Knowing what you want

CSGnet Archive CSG1995
1

[From Rick Marken (950223.1200)]

Ed Ford (950223.2140MST)

Often times, when children are in confilct, saying "they don't know what
they want" really means they don't want to decide.

I agree that when people are in conflict they don't know the wants that are
creating the conflict. But I wonder whether it is really accurate to say that
people in conflict "don't WANT to decide"? Isn't the problem of conflict that
people CAN'T decide, whether they want to or not? When a person is in a
conflict, there really is NO WAY to decide what to do because whatever is
done leads to error. A child might WANT to decide between "staying in class"
and "going out into the streets" but either choice produces error; if the
child decides to "stay in class" there will be error in the system that wants
to perceive "going out in the streets"; if the child decides to "go out in
the streets" there will be error in the system that wants to perceive
"staying in class". When a person can decide to do one thing instead of
another then there is no conflict -- at least, there's not if doing the thing
decided on doesn't lead one to have the inclination to stop doing it.

But in any case, I'll just ask them if, for example, they want to stay in
the classroom and obey the rules or go to the social skills room (which are
their obvious wants).

Are you saying that you run into kids who are in conflict because they "want
to stay in the classroom and obey the rules" and also want to "go to the
social skills room"? This seems unlikely; maybe I am not understanding
what you mean here. Also, how do you know when you are dealing with kids who
are in conflict and how do you determine the nature of the conflict? And,
finally, how does asking a child if "they want to stay in the classroom and
obey the rules or go to the social skills room" help the child? This could be
very useful information about the practical application of PCT.

No matter if it's at program level (choices), principles level (standards,
rules, criteria) or systems concepts level (values, beliefs), it [knowing
the three top levels] helps to articulate what you perceive as the possible
options or possibilities to those who struggle to deal with their own
internal world of conflicts.

Is the "you" you are talking about here the patient or the therapist? I think
you must mean the "patient" since the therapist is not really in a position
to "articulate...the possible options or possibilities" for solving another
person's conflict. Is that right?

I'm also not clear about why knowing the top three levels of the hierarchy (I
presume you mean the types of perceptions controlled by systems at the top
three levels) helps in resolving conflict. Could you elaborate a bit?

Thanks

Rick

2

[From Rick Marken (950226.2000)

Ed Ford (950226.morningMST)

When a child is disrupting, there is a lack of harmony or conflict
within her system.

It is not obvious to me that a disruptive child necessarily has a conflict
"within her system". I can imagine a child disrupting because it is her goal
to disrupt and I can also imagine how achievement of this goal would not
conflict with any of her other goals. Suppose, for example, that the child
is "pro-life" and the teacher has been passing out "pro-choice" literature
everyday for the last two weeks. Maybe the kid feels that such literature
should not be passed out in class and she acts to prevent its distribution.
The kid is disrupting the class; but there is no conflict within the kid's
system, is there? Indeed, it may be that conflict would result if she did
NOT disrupt the class.

Often...people make choices, especially in the heat of the moment,
without reflecting on the "down-the-road" consequences, especially as
far as their systems concepts level (values, beliefs) are concerned.

But our pro-life student has chosen to disrupt the class because doing
so is consistent with her values and beliefs; the "down-the-road"
consequences of NOT disrupting the class are what she is avoiding.
Now what? Maybe you would suggest something along the lines of
what Bill Powers (950226.0730 MST) suggests:

If I were teaching responsibility to older children, I would follow most
of Ed Ford's method, but I would go beyond it. At some point I would
explain to children what rules are, and who makes them, and why.
At some point I would explain to children what rules are, and who
makes them, and why. I would explain not only why it is good to seek
agreement and cooperation with others, but why it is even better to
figure out your own ways of living with others. I would ask children
of Democrats to imagine what it would be like if they had been raised
by Republicans, or Nazis, or hippies, or athiests, and of course all the
other combinations. I would ask them if the things they believed in
were true ONLY because they had been raised to believe them, or
whether they could find some reason to believe them -- or something
else -- that didn't depend on how they were raised. I would give them
problems, like supposing they had been raised in some other society
they know about, like North Korea, and imagining what they would
think of "right" and "wrong" as a result. In short, I would introduce
them to the study of ethics, which goes well beyond accidents of
upbringing.

Boy, would I love to have my kids take THAT class! Oh, actually, I did
have them take it. It was held at our house. Unfortunately, one kid seems
to have become a conservative Republican but we figure we did the right
thing anyway;-)

Best

Rick