# Something's Happening Here

**URL:** http://discourse.iapct.org/t/somethings-happening-here/16220
**Category:** Collective phenomena
**Created:** [February 3, 2026, 6:26pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/somethings-happening-here/16220 "2026-02-03T18:26:26Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 10

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/rsmarken/32/3553_2.png) [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)
#### Post date: [February 10, 2026, 10:36pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/somethings-happening-here/16220/10 "2026-02-10T22:36:43Z")

</div>

OK, now I’ll address some of the comments in Kent’s post.

> [@Kent](#):
>
> Then Rick goes on to say,
> 
> > This conflict doesn’t seem to be producing the kind of social stability that is supposed to result from collective control of the same variable (type of society) relative to different references (“democracy” versus “fascism”).
> 
> But my question for him is what evidence he can point to that a state of high conflict is equivalent to a loss of “social stability”.

My “evidence” is only that many of the things I see as social instability are a result of conflict.

> [@Kent](#):
>
> What is your indicator of social instability, Rick? Have we had a revolution in this country? Has there been a coup? Are we in the midst of civil war?

What’s your indicator of social stability, Kent?

My indicator of social instability is kind of intuitive. It includes attempted coups (Jan 6), lawlessness (ignoring the constitution), military occupation of cities (unnecessarily), large variations in policy (tariffs), egregious wealth inequality, among many other things. All these things can be seen as examples of conflict. Jan 6 was a conflict between those who believed Trump won and those who knew he didn’t; ignoring the constitution is a conflict between those who want the constitution to mean different things; daily changes in tariff policy were a conflict with other countries over trade; egregious wealth inequality is a conflict over how progressive our tax system should be.

> [@Kent](#):
>
> What it seems to me that you have had a hard time grasping, Rick, is that intense conflicts can have a high degree of stability…

I think I have a pretty good grasp of how apparent stability can emerge from conflict. I gave a talk on it at the IAPCT conference in 2023. [Here’s a pointer](https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/v8ltsxsus0tgkwglvfeuk/Conflict-Presentation10.10.pptx?rlkey=i0kjvw4tjchfik1lriohn63y3&dl=0) to it. My talk shows that the stability that can be seen in some conflicts is illusory; there is a dead zone around the apparently stable “virtual controlled variable” that is easily disturbed (made unstable). My conclusion was that conflict is generally a bad thing although it can sometimes be a good thing when it is carefully regulated with rules and laws, as in sporting events and civilized societies.

> [@Kent](#):
>
> Correct me if I’m wrong, Rick, but, if I remember correctly, your favorite model of how conflict happens in collective control is the classic tug-of-war scenario.

Yes, that’s the example of conflict I used in the 2023 talk. Though I actually used an augmented version a tug of war to make the demo and modeling simpler. I had the connection between each team and the contested flag be a solid pole rather than a rope so that the teams could both pull AND push the flag.

> [@Kent](#):
>
> Unfortunately, that’s not how serious conflicts develop in real life. As I’ve argued many times in my published articles, collective conflicts can often get stuck for long periods of time in a high-conflict mode, with both sides exerting the maximum gain that they can apply to the interaction, but neither side prevailing over the other.

The conflict demo in my talk does exactly that: it allows you to “get stuck for long periods of time in a high-conflict mode, with both sides exerting the maximum [output – gain is not exerted] .” If you do the demo that is in the presentation you’ll see that this conflict situation is perfect for exposing the instability hiding in the dead zone of the conflict.

> [@Kent](#):
>
> In a presentation that I gave at the 2022 IAPCT meeting, I offered a PCT simulation model of how such high-conflict situations can drag out over time with considerable stability:
> 
> [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367240652\_A\_Fresh\_Look\_at\_Collective\_Control\_and\_Conflict](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367240652_A_Fresh_Look_at_Collective_Control_and_Conflict)
> 
> If, after giving this matter some thought, Rick, you still think that there is something faulty about my theory of collective control, I would be very pleased if you would offer your own PCT-based theoretical alternative. I’m eager to learn from your insights.

The simulation work described in this talk is very nice. But it conceals some of the unpleasant features of what you call a Giant Virtual Controller (GVC); unpleasantries such as the dead zone (where there is no resistance to disturbance) and the large, persistent error in the individuals that make up the GVC (showing that the individuals that make up the GVC are not really in control).

But the main problem with your GVC model of society is that **you have never demonstrated how your model fits data on social behavior**. Because of this, and despite your lovely simulations, I don’t consider your model to be PCT-based. Modeling is a necessary component of the PCT-based approach to understanding social behavior, but it is not sufficient. It is also necessary that these models be tested against observation (data). You have done a great job of building models of social behavior. But without testing it against observation, it’s just hand waving. And testing models against observation involves more that verbal anecdotes.

Examples of PCT models of social behavior being tested against data are described in Chapter 7 of my book [The Study of Living Control Systems (SLCS)](https://www.cambridge.org/us/universitypress/subjects/psychology/experimental-psychology/study-living-control-systems-guide-doing-research-purpose?format=PB). These examples show that my “PCT-based theoretical alternative” to your Giant Virtual Controller model is, just, PCT being mapped appropriately to the social phenomenon to be explained. If the phenomenon involves conflict – as it does in the arm wrestling example that I describe in section 7.1.6 – then the model will involve control systems in conflict. If the phenomenon doesn’t involve conflict – like the flocking and phonemic drift examples in SLCS – then the model will not involve control systems in conflict.

I think you like the idea of a Giant Virtual Controller (GVC) because it seems to legitimize Sociology as a discipline independent of Psychology; the GVC is a social rather than an individual behavioral phenomenon. I think, therefore, that the concept of a GVC is very important to you, as a Sociologist, and, therefore, it will be hard (if not impossible) for you to give it up. But I wish you could give it up because I believe you could do great PCT-based research with all that great modeling skill you’ve developed.

Best, Rick

---

_[View the full topic](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/somethings-happening-here/16220)._