Ship of Fools

CSGnet Archive CSG2007
21

To paraphrase
someone, solutions are like streetcars

Yes. They are all basically the same. Actually, I can think of only
a

few different solutions: fighting, reasoned discussion, humor, data

based discussion, discouragement. I’ve tried all of them and they
are

equally ineffective. The only new solution possibility I’ve thought
of

is the rapture idea, which may turn out to be the
best;-)
[From Bill Powers (2007.08.22.1340 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2007.08.22.1015) –

Seems to me you’ve been discouraged for only a few hours. Give it a
chance. Sometimes it takes me as long as a week to figure out how to
change the world.

It would be interesting to know what G.W. Bush wants.

Best,

Bill P.]

22

Amen, indeed. But how do you
remove the cause of conflict without

getting into conflict? There’s the rub!
[From Bill Powers (2007.08.22.1350 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2007.08.22.1210) –

As I’ve worked it out, there are three levels involved in any conflict,
not necessarily adjacent levels.

The lowest level is the level where the confict is expressed. One control
system, which is working perfectly well, receives several reference
signals and brings its perception to the net value of the reference
signals. That’s a little vague but will do for now.

The next level up is the source of the two reference signals: two
different control systems, seeking different and apparently independent
goals at the next level up. Achievement of these goals happens to require
two different values of the reference signal for the same lower-order
system where we started. If these values are very far apart, the
resulting perception returned from the lower system will not be what
either higher-level system is trying to produce. This is the level that
is generating the conflict.

The third level contains the reasons for which the two middle-level
systems are receiving their respective reference signals. In MSOB I said
this is the level where the “situation” is created that leads
to the conflict. I’m open to better characterizations.

One example at the third level would be that a person wants to be
respected. To get respect, the person learns, you should (next level
down) be confident, assertive, and leader-like. So the person
learns to do those things. Also, the person learns that respect comes
from treating others well, listening to them, offering help, and
refraining from dominating them. Out of this we get two goals: act like a
leader, and refrain from dominating people. From those two goals we could
end up with one reference signal saying “Tell people what to
do” and another saying “Don’t tell people what to do.”
There is the expression of the conflict. The outcome could be that the
person is half-hearted about doing either thing, and succeeds in being
neither a leader nor a helper. This means failure to satisfy the goal of
getting respect.

Sorting out this conflict isn’t hard, but it takes some reorganization of
perceptions and choices of goals for lower systems.

The main lesson is that you get nowhere by attacking the conflict at the
lowest level where the outputs directly oppose, or at least add up to an
ineffective way of controlling. The middle level is where you need to
work, where one side of the conflict pushes, making the error on the
other side larger and increasing the counter-push from the other side.
But to understand the middle level you have to see that the two systems
are trying to achieve contradictory goals, and what makes them
contradictory, so you have to be looking from the third level. You have
to see what you’re trying to achieve that somehow gave rise to two
opposing sub-goals. Just choosing one or the other goal at the middle
level and trying harder to achieve it will only make the conflict more
intense.

When you’re in conflict with another person, I think a similar situation
exists, which leads different people to choose different ways of
achieving a higher goal. If the higher goals are different, and the
difference persists all the way to the top level, there is a serious
problem that requires fundamental changes in all participants in the
conflict. That may be too hard to solve all in one jump.

But it’s possible that there are lesser conflicts that can be resolved
first. It might be that the parties to the conflict say, and think, that
they are trying to reach the same higher goal, but are disagreeing on how
to get there. In that case the first thing to do is to understand exactly
what is going on. The parties have to identify the higher goal, and then
individually reconsider the ways they have chosen to achieve the higher
goal, in the light of the new knowledge about the other party. The
object, of course, is to allow achieving the higher goal without someone
else reacting to what you do in a way that makes achievement impossible.
The basic question for all to consider is “Which is more important:
to achieve my higher goal, or to achieve it my way?”

I think that explorations like this can clear the way to resolving the
more difficult, higher-order, conflicts.

Best,

Bill P.

23

[From Rick Marken (2007.08.22.1800)]

Jim Wuwert (2007.08.22.1217PST)

Nice work!

It seems to me like it is impossible not to be in a constant state of
reorganization.

True. But in PCT reorganization varies in magnitude; it's not all or
none. This can be seen in child development, for example. There are
periods in a child's development when reorganization is more intense
than at others. These differences in the magnitude of reorganization,
which show up as periods of relative tranquility followed by periods
of tumult (the terrible two's, for example) have been documented by
Franz and Hettie Plooij, two Dutch fans of PCT, and shown to
correspond to periods when a child starts to learn a whole new level
of control (in the sense of a level of the hierarchy of control).
People who have good control reorganize far less than people who are
having trouble controlling. I think this is seen at the societal level
in terms of the difference we perceive between a "stable" and an
"unstable" society. What are perceived to be stable societies are, I
believe, ones where most people are able to control pretty
effectively; unstable societies are ones where too many people are not
able to control effectively, so the people in these societies are
constantly reorganizing, which means they are behaving unpredictably
because, at least according to PCT, reorganization is random.

Is it possible even to have perfect control on earth?

No. But we don't need perfect control; we just need good control. And
we are controlling many variables simultaneously, at many levels, so
reorganization, to the extent that it occurs, may only be triggered by
poor control of one or two variables. Things really only get bad,
reorganization-wise, when it's impossible control many variables and
this failure to control makes it difficult to even survive.

Isn't reorganization on this earth a given, a constant?

Yes. But the level of reorganization can be very different for
different people and at different times. The reorganization level in
places like France and Italy are a LOT lower than they are in places
like Iraq and Zimbabwe.

Do you think it's a poor idea to think God is truth?

It depends on which God you're talking about. If it's the God of
Abraham then I'd say let it go. If it's the Greek gods, then go with
it!

Can God be truth?

As I understand it, if God (the Abrahamic one, not the Greek, Roman or
Indian one) existed it could be whatever it wanted to be.

What if I am not fanatical, meaning that I believe God is truth, yet I don't
force it on you, I let you work it out yourself?

As far as I'm concerned you can do whatever you want (including try to
convince people that God is truth) as long as you don't force others
to do what you want.

Even if you may do things
that I think are harmful of untrue. It's your control system, not mine.

I feel the same way about you.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
Lecturer in Psychology
UCLA
rsmarken@gmail.com

24

Message
[From David Goldstein(2007.08.23.0502 EDT)]

Dear Bill, Rick and listmates,

Wow! What a terrific post. This is the best that I have heard you say it. Intrapersonal and interpersonal conflict explained in

one relatively short post.

A question that occurs to me: Can the Reorganization System, working in the Ecoli method of movement, resolve this conflict?

This would require it to ‘go up a level’, as in MOL Therapy.

David

From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet) [mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU] ** On Behalf Of** Bill Powers
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 4:30 PM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Subject: Re: Ship of Fools

Amen, indeed. But how do you remove the cause of conflict without
getting into conflict? There's the rub!

[From Bill Powers (2007.08.22.1350 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2007.08.22.1210) –

As I’ve worked it out, there are three levels involved in any conflict, not necessarily adjacent levels.

The lowest level is the level where the confict is expressed. One control system, which is working perfectly well, receives several reference signals and brings its perception to the net value of the reference signals. That’s a little vague but will do for now.

The next level up is the source of the two reference signals: two different control systems, seeking different and apparently independent goals at the next level up. Achievement of these goals happens to require two different values of the reference signal for the same lower-order system where we started. If these values are very far apart, the resulting perception returned from the lower system will not be what either higher-level system is trying to produce. This is the level that is generating the conflict.

The third level contains the reasons for which the two middle-level systems are receiving their respective reference signals. In MSOB I said this is the level where the “situation” is created that leads to the conflict. I’m open to better characterizations.

One example at the third level would be that a person wants to be respected. To get respect, the person learns, you should (next level down) be confident, assertive, and leader-like. So the person learns to do those things. Also, the person learns that respect comes from treating others well, listening to them, offering help, and refraining from dominating them. Out of this we get two goals: act like a leader, and refrain from dominating people. From those two goals we could end up with one reference signal saying “Tell people what to do” and another saying “Don’t tell people what to do.” There is the expression of the conflict. The outcome could be that the person is half-hearted about doing either thing, and succeeds in being neither a leader nor a helper. This means failure to satisfy the goal of getting respect.

Sorting out this conflict isn’t hard, but it takes some reorganization of perceptions and choices of goals for lower systems.

The main lesson is that you get nowhere by attacking the conflict at the lowest level where the outputs directly oppose, or at least add up to an ineffective way of controlling. The middle level is where you need to work, where one side of the conflict pushes, making the error on the other side larger and increasing the counter-push from the other side. But to understand the middle level you have to see that the two systems are trying to achieve contradictory goals, and what makes them contradictory, so you have to be looking from the third level. You have to see what you’re trying to achieve that somehow gave rise to two opposing sub-goals. Just choosing one or the other goal at the middle level and trying harder to achieve it will only make the conflict more intense.

When you’re in conflict with another person, I think a similar situation exists, which leads different people to choose different ways of achieving a higher goal. If the higher goals are different, and the difference persists all the way to the top level, there is a serious problem that requires fundamental changes in all participants in the conflict. That may be too hard to solve all in one jump.

But it’s possible that there are lesser conflicts that can be resolved first. It might be that the parties to the conflict say, and think, that they are trying to reach the same higher goal, but are disagreeing on how to get there. In that case the first thing to do is to understand exactly what is going on. The parties have to identify the higher goal, and then individually reconsider the ways they have chosen to achieve the higher goal, in the light of the new knowledge about the other party. The object, of course, is to allow achieving the higher goal without someone else reacting to what you do in a way that makes achievement impossible. The basic question for all to consider is “Which is more important: to achieve my higher goal, or to achieve it my way?”

I think that explorations like this can clear the way to resolving the more difficult, higher-order, conflicts.

Best,

Bill P.

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.12.2/966 - Release Date: 8/22/2007 9:05 AM

No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.12.2/966 - Release Date: 8/22/2007 9:05 AM

···

-----Original Message-----

25

[From Bill Powers (2007.087.23.0700 MDT)]

David
Goldstein(2007.08.23.0502 EDT) –

A question that
occurs to me: Can the Reorganization System, working in the Ecoli method
of movement, resolve this
conflict?

That’s the basic idea behind MOL. The main hypothesis is that the part of
the hierarchy where reorganization is working is determined by where
awareness is focussed. That may be redundant if awareness is simply an
aspect of reorganization, or vice versa, but conceptually it seems to
work.

If any systematic way of resolving a conflict is known to a person,
reorganization is not necessary. In fact, we learn systematic ways of
solving problems through reorganization in the first place. When people
come to you for help, however, that’s a sign that they have not succeeded
in finding a solution, so they probably need to get reorganization
working in some place other than where it’s been working. In the conflict
I described, being identified with the level that is trying to get
respect brings the conflicting desires to lead and to help into view
where they can both be seen at once.

Reorganization (which exists because both control systems in the conflict
will be experiencing large errors) will then start to change the
characteristics of these systems, altering both the perceptions and the
output organization. Perhaps telling people what to do will cease to be
part of one’s perception of leadership, or perhaps not telling them what
to do will disappear from the control system devoted to helping. If the
result is to enable both middle-level systems to start working properly,
the conflict will be resolved. However, it may turn out that telling
people what to do (assuming that side of the conflict is retained) does
not actually produce a perception of being respected. Then some higher
perception may have to be examined to reorganize the goals being set at
that level. Perhaps one’s perception of respect will be reorganized.
There is no way to know in advance what outcome of reorganization will be
chosen and put into practice.

The basic idea is that reorganization is working wherever awareness is
focused, and not working, or working at a much lower rate, elsewhere.
When you get a person to change the focus of awareness, you can see
reorganization beginning in the new area – the person begins to have new
ideas, some of which are workable and some of which aren’t. Then,
considering these new ideas in practice or in imagination, the person
settles on a few of the ideas to continue working out. As we have
noticed, a lot of this evaluation of new ideas and trying out of new
ideas happens between therapy sessions, often to the therapist’s surprise
and delight. It doesn’t always work, but then the person goes on looking
for more new ideas.

So I guess that the answer to your question is yes.

Best,

Bill P.

26

[From Rick Marken (2007.08.23.0910)]

Bill Powers (2007.087.23.0700 MDT)

>David Goldstein(2007.08.23.0502 EDT) --

A question that occurs to me: Can the Reorganization System,
working in the Ecoli method of movement, resolve this conflict?

That's the basic idea behind MOL.

I have had some experience resolving simple, everyday conflicts by
going up a level and reorganizing. Conflicts like being frozen in one
place because one system wants to carry something into the kitchen and
the other wants to put something away in the dining room. The usual
"reorganization" that takes place is that I realize I have to do one
thing after the other so I mentally flip a coin and control for the
winning option (go to the kitchen) and then then losing one (the
dining room).

So I believe that "going up a level" can work with intra-personal
conflict because I have experienced it (in rather mundane situations,
I admit, but still, I find it easier to "believe" things I've
experienced, which is why the simple tracking task roped me so
successfully into PCT). I just don't see how "going up a level" could
work with inter-personal conflict, especially when the conflict is
between groups of control systems. I guess I can see how it could work
in one on one inter-personal conflicts, since as one element of such a
conflict one can unilaterally back out. But what happens when it is
groups in conflict, as is the case on this ship of fools?

Could you describe, for example, a hypothetical "up a level" solution
to the conflict that is probably the root of all future catastrophes
in the West: the Israel- Palestine conflict. You gave a nice
description of how a person might solve an intra-personal conflict
based on controlling for incompatible approaches to showing respect
(Bill Powers (2007.08.22.1350 MDT)). Could you describe a vision of
how each party to the middle east conflict might go about resolving
that conflict? I just can't see any approach other than fighting to
exhaustion (which was the way the Northern Ireland thing was
eventually solved, I think, but that one didn't have world wide
implications).

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
Lecturer in Psychology
UCLA
rsmarken@gmail.com

27

Could you describe, for example,
a hypothetical “up a level” solution

to the conflict that is probably the root of all future catastrophes

in the West: the Israel- Palestine conflict. You gave a nice

description of how a person might solve an intra-personal conflict

based on controlling for incompatible approaches to showing respect

(Bill Powers (2007.08.22.1350 MDT)). Could you describe a vision
of

how each party to the middle east conflict might go about resolving

that conflict? I just can’t see any approach other than fighting to

exhaustion (which was the way the Northern Ireland thing was

eventually solved, I think, but that one didn’t have world wide

implications).
[From Bill Powers (2007.08.23.1115 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2007.08.23.0910) –

The reorganization has to be in each person. That means that in one
person, some control system that is contributing to the conflict must
change. My suggestion is that the reorganization has to be at a high
level, perhaps the highest.

We could start with the idea that occurred to you: fighting to
exhaustion.

That’s a possibility. Is there anything wrong with doing that? Oh, there
is? Well, what exactly, is wrong with it? So this leads to the conclusion
that you should not fight to exhaustion? Well, suppose you don’t – what
happens then?

This is hard to do without an actual conflict to talk about. It’s too
easy to make up both sides and of course the examples always work and
therefore are unconvincing, like role-playing where everyone knows what
is supposed to happen, so it does. It would be better to take an
interpersonal conflict you’re already in and that has been going on for
some time, and explore it to see where that takes us.

Best,

Bill P.

···

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken PhD

Lecturer in Psychology

UCLA

rsmarken@gmail.com

–

No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.12.1/962 - Release Date: 8/20/2007
1:08 PM

–

No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.12.1/962 - Release Date: 8/20/2007
1:08 PM

28

[Martin Taylor 2007.08.23.13.03]

[From Rick Marken (2007.08.23.0910)] To Bill P.

Could you describe, for example, a hypothetical "up a level" solution
to the conflict that is probably the root of all future catastrophes
in the West: the Israel- Palestine conflict. You gave a nice
description of how a person might solve an intra-personal conflict
based on controlling for incompatible approaches to showing respect
(Bill Powers (2007.08.22.1350 MDT)). Could you describe a vision of
how each party to the middle east conflict might go about resolving
that conflict?

There are two approaches, one from the real-world situation that needs to be resolved (and will be, even if it takes a few millennia), and one in the abstract, the latter being the easier approach ;-).

The abstract approach starts (at least mine does) with the idea that nobody will reorganize unless what they are doing fails to reduce error in the perceptions they are controlling. When the actions sometimes do succeed, even if the error subsequently increases again, reorganization is (I think, without evidence) less likely than if the actions hit a stone wall. In the case of the Palestine conflict, both sides have had times when what they were doing seems to work.

The second starting point is that reorganization is more likely when there is an internal conflict within any individual. Internal conflict ensures that at least one controlled perception cannot have its error reduced while the conflict persists. (The same is true of external conflict, but in an external conflict there is always the possibility that one's own actions can overwhelm the other's control, removing the conflict. That can't happen with internal conflict).

The third starting point is to consider the environment, and the resources within the environment that are in the feedback paths of controlled perceptions involved in the conflict. If these resources are limited, AND if they are really necessary for control of top-level perceptions, then it is possible no reorganization can, in principle, resolve the conflict. But if the limited resources are not essential for control of top-level perceptions (such as self-image), then the potential exists for a reorganization that could eliminate the conflict.

Applying this to Palestine/Israel, the land area is a limited resource. For what possible high-level control systems might this resource form part of the environmental feeback path? Without actually applying The Test, it is not possible to say for sure, and then one could say only for the Tested individuals. But it is possible to make some guesses. For example, one may guess that for some Palestinians control of the image of self held by friends might be important, and that perception demands that one does not accept Israeli control over one's homeland. At the same time, for some Israelis, a low-error self-image perception (based on religious teaching) requires that the person see total Israeli control over the land area of Paletine as the only acceptable state of the world.

If those are truly top-level control systems with the suggested reference levels, then the conflict would be truly soluble only by overwhelming force applied by one side or the other. But they cannot be top-level, since the reference levels in both cases are socially constructed. There's nothing in te genes that makes the baby become an extremist of wither persuasion. The solution, then, would have to be in the social environment, in some way altering those reference levels that require incompatible uses of the land. Internally, neither side has a conflict, so reorganization from that source is unlikely. Reorganizatin because of failure to control perceptions of the way one's friends perceive one is more likely, and that requires changes in the social environment.

But quite apart from the social environment, there is the physical question of resource limitation. There is just so much land, and with the available climate and terrain, it can carry just so many people with a reasonable degree of comfort. If the number of people exceeds that limit, conflict is inevitable, and no amount of reorganization will make it go away. (That's the problem of the world right now, as well as of many separate regions of it).

I just can't see any approach other than fighting to
exhaustion (which was the way the Northern Ireland thing was
eventually solved, I think, but that one didn't have world wide
implications).

I don't know if this is helpful, but it does suggest a direction of analysis that might be helpful in the long run. I think it is what some politicians try to do much of the time, in conflict with other politicians who have absolutist views on right and wrong.

Martin

29

[From Dick Robertson,2007.08.24.1348CDT]

···

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Marken <rsmarken@GMAIL.COM>
Date: Thursday, August 23, 2007 11:10 am
Subject: Re: Ship of Fools
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU

[From Rick Marken (2007.08.23.0910)]

> Bill Powers (2007.087.23.0700 MDT)
>
> >David Goldstein(2007.08.23.0502 EDT) --
>
>> A question that occurs to me: Can the Reorganization System,
>> working in the Ecoli method of movement, resolve this conflict?

> That's the basic idea behind MOL.

I have had some experience resolving simple, everyday conflicts by
going up a level and reorganizing. Conflicts like being frozen in one
place because one system wants to carry something into the kitchen and
the other wants to put something away in the dining room. The usual
"reorganization" that takes place is that I realize I have to do one
thing after the other so I mentally flip a coin and control for the
winning option (go to the kitchen) and then then losing one (the
dining room).

Hm, I wonder if this isn't a new definition of the concept of reorganization?
My original understanding was that reorganization actually involves an infusion
of random signaling into the existing control hierarchy that disrupts ongoing
systems allowing some to form new hard-wired connection that allow the control
of variables that were previously not under control.

The example here seems to me simply a case of conflict at a given level that is
resolved by a higher level that can affect both of the lower systems involved in
the conflict by altering the RS to each in such a way that one or the other can
act without being stalemated by the opposing system.

So I believe that "going up a level" can work with intra-personal
conflict because I have experienced it (in rather mundane situations,
I admit, but still, I find it easier to "believe" things I've
experienced, which is why the simple tracking task roped me so
successfully into PCT). I just don't see how "going up a level" could
work with inter-personal conflict, especially when the conflict is
between groups of control systems. I guess I can see how it could work
in one on one inter-personal conflicts, since as one element of
such a
conflict one can unilaterally back out. But what happens when it is
groups in conflict, as is the case on this ship of fools?

Well, don't we resort to the sociologists here? As I think Clark has pointed out
previously a social entitity can be defined as acting as if it were an
individual when all the members come to control for a similar value of the RS
for the perceptual variable of interest. Look at the present political situation
between our country and e.g. Iran. While there are millions of people involved
you have a quasi-control system in which Bush sets the RS for the "unit" of all
the rest of us, and Ahmedinejad does likewise in opposition. Many of us might
want to set the RS that Bush sets for us all-together, to a different value, but
we don't do it, because we can't.

Could you describe, for example, a hypothetical "up a level" solution
to the conflict that is probably the root of all future catastrophes
in the West: the Israel- Palestine conflict. You gave a nice
description of how a person might solve an intra-personal conflict
based on controlling for incompatible approaches to showing respect
(Bill Powers (2007.08.22.1350 MDT)). Could you describe a vision of
how each party to the middle east conflict might go about resolving
that conflict?

I'm assuming here you include the U S as a ''party in the middle east." In that
case I can give an example of an ''up a level" solution: We give up. You win,
we'll all become muslims."

Don't like that solution? Well, you didn't ask for one you'd like. You only
asked for one that could solve the conhflict.

Best,

Dick R

30

Hm, I wonder if this isn’t a new
definition of the concept of reorganization?

My original understanding was that reorganization actually involves an
infusion

of random signaling into the existing control hierarchy that disrupts
ongoing

systems allowing some to form new hard-wired connection that allow the
control

of variables that were previously not under
control.
[From Bill Powers (2007.08.24.1419 MDT)]
Dick Robertson,2007.08.24.1348 CDT –
I don’t know abut random “signaling,” but my idea of
reorganization was that it involves some kind of effect that
alters the way a control system operates. I haven’t tried to get
more specific than that. It could be a chemical effect that alters
synaptic strengths up or down. But the net result should be that the
organization of input functions or output functions becomes different. On
the input side, different inputs are required to produce the same
perceptuaol signal; on the output side, the same error signal is
converted into different amounts of reference signals for lower systems
(one difference being the difference between not being connected, weight
= 0, and being connected to the reference input of a lower-order
system).

The example here
seems to me simply a case of conflict at a given level that is

resolved by a higher level that can affect both of the lower systems
involved in

the conflict by altering the RS to each in such a way that one or the
other can

act without being stalemated by the opposing
system.

In the example I used, one of the conflicting systems perceived
leadership as requiring, among other things, telling people what to do.
If the same perception of leadership could be obtained without telling
people what to do, the conflict would be resolved. So that would be a
reorganization of an input function that leads to perceiving the same
thing when a different set of lower-order perceptions was
involved.

Well, don’t we
resort to the sociologists here? As I think Clark has pointed out

previously a social entitity can be defined as acting as if it were
an

individual when all the members come to control for a similar value of
the RS

for the perceptual variable of interest.

That was Kent McClelland speaking about virtual control systems, wasn’t
it? Clark McPhail also speaks of groups controlling for similar values of
reference signals for similar perceptions.

What you saying sounds right, though. Maybe we need another subdivision
of the subject of conflict. We have intrapersonal conflict (me against
myself), interpersonal conflict (me against you) and intergroup conflict
(us against them). A compulsive urge toward symmetry suggests intragroup
conflict, which is what causes groups to splinter when they seek goals
that are not quite similar enough.

I’m assuming here
you include the U S as a ''party in the middle east." In that

case I can give an example of an ''up a level" solution: We give up.
You win,

we’ll all become muslims."

Don’t like that solution? Well, you didn’t ask for one you’d like.

That’s an excellent example of reorganization, E. coli style. What
follows that last sentence is, " … so try again." Another
word for reorganization in a group is brainstorming.

Best,

Bill P.

31

[From Rick Marken (2007.08.24.1450)]

Dick Robertson (2007.08.24.1348CDT) --

> Rick Marken (2007.08.23.0910)]

> I have had some experience resolving simple, everyday conflicts by
> going up a level and reorganizing. Conflicts like being frozen in one
> place because one system wants to carry something into the kitchen and
> the other wants to put something away in the dining room. The usual
> "reorganization" that takes place is that I realize I have to do one
> thing after the other so I mentally flip a coin and control for the
> winning option (go to the kitchen) and then then losing one (the
> dining room).

Hm, I wonder if this isn't a new definition of the concept of reorganization?

Maybe. My point was simply that I have experienced intrapersonal
conflict resolution so I know -- or have a feeling for -- how it works
and how to solve it. I was clearly in a conflict in the example above
and I solved it by simply realizing that I could do one thing and then
the other. Maybe that's not reorganization but it is certainly
conflict resolution.

The example here seems to me simply a case of conflict at a given level that is
resolved by a higher level that can affect both of the lower systems involved in
the conflict by altering the RS to each in such a way that one or the other can
act without being stalemated by the opposing system.

Yes. But the solution didn't seem that simple during the brief time I
was actually in the conflict.

Could you describe a vision of

> how each party to the middle east conflict might go about resolving
> that conflict?

I'm assuming here you include the U S as a ''party in the middle east." In that
case I can give an example of an ''up a level" solution: We give up. You win,
we'll all become muslims."

Gee, I didn't know that we were in the Middle East to keep people from
converting us into Muslims.Now it all makes sense;-)

But you are right, one solution is for one party to give up. But I
don't believe that's a likely solution since not everyone one the
"losing" side will accept it (remember, a party to a conflict is
typically made up of a lot of people) and some will still do what they
can to continue fighting. I think of a solution to a conflict as a
state where people are no longer fighting against each other (just as
my "kitchen going" control system stopped fighting against my "dining
room going" control system when I managed to see that I could do one
thing _and then_ the other).

Don't like that solution? Well, you didn't ask for one you'd like. You only
asked for one that could solve the conflict.

I don't mind the solution; I just find it a tad implausible. Even if
the conflict was as you say -- they want to convert us and we want to
keep them from converting us -- I don't believe that you would really
be able to get many of those on the non-conversion side to give up
that goal and be willing to be converted. I see that Bill suggested
that you keep on trying. What I'm asking for is a plausible vision of
what a solution might look like. One that doesn't involve one group
having to lose or win.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
Lecturer in Psychology
UCLA
rsmarken@gmail.com

32

I see that Bill suggested

that you keep on trying. What I’m asking for is a plausible vision
of

what a solution might look like. One that doesn’t involve one
group

having to lose or win.
[From Bill Powers (2007.08.24.1550 MDT)]
Rick Marken (2007.08.24.1450)]
At least one side in any conflict is going to have to change
if the conflict is to disappear. More likely, both sides will have to
change, so neither side is going to get what it presently wants.
That’s not as bad as it sounds, once you realize that neither side
is getting what it wants. If the conflict isn’t resolved, that
state of frustration will simply continue. You first have to realize that
not getting what you want is not going to change. If by
“losing” you mean keeping exactly the same goals and not
achieving them, that’s where you are now and where you will stay. Giving
in means you don’t achieve your goals, which is already the case, but you
also give up wanting to achieve them, so the error goes away.
Since you can’t reorganize anyone else (getting tired of hearing that?),
the only thing you can do about interpersonal conflict, other than
continuing unsuccessfully to try to win it, is to change yourself. That
means changing what you want so it doesn’t conflict with (a) other things
that you want, and (b) what the other person wants. That is where the
exploration and the need for a stream of new ideas come in. You may have
have to change more than one thing, because the barrier to solving one
conflict may be another conflict – if I give up on wanting this, then
I’ll lose that other thing I value. So now you have to explore that other
thing you want and find out how it conflicts with the first thing, or
with something else. You may have to change the other thing,
too.
It’s a tangled web, and it takes time and often guidance from someone who
can help look out for subjects that need to be brought into awareness.
Of course all this goes much more smoothly when both sides are trying to
reorganize. When you’re all done, you’ve gone as far as you can to change
your own beliefs, desires, hopes, intentions, and wishes. If that’s not
enough, then the other person has to make up the difference. Sometimes it
is enough. But the hard cases occur when it’s not. Then we have to
try education and persuasion and negotiation. Way off in the corner on
the top shelf behind the dirty rags, where it’s messy and dirty and
discouraging, there’s confrontation and violence to fall back on. But
after that, the conflict always returns.

As about 50 famous people are often quoted as having said, violence is
the last resort of the incompetent. As I have said and will say again,
violence is the natural end-point of an unresolved conflict. Either way,
it behooves us to resolve conflicts instead of trying to win
them.

These are discouraging ideas if you had hoped that your conflicts with
others could somehow be resolved without your having to change anything.
Discouragement, even despair, is an essential step toward reorganization.
It comes from realizing what kind of mess you are really in. It is a deep
sense of intrinsic error, and of course that’s what is needed to stoke
reorganization. If despair is called for, then by all means despair.
That’s what you have to do to get things to change in any significant
way.

Best,

Bill P.

33

Re: Ship of Fools
[Martin Taylor 2007.08.24.17.27]

[From Bill Powers (2007.08.24.1419
MDT)]

Well, don’t we resort to the sociologists
here? As I think Clark has pointed out

previously a social entitity can be defined as acting as if it were
an

individual when all the members come to control for a similar value of
the RS

for the perceptual variable of interest.

That was Kent McClelland speaking about virtual control systems,
wasn’t it? Clark McPhail also speaks of groups controlling for similar
values of reference signals for similar perceptions.
What you saying sounds right, though.
Maybe we need another subdivision of the subject of conflict. We have
intrapersonal conflict (me against myself), interpersonal conflict (me
against you) and intergroup conflict (us against them). A compulsive
urge toward symmetry suggests intragroup conflict, which is what
causes groups to splinter when they seek goals that are not quite
similar enough.

This brings back memories. Here’s a paragraph from
On Helping (click on
section 6: parallel helper control):

==============start quote================

Let us consider the effects of different
mismatches between helper and user. Firstly, consider the case in
which they are the same except that the helper’s reference level for
the CEV differs from that of the user. If the CEV is above both
reference levels or below both reference levels, both helper and user
are working in the same direction, and since the reference level is
the only mismatch between them, helper and user cooperate. But if the
CEV provides a perceptual signal between the two reference levels, the
helper and user are in conflict, pulling in opposite directions. If
the helper brings its error near zero, the user will experience error,
and vice-versa. One sees this effect frequently in the
fragmentation of victorious political revolutionary groups. Before the
revolution, members of all the factions perceived the state to differ
from their reference levels in much the same way. After the revolution
succeeds, all factions find their errors much reduced, but now for
some the error that remains is in a different direction from that of
the members of other factions.

================end
quote==================

In this context, my PowerPoint slide show
on social control systems, from the 2005 CSG meeting, might also be
relevant.
http://www.mmtaylor.net/PCT/CSG2005/CSG2005cSocialControl.ppt

Martin

34

If the helper brings its error
near zero, the user will experience error, and vice-versa. One sees
this effect frequently in the fragmentation of victorious political
revolutionary groups. Before the revolution, members of all the factions
perceived the state to differ from their reference levels in much the
same way. After the revolution succeeds, all factions find their errors
much reduced, but now for some the error that remains is in a different
direction from that of the members of other
factions.
[From Bill Powers (2007.08.25.0750 MDT)]

Martin Taylor 2007.08.24.17.27 –

Very nice. It’s satisfying when simply following out the logic of PCT
leads to predicting a phenomenon that so obviously happens in real
life. I’ve spoken about this as the reason for the breakup of
“fanatic” groups – groups in which there is essentially no
tolerance for deviation from doctrine, which means that even minor
differences in perception or reference levels can lead to splits in the
group. I wonder if this could be part of the problem the Republicans are
having down here underneath you.

Best,

Bill P.

35

[From Rick Marken (2007.08.25.0830)]

Bill Powers (2007.08.25.0750 MDT)--

Very nice. It's satisfying when simply following out the logic of PCT leads
to predicting a phenomenon that so obviously happens in real life. I've
spoken about this as the reason for the breakup of "fanatic" groups --
groups in which there is essentially no tolerance for deviation from
doctrine, which means that even minor differences in perception or reference
levels can lead to splits in the group. I wonder if this could be part of
the problem the Republicans are having down here underneath you.

Oops. It sounds like what happened to another group with which we're
familiar -- this one. Mr. Fanatic over here (me;-)) has apparently
managed to split the group due to my lack of tolerance for what
probably could be considered minor differences; like my difference
with Tom over what control is. The Republicans now differ on little
things like abortion rights, gun control and evolution. But they are
agreed on the most important topic of our time: gays shouldn't be able
to marry. Even the Democrats agree with them on that.The answer to
some moral questions are just so obvious -- like the answer to the
question about whether we should eat lobster -- that God didn't even
need to tell us; we could have figured it out for ourselves. But some
are so difficult -- like whether they should allow the property two
blocks south of Santa Monica to be zoned R3 -- that I think they
should have been included. Maybe the answer to those questions were on
the tablets that were dropped.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
Lecturer in Psychology
UCLA
rsmarken@gmail.com