HPCT Conflict

From [ Marc Abrams (2003.03.13.1304) ]

Some observations I would like to toss out for discussion and/or comment. I
am using this forum as a sounding board for my thinking.

The first type of conflict, if I am correct in interpreting it this way
:slight_smile: ( never a given :-)) has to do with differing reference conditions with
regard to a commonly agreed upon higher level goal. Let's use the
possibility of an up coming war with Iraq as an example. :slight_smile: ( Down Rick
:-)) I am going to use a fictional example that may or may not have
anything to do with reality ( my disclaimer :-)) This type of conflict
would mean that people/person who have differing opinions on the war ( i.e.
either for it ,against it,or undecided ) _might_ have a higher level
reference condition for Peace. With different perceptions for controlling
for it. ( i.e. war vs inspection ). In trying to resolve this conflict this
becomes problematic. If you make this assumption, certain considerations
must be made; First it's a gross simplification. With many potential
intermediate variables and potential errors possible. All of these
intermediate levels create separate and hence different, reference
conditions for the lower levels. Creating level upon level of differing
reference conditions, behavior, and perceptions. Throw in
Imagination/Memory and you can have one complex problem to solve. But then
again is anything ever "solved"?, or do we simply manage our problems and
conflicts on an ongoing basis.

And _all_ of this can be inside of _One_ individual. What a potential mess
:-). This can become really problematic between 2 or more people because we
effect others by our behavior through the environment, and our behavior is
only _one_ of the inputs to our input function and perceptions as well as
it is to others. Other people don't have the benefit of our
imagination/memory :-). Lower level inputs and other people's behavior
through the environmental with disturbances provide input to the input
function, and our perceptions.

Some things I am going to try and explore through research.

Marc

[From Rick Marken (2003.03.13.1410)]

Marc Abrams (2003.03.13.1304)--

The first type of conflict, if I am correct in interpreting it this way
:slight_smile: ( never a given :-)) has to do with differing reference conditions with
regard to a commonly agreed upon higher level goal.

In PCT, conflict occurs when two or more control systems are acting to keep the
_same_ perceptual variable in different reference (goal) states. So conflict does
have to do with differing reference conditions. But the rest of your sentence
("with regard to a commonly agreed upon higher level goal") makes no sense to me.
All you have to say is "conflict occurs when different control systems have
differing references for the _same_ perception". Very simple.

Let's use the
possibility of an up coming war with Iraq as an example. :slight_smile: ( Down Rick
:-)) I am going to use a fictional example that may or may not have
anything to do with reality ( my disclaimer :-)) This type of conflict
would mean that people/person who have differing opinions on the war ( i.e.
either for it ,against it,or undecided ) _might_ have a higher level
reference condition for Peace.

I don't see what this has to do with the conflict in Iraq. When you analyze a
conflict, I think the first step should be to try to identify the perceptual
_variable_ that is in contention: that the parties to the conflict want in
different states. It's pretty obvious what that is in Iraq: it's the perception
of the person leading Iraq. Some people (including Saddam himself) want Saddam
leading Iraq. Others (the US government et al) want someone else leading Iraq.
This perception (of who is leading Iraq) can only be in one state or another;
these perceptions of who is leading Iraq are mutually exclusive. So Saddam and
friends can't get the perception they want while the US government and its friends
get the perception they want. The US et al are prepared to forcibly evict Saddam
from Iraq in order to get the perception they want. Saddam et al are prepared to
forcibly prevent the US from doing this in order to get the perception they want.

Conflict is really very simple. It's people with different references (goals) for
the same perception acting, with as much force as necessary (or as much force as
they can produce), to get that perception to those different reference states.
This is what is happening in Israel and all other apparently complex conflicts. A
single perception is under contention. The perception under contention in Israel
is "who lives on the land". The Israeli's want that perception in the state
"Jews"; the Palestinians want that perception in the state "Arabs". Whenever there
is a conflict -- people fighting of threatening to fight each other -- its because
the people want the same perception in two different, and mutually exclusive,
states.

What is usually more complex are the reasons why people are setting these
conflicting references for the same perception. That's when you start getting
into justifications for the conflict: the reasons why the perception _should_ be
in one state rather than another. For example, the US et al want the perception
of the person leading Iraq to not be Saddam because he's a jerk and a possessor of
weapons of mass destruction and a threat to his neighbors. Saddam and others want
the perception of the person leading Iraq to be Saddam because he hasn't attacked
anyone, preemptive strikes set a bad example and it may create instability in the
region.

The goodness or badness of these justifications, however, have nothing to do with
the fact that there _is_ a conflict. And the conflict can't be solved based on
the merits of people's justifications for wanting the different states of the
perception under contention. It can only be solved by one side destroying the
other, by negotiation (both sides live with some error) or by going up a level and
finding some better way to spend one's time (Saddam could decide to leave and live
in Monaco or Bush could step aside and let a competent person run the country).

Best regards

Rick

路路路

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Senior Behavioral Scientist
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

[From Rick Marken (2003.03.14.1200)]

Marc Abrams asked me to draw a three level control model of myself with
respect to Saddam, specifying perceptual
variables and references. So here it goes:

Level 3 Reference : World Peace (W')
聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽Perception: State of the World, (including Saddam) (W)

Level 2 Reference: Criticize Aggressors (based on W'-W, among others) (C')
聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽Perception:Level of Criticism of aggresion (C')

Level 1 Reference : Sign Petition (based on C'-C, among others) (P')
聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽Perception:State of Petition(P)

Level 0 Output: Muscle contraction (based on P'-P, among others)
聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽Perception:Pressure on fingertip

Of course, the higher level peceptions are probably maintained by varying the
references of several lower level perceptions. So my perception of my level
of criticism of aggressors is maintained not just by signing petitions but by
writing letters to the editor and kvetching on CSGNet, etc. The perceptions
controlled at each level were not selected to correspond to any of the HPCT
levels. But the state of the world is probably a system level perception,
level of criticism may be a relationship perception and the state of the
petition could be a configuration percepion.

I hope this helps.

Best

Rick

路路路

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Senior Behavioral Scientist
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

[ Marc Abrams (2003.03.14.1622) ]

路路路

At 02:09 PM 3/14/2003 -0600, you wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2003.03.14.1200)]

I hope this helps.

Yes. Thank you.

Marc