and wanting to stop the game for a penalty. One way we eliminate conflict is to invent rules for determining what to do. One of the first rules of etiquette I learned was to take the piece of cake that is nearest to me on the plate, when it’s offered. Before learning that rule, I was in conflict between wanting the biggest piece and not wanting to look greedy. I didn’t particularly like the rule, but it let me just take a piece of cake without vacillating. I was still greedy inside, but at least I didn’t look greedy. Of course I didn’t choose that rule for myself, other than through accepting it from someone else.

The best way to eliminate a conflict is to work out a systematic way to arrive at a decision. Then you don’t have to make a choice; just follow the rule and do whatever it says to do. But the best rule for one person is not always the best rule for another. Only you can know all of the reference conditions that are important to you. That’s why you start with random reorganization, testing every new possibility (by doing it or by imagining it) and making changes until all those other control systems stop objecting. You don’t need to be told to do that; we all work that way.

Of course you have to be reorganizing the right things. Perhaps, for a given referee, the conflict is not between continuing or stopping play, but between making a quick call and making a bad call, or between appearing competent and appearing indecisive, or between having the spectators like him or hate him. The referee simply has to explore all the possibilities until the real conflict, the “core conflict,” is found. From your way of describing it I get a hint of “good referee, bad referee” or even “good person, bad person” as being involved in the conflict. The conflicted referee has to look at what’s good and bad about both sides, trying to see both sides at once. This will lead to reorganizing at the next level up, because that’s where you have to be in order to see both sides at once.

The biggest problem people have with conflict, in my opinion, is that they try to fight it instead of trying to resolve it. Their attention is on the struggle, so what they reorganize is their way of struggling, not the cause of the struggle. If you reorganize the cause of the struggle, the struggling stops. And that feels very good.

What I’m saying is that if you reorganize the right things, rules for avoiding decisions will occur to you, and if you keep going they will evolve into useful rules. I don’t know what yours would turn out to be, but you will know when you see them. Trust your reorganizing system to produce new possibilities when the old ones don’t work. This is how MOL works, in case you didn’t notice: I have suggested ways to resolve your conflict without giving you any solutions to reject.

You’ll notice that Fred Nickols reported the rule that an NBA referee adopted – look for malicious intent before blowing the whistle. That means he no longer has to decide whether to blow the whistle. If there’s malicious intent, blow it. See? No decision to make. Evidently this NBA ref is not conflicted about his ability to perceive malicious intent.

Best.

Bill P.

All e-mail correspondence to and from this address
is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law,
which may result in monitoring and disclosure to
third parties, including law enforcement.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER

[Bill_Powers1]

So, as I referee I am thinking
about getting better games and also wanting to get a call correct? Are
you suggesting that I move away from the good/bad referee and move toward
developing a plan for resolving my conflict with making a correct call
and not an incorrect call. Perhaps if I spent more time reviewing the
rules, I would feel more confident that I am making the correct call. Is
that taking it up a level?
I am looking for something that
works and I feel that would work.
[From Bill Powers (2007.10.04.0346 MDT)]

Jim Wuwert 2007.10.03.12:05 EST –

Now you’re looking to me for the kinds of answers I can’t give. I don’t
know what your conflicts are, but if you look, you can probably find out.
It helps to be able to talk with someone about it, so perhaps you can
find a person who has similar interests and problems, and take turns
practicing MOL on each other. So far you don’t need a license to do
that.

If you recognize that you aren’t sure about the rules, then I suppose
that reviewing them would help, but could this unsureness be more general
than that? Does it show up in other situations?

So it seems that this is a problem of some duration. Any time a person
has a long-standing problem, I suspect that they’re looking at only one
side of a conflict. What are some good reasons for NOT improving your
refereeing? Or for not changing something that would have to change in
order to do it? If there’s something you want to do, and have wanted to
do for a long time, and you’re not doing it, what is keeping you from
doing it? That’s the general approach in MOL. Usually what’s keeping you
from doing it turns out to be not wanting to do it, for other reasons but
perfectly good ones as far as you’re concerned. That’s the sort of thing
you have to turn over in your mind, and see what reorganization tosses up
for consideration. One piece of advice I can give: don’t avoid feeling
bad. If you succeed, you’ll turn off reorganization.

So, could I apply
this same thing to a marital relationship. If I am in conflict with my
spouse, it may help for me to look for the cause of the conflict. If we
are having problems communicating. Perhaps, I could look at my
communication style and change it. The new communication style may help
us resolve the other problems. Maybe I need a plan for what type of
communicator I want to be in the disagreements.

This is a very cognitive approach, but as these ideas occur to you,
you’re seeing what reorganization does. The new ideas seem to come out of
nowhere. A lot of ideas sound good but are hard to put into practice
because they involve doing things you don’t really want to do, or perhaps
seeing things you don’t want to admit. But if you keep asking yourself
what your own background thoughts are as you consider the problem, you
will find out what’s behind the foreground worries. You don’t have any
control over what solutions will occur to you, but you’ll know when you
see one that doesn’t cause more problems than it solves. Just keep asking
yourself, “What am I not paying attention to here?” As I said,
this is easier if someone else is there to ask that question in various
ways from time to time. That’s MOL.

Best,

Bill P.

’

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2007.10.04.1550)]

Bill Powers (2007.10.04.0346 MDT) to Jim Wuwert 2007.10.03.12:05 EST --

Your posts to Jim have helped me get a better understanding of your
approach to dealing with conflict. I like what you say; it's very down
to earth. Pretty much the way I've been doing it all along (though not
always very successfully), if I understand you right. The main point I
get (I hope I'm right about this) is that one is way ahead of the game
(in terms of conflict resolution) by trying to solve a conflict
(inter- or intra-personal) rather than win it. That would certainly
explain why it's so difficult to solve interpersonal conflicts with
people who want to win rather than solve conflicts _as a matter of
principle_.

Best

Rick

···

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

[Bill_Powers1]

That would certainly

explain why it’s so difficult to solve interpersonal conflicts with

people who want to win rather than solve conflicts _as a matter of

principle_.
[From Bill Powers (2007.10.05.1048 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2007.10.04.1550) –

Yes, but you can still play MOL with them. The question is not whether
they want to win, but why they want to win. Suppose I went along with you
– what comes after that? What do you get out of it? What do I get? Does
this mean we stop communicating now? Or is this going to end up in a
fight? Is there any way you can get what you want without keeping me from
getting what I want?

Etc.

Best,

Bill P.