More on Conflict

CSGnet Archive CSG2018
1

Fred Nickols (2018.11.02.1057 ET)

A couple more points on conflict that I would like to check with folks who are interested enough to respond.

I use the term “presenting conflict” to refer to what, at first glance, the conflict appears to be about. For example, I get up and turn the thermostat up a couple of degrees. My wife gets up and turns it back down. The “presenting conflict” in this case is the thermostat setting.

I am of the view that the variable at the heart of the “presenting conflict” is not what the conflict is really about. It’s about something at a higher level. For me, it might be a desire to feel warmer. For my wife it might be about not wanting to feel any warmer or perhaps not wanting to run up the heating bill. In any case, our conflict isn’t about the thermostat setting itself.

Do those two points make sense in terms of HPCT and MOL?

···

Regards,

Fred Nickols

Managing Partner

Distance Consulting LLC

“Assistance at A Distance”

2

[Martin Taylor 2018.11.02.11.57]

Fred Nickols (2018.11.02.1057 ET)

A couple more points on conflict that I would like to check with folks who are interested enough to respond.

I use the term "presenting conflict" to refer to what, at first glance, the conflict appears to be about. For example, I get up and turn the thermostat up a couple of degrees. My wife gets up and turns it back down. The "presenting conflict" in this case is the thermostat setting.

I am of the view that the variable at the heart of the "presenting conflict" is not what the conflict is really about. It's about something at a higher level. For me, it might be a desire to feel warmer. For my wife it might be about not wanting to feel any warmer or perhaps not wanting to run up the heating bill. In any case, our conflict isn't about the thermostat setting itself.

Do those two points make sense in terms of HPCT and MOL?

I think so, at least in the "I am of the view..." sentence, but I think there's a bit more to it. Both of you have other means to exist in the temperatures you want, if that were the only issue. Either of you might want to move to a different room. The one who wants it warmer might put on a sweater (the solution in our house, where we try to reduce heating bills by keeping the house a degree or two cooler than would be most comfortable), The one who want to feel cooler might change to summer clothing.

The problem is that any of these solutions might involve conflict within the individual. If they didn't, either or both of you might have acted without thinking about it. Rather than turning up the thermostat, you might have gone to get a sweater. That you didn't suggests that turning up the thermostat had another purpose that would not have been served by getting a sweater. Moving to another room might conflict with controlling for being in each other's company, changing to summer clothes might conflict with controlling for being prepared to go outside, and so forth.

The MoL approach seeks an internal resolution to an internal conflict. The solution to an interpersonal conflict may be similar in principle, but the practice requires recognition of the possibility of setting up an internal conflict that would have then to be resolved. When an individual recognizes an internal conflict with a solution that goes up a level, I would assume that there would be several ways "up a level" might be accomplished, but those that would lead to further internal conflict have a chance to be detected and dismissed, perhaps unconsciously. Never having tried MoL as therapist or client, I'm really only guessing, but that's the way it looks from here.

From a purely theoretical point of view, tolerance comes into this. If you can learn to tolerate being a little colder (and thereby reduce error in your own control for lower heating bills), you would not experience error when your wife turns the thermostat down. Widening tolerance zones eliminates many conflict possibilities and allows many more different perceptions to be simultaneously controlled.

Martin

3

Thanks, Martin.

···

Fred Nickols
Distance Consulting LLC
“Assistance at A Distance�
www.nickols.us

4

[Rick Marken 2018-11-02_17:29:43]

Fred Nickols (2018.11.02.1057 ET)

A couple more points on conflict that I would like to check with folks who are interested enough to respond.

I use the term “presenting conflict” to refer to what, at first glance, the conflict appears to be about. For example, I get up and turn the thermostat up a couple of degrees. My wife gets up and turns it back down. The “presenting conflict” in this case is the thermostat setting.

I am of the view that the variable at the heart of the “presenting conflict” is not what the conflict is really about. It’s about something at a higher level. For me, it might be a desire to feel warmer. For my wife it might be about not wanting to feel any warmer or perhaps not wanting to run up the heating bill. In any case, our conflict isn’t about the thermostat setting itself.

Do those two points make sense in terms of HPCT and MOL?

 RM: Yes. Very good.

BestÂ

Rick

···

Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

5

Rick:

One of the people who I’m trying to interest in a PCT/MOL view of conflict, asked if your book touches on passive-aggressive. I don’t recall seeing anything about that but I said I’d check with you.

···

Regards,

Fred Nickols

Managing Partner

Distance Consulting LLC

“Assistance at A Distance”

6

 RM: What we try to do in the book is give a reasonably non-technical description of the PCT model of conflict so that people will be able to use these concepts to analyze various examples of behavior, such as what is described as passive-aggressive behavior, themselves.Â

RM: I think “passive-aggressive behavior” is seen when someone appears to be trying to hurt another person by doing something, like rearranging a table setting, that isn’t directed directly at the other person, such as by yelling back at them, but is known to adversely affect something that that other person is known to care about (be controlling for). So the passive - aggressive behavior could be considered the “pushing back” component of an interpersonal conflict. But this is being done without directly pushing back against the variable in conflict, thus the “passive” aspect of the “aggression”. So I would say it is pushing back on a conflict by starting a new conflict.Â

RM: For example, suppose a husband and wife are in a conflict about when the guests should arrive for dinner; the wife wants 6:00 and the husband wants 7:00. The non-passive responses to this conflict are for each party to argue for why the arrival time should be 6:00 or 7:00. However, the passive aggressive response would be for the husband to just rearrange the table setting so that it is not what the wife wants. This sets up a new conflict (over the table setting). What good that does is questionable but maybe it just satisfies the passive- aggressors desire to “hurt” the spouse without actually physically hurting her. Of course, this assumes that the husband is intentionally changing the table setting in order to hurt the spouse.

RM: I think a lot of times what is seen as “passive-aggressive” behavior is not aggressive at all (in the sense that it intentionally aims to hurt the opponent in a conflict over something else) but just something that the person is doing that is interpreted as intentionally aggressive by the other party to the conflict. So, as usual, before giving a PCT analysis of any behavior we have to determine what is being controlled! The PCT explanation of passive -aggressive behavior only applies if the behavior seen as passively aggressive is intentionally aggressive (if the person is controlling for hurting the other person by doing what they are doing).Â

RM: PERCEPTUAL CONTROL THEORY is always and only about the FACT OF CONTROL as it exists in the behavior of living systems. That is what our book CONTROLLING PEOPLE is all about!

BestÂ

Rick

···

On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 8:36 AM Fred Nickols fwnickols@gmail.com wrote:

FN: One of the people who I’m trying to interest in a PCT/MOL view of conflict, asked if your book touches on passive-aggressive. I don’t recall seeing anything about that but I said I’d check with you.

–
Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

7

H Fred,

I think that in principle there is no “passive-agressive” control in PCT and it seems that Rick is bluffing again. At least I never saw anything that would point to these terms… I would suggest reading William T. Powers liiterature about how perceptual control works when “error” vary on different levels of control and how actions are produced.

Best,

Boris

···

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Saturday, November 3, 2018 6:41 PM
To: csgnet csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: More on Conflict

On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 8:36 AM Fred Nickols fwnickols@gmail.com wrote:

FN: One of the people who I’m trying to interest in a PCT/MOL view of conflict, asked if your book touches on passive-aggressive. I don’t recall seeing anything about that but I said I’d check with you.

RM: What we try to do in the book is give a reasonably non-technical description of the PCT model of conflict so that people will be able to use these concepts to analyze various examples of behavior, such as what is described as passive-aggressive behavior, themselves.

HB : Non technical model of PCT means of course wrong RCT model. We know what your model represent. It sems like psychological analysis of “pasive-agressive respons”.

RM: I think “passive-aggressive behavior” is seen when someone appears to be trying to hurt another person by doing something,

HB : What does it mean in PCT that somebody wants to “hurt” someone With “passive -agressive” means ??? Does both ways “hurt” someone ? It looks like that it doesn’t matter what peopel are doimg, they always “hurt” someone whether it’s “passive” or “agressive” behavior. What kind of term is “hurting” somebody in general frame of PCT ???

RM : …like rearranging a table setting, that isn’t ddirected directly at the other person, such as by yelling back at them, but is known to adversely affect something that that other person is known to care about (be controlling for).

HB : Everything in PCT is about some extent of “hurting” somebody’s control (what they care about).

But explanation for that in PCT is not psychological. I think you should try with internal functioning of organism and perceptual control. It seems that you try to explain everything in terms of external changes of behaviour and common “behavioral control” explanation of that, which is ususally in use in psychology. Well PCT was produced so that we can see what is happening inside organism so to give more precise definition of what is happening when somebody “hurt” control of others.

You should read also Carver and Scheier. In some parts they are quite ahead of you about explanation what could be possibly happening in person which is “agressive” (yelling) and person which is “hurt”. So if somebody would ask me for oppinion I’d say that it’ better to read Carvers book about “Control of behavior” than yours RCT explanation of “Controlling” people.

RM : So the passive - aggressive behavior could be considered the “pushing back” component of an interpersonal conflict.

HB : It looks like RCT explanation of external obervations in interpersonal conflict. What the hell means “pushing back” ??? Is that some “behavioral” control expression like in your articles with cannonical principle ???

WM/RM :

If the system is properly designed so that the error drives the output in a way that pushes the controlled variable, and thus the perception of the controlled variable, toward the goal specification, then the goal result will be produced.

HB : It seems that you discovered new term for “Control of behavior”. “Pushing controlled variables” outside towars goal specification". It seems that your reorganizations woeks in the disrection of finding something to prove that “Behavior is control”. And “pushing” seems to be your new invention. Why don’t use Bills’ terms of in his defitnion of “Control of perception”. Why inventing new terms ???

RM : But this is being done without directly pushing back against the variable in conflict, thus the “passive” aspect of the “aggression”. So I would say it is pushing back on a conflict by starting a new conflict.

HB : “Passive” aspect of agression ??? What could this mean ??? Does “pushing back against variable” means “controlled variable” in external environment ???

RM: For example, suppose a husband and wife are in a conflict about when the guests should arrive for dinner; the wife wants 6:00 and the husband wants 7:00. The non-passive responses to this conflict are for each party to argue for why the arrival time should be 6:00 or 7:00.

HB : So there is generally some “passive” behavioral respons and some “non-passive” behavioral respons. It looks like psychological analysis. Aren’t you psachologist ???

You would do everybody a favour on CSGnet with confirming that you have no idea what “passive-agressive” means from PCT view and point to Bills’ literature or to Kents for explanation. Kent is sociologist and his articles and books are PCT expositions. Fred, Warren and anybody that care about PCT please read Kents’ articles and books about “interpersonal control”… or as we know it under term “collective control”.

RM : However, the passive aggressive response would be for the husband to just rearrange the table setting so that it is not what the wife wants. This sets up a new conflict (over the table setting). What good that does is questionable but maybe it just satisfies the passive- aggressors desire to “hurt” the spouse without actually physically hurting her. Of course, this assumes that the husband is intentionally changing the table setting in order to hurt the spouse.

RM: I think a lot of times what is seen as “passive-aggressive” behavior is not aggressive at all (in the sense that it intentionally aims to hurt the opponent in a conflict over something else) but just something that the person is doing that is interpreted as intentionally aggressive by the other party to the conflict.

HB : Really. How you measure your thinking that “a lot of times what is seen as passive-agresive” behavior is not agressive ??? What does it mean a lot of times ???

RM : So, as usual, before giving a PCT analysis of any behavior we have to determine what is being controlled!

HB : This is first normal PCT statement in your post. You should start from this point. :blush:

RM : The PCT explanation of passive -aggressive behavior only applies if the behavior seen as passively aggressive is intentionally aggressive (if the person is controlling for hurting the other person by doing what they are doing).

HB : Where did you find this explanation of “passive-agressive” behavior in PCT literature ???

RM: PERCEPTUAL CONTROL THEORY is always and only about the FACT OF CONTROL as it exists in the behavior of living systems.

HB : For 100x and more. FACT OF CONTROL does not exist in the behavior of living systems. It exists in “Control of perception”.

Bill P. (B:CP, Preface) :

Rather, the central problem has been to find out a plausible model which can behave at all…. For example it will be shown later thatt the brain does not command the muscles to act. That concept implies properties that the neuromuscular system simply does not have… There is jjust no way the brain can select a muscle tension that will produce one and only one behavioral effect, even if that tension is accurately produced. The result of this approcah is a model nearly devoid of specific behavioral content

HB : We can see clearly that central problem in PCT is not “FACT OF CONTROL” existing in “behavior of living systems” but just opposite. “FACT OF CONTROL” is not existing in the behavior of living systems. It exist inside organisms, where we try to discover how nervous system works to produce control. The method is called TCV.

Bill P (B:CP) :

The TCV is method for identifying control organization of nervous system….

There will be ambiguous cases : the disturbance may be only weakly opposed. That effect could be due not to poor control system but to a definition of actions that are only remotely linked to the actual controlled quantity.

For example : if when you open the window I sometimes get up and close it, you might conclude that I am controlling the position of the window when in fact I only shut it if the room gets too chilly to suit me. I could be controlling sensed temperature very precisely, when necesarry, but by a variety of means : shutting the window, turning up the termostat, putting on a sweater, or exercising. You are on the track of the right controlled quantity, but haven’t got the right definition yet. It is safest to assume that an ambiguous result from TCV is the fault of the hypotehsis and to continue looking for a better definition of the controlled quantity.

RM : That is what our book CONTROLLING PEOPLE is all about!

HB : Well if that is so then you can see clearly you are wrong. You book is wrongly representing PCT. I hope Fred will not impose upon noncences you wrote.

Boris

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery