idealized sense of self and true self

[Jason_Gosnell]

[From Jason Gosnell (2005.01.17.1600CST)]

Rick Marken (2004.01.17.0915)

I think this is a very important point. The inconsistent wants that produce
a conflict are equally important to the person who has these wants; these
wants presumably exist as the means of achieving other goals. So the
solution to a conflict cannot be to convince a person that one goal is more
legitimate than another. If the conflict is between being a good husband

and

diddling the secretary then the solution is not to convince the person that
one goal is better than the other. Both goals exist. This is also a

conflict

where a sequential strategy probably won't work as a solution. In this
case, you would probably have to get the person to go up a level and become
conscious of _why_ they want to be a ood husband and _why_ they want to
diddle the secretary. From that point of view, the person may be able to
figure out ways to want that are not in conflict but satisfy the reasons

for

wanting to be a good husband and a bad one.

Humorous and helpful. So, there are really many variations, infinitely many,
on a possible resolution of the conflict. You may have to make some new
internal policies--at whatever level: systems, principles, policies--in
order to ensure that these different needs are taken care of. So the overall
organization of your life, your day--week, etc. may need to be examined. In
some cases, values clarification work might be useful--what is your purpose?
related to being a husband etc.

I value these points.

Jason

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Marken [mailto:marken@MINDREADINGS.COM]
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 12:16 PM
To: CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: idealized sense of self and true self

[From Rick Marken (2004.01.17.0915)]

Jason Gosnell (2005.01.16.1940CST)--

Basically, a key point to remember is that when there is
conflict there are two systems..that are in conflict. It may
be the need for autonomy is in conflict with the need for
connection, or the need for security in conflict with the need
for connection. Going up a level allows this to be seen and
perhaps facilitates an integration or compromise between the
two systems to get both needs satisfied.

Yes. And I think the "compromise" almost always involves fully satisfying
both wants at different times. When there is conflict, you can't really
compromise in the sense of simultaneously giving each system only some of
what it wants; this leaves error in both systems, which means that it leaves
the conflict intact. Once a person recognizes that they have two goals that
are incompatible in the sense that both can't be achieved simultaneously --
that is, once the person understands the nature of the conflict that is
causing their neurotic behavior -- then the solution is usually pretty
obvious. For example the person who, like me, enjoys both solitude and
social interaction, can arrange for some quite evenings at home as well as
for some nice social evenings with friends.

At least I see that there are two systems serving
particular functions, so I can make some sense of the whole conflict. It

is

important to know this so that you don't treat the different players in

the

conflict, the systems, as trivial--they may be related to important
functions. At least they have developed for reasons to the state they

appear

in.

I think this is a very important point. The inconsistent wants that produce
a conflict are equally important to the person who has these wants; these
wants presumably exist as the means of achieving other goals. So the
solution to a conflict cannot be to convince a person that one goal is more
legitimate than another. If the conflict is between being a good husband and
diddling the secretary then the solution is not to convince the person that
one goal is better than the other. Both goals exist. This is also a conflict
where a sequential strategy probably won't work as a solution. In this
case, you would probably have to get the person to go up a level and become
conscious of _why_ they want to be a ood husband and _why_ they want to
diddle the secretary. From that point of view, the person may be able to
figure out ways to want that are not in conflict but satisfy the reasons for
wanting to be a good husband and a bad one.

Perhaps the specific level may not be critical because you may need to

allow

a scanning of the whole system of the various levels and use clues that

you

get through awareness?

I think the specific level is not important because we don't really know
_what_ the specific levels really are. The eleven levels Bill proposed --
and their relationship to each other -- are hypotheses with some
experiential and experimental confirmation. But whether a conflict is
expressed at what you would call the "program" or "principle" level is
really not important. What is important (from the point of view of the
person suffering from the conflict) is that what the conflict (what are the
conflicting wants) and what are the higher level reasons for those
conflicting wants.

Anyway, in order to change in an organization, the upper levels need to

bear

witness to any conflicts, assess them, and then develop new policies to
resolve the conflict or integrate perhaps whatever systems are in
conflict--relative to the company's purpose of course. Does this seem
basically right?

Yes, I think so.

Best

Rick

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

--------------------

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.
All electronic mail communications originating from or transmitted to
Bridgeway Center, Inc. are subject to monitoring. This message and the
information contained in it, which may consist of electronic data
attachments, are the confidential and proprietary communications of
Bridgeway Center, Inc. and are intended to be received only by the
individual or individuals to whom the message has been addressed If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, please take notice
that any use, copying, printing, forwarding or distribution of this message,
in any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in
error, please immediately notify the Bridgeway Center, Inc. Privacy Officer
at (850) 833-7540 and/or forward the message to hipaa@bridgeway.org and
delete or destroy all copies of this message.

[Bruce_Gregory6]

[From Bruce Gregory (2005.0117.1755)]

Jason Gosnell (2005.01.17.1600CST)

Humorous and helpful. So, there are really many variations, infinitely
many,
on a possible resolution of the conflict. You may have to make some new
internal policies--at whatever level: systems, principles, policies--in
order to ensure that these different needs are taken care of. So the
overall
organization of your life, your day--week, etc. may need to be
examined. In
some cases, values clarification work might be useful--what is your
purpose?
related to being a husband etc.

If you take HPCT seriously, and I think you should, you should also
take seriously the conclusion that if _any_ therapeutic approach,
including values clarification, is successful, it is likely to be
because it increases internal conflict thereby leading to
reorganization. This is a nonintuitive and potentially very important
prediction of HPCT.

The enemy of truth is not error. The enemy of truth is certainty.

[Jason_Gosnell]

From Jason Gosnell (2005.01.17.1740CST)]

Bruce Gregory (2005.0117.1755)

If you take HPCT seriously, and I think you should, you should also
take seriously the conclusion that if _any_ therapeutic approach,
including values clarification, is successful, it is likely to be
because it increases internal conflict thereby leading to
reorganization. This is a nonintuitive and potentially very important
prediction of HPCT.

Thanks for that point. I thought of that when I read your post. Recently I
have been studying Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT). The following is
a gross oversimplification, but makes some points. The basic overview of the
process is: 1. bring about creative hopelessness (includes getting clients
in touch with their suffering--error signals perhaps--and "defusing them
from literal cognitive evaluations of themselves, their experience,
etc.--this is another issue), 2. clarifying values, establishing goals and
actions to actualize those values or to move in that valued direction and 3.
establishing commitment to those values, goals, and actions and a
willingness to encounter difficulty-distress. I think this relates to a
willingness to go through the stress of re-organization. Reminds me loosely
of PCT in therapy perhaps. I think there are some differences though--I am
working on establishing those.

There may already be enough internal conflict to begin with in a client
coming for therapy, but to bring it more into focus, first, they establish
that the client is stuck--they allow the client to present their problem and
all of the solutions that they have tried. Then they try to establish very
clearly with the client that none of these solutions have worked--letting
the client do most of the work in this process. It seems that Ed Ford's RTP
is similar to this. Then they bring into clear focus the fact that there is
an impasse--the client is stuck. This state is referred to in ACT as
"creative hopelessness." The therapist qualities are a part of this though
so it isn't as terrible as it seems on paper--still though--major conflict.
This awareness in itself constitutes a kind of increase in conflict I think:
Wanting to press on, suffering, but being profoundly stuck and nothing has
worked, in fact I see I am digging deeper into the hole in some of my
struggle. It is more directive than client-centered therapy, but the same
process seems to come out of it.

At some point, prior to values clarification, they may do an exercise like
writing your epitaph or obituary--this creates some serious conflict as the
client becomes aware that the way they would like to live their life and the
way it is going are very different things--at least in some ways they are.
You have to be careful here as neurotic people often overlook some of their
strengths and don't notice some of their virtues already surfacing. Then
they proceed to values clarification in different life domains--"what do you
want your life to be about in the area of family relations?" for example.
There is a similar approach in Dick's EGO STAT book I think. The language he
uses may be a little different though. I plan on comparing these two
approaches. At least with clarifying values and what one really wants in
life they are similar. The PCT concept of levels may create most of the
difference between these approaches. Anyway, this seems to almost always
contrast with what one is actually doing and creates some conflcit in and of
itself. Then the goals and action plan follow from these values. I suppose
the values work is at the systems level for the most part.

One key point I think is that the therapist creates a space--he intends to
anyway--where this conflict can emerge and be dealt with under more
favorable conditions for resolution. Maybe people are more willing to allow
a conflict to really come to a head when a caring, empathic person is there
with them.

Jason Gosnell

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Gregory [mailto:bruce_gregory@SBCGLOBAL.NET]
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 5:56 PM
To: CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: idealized sense of self and true self

[From Bruce Gregory (2005.0117.1755)]

Jason Gosnell (2005.01.17.1600CST)

Humorous and helpful. So, there are really many variations, infinitely
many,
on a possible resolution of the conflict. You may have to make some new
internal policies--at whatever level: systems, principles, policies--in
order to ensure that these different needs are taken care of. So the
overall
organization of your life, your day--week, etc. may need to be
examined. In
some cases, values clarification work might be useful--what is your
purpose?
related to being a husband etc.

If you take HPCT seriously, and I think you should, you should also
take seriously the conclusion that if _any_ therapeutic approach,
including values clarification, is successful, it is likely to be
because it increases internal conflict thereby leading to
reorganization. This is a nonintuitive and potentially very important
prediction of HPCT.

The enemy of truth is not error. The enemy of truth is certainty.
All electronic mail communications originating from or transmitted to
Bridgeway Center, Inc. are subject to monitoring. This message and the
information contained in it, which may consist of electronic data
attachments, are the confidential and proprietary communications of
Bridgeway Center, Inc. and are intended to be received only by the
individual or individuals to whom the message has been addressed If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, please take notice
that any use, copying, printing, forwarding or distribution of this message,
in any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in
error, please immediately notify the Bridgeway Center, Inc. Privacy Officer
at (850) 833-7540 and/or forward the message to hipaa@bridgeway.org and
delete or destroy all copies of this message.

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2005.01.17.1600)]

Jason Gosnell (2005.01.17.1600CST)--

Humorous and helpful. So, there are really many variations, infinitely many,
on a possible resolution of the conflict.

Yes. But I think all solutions to conflict have the same ultimate end: a
change in what you want. Most conflicts come down to simultaneously wanting
things that can't occur at the same time. So you have to change from wanting
X and Y _now_ to wanting X and _then_ Y. Other conflicts require changing
what you want in order to achieve higher level goals. If, for example, you
could figure out _why_ you want to diddle the secretary (to feel young?,
powerful?, desirable?...) you might be able to find an alternative way to
achieve that goal that doesn't conflict with the good husband goal.

In some cases, values clarification work might be useful--what is your
purpose? related to being a husband etc.

Exactly! I think going up a level, though, is better thought of as goals
clarification rather than values clarification. You are just trying to get
at the higher level reason (goal) that leads you to have the goal of which
you are currently aware. That higher level goal may be a values goal (like
being kind to other people) but it may just be a simple goal, like wanting
to wear a particular outfit or wanting to feel a particular sensation. As a
clinician, you probably have a better idea of the kinds of things that
people want that tend to get them into conflict (I would imagine that values
are one of the prime sources of conflict, though -- note Freud's idea of the
superego). But the MOL doesn't make any presuppositions about what a
person's conflict producing goals are. I think it's the job of the
clinician, using techniques like MOL, to help a person learn what goals are
creating a conflict within themselves.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

--------------------

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2005.01.17.1610)]

Bruce Gregory (2005.0117.1755)

If you take HPCT seriously, and I think you should, you should also
take seriously the conclusion that if _any_ therapeutic approach,
including values clarification, is successful, it is likely to be
because it increases internal conflict thereby leading to
reorganization. This is a nonintuitive and potentially very important
prediction of HPCT.

I don't see how this is a prediction of HPCT. How do you increase the level
of internal conflict? How do you measure the level of internal conflict so
that you can tell whether it is increasing or decreasing? How does the
measure of the level of internal conflict relate to whether reorganization
occurs or not? In PCT, reorganization is occurring all the time; the _rate_
at which reorganizing events (such as random changes in an output function)
occur is assumed to be proportional to the size of the error in the control
system being reorganized. How do you get from that to the idea that
increases in internal conflict (whatever that is) _lead to_ reorganization?

I think your ability to derive potentially important predictions from HPCT
is limited by your non-quantitative approach to the model.

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

--------------------

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

[Bruce_Gregory6]

[From Bruce Gregory (2005.0117.1915)]

[Rick Marken (2005.01.17.1600)

But the MOL doesn't make any presuppositions about what a
person's conflict producing goals are. I think it's the job of the
clinician, using techniques like MOL, to help a person learn what
goals are
creating a conflict within themselves.

Once again, let's stick to the model. "Learning what goals are creating
a conflict within themselves," is more folk psychology. HPCT says
nothing about any effects of such learning. The proper HPCT explanation
involves increasing conflict to the point where reorganization occurs.
As the old joke goes, Jews don't want to get better, they just want to
know why they are miserable. Understanding is the booby prize. Only
reorganization produces change.

The enemy of truth is not error. The enemy of truth is certainty.

[Bruce_Gregory6]

[From Bruce Gregory (2005.0117.1925)]

Rick Marken (2005.01.17.1610)

Bruce Gregory (2005.0117.1755)

If you take HPCT seriously, and I think you should, you should also
take seriously the conclusion that if _any_ therapeutic approach,
including values clarification, is successful, it is likely to be
because it increases internal conflict thereby leading to
reorganization. This is a nonintuitive and potentially very important
prediction of HPCT.

I don't see how this is a prediction of HPCT. How do you increase the
level
of internal conflict?

By bringing it to attention. Haven't you noticed that denial often
accompanies conflict? Some people try to convince themselves that a
fling with the secretary is O.K. as long as "nobody is hurt."

How do you measure the level of internal conflict so
that you can tell whether it is increasing or decreasing?

You tell me how you know that MOL decreases conflict and i'll answer
your question.

How does the
measure of the level of internal conflict relate to whether
reorganization
occurs or not?

The measure doesn't determine anything. it is the conflict and loss of
control that leads to reorganization.

In PCT, reorganization is occurring all the time; the _rate_
at which reorganizing events (such as random changes in an output
function)
occur is assumed to be proportional to the size of the error in the
control
system being reorganized.

Exactly.

How do you get from that to the idea that
increases in internal conflict (whatever that is) _lead to_
reorganization?

I'm surprised that you don't know what an increase in internal conflict
is. Have you reread B:CP lately? Maybe you are getting a little rust.
increased conflict leads to increased error leads to increased
reorganization. Clear enough?

I think your ability to derive potentially important predictions from
HPCT
is limited by your non-quantitative approach to the model.

I'm sure you're right. Making any progress including consciousness in
the model? How about a quantitative model of MOL?

The enemy of truth is not error. The enemy of truth is certainty.

[Bruce_Gregory6]

[From Bruce Gregory (2005.0117.2003)]

Jason Gosnell (2005.01.17.1740CST)

Nice post.

The enemy of truth is not error. The enemy of truth is certainty.

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2005.01.18.0850)]

Bruce Gregory (2005.0117.1925)

Rick Marken (2005.01.17.1610)

How do you measure the level of internal conflict so
that you can tell whether it is increasing or decreasing?

You tell me how you know that MOL decreases conflict and i'll answer
your question.

MOL allows a person to eliminate a conflict by bringing the conflict to the
person's conscious attention. We know about this phenomenon by observation
rather than from derivation from a model (though the observation is at least
generally consistent with the architecture of the HPCT model).

We can observe the solution of conflict by "going up a level" when we solve
little everyday conflicts. For example, I was recently clearing the table
after a dinner party and had put the napkins (which we keep in the dining
room) on top of the plates (that were to go in the kitchen to be washed).
Suddenly, I found myself immobilized for a few seconds.

After a few moments of being stranded by the side of the table, however, I
went up a level (probably jogged up by noticing the ridiculousness of my
situation) and became conscious of the fact that I was trying to achieve two
incompatible goals (going to the kitchen and going to the dining room hutch)
simultaneously. The solution to the conflict was then obvious: take the
napkins off the plates and put the plates and napkins away in separate
trips.

Ordinarily, the two goals -- putting away the napkins and putting away the
plates -- are not in conflict. I had basically created the conflict for
myself by putting the napkins on the plates, creating constraints in the
environment that made the achievement on one goal incompatible with the
achievement of the other. I believe that people with serious, long term
conflict -- the kind that bring them into therapy -- have goals that are
always in conflict because environmental constraints -- reality -- making it
impossible to people to achieve those goals, at least as currently
configured in their hierarchy.

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

--------------------

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

[Bruce_Gregory6]

[from Bruce Gregory (2005.0118.1230)]

Rick Marken (2005.01.18.0850)

Bruce Gregory (2005.0117.1925)

Rick Marken (2005.01.17.1610)

How do you measure the level of internal conflict so
that you can tell whether it is increasing or decreasing?

You tell me how you know that MOL decreases conflict and i'll answer
your question.

MOL allows a person to eliminate a conflict by bringing the conflict
to the
person's conscious attention. We know about this phenomenon by
observation
rather than from derivation from a model (though the observation is at
least
generally consistent with the architecture of the HPCT model).

I'm sorry, but this is just folk psychology. It has nothing to do with
a hierarchy of control systems. In fact, it has nothing to do with any
biological model of behavior.

We can observe the solution of conflict by "going up a level" when we
solve
little everyday conflicts. For example, I was recently clearing the
table
after a dinner party and had put the napkins (which we keep in the
dining
room) on top of the plates (that were to go in the kitchen to be
washed).
Suddenly, I found myself immobilized for a few seconds.

After a few moments of being stranded by the side of the table,
however, I
went up a level (probably jogged up by noticing the ridiculousness of
my
situation) and became conscious of the fact that I was trying to
achieve two
incompatible goals (going to the kitchen and going to the dining room
hutch)
simultaneously. The solution to the conflict was then obvious: take
the
napkins off the plates and put the plates and napkins away in separate
trips.

"Going up a level" means thinking different thoughts as far as I can
tell. What you happen to be thinking has nothing to do with the
operation of a hierarchy of control systems. Either the hierarchy is
controlling certain perceptions or it is not. I think a strong case can
be made that what we are thinking is a rationalization of what we are
doing. We learn to "explain" our behaviors as children, but there is
plenty of evidence that these explanations are made up after the fact.

Ordinarily, the two goals -- putting away the napkins and putting away
the
plates -- are not in conflict. I had basically created the conflict
for
myself by putting the napkins on the plates, creating constraints in
the
environment that made the achievement on one goal incompatible with the
achievement of the other. I believe that people with serious, long term
conflict -- the kind that bring them into therapy -- have goals that
are
always in conflict because environmental constraints -- reality --
making it
impossible to people to achieve those goals, at least as currently
configured in their hierarchy.

You may well be right, but the answer is reorganization, not thinking
new thoughts. I suspect that when we have the data we will see that the
new thoughts _follow_ reorganization rather than leading to
reorganization.

The enemy of truth is not error. The enemy of truth is certainty.

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2005.01.18.0945]

Bruce Gregory (2005.0118.1230)]

Rick Marken (2005.01.17.1610)

How do you measure the level of internal conflict so
that you can tell whether it is increasing or decreasing?

Bruce Gregory (2005.0117.1925)

You tell me how you know that MOL decreases conflict and i'll answer
your question.

MOL allows a person to eliminate a conflict by...

It's your turn to answer my question: how do you measure the level of
internal conflict so that you can tell whether it is increasing or
decreasing?

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

--------------------

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

[Bruce_Gregory6]

[From Bruce Gregory (2005.0118.1310)]

Rick Marken (2005.01.18.0945

It's your turn to answer my question: how do you measure the level of
internal conflict so that you can tell whether it is increasing or
decreasing?

Let's use the RTP example. We know that the student engages in
disruptive behavior. Once the student is removed from the classroom,
does he make efforts to be reinstated? Is he willing to develop a plan
that will allow him to be reinstated? These suggest the existence of
conflicting goals ( 1.get back to the classroom and stay there; 2.
continue to disrupt). We might therefore infer that internal conflict
is increasing. If, when the student returns to the classroom, he no
longer disrupts and the disruptive behavior does not return, we can
infer that reorganization has occurred.

For young children we might explore "fidgeting" as a measure of
conflict. I would think this would be relatively simple to measure
quantitatively.

The enemy of truth is not error. The enemy of truth is certainty.

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2005.01.18.1215)]

Bruce Gregory (2005.0118.1310)]

Rick Marken (2005.01.18.0945

It's your turn to answer my question: how do you measure the level of
internal conflict so that you can tell whether it is increasing or
decreasing?

Let's use the RTP example.

I think we just have very different notions of what a conflict is and what
measuring the level of conflict might mean.

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

--------------------

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

[Bruce_Gregory6]

[From Bruce Gregory (2005.0118.1545)]

Rick Marken (2005.01.18.1215)

I think we just have very different notions of what a conflict is and
what
measuring the level of conflict might mean.

That's quite possible. My notion of conflict is taken directly from
B:CP: "A person is said to be "in conflict" when he wants two
incompatible goals to be realize at once." (p. 253). In the RTP example
I gave the student wants to be in the classroom and to be engaging in
disruptive behavior. The teacher has arranged it so that these two
goals are incompatible.

What is your definition?

The enemy of truth is not error. The enemy of truth is certainty.

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2005.01.18.1320)]

Bruce Gregory (2005.0118.1545)

Rick Marken (2005.01.18.1215)

I think we just have very different notions of what a conflict is and
what measuring the level of conflict might mean.

That's quite possible. My notion of conflict is taken directly from
B:CP: "A person is said to be "in conflict" when he wants two
incompatible goals to be realize at once." (p. 253). In the RTP example
I gave the student wants to be in the classroom and to be engaging in
disruptive behavior. The teacher has arranged it so that these two
goals are incompatible.

You say you are assuming that a kid has this conflict. But in the example
you posted in your earlier email you implied there was some question about
whether there _was_ a conflict when you said:

Once the student is removed from the classroom, does he make efforts
to be reinstated?

If you are assuming that the kid wants to be in the class and disrupt it too
then this test is irrelevant . The kid will fight to get back into class if
that's what he wants.

You then say:

These suggest the existence of conflicting goals ( 1.get back to
the classroom and stay there; 2. continue to disrupt). We might
therefore infer that internal conflict is increasing.

Which I don't understand at all. You are assuming a conflict (that the kid
wants to be in the classroom and disrupt) and then, based on this
assumption, inferring that the conflict is increasing? What is increasing?
On what basis do you infer that it (whatever it is) is increasing?

I think there are ways to measure the level of a conflict. Here's one
approach, described in an old post of mine from back in 1993 -- on January
18th even!!. Maybe it's something about the time of year. I've included Bill
Powers' reply. Thanks for reminding me of this. Maybe someone will take this
up from where we left of.

···

---
Rick Marken (930118.2000)

At the risk of using the net for something other than argument, I
would like to report the current status of my HyperCard based
experiments on conflict. Recall that the subject is asked to keep
a cursor at a target position on the computer screen. The
horizontal (x) and vertical (y) position of the cursor is determined
at each instant by the following equations:

x = a1Hx + b1Hy + dx
y = a2Hx + b2Hy + dy

where Hx and Hy are the time varying horizontal and vertical positions
of the handle (mouse in this case), dx and dy are time varying
disturbances and a1,b1,a2 and b2 are constants. The measure of
conflict in this tracking task is the determinant of the two equations
above -- D = a1*b2 - a2*b1. There is NO conflict when a2 = b1 = 0 so
that D = a1*b2. There is complete conflict when a1 = b2 = a2 = b1
so that D = 0. In these experiments I always kept a1 + a2 = b1 + b2 = K
(I happened to select a K = 2); this keeps the environmental "gain"
from mouse movement to cursor movement constant across conflict (D)
conditions -- and equal in both the x and y dimension.

I used a low pass filtered random disturbance -- the same disturbance at
each level of conflict -- with a cutoff frequency of about .05 Hz (3
cycles/minute). A trial lasted about 50 seconds. I ran a subject and
a control model in each conflict condition. The control model was a
pure integrator, independently controlling the x and y position of the
cursor. The model parameter (integration factor) was selected
for best fit with subject mouse movements when there was no conflict --
that is,when

x = 2Hx
y = 2Hy

The model, with the integration factor fixed, was then used to predict
the subject's actions in different conflict conditions. I measured the
deviation of model mouse movements from subject mouse movements in each
condition (as RMS deviation of model from subject values). I also measured
the subject's and the model's ability to control the cursor in each conflict
condition. Here are the results:

Level of Level of Control (RMS Model Fit
Conflict deviation of cursor from target) (RMS error)
  D Subject Model

4.0 (no conflict) 0.99 1.2 .64
2.0 1.10 5.1 1.19
1.6 0.98 7.3 1.90
1.2 1.30 11.5 3.60
1.0 1.50 15.2 5.20
  .8 2.20 20.1 7.40
  .72 1.80 23.5 8.25

As the level of conflict increases, the subject's ability to control
the cursor get's only moderately worse -- the rms error goes from
about .99 (average of about 1 pixel from the target) to about 2
pixels average deviation. The model, however, which matches the
subject's mouse movements to within 1 pixel (.64) when there is
no conflict (correlation between subject and model is .997+), gets
precipitously worse at controlling as the conflict increases; the
subject does considerably better than the model.

What seems to be going on here (based on looking at the traces
of model and subject actions) is that the gain of the subject's control
system seems to instantly adapt to the conflict situation. The subject
is better at dealing with conflict than the simple control model; so
the simple control model does not seem to work in this situation --
or does it? There are still some possibilities; maybe the model needs
more than pure integration -- what?? I want to exhaust the possibilities
before adding a new level or something. Maybe the integration factor
depends on the size of the error to some extent?

Any suggestions regarding futher experimentation or model changes
would be greatly appreciated.

[From Bill Powers (930119.1615)]

Rick Marken (930118.2000)

The conflict experiment is great. It may lead to some unexpected
territory:

The coefficients in

x = a1Hx + b1Hy + dx
y = a2Hx + b2Hy + dy

look like a rotation matrix. If

   a1 = cos(t)
   b1 = -sin(t)
   a2 = sin(t)
   b2 = cos(t)

the determinant will be 1. But this is just a rotation of the
cursor x-y axes relative to the handle x-y axes. If you alter the
coefficients arbitrarily, some of the alteration will amount to a
rotation of the cursor coordinates relative to the handle
coordinates, and some will amount to changing the angle between
the transformed axes. If you use the rotation matrix, the angle
between the axes will remain 90 degrees.

The model always perceives in the same x-y coordinates. However,
the human being may be able to rotate the perceptual space. This
would cause a difference between the model's behavior and the
person's; the loop gain for the model would fall off on both axes
while that for the person would not, when a significant rotation
angle occurred.

A quick way to check this would be to compute the four
coefficients by the rotation matrix above, using the angle t as
the parameter. This might create difficulties, but it will not
create conflict because the axes will remain orthogonal. If the
human being shows the same parameters for the rotated
transformation (after practice), it's pretty clear that there is
a rotation of axes taking place inside the person somewhere in
the loop. The model, which does not rotate axes, would show a
falloff in precision with an increase in angle t, while the
person would not.

This leads in two directions. First, you might try leaving one
axis alone and just varying the rotation of the other axis. You
could say a1 = 1, b1 = 0; a2 = 1*tan(theta), b2 = 1. This would
rotate just one axis, leaving the other the same. Presumably, if
the person is rotating the visual field or the output matrix, the
whole field would be rotated, not just one axis in it. So under
those conditions the person might not do any perceptual rotation
at all. If that's true, the model and the person should show the
same falloff in control as the angle between the axes changes. If
the person does do some rotation, the model will behave worse
than the person but not as much worse as in the pure rotation
where the axes are kept orthogonal.

Second, you might try adding a control system that acts by
altering the coefficients in a perceptual rotation matrix. I
don't know how this rotation would be related to error, but
perhaps it could be based on the difference or ratio of errors in
the two control systems. This is definitely a step away from our
simple canonical model. A way to proceed would be to set up the
two-system model as it is, and look at how it behaves as the axes
are rotated and kept orthogonal. The relationship between the
error signals and the perceptual signals might give a hint about
the way to organize another control system that would rotate the
axes.

I have an experiment that could be used to test whatever model
you come up with. You may have seen it; I don't remember. In this
experiment, a circle is drawn on the screen, and a dot moves at a
regular speed around the circle. A disturbance and the control
handle act on the moving spot in the RADIAL direction. This is a
bit of a mind-twister, because as the spot goes around the
circle, the relationship of the radial spot movements to the
handle movements is continually rotating. It sounds perfectly
simple -- if the spot is too far out, move the handle left, and
if it's too far in, move the handle right.

Actually doing it, however, makes you want to tilt your head 360
degrees -- "in" and "out" don't seem to be the natural perceptual
directions.

If there is a perceptual rotation control system, it would be
needed in a model of this experiment, I think. If a pure radius-
controller works, however, then the rotation model isn't needed.
All we can do is try it and see.

I think it's important to compute the model's prediction error
for both axes.

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

--------------------

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

[_Erling_Jorgensen]

[From Erling Jorgensen (2005.01.18 1430 EST)]

I'm responding to several recent themes and posts, but
this quote offers a useful point of entry --

Bruce Gregory (2005.0117.1915)

Once again, let's stick to the model. "Learning what
goals are creating a conflict within themselves," is
more folk psychology. HPCT says nothing about any
effects of such learning. The proper HPCT explanation
involves increasing conflict to the point where
reorganization occurs.

I believe the model has more than one tool for eliminating
(or reducing) conflict. One is reorganization, as you
have been pointing out. But I think the other one is to
simply (!) change the reference for one or the other side
of the conflict. That is, to want something else, other
than one of the intractible wants that is perpetuating the
conflict.

To bring about such a change of references requires a
vantage point from which that previous want is allowed
to change, as the means of stabilizing a higher level
perception to its standard of reference. Here is where
the Method of Levels comes in, I believe.

Experientially -- although, you are right, we do not yet
have a working model of it -- it appears as though
awareness has a role to play in this, or at least can be
used as a marker for where the effective action is taking
place. (I like your steady cautions about not introducing
an additional agent here, called "consciousness.")

Let me stick with the "effective action" notion here --
(although I'm sure this next sentence is going to get
me into trouble...) The effective action seems to take
place at whatever level is operating as the "temporary
ad hoc top" of the perceptual hierarchy. In saying
this, I am not denying that there are always higher
levels in play -- "system concepts" or whatever, perhaps
including one we might want to call a "concept of Self."

But higher levels, by definition, are always operating
at a slower rate of change (that is, change of reference
signal) relative to levels below them. And at the levels
of system concepts and, likely, principles, that can mean
references remaining steady for quite long periods of
time.

I believe what happens in situations of internal conflict
is that even lower levels start operating with a similar
steadiness, except that a better term for it might be
that of "rigidity." Steadiness in itself is not a bad
thing; (it seems to be the point of negative feedback
control, after all!) But if the current reference
of a given control loop is in intractible conflict with
another control loop that is also trying to bring about
its reference standard, then that is a regidity in the
system, likely leading to a good deal of wasted effort.

This probably is not a good way of putting it, but it is
as if that conflicted level is saying 'I am the effective
top of the hierarchy, and I don't have to change.' (I
know how much you love anthropomorphisms...)

I don't think such a rigidity is quite as damaging as a
positive feedback "bomb in the hierarchy." With positive
feedback, I believe the spreading error percolates up.
Whereas with the "rigidity in the hierarchy," I believe
the spreading error of wasted effort percolates down,
and upper levels simply have to work around the rigidity
in keeping their perceptions on track.

But essentially, what is needed in such a situation of
rigidity is the flexibility to change. And somehow (!)
-- here's the hand-waving that may or may not be pointing
to something important -- the Method of Levels seems to
facilitate such flexibility.

It is as if the MOL bumps the level of conflict to a
subordinate postion again, where reference levels are
supposed to _change as needed_ to achieve higher level
goals. And I think awareness can at least be used as
a marker, for where the effective action is taking place
-- at that new "temporary ad hoc top" of the hierarchy.

If a change of reference signal is adequate, at the lower
previously-conflicted level, then the higher level brings
it about. If such a solution is not available, for
whatever reason, then I believe reorganization would
indeed come into play. (I was going to say,
"reorganization would start," but since it was only
delayed by whatever effective control was currently
operative, it would be more accurate to say it would
"resume.")

I do not believe awareness is exactly an agent in all
of this. Like you, I want models without extra wizards
behind the curtain. But my therapy experience suggests
that awareness may at least be an "occasion" for the
needed change. And I don't know what to do with that
piece of data.

And then there is the thorny notion that awareness
or consciousness presumably conferred some kind of
evolutionary advantage -- else, why would it have
arisen and persisted in the first place? And I don't
know how to incorporate that data point either.

The closest I've come was some relections back in
November 2003, about modeling the Method of Levels.
It should be in the CSGNet Archives -- check:
"Modeling concrete examples 2", from Erling Jorgensen
16 Nov 2003 12:25:31.

A relevant quote from that post is as follows:

"Awareness may be the lens (or the subjective experience
of the lens), which focuses the efforts of reorganization.
Awareness would be the meta-level monitoring system,
serving not to intervene, but simply to point. Any
intervening would be via the chancey system of
reorganization, with full 'veto power' left with the
regular hierarchy as to which reorganizations actually
made things better (and thus were allowed to stick
around)."

In this regard, some of my ideas parallel Mark Lazarre's,
with some kind of error-monitoring system, perhaps
operating with cumulative error as an "intrinsic
variable" in its own right. In this sense, sustained
error -- whether arising from intractible internal
conflict, or from disturbances that could not be
counteracted -- would indeed be an engine for reinitiating
reorganization. (This is not to deny Martin Taylor's
recent point that the loop to actual reorganization of
the hierarchy's functions or parameters is probably
closed via the side effects of perceptual control through
the intrinsic system itself.)

I have a sense of converging notions in many of the
recent posts, which is nice to see. Now the question
is, what do the models of these components look like?

Thanks for your prods in these directions.

All the best,
Erling

NOTICE: This e-mail communication (including any attachments) is CONFIDENTIAL and the materials contained herein are PRIVILEGED and intended only for disclosure to or use by the person(s) listed above. If you are neither the intended recipient(s), nor a person responsible for the delivery of this communication to the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by using the "reply" feature or by calling me at the number listed above, and then immediately delete this message and all attachments from your computer. Thank you.
<<<<RCMH>>>>

[Bruce_Gregory6]

[From Bruce Gregory 92005.0118.1650)]

Rick Marken (2005.01.18.1320)

If you are assuming that the kid wants to be in the class and disrupt
it too
then this test is irrelevant . The kid will fight to get back into
class if
that's what he wants.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm proposing a test.

You then say:

These suggest the existence of conflicting goals ( 1.get back to
the classroom and stay there; 2. continue to disrupt). We might
therefore infer that internal conflict is increasing.

Which I don't understand at all. You are assuming a conflict (that the
kid
wants to be in the classroom and disrupt) and then, based on this
assumption, inferring that the conflict is increasing? What is
increasing?
On what basis do you infer that it (whatever it is) is increasing?

Initially the student was in the classroom disrupting. No "whatever."
One system wants to be back in the classroom. The other system wants to
disrupt. Now "whatever". "Whatever" increased. What would you call
"whatever"?

The enemy of truth is not error. The enemy of truth is certainty.

[Bruce_Gregory6]

[Bruce gregory (2005.0118.1720)]

Rick Marken (2005.01.18.1320)]

Perhaps this will clarify my point. Whether or not we want to increase
conflict, we want to increase error. In the RPT example, we increase
error by removing the student from the classroom. In order to remain in
the classroom, the system must reorganize in a way that eliminates the
goal of disrupting. Will you buy this?

The enemy of truth is not error. The enemy of truth is certainty.

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2005.01.18.1430)]

Bruce Gregory 92005.0118.1650)--

Initially the student was in the classroom disrupting. No "whatever."
One system wants to be back in the classroom. The other system wants to
disrupt. Now "whatever". "Whatever" increased. What would you call
"whatever"?

I really haven't got the slightest idea what you're talking about.
Apparently whatever "whatever" is, it doesn't exist when the student is
disrupting. So I guess maybe "whatever" should be called "not disrupting".
Is that what "whatever" is? So the more "not disrupting" there is, the more
conflict there is?

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

--------------------

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2005.01.18.1450)]

Bruce gregory (2005.0118.1720)]

Rick Marken (2005.01.18.1320)]

Perhaps this will clarify my point. Whether or not we want to increase
conflict, we want to increase error.

We do?

In the RPT example, we increase
error by removing the student from the classroom.

That's true only if the student wants to be in class, of course. As I recall
out of class.

In order to remain in
the classroom, the system must reorganize in a way that eliminates the
goal of disrupting. Will you buy this?

Yes.

I think I get what you're saying: error drives reorganization. Which is
true.

If a kid who wants to disrupt and be in class can accomplish both those
goals simultaneously then there is no error and no reorganization. But most
teachers create what is basically a conflict for kids who want to both stay
in class and disrupt; they throw the kids out of class when they disrupt,
making it impossible for them to disrupt and be in class at the same time.
Presumably, this error will increase in the rate of reorganization, which
can be the random kind or the up a level revelation kind. Whatever, the kid
will end up solving this conflict by "wanting" in a new way: either by
achieving his goals sequentially (going to class and disrupting somewhere
else), or by revising his goals (stop attending class or stop disrupting) or
whatever.

Is this it?

···

from my days in K-12 the kids who disrupted were the ones who wanted to be

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

--------------------

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.