[From Bruce Gregory (991121.1525 EST)]
I-responsibility and U-responsibility are technical terms associated with
the behavior of PCT models--by looking at a particular model it is possible
to determine unambiguously if System A is I-responsible or U-responsible for
outcome X. But what can we say about responsibility in the world we are
attempting to model? If the individual modeled as System B says that the
individual modeled as System A is responsible for X, what does it mean? It
depends. B might be simply saying that X occurred as a result of A's
actions, without passing any judgment as to whether A deserves credit or
blame for X, or whether A should feel good or bad about this outcome. Or B
might be accusing A, or praising A. In any case what B says about A is often
more revealing of B than it is of A.
The true power of I-responsibility and U-responsibility in the "real" world
(as opposed to the world as modeled) emerges only when we look at what
happens when A says of himself, "I am responsible for X." Initially, this
statement is likely to mean, "I am I-responsible for X". In other words, "I
intended X and X occurred." In this process, A acknowledges that he can and
did exercise control in this domain. The step to acknowledging
U-responsibility is often much more difficult to take. A is likely to argue
that he did not intend X and that therefore he can not be held responsible
for X. But notice what this implies--someone or something else _is_
responsible for X. In other words, A acknowledges he does not control X and
that someone else does. I suggest that this stratagem diminishes the
self-perceived domain of A's control. One sign of such a diminished domain
of control seems, from my observations, to be defensiveness and often
outright hostility.
But notice what happens when A takes U-responsibility for X. (Or even more
tellingly, when A, while knowing the distinction between I-responsibility
and U-responsibility, treats them simply as responsibility--A does not worry
about whether X was an intended or an unintended consequence of his
actions.) I claim that in this process A expands his domain of control. At
least this seems to be the psychological consequence of claiming
U-responsibility _for oneself. (Attributing U-responsibility to another is
simply likely to show up as blame or shame.) One experiences increased
rather than decreased power -- one empowers oneself.
One way to view the goals of psychotherapy is that they are to create an
environment in which the client is able to recognize and to take
U-responsibility for the circumstances in his or her life _without_
attaching either praise or blame to this newly assumed responsibility.
One is powerful to the extent that one takes responsibility for the
_unintended_ consequences of ones actions.
[From Rick Marken (991121.1520)]
Bruce Gregory (991121.1525 EST) --
One is powerful to the extent that one takes responsibility
for the _unintended_ consequences of ones actions.
This post tells me a lot about your attitudes toward
"responsibility" (attitudes I don't share, by the way).
But it tells me nothing about the controlling done by
the people in the situations you describe.
Incidentally, does the "power" you speak of come from taking
responsibility publicly or can it be done in private? If
the former, then you must feel rather powerless since you have
never taken responsibility for one of the main _unintended_
consequences of your actions; the sneering, vituperative tone
of so many of your posts. Since I don't believe in holding
people responsible for the unintended consequences of their
actions (the tone is unintended, right?), I don't care
whether you take responsibility for it or not. But since you
think taking responsibility for these consequences gives you
power, I thought I'd try to help you out by pointing to an
opportunity for you to power up.
Best
Rick
···
---
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/
from [ Marc Abrams (991121.2120) ]
It seems to be the day of the Bruce's. 
A very nice thought provoking
post. Thank you.
Marc
[From Bruce Gregory (991121.1525 EST)]
I-responsibility and U-responsibility are technical terms associated with
the behavior of PCT models--by looking at a particular model it is
possible
to determine unambiguously if System A is I-responsible or U-responsible
for
outcome X. But what can we say about responsibility in the world we are
attempting to model? If the individual modeled as System B says that the
individual modeled as System A is responsible for X, what does it mean? It
depends. B might be simply saying that X occurred as a result of A's
actions, without passing any judgment as to whether A deserves credit or
blame for X, or whether A should feel good or bad about this outcome. Or B
might be accusing A, or praising A. In any case what B says about A is
often
more revealing of B than it is of A.
The true power of I-responsibility and U-responsibility in the "real"
world
(as opposed to the world as modeled) emerges only when we look at what
happens when A says of himself, "I am responsible for X." Initially, this
statement is likely to mean, "I am I-responsible for X". In other words,
"I
intended X and X occurred." In this process, A acknowledges that he can
and
did exercise control in this domain. The step to acknowledging
U-responsibility is often much more difficult to take. A is likely to
argue
that he did not intend X and that therefore he can not be held responsible
for X. But notice what this implies--someone or something else _is_
responsible for X. In other words, A acknowledges he does not control X
and
that someone else does. I suggest that this stratagem diminishes the
self-perceived domain of A's control. One sign of such a diminished domain
of control seems, from my observations, to be defensiveness and often
outright hostility.
But notice what happens when A takes U-responsibility for X. (Or even more
tellingly, when A, while knowing the distinction between I-responsibility
and U-responsibility, treats them simply as responsibility--A does not
worry
···
about whether X was an intended or an unintended consequence of his
actions.) I claim that in this process A expands his domain of control. At
least this seems to be the psychological consequence of claiming
U-responsibility _for oneself. (Attributing U-responsibility to another is
simply likely to show up as blame or shame.) One experiences increased
rather than decreased power -- one empowers oneself.
One way to view the goals of psychotherapy is that they are to create an
environment in which the client is able to recognize and to take
U-responsibility for the circumstances in his or her life _without_
attaching either praise or blame to this newly assumed responsibility.
One is powerful to the extent that one takes responsibility for the
_unintended_ consequences of ones actions.
A very nice thought provoking