[From Bill Powers (2007.01.18.0600 MST)]
Rick Marken (2007.01.17.2250) –
I think the present discussion, if we may stretch the meaning of that
term, is an example of two people (or more) perceiving the same things in
different ways and, as a result, coming into conflict. When you look back
over earlier posts, you see one set of meanings, while I see (and saw
then) a different set. But since you still see the same meanings you saw
the first time, you accuse me of changing my story, because you assume
that I saw the meanings you saw the first time (and apparently still see)
and am now claiming something different. Here’s your comment on what I
said on the 15th:
Wouldn’t it have been simpler if
you had just said, at the beginning of this discussion: “Rick,
when you say that conflict does not result from people perceiving
things differently, you are correctly describing the situation at the
level at which the conflict is expressed. At that level conflict results
from what you say: two or more systems controlling virtually the same
perceptual variable. When I say that conflict results from people having
different perceptions I am talking about the different perceptions
controlled by the higher level systems that set the conflicting goals for
the lower level systems”.
My guess is that you didn’t say this because you didn’t think it at the
time.
That’s clear enough. I didn’t think it at the time, you say,
telepathically.
When we write we often leave out details, either assuming they are
self-evident or simply forgetting that they’re not. The first time I
wrote about different higher-level perceptions resulting in conflict, I
left out saying that we were talking about systems already in conflict,
and offering explanations for the conflict. But now, when you look back,
you see me saying that all differences of perception cause conflict,
which is how you saw it the first time, and you accuse me of changing my
view to pander to those less intellectually fortunate and in need of my
aid. That’s why I cited the page in MSOB, to correct your mistaken
impression that I have changed my mind on this matter.I didn’t. Or do you
think I went back and changed MSOB to support what I am saying
now?
Other problems follow from using language differently. It’s all very
well, Bruce N., to marvel at how we manage to reach agreements through
the use of language, but what’s going on here casts a great deal of doubt
on how marvellous it really is.
If you really thought I was
misunderstanding what people were saying, why not jump in and fix it .
Instead you jump on me and no others while waiting for someone else to
clear things up? I don’t buy it.
Someone finally
did.
Yes. It was me trying to make sense of something Bruce Nevin said. I said
that his comments about Lakoff’s models could be interpreted as a
description of two different higher level perceptions that are
controlled by setting inconsistent references for the same lower level
perceptual variable. Here it is:
Rick Marken (2007.01.15.1140)
Bruce Nevin (2007.01.15
14:13 EST)–
This contrast is exemplary of many such contrasts between left-wing views
and right-wing views that Lakoff has
investigated.
That isn’t the part I was referring to. I was referring to this part of
Bruce Nevin’s post:
Rick Marken (2007.01.15.1401)
My point above was just addressing Bruce’s claim that "conflict
can
result when two control systems control perceptual variables which
are
functions of the same environmental variables". This is just
NOT true
in general.
[Bruce said:]
The statement that conflict CAN result under these circumstances
certainly is true in general. I am aware that there are other
factors;
that is why I included the word “can”.
Do you understand how this important word “can” escaped your
notice?
to which Marken replies, not having understood what Nevin said,
Yes, it’s a contrast of
references, not ways of
perceiving.
That addressed your misunderstanding that Bruce, and earlier I, said that
differences in perception always lead to conflict. They CAN lead to
conflict, and I see this as a major source of conflicts, as I said in
MSOB. If you read MSOB carefully, however, you will see that such
conflicts do not require that people have different perceptions
of the same external situation. That case is a subset of all the
cases in which conflict is caused by two control systems controlling
different perceptions of the same or different external situations. All
conflicts, however, result from higher systems which have different
perceptions. There is a difference between
All conflicts result from higher systems with different
perceptions
and
Higher systems with different perceptions all result in
conflicts.
Bruce: The strict father model
is a hierarchical arrangement of moral authority from God…
In the nurturing parent model, the parents (if there are two) share
household responsibilities…
Rick: These could be different
higher order perceptions for which people
control. If you are controlling for the strict father model you’ll
set your reference for programs like healthcare financing
differently than if you are controlling for the nurturing parent
model.
That is what Bruce just said. The conflict results from two different
control systems controlling different perceptions by choosing conflicting
reference levels for lower-order variables. That is what I was talking
about and what Bruce was talking about. What were you talking
about?
Notice that Bruce said nothing
about how conflict could result from the fact that these models
(different perceptions) could be the source of incompatible references
for a single perception: healthcare financing. It seemed to me that Bruce
was describing the models as different ways of perceiving the same
situation but I thought it would be better to interpret him in a way that
assumed he understood that conflict result from higher level systems
controlling different perceptions by setting incompatible references for
the same lower level perceptions.
But why would it be “better?” Because that’s how you interpret
him? Your sole argument is simply to contradict Bruce’s interpretation.
And anyway, Bruce WAS talking about a difference in perceptions resulting
in setting incompatible references at a lower level. That’s what a
conflict is, isn’t it?
[Me] Check out page 78 of MSOB,
where I describe how there is one level where the conflict is expressed,
a second level where it is caused, and a third level that creates the
situation in which the conflict can arise. When you said a conflict
cannot “result from” a difference in perception, you were
focused on your own meaning of “result from” and didn’t realize
that there are other equally-natural, and maybe more natural,
meanings.
[Rick] That may be true. But no one else was seeing “result
from” in that sense either, you included.
You were the only one making that misinterpretation, Rick. The setting of
two mutually incompatible reference levels results from two higher-order
systems controlling different perceptions, not from two higher systems
controlling the same perception. Two higher systems do not control the
same perception.
Bruce Nevin certainly
didn’t mean “result from” in the sense of higher level systems
setting incompatible references for a lower level perception when he
said:
Bruce Nevin (2007.1.14 19:45
EST)
Conflict can result when two control systems control perceptual variables
which are, in each of them independently, functions of the same
environmental variables.
“Certainly?” I’d say that he quite probably meant exactly what
you say he didn’t mean. But why not ask Bruce? None of us here is a
telepath.
[Rick] This is not a description
of two higher level systems setting incompatible references for a lower
level perception. Bruce is implying that two different ways of perceiving
the same environmental variables is the basis of
conflict.
“Is the basis of?” Whose mouth did that come out of? But in
fact this is correct: the basis, the reason for or the underlying
explanation of conflict is that two higher-level control systems
controlling different perceptions set incompatible references for one
lower-level perception.
Nor did you understand
“results from” as you say above when you said:
Bill Powers (2007.01.15.0959
EST)
But “differences in the way people see things are one of the main
sources of conflict between them.” If I try to help you and you
want
to show your independence, you will see me as an interfering busybody and
I will see you as an unreasonable ingrate, and that can be enough to
break up a family.
Again, this is not a description of two higher level systems setting
incompatible references for a lower level perception. You are saying that
two different ways of perceiving the same situation – as helping vs
interference – is the basis of conflict.
No, I said that (quoting what you quoted two inches above in case you’ve
forgotten it already) "“differences in the way people see
things are one of the main sources of conflict between them.” What
does “one of the main sources” mean to you, or do you just skip
over such qualifying phrases as meaningless boilerplate? I didn’t even
say “differences in the way people see THE SAME things,” though
that is certainly an important case, which by the way you are reporting
it is well-illustrated here. You get one meaning out of the words I
wrote; I get a different meaning. And this is certainly the basis of a
conflict. A CONFLICT, Rick, not ALL CONFLICTS.
And Dag didn’t understand
conflict as resulting from two higher level systems setting incompatible
references for a lower level perceptions when he said:
Dag Forssell
(2007.01.15.1710)–
How about the Rubber Band Demonstration. You and I in front of a
blackboard agreeing to keep the knot over a dot on the board. No problem
as long as we keep the rubber bands and the knot in the same plane as the
board. Now let us move our hands four inches in front of the board.
from my point of view, the knot will be too far toward
you, so I will pull more. The converse from your point of view. Soon we
break the rubber bands.
But the basis of this conflict is that you perceive the knot as left of
the dot, while I perceive the very same knot as if it is to the right of
the dot, yet we each have to control the perception by acting on the very
same knot. The parallax creates different perceptions in each of us, and
that is the source of the conflict. It is not the conflict itself, but it
is the source of the conflict, where it comes from.
Nor did David Goldstein
understand conflict as resulting from two higher level systems setting
incompatible references for a lower level perceptions when he
said:
David Goldstein (2007.01.15.2313
EST)
The interpersonal conflict within the family results from people
believing different things.
In every case, these people were clearly understanding
“conflict results from” the same way I was: as what you would
now call “conflict expressed as”. And yet I was the one
you jumped on about it? Why do you suppose that is?
You’re still applying the same interpretation to these words that you
initially applied, which explains quite nicely why you are in conflict
with the rest of us about these meanings. I perceive David as saying that
people can set incompatible reference signals because they believe
different things are going on in the same situation. That’s what’s
happening here. Our conflict arises because you are using words
differently from the others and (apparently) are not aware of doing so,
or are insisting that your meanings or usages are the right ones. This
leads you to make statements that constitute errors for me and
others.
This is a lovely description of
conflict. But, as I said in an earlier post:
Rick Marken
(2007.01.16.1020)
conflict usually doesn’t result from a difference in perceptions at the
higher levels that generate the reference signals for lower level
systems. Saying that the conflict results from a difference in
perceptions controlled by the systems that generate the reference signals
that cause the conflict is somewhat misleading, for two reasons: 1) it
suggests that the conflict could be solved by controlling the same rather
than different perceptions at this higher level, which is not the case
and 2) it suggests that conflict always results from control of different
perceptions at this higher level, which is also not the case since
(according to the model) higher level systems control many different
perceptions – as many as there are systems at that level – and this
rarely results in >>
conflict
I think you are missing my point here. The conflict is not between
the different perceptions at the higher level. Those perceptions are
simply different from each other. But the output needed to control one of
them is incompatible with the output needed to control the other one,
because those outputs mostly cancel each other, so neither higher system
can operate properly.
When people perceive the same situation differently, we have a potential
for the most direct kind of conflict, because the same external situation
is behind both higher-level perceptions. The input functions are
different; therefore the action needed to satisfy one system is highly
unlikely to satisfy the other at the same time. In effect, one system
requires that some action take place, and the other requires that the
same action not take place.
I have no idea what you mean when you say “conflict usually
doesn’t result from a difference in perceptions at the higher levels
that generate the reference signals for lower level systems.” That
statement flatly contracts my basic analysis of how conflict arises.
Reference signals arise from higher-order systems. When two different
higher order systems, controlling different perceptual variables, send
reference signals to a common lower-order system, those reference signals
(I assume) add algebraically. The net reference signal is their sum.
Ordinarily, each higher-order system sends reference signals to many
lower-order systems, so each lower-order system is receiving a net
reference signal made up of the outputs of many higher-order systems.
Normally this does not produce conflict.
Perhaps what you meant to write was “A difference in perceptions at
the higher levels usually doesn’t result in conflict.” What you
did say was that a conflict usually doesn’t result from a difference in
higher-level perceptions," meaning that it usually arises in some
other way, and that is what I say is false. It usually DOES arise that
way. However, most of the time. this overlap of higher-order outputs does
not result in conflict.
[Rick] So describing as conflict
as the result of “different perceptions” doesn’t seem like a
wise pedagogical strategy, even if you correctly now that the different
perceptions create the conflict by setting incompatible references for
the same lower level perception. The important point is the latter –
that conflict results from higher level systems setting of incompatible
references for a lower level perception.
That is a very strange bunch of words as I read them. You seem to read
“conflict as a result of different perceptions” differently
from “different perceptions create the conflict by setting
incompatible references” (which still can’t be what you mean, but
let it go). I see those statements as saying the same thing. You see them
as saying something different. Simply adding some more detailed
explanation to one of them, either of them, doesn’t make them different.
When you read “conflict as a result of different perceptions” ,
you simply don’t see the same meaning I see. I certainly don’t see
“result of” as implying that is it only the difference in
perceptions that causes the conflict, with no intermediate steps, whereas
apparently you do. To me, one thing results from another if there is some
sort of connection between them. If I meant a direct connection, I’d say
one thing directly determines the other.
The fact that the higher level
perceptions are different is really irrelevant: because all higher level
perceptions are different from each other and you can solve the conflict
by having the higher level system perceive the same thing; then you would
just move the conflict up a level.
This supports my guess that you’re thinking of the conflict as existing
between the two “different” higher-level perceptions. As you
say, all higher-level perceptions are different from each other, except
by chance and in passing. They certainly depend in different ways on what
is below them. But they are not in conflict. Wanting to be a dominating
father is not in conflict with wanting to be a nurturing parent. Those
are different perceptions. They result in conflict if the means of being
one or the other leads to setting incompatible reference levels for a
single lower-order system: hit and don’t hit, for example.
[Rick] that is what you said.
See your quote above. It’s not what you are saying now but it’s
what you (and everyone else) said during the discussion. What you said
was completely consistent with the mistaken explanations of conflict
given by all but me. I got special treatment from you, however, and I
think it’s because you know that you don’t have to pander to me. And
you’re right.
OK, everyone is wrong but you. And we all changed our minds. This reminds
me of people who bring B:CP to me, point to a paragraph, and ask
“When did you put this in here?”
Well, again, that’s not quite
the case. See the above quotes; what others (including you) meant when
they said conflict results from (or is based on or whatever) different
perceptions is exactly what I thought you meant: that conflict results
from seeing the same situation differently.
But that is not what any of us said: we said that conflict can result
from seeing the same situation differently. It certainly results, when it
occurs, from two higher systems that have different perceptions of the
same environment – i.e., different perceptual input functions. You are
sticking to your original incorrect interpretations of what the others
meant and insisting that we have changed our minds when we
haven’t.
Best,
Bill (Excellency) P.
