I'm trying to explain, Tom, believe me. I just mean that this was the
last of the simulations in the article--the latest one tried there. I
am at home and the article is in the office. If you read the
description of the parameters set on the simulation, it's a perfect
description of a mob in pursuit of someone. It is consistent with
defining one person's control in conflict as another's loss. That's
half or less of the reality of control as I know it. The other
follows the form I outlined for modifying McPhail et al.'s simulation.
By the way, there too, because I'm making up one simulation to build
on someone else's on the spot (a translation of tetrahedronal theory),
matching half triangles rotate in opposite directions. The simplest
way to build this into the model is to have the odds at fifty-fifty
that tetrahedronality will rotate one way or the other
out of the pursuit McPhail
et al. have programmed, with reciprocity building into the interaction
multiplier any time it occurs at an arbitrarily defined level
boundary.
There are lots of ways we try to express tetrahedronal control in
everyday life, corresponding to the simulation I am proposing, or so
my theory suggests. Compassion for instance is a word people use to
describe the reciprocity when it happens, not as a lock-step response
to conflict, but as an orbiting of shifting motives around one another
amplifying across system levels.
Tom, I feel as though you've asked me to begin to explain what I think
needs to be added to PCT from scratch. I don't know that this
explanation works any better than any other I've tried. When I get
back to the office and have a chance, I'll cite references from
another article Clark sent me on collective action, in which conflict
only turns into cooperation as a mixed-sum game in which competition
is formally restricted, while the beyond-PCT control I'm talking about
is synergetic, or increasing-sum conflict in action. There are
countless ways to describe and contrast the two forms of control, and
illustrate them. l&p hal