More re conflict over control

[John_Appel]

From John Appel

Rick Marken wrote:

[From Rick Marken (990119.2200)]

John Appel (99 Jan 19) --

> I �m interested in why people try to control each other. According
> to my theory they do so trying to maintain their sense of identity.
> A person maintains his identity by being � in charge� of what he
> does. If he submits to domination by another person, and does so
> continually, he loses his identify-- �There�s no more me.�

> Does this theory make any sense to you?

Sort of. I would say that people don't really control "each other";
they control perceptual aspects of the same environment. When what
people control is essentially the same aspect of the environment,
but they control it relative to different references, there is
conflict.

I don't understand this paragraph very well. As I said to Goldstein in a
message this morning, I'm wondering whether PCT refers to internal
conflict, and events. My theory refers to interpersonal events. Is my
theory incompatible with PCT on this account?

> I came upon it treating patients with mental disorder. Like
> Leslie, they are always complaining of being bossed around by
> somebody, usually some one they love,

Yes. When the systems in conflict are in one person, then that
person loses control over the variable that is the object of
the conflict between systems.

Can you state this sentence in other words? Could you state it in
interpersonal terms? And could you tell; me why stating it in PCT is more
helpful than stating it in interpersonal terms?

So disturbances to that variable
can be fully effective and it feels to the person like he or
she is being controlled by the disturbance. See my "Cost of
Conflict" demo at:

http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/ControlDemo/Conflict.html

to see what if feels like to lose control due to internal conflict.

Thanks. I've read "Cost of Conflict." Referring to the above paragraph I
am again led to think PCT deals with internal conflict, as contrasted with
interpersonal conflict, which is the focus of my theory. I believe these
two theories may deal with the same phenomena, but from different
viewpoints, namely internal vs interpersonal. Psychoanalysis has dealt
primarily with internal conflict, so I am reasonably familiar with this
viewpoint. But Bill Powers PCT seems different and as yet I don't see how.
Can you help me?

> Normal people, not just psychiatric patients, engage in battles over
> control of what they think and do. It seems part of human nature is to
> struggle constantly for identity. Husbands and wives argue constantly,
> children argue with parents--�Do I have to eat my spinach?--or,�
> have go to bed now?� etc.
>
> How would PCT explain this conflict between people?

Conflict between people occurs when two people have different
references for the same (or equivalent) perceptuwl aspects of the
environment.

Again will you say this in different words?

Husbands and wives argue, for example, because they
have different references for TV show they want to see at 8:00;
children argue with parents because they have different references
for the location of the spinach (the parent wants it in the kid's
mouth; the kid wants it on the floor).

I guess it's "different references," I'm hung up on. What's the matter with
stating the conflict as: each wants to get his own way, he wants to win.

It's not human nature to struggle in conflict; it's human nature
to control. Since people do much of their controlling in the
same environment they will often end up trying to control what
are essentially the same aspects of that environment relative to
different references. So conflict is an unfortunate consequence
of the fact that we control; one that, paradoxically, reduces our
ability to control.

The above paragraph is very difficult for me to understand. I agree "it's
human nature to control." But I guess that leaves unclear, at least to me,
just what man tries to control. I would say he tries, struggles, to control
his thinking and his behavior. He struggles to oppose control of his
thinking and behavior by other people, such as his wife. She tends to get
mad at him if he opposes her and insists on getting the TV channel he
wants.

Here's my attempt to state PCT in other words: "Perceptions" are what a
person sees, hears, smells, feels or tastes. "Reference perceptions" are
what he expects to see, hear...etc. based on his past experience.. He has a
cache of expectations and uses these to control his perceptions. For
example, his remembers his wife smiles when he tells her how wonderful she
is. So gets her to smile by telling her she's wonderful . How am I doling?

Have pity on a struggling theorist and set him straight .

Yours

John Appel

Pennsylvania Hospital Department of Psychiatry

···

Best

Rick
---
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/

[R_Marken]

[From Rick Marken (990122.0850)]

Me:

I would say that people don't really control "each other";
they control perceptual aspects of the same environment. When what
people control is essentially the same aspect of the environment,
but they control it relative to different references, there is
conflict.

John Appel (990122) --

I don't understand this paragraph very well.

Do you have access to the WWW? If so, I do think reading
about (and doing) the demo at

http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/ControlDemo/Conflict.html

might help clear things up.

As I said to Goldstein in a message this morning, I'm wondering
whether PCT refers to internal conflict, and events.

It refers to both. Conflict occurs when two control systems
try to bring the same (or a similar) perceptual variable to
different reference levels. When the two control systems are
in two different people we have interpersonal conflict; when
the two control systems are in the same person we have
intrapersonal conflict.

Me:

When the systems in conflict are in one person, then that
person loses control over the variable that is the object of
the conflict between systems.

John:

Can you state this sentence in other words? Could you state
it in interpersonal terms?

Sure. Take, for example, an interpersonal conflict like an
arm wrestling match. Here we have two different control
systems, each in a different person, controlling the same
variable (location of hands) relative to very different
references (hands down to left or hands down to right). If
the control systems are of approximately equal strength then
the controlled variable will remain at a position intermediate
between the reference levels of the two conflicted systems.
Now I can come along and easily push the clenched hands in
either direction. I am acting as a disturbance to the controlled
variable. The fact that I can easily move the clenched hands
to one side or another shows that the two conflicted control
system have no control over the position of the clenched hands;
the wrestlers will feel like their hand positon is being
controlled by an outside force (my pushes); they don't have
control.

And could you tell; me why stating it in PCT is more
helpful than stating it in interpersonal terms?

I hope the arm wrestling example helps you see that, in PCT,
conflict is conflict, whether the conflicted systems are
in the same person (intrapersonal) or different people
(interpersonal, as in the arm wrestling case).

I've read "Cost of Conflict." Referring to the above paragraph I
am again led to think PCT deals with internal conflict, as
contrasted with interpersonal conflict, which is the focus of my
theory.

Again, I hope the arm wrestling example shows that PCT can deal
with interpersonal conflict as well as intrapersonal conflict.
PCT shows that _all_ conflict is based on the same principle;
two or more control systems acting to get the same perceptual
variable to different reference levels.

I guess it's "different references," I'm hung up on. What's the
matter with stating the conflict as: each wants to get his own
way, he wants to win.

What's the matter is that it's too vague; what is "his own way"?
What is a "way"? The PCT model of conflict is quantitatively
precise; "different references" refers to a quantitative aspect
of the model: different quantitative settings of the reference
signals in the two conflicted control systems. The "different
references" result in conflict when the perceptual variables
controlled by the two systems are nearly the same. The degree of
conflct depends on the relative gains and strengths (output
capability) of the two systems. Kent McClelland (a sociologist
at Grinnel College) has done some rather nice PCT analyses of
conflict (intra and interpersonal). I think one of the Kent's
papers at

http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/csg/publist.html

describes this work. If not, I'm sure he would be happy to send
you a copy if you e-mail him.

I agree "it's human nature to control." But I guess that leaves
unclear, at least to me, just what man tries to control.

People control _perceptual variables_. They control many (thousands
of) perceptual variables simultaneously. They control variables
like arm position, political position, physical distance,
emotional distance, etc. Determining the perceptual variables
that people control is the central task of PCT research.

Here's my attempt to state PCT in other words: "Perceptions" are
what a person sees, hears, smells, feels or tastes. "Reference
perceptions" are what he expects to see, hear...etc. based on
his past experience.

I think it's better to say that "reference perceptions" are what
a person _wants_ to see, hear...etc.

He has a cache of expectations and uses these to control his
perceptions.

Better would be: He has a cache of _wants_ and uses these as
specifications for that states of perceptual variables. He acts
to bring these variables to their specified level. This is control.

For example, his remembers his wife smiles when he tells her how
wonderful she is. So gets her to smile by telling her she's
wonderful . How am I doling?

OK. I would say that this fellow has a reference for seeing
his wife smile. The smile is the state of a perceptual variable
that could be called "countenance". This variable can range from
frown to straight face to smile. The fellow acts in order to produce
the smile. The action he uses is "saying something". The result
of the action depends on disturbances, such as his wife's mood.
When she is in a good mood, saying "you're wonderful" may produce
the desired perception. If she is in a bad mood, saying "you're
wonderful" may result in a big frown. So the effect of any
particular output on the controlled variable depends on
disturbances. Control systems cannot, in general, produce a
particular perceptual result (like "smile") by producing a
particular output (like saying "you're wonderful"). Control
systems must vary their outputs, as necessary, in order to get
what they _are_ perceiving (the wife's current countenance, for
example) to the reference level ("smile", for example).

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken