[From Rick Marken (950905.1730)]
I sent the post below some time ago but never saw it on the net
or got an ACK from the listserver. I apologize if this is a repeat,
but I would like to see what people think of these ideas.
Best
Rick
···
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[From Rick Marken (950905.1400)]
Marc Abrams asked me (privately) for my thougts on the following exchange:
I said:
I thought I was just trying to be scientifically honest and correct; what I
was really doing was trying to browbeat people into seeing things my way. I
was trying to win.
Marc Abrams (950395) replied:
Yep. How do you account for this with your PCT background? I am seriously
interested. Maybe there are other considerations when it comes to
interpersonal relationships, and PCT currently does not account for
_all_ the behavior.
I think Marc is asking how I account for the way I act in some of my
interactions on the net ("browbeating, trying to win") given my (presumed)
understanding of PCT. I don't think there is really any mystery. Just because
you understand PCT doesn't mean that you stop being a control system.
What I was doing on the net -- and what was creating interpersonal conflict -
- was _controlling_. PCT shows that _controlling_ is what people do --
ALWAYS. We can't stop controlling; we are perceptual control systems.
Conflict is expected when perceptual control systems interact; if the people
with whom I was intereacting were not percpetual control systems themselves,
there would have been no conflict.
PCT suggets that people (including PCT experts) will avoid conflict only if
they _want_ to; PCT doesn't say whether they should or should not want to
avoid conflict. But PCT does show that, as the intensity of a conflict goes
up, the ability to control goes down. So, PCT does suggest that if you want
to be in control, you will avoid conflict.
PCT suggests that the first step towards getting out of a conflict is taken
when you recognize that you are in one. But it is hard to tell when you are
in a conflict whether you are an expert in PCT or not. Recognizing that you
are in a conflict is a "meta" PCT phenomenon (at the moment); it is a
consciousness phenomenon; it requires a change in your conscious point of
view (apparently). Nothing in PCT explains the nature of consciousness (yet);
so nothing in PCT can tell you how to change your conscious point of view.
Most of what we know about changing your conscious point of view -- the
process called the _method of levels_ - - is based on informal experiential
studies of consciousness carried out by Bill Powers and others.
The fact of the matter is that when you are in a conflict it is very, very
difficult to see that you are in one. It is hard to see a conflict from
anything except the point of view of the systems that are trying to get what
they want. It was very hard for me, for example, to see my conflict with Ed
from anything other than the point of view of the system that was controling
for seeing PCT described in a particular way.
I don't know why it is hard to see that you are in a conflict when you are
in it -- and PCT has nothing to say about why this is true. But based on my
own experience of being in conflicts (inter and intra personal) and based on
my experience o fwatching others in conflict it seems that it is true;
everyone, whether they know PCT or not, seems to have a hard time changing
their conscious perspective on a conflict. I do think that people who
understand PCT and the "meta PCT" of the method of levels have a better
chance of becoming conscious of conflicts than those who don't -- but
knowing PCT doesn't guarantee that one will always take this perspective on
one's own conflicts.
PCT shows that conflicts are likely when two or more high gain controllers
end up controlling the same or a similar perception; this is what happens
when people discuss ideas on the net; when we discuss ideas on this net, we
are controlling perceptions (of the nature of human nature, for example) that
are important to us (or we don't discuss them). It is not surprising that
there will be interpersonal conflict.
PCT helps us understand what conflict is and it helps us recognize conflict
when it is happening. But it doesn't automatically change us into Christ or
Buddha. Meta PCT can (and does -- as I can testify) help us see when we,
ourselves, are in (and contributing to) a conflict; it helps us go up a level
and see how what we want is preventing us from getting what we want. But it
can't guarantee that we will reach a state of grace.
And, as I recall, even Jesus got pissed off at a tree for not bearing any
fruit.
Even when we know the way, we don't always manage to take it.
Best
Rick