# political conflict response options

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/political-conflict-response-options/14617>\
**Category:** CSG1996\
**Created:** [December 1, 1996, 12:07am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/political-conflict-response-options/14617 "1996-12-01T00:07:57Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_B\_Harms1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/3e96dc/32.png) [@T\_B\_Harms1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/T_B_Harms1)\
**Post date:** [December 1, 1996, 12:07am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/political-conflict-response-options/14617/1 "1996-12-01T00:07:57Z")

</div>

> From Tracy Harms (1996;11,30.17)

Bruce Abbott (961130.1355 EST)]

I've been slowly working on a private reply to your earlier private  
message, but now that this topic is out in the forum I have to at least  
respond to an obvious flaw with your recent comments.

Rick's three-option analysis was OK. Not perfect, but certainly workable.  
But your three-option analysis of one of Rick's options really misses the  
point. Rick laid out

> > If you don't want your neighbor to kill you, then there are basically  
> > three ways to deal with the problem;  
> > &nbsp;&nbsp;1) control him  
> > &nbsp;&nbsp;2) negotiate with him or  
> > &nbsp;&nbsp;3) defend against him.

You reply

> There are only three ways to implement Option 3:  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;(1) Make yourself unavailable (hide, or lock yourself in a fortress)  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;(2) get him before he gets you, and  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;(3) control him.

What you have done is take "defend against him" and translate it into "deal  
with the problem". In other words, you have popped back up to the same  
level that Rick assessed, but while claiming to be examining the nature of  
defense. But "defend" in Rick's useage does not mean \*solve\*. It clearly  
precludes control; you can't slip control back into it. Your proposed  
implementations would dissect Rick's option if you had stuck to the first  
two (and if you had not misconstrued those), but bringing control back in  
as an option makes this a \*denial\* of Rick's analysis, not an extension of  
it.

Your further elaboration is even worse. Overall you seem to be looking at  
these implementation options as candidates for categorical solution rather  
than as tactical solution-probing methods which occur in a feedback  
process. The first option is not unacceptable, it is widespread and highly  
effective. But again, it is a relational technique, not a panacea. The  
fact that there are no cure-all miracles to evaporate the possibility of  
threats from others has no implications for the status of interpersonal  
control as a method of threat-reduction.

Tracy Bruce Harms tbh@tesser.com  
Boulder, Colorado

> **···**
>
> ==========================================================================  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"There is only one way I can see for fallible, ignorant human beings  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;to live in accord with their own real natures and that is to discard  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;forever the principle of controlling each other's behavior, dropping  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;even the \*desire\* to control other people, and seeing at every level  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;the fallacy in the logic that leads to such a desire."  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;William T. Powers

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_Abbott](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/ba8739/32.png) [@Bruce\_Abbott](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Abbott)\
**Post date:** [December 1, 1996, 5:12am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/political-conflict-response-options/14617/2 "1996-12-01T05:12:10Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Abbott (961130.1210 EST)]

> Tracy Harms (1996;11,30.17) --

> What you have done is take "defend against him" and translate it into "deal  
> with the problem". In other words, you have popped back up to the same  
> level that Rick assessed, but while claiming to be examining the nature of  
> defense. But "defend" in Rick's useage does not mean \*solve\*. It clearly  
> precludes control; you can't slip control back into it. Your proposed  
> implementations would dissect Rick's option if you had stuck to the first  
> two (and if you had not misconstrued those), but bringing control back in  
> as an option makes this a \*denial\* of Rick's analysis, not an extension of  
> it.

O.K., I should have assumed that Rick's three options were intended to be  
mutually exclusive, in which case I can eliminate "control him" from my  
subsequent analysis of Option 3. That still leaves two alternatives under  
"defend against him": escape (running away; hiding), or passive defense (the  
fortress).

> Your further elaboration is even worse. Overall you seem to be looking at  
> these implementation options as candidates for categorical solution rather  
> than as tactical solution-probing methods which occur in a feedback  
> process.

No, I'm looking at these implementation options as implementation options.  
How they may be used depends on the specific circumstances. There may or  
may not be an opportunity to use them as "tactical solution-probing methods  
which occur in a feedback process," whatever that means.

> The first option is not unacceptable, it is widespread and highly  
> effective. But again, it is a relational technique, not a panacea. The  
> fact that there are no cure-all miracles to evaporate the possibility of  
> threats from others has no implications for the status of interpersonal  
> control as a method of threat-reduction.

No, it doesn't. But if you observe someone who is attempting to control  
another (as by, e.g., calling the Police), you should not assume that this  
individual is necessarily misguided for doing so. There may have been no  
other viable option.

Regrards,

Bruce

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_B\_Harms1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/3e96dc/32.png) [@T\_B\_Harms1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/T_B_Harms1)\
**Post date:** [December 1, 1996, 7:04am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/political-conflict-response-options/14617/3 "1996-12-01T07:04:41Z")

</div>

> From Tracy Harms (1996;11,30.23:45)

While attempting a reply to Bruce's latest, I found myself confused over  
certain concepts. I turned to re-reading Kent McClelland's \_Perceptual  
Control and Social Power\_, which I snagged from the CSG web site. Now I  
have a question regarding McClelland's terminology.

Where Kent McClelland uses the phrase 'interpersonal control', it seems to  
me that the more correct phrase would be 'success at perceptual control  
during interpersonal conflict.' An example would be where he writes  
"Coercion is a more efficient strategy of interpersonal control than  
force".

Does this interpretation seem correct to others?

I have another, related question. I may be wrong, but when Bill Powers  
writes of 'interpersonal control' in B:CP he means attempts to control  
somebody else's \*behavior\*. That seems pretty explicit. Is this not an  
importantly different meaning to 'interpersonal control' than Kent uses? I  
find these different meanings to this same important phrase pretty  
confusing.

Tracy Bruce Harms tbh@tesser.com  
Boulder, Colorado

> **···**
>
> ==========================================================================  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"There is only one way I can see for fallible, ignorant human beings  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;to live in accord with their own real natures and that is to discard  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;forever the principle of controlling each other's behavior, dropping  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;even the \*desire\* to control other people, and seeing at every level  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;the fallacy in the logic that leads to such a desire."  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;William T. Powers

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers1)\
**Post date:** [December 1, 1996, 12:09pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/political-conflict-response-options/14617/4 "1996-12-01T12:09:02Z")

</div>

> From Bill Powers (961201.0345 MST)]

Bruce Abbott (961130.1210 EST) --

> That still leaves two alternatives under  
> "defend against him": escape (running away; hiding), or passive defense (the  
> fortress).

[this is just a random citation to get into the conversation]

I appreciate Tracy Harms' picking up that quote from B:CP, but I think it  
needs some explanation. My view on the "desire to control other people" is a  
conclusion from a reasoned argument, not a moral homily. The argument goes  
something like this:

In order to control another person, you can either apply overwhelming  
physical force, or use some indirect means such as applying disturbances or  
supplying misinformation or setting up contingencies. These methods can be  
effective in the short run, but in the long run they're impossible to carry  
out as a matter of policy. The reason is simple: you can't know the other  
person's entire structure of goals at all the levels. When you try to get  
another person to behave in a way that suits your own goals, you're almost  
certain to induce errors into some of the other person's control systems,  
which the other person will try to correct. As soon as your attempt at  
control (no matter what the means) produces such errors, you will experience  
resistance from the other person. Then you have a choice to make: either  
increase your efforts to control the other person, or change your goal so  
you stop disturbing the other person's perceptions in the critical way. If  
you take the first route, there will be an escalating conflict, which brings  
us back to overwhelming physical force. If you take the second route, you  
have started a process of negotation (explicit or implicit), which is the  
real solution. None of us minds being controlled if this leaves us free to  
achieve any goals we please, without interference. But this means knowing  
and respecting all the other person's goals, or backing off at the first  
sign of serious resistance, neither of which sounds exactly like controlling  
the other person.

So what's wrong with using overwhelming physical force? If it works for you,  
nothing. Unfortunately, you are one person and there are close to 6 billion  
other persons, and to apply overwhelming physical force to all of them is  
impossible. Even in smaller groups, you find that there are severe  
disadvantages to controlling others by force. If you try to control your  
spouse this way, you may gain control of some variables, but you will lose  
control of others, such as being loved or respected. And the local community  
is likely to rise up against you, applying superior force and throwing you  
in jail.

That's just a brief mention of some of the high points of Chapter 17, and  
there are no doubt other problems with controlling other people that I  
didn't think of.

So, does this mean acting like a doormat, or being a pacifist, or not  
protecting those you love, without regard for circumstances? Obviously not.  
If you're attacked, you will defend yourself, or hurt or kill the other  
person, or use any means of controlling the other person that you can think  
of. If your child runs into traffic, you won't negotiate; you'll snatch the  
child to safety regardless of the child's wishes. This hardly needs  
mentioning; as a control system, you will take whatever actions will keep  
all your perceptions as near as possible to their respective goal-states.

But in the long run, you have to ask whether your actions are really  
maintaining ALL your perceptions at their respective goal states. If you  
take the need for force in some circumstances as the basis for a general  
policy, you will get your way in some things (unless the other person is  
stronger or smarter), but inevitably, because of how anyone, including  
yourself, will react to being the recipient of physical force, you will find  
your attempt to satisfy other goals actively opposed or simply impossible to  
carry out. You can adapt to this situation by giving up goals, but this  
restricts you and makes you less able to live a fully human life.

So what \_is\_ a general policy that will work for everyone? Hugh Gibbons said  
it best: respect for the will of others. This is, of course, \_mutual\_  
respect, from which you benefit as much as your respect benefits others. It  
is the recognition of the nature of human nature, as a self-contained  
autonomous system governed by internal needs that go back to the first  
stirrings in the primeval gunk. It's knowing that when you push on another  
control system, it's going to push back just as you would push back. It's  
not being \_surprised\_ when others push back.

Of course this policy works best in a community of people all of whom  
understand it and its justifications in human nature. Someone who doesn't  
understand the same things, who still thinks that controlling other people  
will provide net benefits, can cause real difficulties in such a community.  
You can see that a criminal is an autonomous human being and at the same  
time find his autonomy encroaching on your own in an unacceptable way. And  
this can lead you to try to control this person, knowing that the outcome is  
going to have many drawbacks but also knowing that if you don't try, the  
outcome will be even worse for you and others. The basic problem is that  
such a person has no respect for the will of others, so the mutual respect  
is lacking. The presence of such a person drags the whole community down to  
a lower level of functioning, in which violence and coercion, if not  
carefully managed, can spread and feed on itself.

I'm talking about a system concept here, a way of conceiving the whole human  
community that would give each individual the maximum ability to control  
whatever is desired to be controlled without generating more problems than  
necessary because of other people doing the same thing. This concept doesn't  
guarantee the absence of conflicts or even violence, but it lets us  
understand them and minimize them. At least we could avoid \_unnecessary\_  
conflicts and \_unnecessary\_ violence. We might even find that these things  
are much less necessary than they seem.

Best,

Bill P.