[From Rick Marken (2000.10.27.1500)]
Bruce Nevin (2000.10.27.1717 EDT)--
1. The Insurance Adjuster is controlling to close the current case...
Obviously, a great deal of detail of the hierarchy between e.g.
Haggle and the environment is omitted.
Thanks. Now I understand why we disagree on so many issues related
to PCT.
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com
www.mindreadings.com
[From Bruce Nevin (2000.10.27.1717 EDT)]
You have to have a monospace screen font set in your email software to view some parts of this message correctly.
Rick Marken (2000.10.27.1050)--
Going up a level
is a consciousness phenomenon. When a person goes "up a level"
and discovers that they have conflicting goals within themselves,
the conflict doesn't just "go away". The person who goes "up a
level" becomes aware of the fact that they are trying to achieve
conflicting goals. Then (maybe) the person figures out ways to
_deal with_ this intrapersonal conflict.
1. The Insurance Adjuster is controlling to close the current case. (Presumably that's part of a sequence or program that he would consider "getting on with my life".) The steps of the program for closing the current case include what we are calling negotiating or haggling. He looks up a range of values in his book, sets "payment" to a dollar amount at or near the low end of that range and waits for Tom's response. If Tom accepts it, he closes the case. If Tom demands more, he protests. If Tom continues to demand more, he may raise the value of "payment" a bit, making sure it falls within the range in the book. This program structure could be expressed as an "until" loop, with Tom's acceptance as the event that ends the loop and Tom's rejection as an event that starts another iteration. With each iteration of the loop, the reference value for the "protest" control loop is increased.
An interesting thing about interactions and communication is the phenomenon of recognition. An input function to the Haggle program recognizes when an event has happened that trips the latch for the next program step. After the "offer" step, the next step of the "haggle" program is a communicative act by Tom, either "accept" or "demand more". Whatever Tom does or says, the Insurance Adjuster will interpret it as an event that moves the program loop forward.
There seem to be three levels of control here:
Close Case sets the reference for
Haggle sets the reference for
Payment
2. Tom is controlling to replace his car. To this end, he has put some time and energy into car shopping. He has found a car very much like the one that was crushed, and he has found out what it costs. There seem to be three levels of control here, as well.
Replace Car sets the reference for
What does it cost? sets the reference for
Payment
There is conflict at the Payment level. There is no conflict at the higher levels.
3. Tom doesn't respond by participating in the Haggle program. The purpose of the Haggle program (for the IA) is to close the current case. Tom responds by going up a level (within himself) and asking "How do you determine what it costs?" This is a consciousness phenomenon in the IA as well, as Tom calls his attention to the process for determining how much the car costs to replace. This process for determining the replacement cost is a different program. The IA recognizes that Tom's action is not an event that moves the haggle program forward. The haggle program cannot move forward, because the next step depends upon Tom's action, and Tom's action does not satisfy the input condition for the next program step. At the same time he focusses his attention where Tom is directing it, onto this other program for determining the replacement cost--a matter in which he has some training and expertise.
4. The IA may have some internal conflict. Why does he have a career as an insurance adjuster? If he controls some perception of his role in helping people who have experienced a loss of property, then that control loop sets the reference to run the "replacement cost" program. If he controls a perception of getting through the bureaucratic details of his job just to make money so he can get on with his life, that sets a reference for "close the case" by haggling. If such internal conflict is present, this shift of attention to the reason for closing the case may resolve the conflict for him in this case. When he applies his training and skill to determine the replacement cost of Tom's car, both purposes apply: not only to get on with his life, but also to perceive himself as a professional helping people who have lost property.
I have verified with friends in the business that an insurance adjuster is *not* constrained by any limits on how much they pay out in the aggregate, say on a quarterly or annual basis. Each case is justified on the merits. That kind of management oversight is *not* a source of internal conflict here.
5. So we have two systems controlling the same variable:
Close Case Replace Car
> >
Haggle Determine Cost
\ /
Payment
Now a really interesting thing is that both systems are present in each person. Tom knows how to haggle, but he is controlling Haggle at zero to avoid fruitless conflict. The Insurance adjuster is in the business of replacing lost property, and he has some expertise in determining the replacement cost of it.
Close Case Replace Car
> > > >
Haggle Determine Cost
IA \\ // \\
................\\......//........\\................
\\ // \\
Payment Criteria Environment
// \\ //
................//......\\........//................
Tom // \\ //
Haggle Determine Cost
> > > >
Avoid Conflict Replace Car
Payment is a CV for both Haggle and Determine Cost. Criteria is a CV for Determine Cost. I have not drawn a box around each of the other elements (e.g. around "Determine Cost"), nor have I labelled the lines. For every pair of lines entering an element from the environment side, one is perceptual input, the other is error output; for every pair of lines on the opposite side, one is reference input, the other is perceptual input being passed up to the next level. Obviously, a great deal of detail of the hierarchy between e.g. Haggle and the environment is omitted.
Bruce Nevin
At 10:48 AM 10/27/2000 -0700, Richard S. Marken wrote:
[From Bruce Nevin (2000.10.27.2306 EDT)]
Rick Marken (2000.10.27.1500)--
At 03:50 PM 10/27/2000 -0700, Richard S. Marken wrote:
Now I understand why we disagree
Are you able to be more specific?
Bruce Nevin