[spam] Re: Conflict

[From Rick Marken (2007.01.16.2210)]

David Goldstein (2007.01.16.2032 EST)--

I am not sure that:

'It's the state of a single perceptual variable -- the description -- that the parties to the conflict want in
different states'

is what is happening.

Me neither. I was just giving my interpretation of what you said.

I don't think any of the parties want to think that the man actually touched the girl in an inappropirate way. However, some of the people come to one conclusion and other people come to a different > conclusion.

Ok. So it's different conclusions they want, not different description. In that case the conflict is over the state of a conclusion.

Why this is so, I am not sure.

I think people must want the conclusions they come to; conclusions don't just force themselves on people. So I would say it's the different higher level perceptions people control for that are responsible for it.

Also, I am not so sure that the phrase 'verbal description' is the key thing. The people are coming up with different verbal descriptions because they are imagining different things.

Yes, I agree. The verbal descriptions are of the state of an imagined perception; so one person imagines (concludes) molestation and the other imagines non-molestation.

My patient, who wants to maintain a relationship with 'her one and only father' thinks that 'something
happened' but is not sure exactly what. She thinks her father needs to speak to a couselor. The mother is reacting to the fact that the father, who was warned not to show up at Christmas by the father of the little girl, didn't say a word to any member of the family.

I think you just described the two higher level controlled perceptions that might be responsible for the conflict: the patient is controlling for having a fatherly father and, thus, wants to imagine something other than molestation; the mother is controlling for getting rid of the guy so she imagines molestation.

This is very different than what my patient, and others, would have expected from him. They are mad
at him for 'ruining Christmas' and not saying something before it became a family drama.

That seem like another conflict, one between your patient (and others) and the father.

In MOL, once a conflict is defined, say the father did it; the father didn't do it; the father did something which the little girl misinterpreted, one would ask the person to talk about each possiblity, repeatedly if necessary, until the person could see all the possibilities simultaneously.

The conflict you described above didn't sound like an intrapersonal conflict in the patient; it sounds more like a interpersonal conflict between the patient and her mother, right? Maybe there is a similar conflict is inside the patient, too. Is there? I didn't pick that up. Does the patient both want and not want to imagine molestation? If so, the same higher level perceptions I mentioned as possibly being responsible for the interpersonal conflict (between mother and patient) might apply within the patient as well.

At this point, some sort of reorganization may happen as the person is thinking about this possibilities. It is not always possible to predict how the person will reorganize.

You betcha.

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

[David Goldstein (2007.01.17.0558 EST]

You said:
'The conflict you described above didn't sound like an intrapersonal
conflict in the patient; it sounds more like a interpersonal conflict
between the patient and her mother, right?'

I don't think so. The girl is not upset about the mother's conclusions
or anyone else's. The girl has been actually much closer to her mother
than
her father.

What happened in this case among family members seems more like what
happens
in a jury trial. The jury members are presented with some facts and came
to
different conclusions about what happened.

Your saying that they wanted to come to these conclusions doesn't seem
quite
right. I think that each person in the family must 'want' and 'not want'
to
come to the conclusion that they did. Each one must be experiencing some
internal
conflict.

My patient is aware of all the possibilities. I intend to have her
disuss each one
in detail (positive and negative reactions for each one) until she can
be aware of
all of them at the same time. The background thoughts for her seems to
be: I don't want to
be without a father. He is 'sick' and needs help.

She has no awareness of the father ever having touched her in an
inappropriate way. Her
maternal grandmother asked her this question.

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU] On Behalf Of Rick Marken
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 1:12 AM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Subject: Re: Conflict

[From Rick Marken (2007.01.16.2210)]

David Goldstein (2007.01.16.2032 EST)--

I am not sure that:

'It's the state of a single perceptual variable -- the description --
that the parties to the conflict want in
different states'

is what is happening.

Me neither. I was just giving my interpretation of what you said.

I don't think any of the parties want to think that the man actually
touched the girl in an inappropirate way. However, some of the people
come to one conclusion and other people come to a different >

conclusion.

Ok. So it's different conclusions they want, not different description.
In that case the conflict is over the state of a conclusion.

Why this is so, I am not sure.

I think people must want the conclusions they come to; conclusions
don't just force themselves on people. So I would say it's the
different higher level perceptions people control for that are
responsible for it.

Also, I am not so sure that the phrase 'verbal description' is the key
thing. The people are coming up with different verbal descriptions
because they are imagining different things.

Yes, I agree. The verbal descriptions are of the state of an imagined
perception; so one person imagines (concludes) molestation and the
other imagines non-molestation.

My patient, who wants to maintain a relationship with 'her one and
only father' thinks that 'something
happened' but is not sure exactly what. She thinks her father needs to

speak to a couselor. The mother is reacting to the fact that the
father, who was warned not to show up at Christmas by the father of
the little girl, didn't say a word to any member of the family.

I think you just described the two higher level controlled perceptions
that might be responsible for the conflict: the patient is controlling
for having a fatherly father and, thus, wants to imagine something
other than molestation; the mother is controlling for getting rid of
the guy so she imagines molestation.

This is very different than what my patient, and others, would have
expected from him. They are mad
at him for 'ruining Christmas' and not saying something before it
became a family drama.

That seem like another conflict, one between your patient (and others)
and the father.

In MOL, once a conflict is defined, say the father did it; the father
didn't do it; the father did something which the little girl
misinterpreted, one would ask the person to talk about each
possiblity, repeatedly if necessary, until the person could see all
the possibilities simultaneously.

The conflict you described above didn't sound like an intrapersonal
conflict in the patient; it sounds more like a interpersonal conflict
between the patient and her mother, right? Maybe there is a similar
conflict is inside the patient, too. Is there? I didn't pick that up.
Does the patient both want and not want to imagine molestation? If so,
the same higher level perceptions I mentioned as possibly being
responsible for the interpersonal conflict (between mother and patient)
might apply within the patient as well.

At this point, some sort of reorganization may happen as the person is
thinking about this possibilities. It is not always possible to
predict how the person will reorganize.

You betcha.

Best

Rick
---
Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

[From Rick Marken (2007.01.17.1300)]

David Goldstein (2007.01.17.0558 EST)--

You said:
'The conflict you described above didn't sound like an intrapersonal conflict in the patient; it sounds more like a interpersonal conflict between the patient and her mother, right?'

I don't think so. The girl is not upset about the mother's conclusions or anyone else's. The girl has been actually much closer to her mother than her father.

What happened in this case among family members seems more like what happens in a jury trial. The jury members are presented with some facts and came to different conclusions about what happened.

Your saying that they wanted to come to these conclusions doesn't seem quite right. I think that each person in the family must 'want' and 'not want' to come to the conclusion that they did. Each one must be experiencing some internal conflict.

I think you just disagreed with me by agreeing with me;-) I agree that your patient's conflict must be because she wants to conclude that she was molested and that she was. Jury's are in the same kind of conflict; they want to conclude that the defendant is guilty and that he or she is not guilty. If a guilty verdict were just a matter of coming to a conclusion based on the evidence (responding to the evidence) then there would be no conflict because each juror would simply respond with the conclusion to which the evidence drove them; there would be no need for deliberation or juror polling. If you had 8 guilty and 2 not guilty conclusions then there you jolly well are. Each conclusion is that person's response to the evidence. But it doesn't seem to work that way. Jurors are in conflict because, on the basis of some evidence they want to conclude "guilty" but on the basis of other evidence they want to conclude "not guilty". That's what a conflict is from my point of view; wanting the same variable (verdict, conclusion, description, imagination, etc) in two different states at the same time. Conflict is inherently a control phenomenon. There would never be conflict -- intra or interpersonal -- if we didn't want things to be one way or another. S-R systems -- systems that react to facts with conclusions, for example -- don't experience conflict.

My patient is aware of all the possibilities. I intend to have her discuss each one in detail (positive and negative reactions for each one) until she can be aware of all of them at the same time. The background thoughts for her seems to be: I don't want to be without a father. He is 'sick' and needs help.

Yes, those are what I thought would be the "background thoughts" that might be responsible for the conflict.

She has no awareness of the father ever having touched her in an inappropriate way. Her maternal grandmother asked her this question.

Nice family;-)

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400