# Test of variable under conflict

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/test-of-variable-under-conflict/11137>\
**Category:** CSG2000\
**Created:** [October 15, 2000, 5:39am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/test-of-variable-under-conflict/11137 "2000-10-15T05:39:07Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/edb3f5/32.png) [@Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Richard_Marken2)\
**Post date:** [October 19, 2000, 6:30am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/test-of-variable-under-conflict/11137/21 "2000-10-19T06:30:07Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2000.10.18.2230)]

Bruce Nevin (2000.10.18.1604 EDT)--

> I suggest a study of \_Getting to Yes: Negotiating agreement  
> without giving in\_, by Roger Fisher and William Ury of the  
> Harvard Negotiation Project, for insight into and examples  
> of going up a level in interpersonal conflicts. Of course  
> they don't call it "going up a level", but that's very much  
> what it's about. There are other sources too.

I would like to try to speak to this idea that interpersonal  
conflicts can be solved by "going up a level". As I under-  
stand it, "going up a level" solves \_intrapersonal\_ conflicts  
when the conflicted person is able to direct consciousness to  
the systems \_within himself\_ that are setting the conflicting  
references. For example, if you are in conflict because you  
are fighting with yourself about having that shaken, not stirred,  
martini, an "up a level" solution to this conflict involves  
directing consciousness to the higher level (hence, "up a level")  
systems within \_yourself\_ that are setting the goals that are  
creating this conflict. You go "up a level" when you become  
conscious of the fact that you want the martini \_and\_ that you  
also \_want\_ to be sober (that is, you also \_don't\_ want the  
martini).

Apparently, for many people, just becoming aware of one's own  
conflicting goals solves the problem. This is the "up a level"  
solution to \_intrapersonal\_ conflict. The solution may be a  
willingness to live with the conflict, to change one of the  
goals involved in the conflict, to achieve the goals in sequence,  
to lower the importance (gain) associated with one or another  
of the goals, etc.

But whatever the solution, it is all done within the context of  
the individual's own hierarchy of control. That's why I don't  
think going "up a level" applies as a solution to \_interpersonal\_  
conflict. As I said in an earlier post, in interpersonal conflict  
"the conflict producing systems are in physically separate  
individuals". This means that it is simply impossible to direct  
one's consciousness to the systems setting the conflicting  
references because some of those systems are other people's brains.

I think people abuse the notion that conflicts can be solved  
by going "up a level" by suggesting that one party to an  
interpersonal conflict can solve the conflict by going up  
a level. The only way I can make sense of the idea of going  
"up a level" as a solution to interpersonal conflict is to think  
of it as meaning that all parties to the conflict go "up a level"  
simultaneously -- as though there were a virtual "collective  
consciousness that could go "up a level" and see the goals of  
all systems contributing to the conflict. I can conceive of such  
a virtual "collective consciousness" being created by negotiation  
and communication.

The sine qua none of going "up a level" to solve interpersonal  
conflict is that \_all\_ parties to the conflict become aware of  
the wants in themselves \_and\_ in the other parties who are  
contributing to the conflict. If only one or another of the  
parties to the conflict become aware of the wants (in themselves  
and others) that are creating the conflict (that is, if only one or  
another of the parties goes "up a level") there has been no real  
solution to the interpersonal conflict.

At least, that's the way it seems to me, well past my bedtime.

Best

Rick

> **···**
>
> --
> 
> Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313  
> Life Learning Associates e-mail: marken@mindreadings.com  
> mindreadings.com

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Curry1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/9d8465/32.png) [@Bill\_Curry1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Curry1)\
**Post date:** [October 19, 2000, 2:24pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/test-of-variable-under-conflict/11137/22 "2000-10-19T14:24:13Z")

</div>

[Bill Curry (2000.10.19.1020 EDT)]

> Rick Marken (2000.10.18.2230)]--

\<snip\>

> That's why I don't think going "up a level" applies as a solution to  
> \_interpersonal\_ conflict. As I said in an earlier post, in  
> interpersonal conflict "the conflict producing systems are in  
> physically separate individuals". This means that it is simply  
> impossible to direct one's consciousness to the systems setting the  
> conflicting references because some of those systems are other  
> people's brains.

It may not be the best way to "yes" if only one party in a conflict goes  
up a level, but gaining that perspective can open up new negotiating  
options that weren't apparent from the level below. The party  
approaching a negotiation with an up a level view, realizes that  
resolution will only occur by surfacing and understanding the goals and  
references of the other participant. Thus, much of the "dance" in PCT  
terms involves performing the Test to see what variables are under  
control by the opponent. Respectful communication skills are very  
helpful in this regard.

> The sine qua none of going "up a level" to solve interpersonal  
> conflict is that \_all\_ parties to the conflict become aware of the  
> wants in themselves \_and\_ in the other parties who are contributing to  
> the conflict. If only one or another of the parties to the conflict  
> become aware of the wants (in themselves and others) that are creating  
> the conflict (that is, if only one or another of the parties goes "up  
> a level") there has been no real solution to the interpersonal  
> conflict.

This is pretty much the textbook path for interpersonal conflict  
resolution. Experienced negotiators understand,promote and exploit this  
perception-sharing process (as in "win-win"). A safe, non-coercive  
environment, power parity, and negotiable positions are essential  
conditions. Galileo and the Inquisition held polar, non-negotiable  
positions: Scientific observation vs. entrenched religious dogma and  
coercive power. Conflict assured!

OT anecdote: I had occasion to reflect on the indomitable spirit of  
Galileo while in Florence two years ago. The high point of my visit was  
the History of Science Institute and Museum. Seeing THE telescopes and  
a wealth of other Galileo material was tremendously exciting and  
inspiring, but one artifact in particular caused me to spontaneously  
erupt in laughter. In an obscure display case of Galileo memorabilia,  
under a bell glass, was a the rather ghastly relic of one of Galileo  
fingers (the middle, I believe). The assembled bones were pointing  
skyward as if in a 360-year-old gesture of defiance. In my imagination,  
I could hear Galileo chuckling right along with me.

Regards,

Bill C.

> **···**
>
> --  
> William J. Curry  
> Capticom, Inc.  
> capticom@landmarknet.net

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers1)\
**Post date:** [October 19, 2000, 2:44pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/test-of-variable-under-conflict/11137/23 "2000-10-19T14:44:35Z")

</div>

[From Bill Powers (2000.10.19.0840 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2000.10.18.2230)--

> I think people abuse the notion that conflicts can be solved  
> by going "up a level" by suggesting that one party to an  
> interpersonal conflict can solve the conflict by going up  
> a level. The only way I can make sense of the idea of going  
> "up a level" as a solution to interpersonal conflict is to think  
> of it as meaning that all parties to the conflict go "up a level"  
> simultaneously -- as though there were a virtual "collective  
> consciousness that could go "up a level" and see the goals of  
> all systems contributing to the conflict. I can conceive of such  
> a virtual "collective consciousness" being created by negotiation  
> and communication.

Isn't it also possible that by going up a level, one of the parties to the  
conflict can realize that trying to win it is futile and back off from it?  
This, of course, doesn't resolve the conflict in the sense of discovering  
its cause and changing something so the conflict will not arise again, but  
it does free both parties from the conflict and allows life to go on.

Best,

Bill P.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/edb3f5/32.png) [@Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Richard_Marken2)\
**Post date:** [October 19, 2000, 3:03pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/test-of-variable-under-conflict/11137/24 "2000-10-19T15:03:36Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2000.10.19.0800)]

Bill Curry (2000.10.19.1020 EDT)--

> It may not be the best way to "yes" if only one party in a conflict  
> goes up a level, but gaining that perspective can open up new  
> negotiating options that weren't apparent from the level below.

Yes. The "negotiating" option it opens up is the "avoidance" option  
that Bill Powers (2000.10.19.0840 MDT) just described:

> ...by going up a level, one of the parties to the conflict can  
> realize that trying to win it is futile and back off from it?

and that I [Rick Marken (2000.10.18.1020)] described at the  
beginning of this discussion when I suggested that "the benefits of  
conflict avoidance are particularly evident in the case of  
\_interpersonal\_ conflict". As Bill says:

> This, of course, doesn't resolve the conflict in the sense of  
> discovering its cause and changing something so the conflict  
> will not arise again, but it does free both parties from the  
> conflict and allows life to go on.

Exactly!

Best

Rick

> **···**
>
> --  
> Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313  
> MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com  
> www.mindreadings.com

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/edb3f5/32.png) [@Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Richard_Marken2)\
**Post date:** [October 19, 2000, 5:35pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/test-of-variable-under-conflict/11137/25 "2000-10-19T17:35:21Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2000.10.19.1000)]

Me:

> If only one or another of the parties to the conflict become  
> aware of the wants (in themselves and others) that are creating  
> the conflict (that is, if only one or another of the parties  
> goes "up a level") there has been no real solution to the  
> interpersonal conflict.

Bruce Nevin (2000.10.19.1149 EDT)

> In the example from Fisher and Ury, the Insurance Adjuster (and  
> you) framed the negotiation in terms of a conflict over a dollar  
> amount.

"Framing" has nothing to do with conflict from a PCT perspective.  
There is a conflict only when two control systems want the same  
perceptual variable in different states. "Framing" the situation,  
by looking at it from a different point of view, doesn't change  
the behavior of the control systems involved; they are still  
trying to get the common controlled variable (whatever it is) to  
different reference states.

There must be differing references for the state of \_some\_  
perceptual variable in the Tom/IA "negotiation" or there is no  
conflict to resolve. I presumed that the perceptual variable  
in dispute was money; Tom wanted to receive enough from the IA  
to buy a replacement car; the IA wanted to give only $3300.  
If money is not the variable in dispute then it is some  
other variable (for example, it could be the perception of the  
car's "fair replacement cost").

> What is behind the dollar amount is the purpose of replacing  
> the destroyed car. The reframing is accomplished by focussing  
> attention on the objective criteria for determining the cost  
> of replacing it.

Yes. But this doesn't necessarily solve the conflict if the IA  
arrives at $3300 as the "objective" replacement cost while Tom  
arrives at something closer to $4000 as the "objective" replacement  
cost.

> (He [Tom] backed this up by revealing his "best alternative  
> to a negotiated agreement" or BATNA -- that he would get a  
> higher dollar amount in court if the Adjuster refused to  
> negotiate.)

Yes. This is where the iron hand shows through the velvet glove  
of Fisher and Ury's deceptive approach to "getting to yes". Tom  
"gets the IA to yes" the old fashioned way -- using credible  
threat of punishment (a law suit).

Bruce Nevin (2000.10.19.1211 EDT) to Bill Powers:

> Conflict resolution is much more satisfying [than conflict  
> avoidance] because afterward there is shared knowledge of  
> the parties' controlled perceptions at a relatively high  
> level.

I think there are times when conflict \_avoidance\_ is the \_only\_  
option. Certain conflicts, like scientific conflicts, simply  
cannot be resolved by negotiation. Scientific conflicts are  
supposed to be resolved by evidence (testing and modeling) but,  
as we well know, people can find ways to maintain their beliefs  
in the face of what may seem to those on the other side of the  
conflict as overwhelming evidence. When we have these kinds of  
conflicts (as we do on CSGNet) the \_only\_ solution (if one wants  
to get on with one's life, as Bill says) is to simply duck out.

Best

Rick

> **···**
>
> --  
> Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313  
> MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com  
> www.mindreadings.com

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/bnhpct/32/34_2.png) [@bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/bnhpct)\
**Post date:** [October 19, 2000, 6:12pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/test-of-variable-under-conflict/11137/26 "2000-10-19T18:12:13Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Nevin (2000.10.19.1111 EDT)]

Rick Marken (2000.10.18.2100)--  
At 09:00 PM 10/18/2000 -0800 ...

> The IA wanted to pay $3300; Tom wanted $4000.

Is that so?

But what is behind the Insurance Adjuster initially declaring the value at $3300? And Tom never did declare a monetary value that he wanted, and in fact he said

> I'm not asking for $4,000, or $3,000 or $5,000, but for fair compensation. Do you agree that it's only fair I get enough to replace the car?

Perhaps you didn't believe him. Do you have a reason for not believing him?

The Insurance Adjuster agreed with that criterion, the principle that the purpose of the insurance is to replace the car if the loss of the car meets policy criteria. (He had already determined that.) His agreement is shown by his coming back on the following Wednesday with a quote from a newspaper ad for a car of the same model and year.

Initially, the Insurance Adjuster framed the negotiation in terms of a dollar amount. This is presumably set by some kind of look-up table. I guess that he was using the used car Blue Book, which was not so well known or accessible to ordinary folks in 1980. (Or maybe earlier, they don't say how long before the writing this took place. Note the price of the car!) Clearly, insurance adjusters have some discretion. Possibly he had some reason for choosing a lowball number from the range given in that look-up table. His management hierarchy may set a quota or budget.

If there is a conflict between "pay the minimum" and "the purpose is to replace the car," then his boss shares that conflict.

This is an example in a chapter entitled "Insist on using objective criteria." These are not Tom's objective criteria. Each criterion is listed in the insurance company's book, with a dollar value. Note that if the Insurance Adjuster's boss does ask him why he disbursed more than the minimum (supposing that is the guideline), he can point to each criterion in the same way that Tom did.

The conclusion of the account (the moral of the story, as it were) is framed in terms of Tom getting more money, and the Insurance Adjuster paying more than he initially wanted to. This speaks to the reader's interest, but it is misleading. Tom got exactly the right amount of money. The Insurance Adjuster moved from "Pay according to the book and resist haggling for more money" to "Pay exactly the right amount, according to the book. He's not haggling for as much as he can get, he's asking for exactly the right amount according to my book. We're solving this problem together."

Just because Tom got more money than was initially offered does not mean that the Insurance Adjuster lost an interpersonal conflict. That is a misperception that misses the point of the example.

What is missing from this account is how the Insurance Adjuster felt after the exchange. Judging from other examples, and from principles put forward in the book, he smiled as he shook Tom's hand and felt that he had been successful in finding the right solution to a straightforward problem in his area of expertise.

It would be important for Tom not to fall into an adversarial tone, gloating as he "won" each "concession," and so on. Shouldn't be too hard, since his \*is\* asking for exactly the right amount according to the insurance company's guidelines. After all, what he wants is to get the equivalent of his car back. To agree with the Insurance Adjuster's initial framing of the negotiation as a conflict over the dollar amount would be a mistake on Tom's part. And yours.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Bruce Nevin

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/bnhpct/32/34_2.png) [@bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/bnhpct)\
**Post date:** [October 19, 2000, 6:49pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/test-of-variable-under-conflict/11137/27 "2000-10-19T18:49:44Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Nevin (2000.10.19.1149 EDT)]

Rick Marken (2000.10.18.2230)--

> I don't  
> think going "up a level" applies as a solution to \_interpersonal\_  
> conflict [because] it is simply impossible to direct  
> one's consciousness to the systems setting the conflicting  
> references because some of those systems are other people's brains.
> 
> The sine qua none of going "up a level" to solve interpersonal  
> conflict is that \_all\_ parties to the conflict become aware of  
> the wants in themselves \_and\_ in the other parties who are  
> contributing to the conflict. If only one or another of the  
> parties to the conflict become aware of the wants (in themselves  
> and others) that are creating the conflict (that is, if only one or  
> another of the parties goes "up a level") there has been no real  
> solution to the interpersonal conflict.

All that is required, either singly or in negotiation, is to shift to a different point of view. This is what is meant by "reframing" (a notion borrowed I think from gestalt psychology). In the example from Fisher and Ury, the Insurance Adjuster (and you) framed the negotiation in terms of a conflict over a dollar amount. Tom consistently framed the negotiation in terms of objective criteria for calculating the dollar amount, as determined by the Insurance Adjuster. The insurance adjuster proceeded to address the issue in that way. This is like going up a level, because it asks what is behind the initial point of view. What is behind the dollar amount is the purpose of replacing the destroyed car. The reframing is accomplished by focussing attention on the objective criteria for determining the cost of replacing it. The process of calculating that cost is entirely in the Insurance Adjuster's hands. So are the criteria. And so indeed is the purpose of replacing the car.

The metaphor "going \*UP\* a level" is probably inappropriate. It is not at all clear that each step is a step up in the perceptual control hierarchy. Each step is to a point of view that in some way includes the prior point of view.

> The only way I can make sense of the idea of going  
> "up a level" as a solution to interpersonal conflict is to think  
> of it as meaning that all parties to the conflict go "up a level"  
> simultaneously -- as though there were a virtual "collective  
> consciousness that could go "up a level" and see the goals of  
> all systems contributing to the conflict. I can conceive of such  
> a virtual "collective consciousness" being created by negotiation  
> and communication.

The way Tom did this was to ask "What is behind your assigning the value of $3,300 to my car?" This question was much more directed than in MOL, it asked for specific criteria available to both of them in a public space ("objective" criteria). Tom asked the Insurance Adjuster to disclose the perceptions that he controlled to reach that conclusion, and the reference values of those perceptions. When the Insurance Adjuster refused to do so, he proposed the principle that the purpose behind the transaction was to replace his lost car. (He backed this up by revealing his "best alternative to a negotiated agreement" or BATNA -- that he would get a higher dollar amount in court if the Adjuster refused to negotiate.) The Insurance Adjuster disclosed (by his actions) that this was also his controlled perception on the Principle level.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Bruce Nevin

> **···**
>
> At 10:30 PM 10/18/2000 -0800, Rick Marken wrote:

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/bnhpct/32/34_2.png) [@bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/bnhpct)\
**Post date:** [October 19, 2000, 7:11pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/test-of-variable-under-conflict/11137/28 "2000-10-19T19:11:51Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Nevin (2000.10.19.1211 EDT)]

> Bill Powers (2000.10.19.0840 MDT)  
> Isn't it also possible that by going up a level, one of the parties to the  
> conflict can realize that trying to win it is futile and back off from it?  
> This, of course, doesn't resolve the conflict in the sense of discovering  
> its cause and changing something so the conflict will not arise again, but  
> it does free both parties from the conflict and allows life to go on.

Rick's initial position was that conflict avoidance might be the only resolution to interpersonal conflict.

Rick Marken (2000.10.18.1020)--

> The \_only\_ solution to interpersonal conflict may be conflict avoidance.

Conflict resolution is much more satisfying because afterward there is shared knowledge of the parties' controlled perceptions at a relatively high level. Cooperation is much easier with that knowledge. Instead of angrily moving your cart out of my way I can give you a hand in some way with whatever you're doing with it, knowing you'll reciprocate; or at least not disrupt what you're doing with it. Avoidance entails ongoing avoidance and out of ignorance each is liable inadvertently to disrupt the other's control at one time or another.

An often demonstrated path for kids to become best buddies is first to have a fight.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Bruce Nevin

> **···**
>
> At 08:44 AM 10/19/2000 -0600, Bill Powers wrote:

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/edb3f5/32.png) [@Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Richard_Marken2)\
**Post date:** [October 19, 2000, 7:20pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/test-of-variable-under-conflict/11137/29 "2000-10-19T19:20:25Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2000.10.19.0900)]

Bruce Nevin (2000.10.19.1111 EDT)

> To agree with the Insurance Adjuster's initial framing of the  
> negotiation as a conflict over the dollar amount would be a  
> mistake on Tom's part. And yours.

Are you willing to "give in" a bit and agree that there was some  
"giving in" in this negotiation?

Best

Rick

> **···**
>
> --  
> Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313  
> MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com  
> www.mindreadings.com

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/bnhpct/32/34_2.png) [@bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/bnhpct)\
**Post date:** [October 20, 2000, 12:13am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/test-of-variable-under-conflict/11137/30 "2000-10-20T00:13:23Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Nevin (2000.10.19.1713 EDT)]

Rick Marken (2000.10.19.1000)--

> "Framing" has nothing to do with conflict from a PCT perspective.  
> [...] "Framing" the situation,  
> by looking at it from a different point of view, doesn't change  
> the behavior of the control systems involved; they are still  
> trying to get the common controlled variable (whatever it is) to  
> different reference states.

Socalled "re-framing" has to do with determining just what the controlled variable is. From the different point of view a different variable is controlled. The variables that were controlled from the first point of view influence the state of this new variable in some way. In this example, the variable "dollar amount" is means for controlling the variable "replace the car."

> I presumed that the perceptual variable in dispute was money;

This is too imprecise.

> Tom wanted to receive enough from the IA  
> to buy a replacement car; the IA wanted to give only $3300.

This is more precise. But there are two different variables here. The IA wanted to give Tom only $3300, then he upped it to $3500 with no explanation. That's one variable, the dollar amount. Tom wanted to replace his car. That's another variable. This variable is "up a level" from the first because the money must be enough to serve as means for that purpose. Tom got the IA to agree about what the controlled variable is in the situation -- he got him to agree that the controlled variable is not a specific dollar amount, but rather replacing Tom's car. Then together they controlled the variable "replacing the car" by adjusting the variable "dollar amount." There was a new source for the reference value of "dollar amount." Instead of "As small as I can make it, and he'll try to haggle it up," the reference value is "Exactly enough to replace the car."

> But this doesn't necessarily solve the conflict if the IA  
> arrives at $3300 as the "objective" replacement cost while Tom  
> arrives at something closer to $4000 as the "objective" replacement  
> cost.

Tom didn't arrive at $4000 independently and then set that as his goal. He asked "What are you doing?", that is, "How do you determine that $3300 is the replacement cost of the car?"

> Tom "gets the IA to yes" the old fashioned way -- using credible  
> threat of punishment (a law suit).

I beg your pardon? If the IA refuses to tell him what his objective criteria are, Tom's obvious alternative, well known to all, is to refer it to objective criteria used by a judge in Small Claims Court. If the IA is confident of his objective criteria, he can just say "Go right ahead. The judge will look at the facts and this is what you'll get." That's what he would say if Tom were asking for a fixed dollar amount that was (in the IA's opinion) more than the car was worth. But Tom is not asking for any particular amount, and said so, and it appears that the IA is not confident of his objective criteria.

Threats, as we have observed, have an appropriate place in life. As threats go, this seems to be a very civilized one. What is this threat coercing him to do? Just to explain objectively how he arrives at a figure as the replacement cost of the car. If those criteria justify $3,300, and Tom is convinced that he can replace his car with that, he says he'll accept $3,300. Is there any evidence for disbelieving him?

Rick Marken (2000.10.19.0900)--

> Are you willing to "give in" a bit and agree that there was some  
> "giving in" in this negotiation?

Suppose you are at the gas station and you say "Put $10 worth of gas in the tank". Then you change your mind and say "Fill the tank". When it comes out to $12.75, have you given in? Only if you're still controlling "Put $10 worth of gas in the tank" after you've succeeded in controlling "Fill the tank".

This is not a matter of opinion, about which one or the other of us might "give in," it is a matter of evidence.

There is evidence in the book that the IA stopped controlling "Pay $3,300" and instead controlled "Pay exactly enough to replace the car." What evidence is there that the IA was still controlling "Pay $3,300"?

Rick Marken (2000.10.19.1000) again --

> Certain conflicts, like scientific conflicts, simply  
> cannot be resolved by negotiation. Scientific conflicts are  
> supposed to be resolved by evidence (testing and modeling) but,  
> as we well know, people can find ways to maintain their beliefs  
> in the face of what may seem to those on the other side of the  
> conflict as overwhelming evidence. When we have these kinds of  
> conflicts (as we do on CSGNet) the \_only\_ solution (if one wants  
> to get on with one's life, as Bill says) is to simply duck out.

I need to check something out with you: Are you saying that this exchange as an example?

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Bruce Nevin

> **···**
>
> At 10:35 AM 10/19/2000 -0700, Richard S. Marken wrote:  
> At 12:20 PM 10/19/2000 -0700, Richard S. Marken wrote:

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/edb3f5/32.png) [@Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Richard_Marken2)\
**Post date:** [October 20, 2000, 1:20am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/test-of-variable-under-conflict/11137/31 "2000-10-20T01:20:29Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2000.10.19.1530)]

Bruce Nevin (2000.10.19.1713 EDT) --

> The variables that were controlled from the first point of  
> view...

I don't believe that variables are controlled "from a point  
of view"; if they are controlled, then they are just controlled.

Me:

> Tom "gets the IA to yes" the old fashioned way -- using credible  
> threat of punishment (a law suit).

Bruce:

> I beg your pardon? If the IA refuses to tell him what his objective  
> criteria are, Tom's obvious alternative, well known to all, is to  
> refer it to objective criteria used by a judge in Small Claims Court.

I'm afraid I don't believe in "objective criteria". I believe  
it's all perception, even criteria.

Me:

> Are you willing to "give in" a bit and agree that there was some  
> "giving in" in this negotiation?

Bruce:

> Suppose you are at the gas station and you say "Put $10 worth of  
> gas in the tank". Then you change your mind and say "Fill the  
> tank". When it comes out to $12.75, have you given in?

No. Nor have I been in conflict. The correct analogy would be  
something like the following:

I say "Put ten dollars worth into the tank"; the attendant says  
"we only have $10 worth of gas left and the guy behind you wants  
$10 worth". So I say "OK, how about I take $5 worth and leave $5  
worth for him". If the guy behind me agrees, we have solved the  
conflict by both giving in to some extent. If the guy doesn't agree,  
we keep trying to find something that works well enough for both  
of us.

If I were like Tom in the Fisher and Ury story, however, I would  
probably first try to help the guy behind me see things from a  
different point of view so that we could both "win". I could  
help him go up a level and see that it's not the gas that's at  
issue; it's a principle of fair play. I got to the pump first  
so, by the principle of "first come, first served" I get all the  
gas I want. The guy behind be will surely see the legitimacy of  
my higher level point of view (just to make sure of this, I would  
point out that my principles are enforced by Smith and Wesson)  
and enthusiastically encourage me to take the remaining $10 worth  
of gas so that he can have the satisfaction of knowing that he  
is a man of principle (and alive). We both win because we have  
both upheld one of the great principles of retail -- and a happy  
side effect of controlling for this principle is that I get all  
the gas I want.

Me:

> Certain conflicts, like scientific conflicts, simply cannot be  
> resolved by negotiation....When we have these kinds of conflicts  
> (as we do on CSGNet) the \_only\_ solution (if one wants to get on  
> with one's life, as Bill says) is to simply duck out.

Bruce:

> I need to check something out with you: Are you saying that this  
> exchange as an example?

Can't you tell?

Best

Rick

> **···**
>
> --  
> Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313  
> MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com  
> www.mindreadings.com

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/edb3f5/32.png) [@Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Richard_Marken2)\
**Post date:** [October 20, 2000, 5:29am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/test-of-variable-under-conflict/11137/32 "2000-10-20T05:29:57Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2000.10.19.2130)]

Bruce Nevin

> I need to check something out with you: Are you saying  
> that this exchange as an example [of scientific conflict]?

Me:

> Can't you tell?

Bruce Nevin (2000.10.19.2318 EDT) --

> No, I can't tell what you're doing by watching what  
> you're doing.

OK. I think that's a good break point.

> I will be on a trip out of touch with email until Monday

Have a great trip.

Best

Rick

> **···**
>
> --  
> Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313  
> Life Learning Associates e-mail: marken@mindreadings.com  
> mindreadings.com

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/bnhpct/32/34_2.png) [@bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/bnhpct)\
**Post date:** [October 20, 2000, 6:18am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/test-of-variable-under-conflict/11137/33 "2000-10-20T06:18:16Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Nevin (2000.10.19.2318 EDT)]

Rick Marken (2000.10.19.1530) --

> I don't believe that variables are controlled "from a point  
> of view"; if they are controlled, then they are just controlled.

Controlling "amount of money" \*is\* one point of view. Controlling "replacing the car" \*is\* the other point of view.

> I don't believe in "objective criteria". I believe  
> it's all perception, even criteria.

Here's what I mean by "objective criteria":

Bruce Nevin (2000.10.19.1149 EDT)

> The way Tom did this was to ask "What is behind your assigning the value of $3,300 to my car?" This question was much more directed than in MOL, it asked for specific criteria available to both of them in a public space ("objective" criteria).

Sure, they're perceptions. But they're not private. They're public in the sense that both perceive the same thing and by communicating they each verify that the other's perception and theirs are alike.

> \> Suppose you are at the gas station and you say "Put $10 worth of  
> \> gas in the tank". Then you change your mind and say "Fill the  
> \> tank". When it comes out to $12.75, have you given in?
> 
> No. Nor have I been in conflict.

Nor has the Insurance Agent been in conflict. This is not an analogy to the negotiation. This is an analogy to the Insurance Agent's shift from controlling one perception ("amount of money") to controlling another perception ("replacing Tom's car") by varying the first.

> > \> When we have these kinds of conflicts  
> > \> (as we do on CSGNet) the \_only\_ solution (if one wants to get on  
> > \> with one's life, as Bill says) is to simply duck out.
> 
> \> I need to check something out with you: Are you saying that this  
> \> exchange as an example?
> 
> Can't you tell?

No, I can't tell what you're doing by watching what you're doing.

It's not such a conflict so far as I am concerned. I am reporting something about negotiation and about a book written about negotiation. I'm not controlling for your agreeing with me. I am controlling for your understanding me. When your "refutation" misrepresents what I have said, I correct that.

I don't understand what you are defending. What belief of yours does this challenge? If I understood that, I might come to agree with you, and I might modify my understanding of all this. But so far your frankly obtuse objection to the words "point of view" (look through the archives, it's been used without objection) and "objective" (which I introduced with scare quotes and a narrow definition), and your bizarre parody of the gas station analogy, do not at all make that clear. It seems almost as if you are aiming to "win" simply for the sake of "not losing", or like an effort to find ways to maintain your beliefs in the face of what seems to me to be pretty good evidence and without advancing any evidence of your own--except that I really can't tell one way or another until I understand what belief you're defending, why you feel that belief challenged, and what evidence you have for it.

What belief are you defending?  
Why you feel that belief is challenged by this?  
What evidence you have for it?

That's assuming that the answer to my question is "no," and that you don't see this exchange as an example of conflict of the sort that you would "resolve" by avoidance. Seems like a fair assumption, since instead of avoiding conflict you seem to me to be fostering it. If however the answer to the question is "yes," then if I followed your advice I would say "Please don't reply. I won't participate."

I will be on a trip out of touch with email until Monday, and probably not very responsive then for a while until I catch up with unfinished work obligations.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Bruce Nevin

> **···**
>
> At 06:20 PM 10/19/2000 -0700, Richard S. Marken wrote:

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/edb3f5/32.png) [@Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Richard_Marken2)\
**Post date:** [October 20, 2000, 4:42pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/test-of-variable-under-conflict/11137/34 "2000-10-20T16:42:02Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2000.10.20.0945)]

Bruce Nevin (2000.10.19.2318 EDT) --

Just some quick clarifications. No need for a reply.

> Controlling "amount of money" \*is\* one point of view. Controlling  
> "replacing the car" \*is\* the other point of view.

In this case you are using "point of view" as a synonym for  
"controlled variable". This is not what I think of as "point  
of view".

> What belief of yours does this challenge?

It challenges my PCT informed belief that a negotiated settlement  
to an interpersonal conflict must involve compromise on the part  
of one or all parties to the conflict.

> But so far your frankly obtuse objection to the words "point  
> of view" (look through the archives, it's been used without  
> objection)

Point of view" has been used without objection when it was  
used to describe a consciousness phenomenon. The phrase  
"point of view" refers to one's conscious perspective on  
particular control system(s) in the hierarchy.

> and your bizarre parody of the gas station analogy

That was not a parody. It was an attempt to give an accurate  
portrayal of a Fisher/Ury negotiation based on your description  
of such a negotiation using the example of Tom and the IA.

> What belief are you defending?

I am defending my belief that a negotiated settlement to an  
interpersonal conflict must involve compromise. An  
interpersonal conflict can only be solved by negotiation if  
some or all parties to the conflict are willing to get something  
less than exactly the perceptions they wanted at the start of  
the negotiation.

I am defending my belief that "win-win" is a misleading way to  
describe the results of a successful negotiation (Simon's term  
"satisficing" would be better). And I'm defending my belief  
that "win-win" is an outright deception when used to describe  
the results of the Tom/IA negotiation described by Fisher  
and Ury, which was actually "win-lose".

> Why [do] you feel that [that] belief is challenged by this?

Because you are arguing that a negotiated settlement to an  
interpersonal conflict can be achieved without compromise;  
that both parties can get exactly the perceptions they want  
("win-win").

> What evidence you have for it?

Your posts.

I may be reading you wrong. If you have actually been saying  
that a negotiated settlement to an interpersonal conflict  
\_must\_ involve compromise then this has truly been a pseudo-  
conflict based on misunderstanding. If you have actually been  
saying that there was compromise involved in the Tom/IA  
negotiation (one-sided compromise at that) then, again, we  
have no disagreement. But, if you are arguing (as I think  
you are) that interpersonal conflict, such as that between  
Tom and the IA, can be successfully negotiated without compromise  
then we are in a non-negotiable conflict and it would probably  
be best for me to back off.

Best

Rick

> **···**
>
> --  
> Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313  
> MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com  
> www.mindreadings.com

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Curry1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/9d8465/32.png) [@Bill\_Curry1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Curry1)\
**Post date:** [October 21, 2000, 3:44pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/test-of-variable-under-conflict/11137/35 "2000-10-21T15:44:41Z")

</div>

[Bill Curry (2000.10.20.1000 EDT)]

> Rick Marken (2000.10.20.0945)]--
> 
> Bruce Nevin (2000.10.19.2318 EDT) --
> 
> \> What belief of yours does this challenge?
> 
> It challenges my PCT informed belief that a negotiated settlement  
> to an interpersonal conflict must involve compromise on the part  
> of one or all parties to the conflict.

Rick, please define the terms "compromise" and "giving in" in PCTspeak.

Assuming that you define these terms as you did later in your post,

> ....if some or all parties to the conflict are willing to get  
> something  
> less than exactly the perceptions they wanted at the start of  
> the negotiation.

...then I would take issue with your phrase "less than" because it  
depicts conflict negotiation as an inevitable win-lose process.  
Substituting the word "different" would avoid the unscientific and  
pejorative value-laden spin of "less than". Speaking from my own  
extensive negotiating experience, I recall many times where I didn't get  
"less than" my initial perceptions but I frequently ended up equally  
satisfied with different perceptions than where I started.

A shift between controlled variables is usually at the heart of a  
successful negotiation, but control of the new variable that leads to  
"yes", is not \_necessarily\_ an "inferior" position than the starting  
one. If "success" in the mind of either party to a negotiation, is  
predicated ending up with the exact perceptions they started with, then  
true negotiation is impossible if not an oxymoron. Winning in this  
sense would be an ultimatum/capitulation model, not negotiation. An  
open minded, exploratory negotiating process, creates and allows new  
variables (options) to develop which give participants the means to slip  
the lockage of conflict by agreeing to control different but acceptable  
perceptions.

> I am defending my belief that "win-win" is a misleading way to  
> describe the results of a successful negotiation (Simon's term  
> "satisficing" would be better).

I can agree with your statement, but only because of an inherent  
ambiguity of this term. "Win-win" can be taken two ways: 1) the parties  
end with the exact perceptual goal(s) they brought to the table; or 2)  
the parties win because they are both satified with the outcome even  
though they started with different perceptions.. In the  
negotiation/mediation literature, #2) is the intended usage of  
"Win-win". In this sense, it provides a good paradigm for the  
negotiation process.

Are you negotiable on substituting "different" for "less than" in your  
statement above?

Regards,

Bill C.

> **···**
>
> --  
> William J. Curry  
> Capticom, Inc.  
> capticom@landmarknet.net

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dick\_Robertson](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/2acd7d/32.png) [@Dick\_Robertson](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Dick_Robertson)\
**Post date:** [October 21, 2000, 8:55pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/test-of-variable-under-conflict/11137/36 "2000-10-21T20:55:33Z")

</div>

[From Dick Robertson,2000.10.21.1555CDT]

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[From Bruce Nevin (2000.10.18.1955 EDT)]

Rick Marken (2000.10.18.1400)--

> Could you give a quick example of a  
> negotiated agreement where neither party "gives in"?

Tom's parked car was wiped out by a dump truck. It was insured. The  
negotiation is with the insurance adjuster...etc.

A half-hour later Tom walked out with a check for $4,012.

(Fisher & Ury pp. 96 ff.)

This exemplifies all the main principles for good negotiation that they  
have identified. A more extensive example, with each step explained and  
annotated, is in the chapter "What if they won't play? (Use negotiation  
jujitsu)" and begins on p. 122. You might find it worth while looking it  
up. From that explanation you can see clearly what's going on in the  
above  
example.

Critiques of Fisher & Ury:  
[http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/problem/mcca7535.htm](http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/problem/mcca7535.htm)  
[http://www.princeton.edu/~psy528/Content/integrative.fu1.shtml](http://www.princeton.edu/~psy528/Content/integrative.fu1.shtml)

I think this is a neat example of controlling for a certain perception  
rather than for certain outputs. Do you think it could merit further  
analysis in PCT terms? If so, I could see it as fitting into a chapter  
for IMP2 showing the practical application of a perceptual-control point  
of view. IMP2 needs a lot of fleshing out of examples showing that PCT  
has practical application in psychology. Modern intro psych textbooks  
play heavily on the "psychology is useful" theme and I think it  
important to show that PCT meets this challenge as well as offering an  
antidote to the slurry of false facts that get drawn from poor research  
into textbook fads for a few years, then quietly disappear to be  
followed by new fads based on new flawed research.

Best, Dick R.

> **···**
>
> At 02:20 PM 10/18/2000 -0700, Richard S. Marken wrote:

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/edb3f5/32.png) [@Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Richard_Marken2)\
**Post date:** [October 22, 2000, 2:30am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/test-of-variable-under-conflict/11137/37 "2000-10-22T02:30:19Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2000.10.21.1830)]

Me:

> It challenges my PCT informed belief that a negotiated settlement  
> to an interpersonal conflict must involve compromise on the part  
> of one or all parties to the conflict.

Bill Curry (2000.10.20.1000 EDT)

> Rick, please define the terms "compromise" and "giving in"  
> in PCTspeak.

As you note, I did so in a later part of my post: Compromise  
occurs when some or all parties to the conflict are willing to  
get something less than exactly the perceptions they wanted at  
the start of the negotiation.

> ...then I would take issue with your phrase "less than" because  
> it depicts conflict negotiation as an inevitable win-lose process.

Actually, it depicts conflict negotiation as an inevitable lose-  
lose proposition. A successful negotiation is one where both  
parties end up with an acceptable level of net loss ("net loss"  
being, in PCT terms, the average level of error experienced by  
each party to the conflict after the negotiation).

> Substituting the word "different" would avoid the unscientific  
> and pejorative value-laden spin of "less than".

I think you are right, but not for the reason you give. In PCT,  
controlled perceptions are represented as scalar variables. When  
there is a conflict between control systems, neither system is able  
to keep a mutually controlled variable \_quantitatively\_ at its  
reference. The controlled variable might be less than the reference  
for one system and greater than the reference for another. So the  
problem for both systems is that the controlled perception is  
quantitatively "different than" what each system wants -- being  
\_less than\_ or \_greater than\_ the wanted level of perception for  
either system. For example, one system might want the perception  
at 10; the other might want it at 20. The actual perception may  
be 15. So the perception is less than one system's reference (20)  
and greater than the other system's reference (10). But there is  
a \_difference\_ (error) in both cases (5).

What the parties to the conflict want is \_no difference\_ (0)  
between what they want (reference) and what they are getting  
(current state of the perception). That is, they want \_zero  
absolute error\_. Compromise occurs when some or all parties to  
the conflict are willing to accept perceptions that are \_different  
than\_ exactly the perceptions that wanted at the start of the  
negotiation.

> Speaking from my own extensive negotiating experience, I recall  
> many times where I didn't get "less than" my initial perceptions  
> but I frequently ended up equally satisfied with different  
> perceptions than where I started.

This is a different meaning of "different" than I have in mind.  
People go into negotiations controlling many perceptions simultaneously.  
Only one or two of these perceptions may be  
identified as the focus of the negotiations. I think what you have  
experienced as being "satisfied with different perceptions" is a  
reduction in the error in other controlled perceptions than the  
ones that were the original focus of the negotiations. For example,  
the focus of the labor/management negotiations may be raises. The  
labor target (reference) raise might be 7%; the management target raise  
might be 2%. The agreement (compromise) might a raise of  
4% \_with child care benefits\_ to families who need it. So both  
parties end up with error for the raise perception but both also  
end up with offsetting error for other variables, such as child  
care, which were not part of the original focus of the negotiation,  
like child care.

Finding the solution to a negotiation is like finding an acceptable  
solution to a set of simultaneous equations. Each equation includes  
as many perceptions as can be thought of that are controlled by  
all parties to the negotiation and their references for these  
perceptions. For example, here are a set of equations describing  
the total error experienced by 3 parties to a negotiation who are  
controlling n different perceptions, p1, p2...pn:

(1) te1 = (r11-p1)+(r12-p2)...(r1n-pn)

(2) te2 = (r21-p1)+(r22-p2)...(r2n-p3)

(3) te3 = (r31-p1)+(r32-p2)...(r3n-p3)

where te1, te2, and te3 are the total error experienced by party 1,  
2 and 3 respectively; r11, r12...r1n are references for perceptions  
1, 2...n respectively for party 1; r21, r22...r2n are references  
for perceptions 1, 2...n respectively for party 2, and so on. A  
negotiation involving parties 1, 2 and 3 involves finding values for  
p1, p2...pn that result in acceptably low levels of total error for  
all parties to the negotiation.

"Win-win" suggests to me that there are settings of p1, p2...pn that  
bring te1, te2 and te3 to 0. If this were true -- if there were  
settings of these 3 perceptions that allowed all three parties to  
control the perceptions at issue with zero error-- then it would be  
more appropriate to call the negotiation a "problem solving" session  
because there actually is a solution (in terms of settings of p1,  
p2...pn) that solves the problem of getting te1, te2 and te3 = 0

> A shift between controlled variables is usually at the heart of a  
> successful negotiation

I think it's not so much a shift in controlled variables as finding  
the perceptions (out of the n total perceptions involved in the  
negotiation) which, when adjusted appropriately, reduce the total  
error in all parties to the negotiation.

> An open minded, exploratory negotiating process, creates and allows  
> new variables (options) to develop which give participants the  
> means to slip the lockage of conflict by agreeing to control  
> different but acceptable perceptions.

I agree. I think what you are doing is finding \_existing\_ perceptions  
that are being controlled by all parties and adding them to the set  
of perceptions that are already in the simultaneous equations;. Some  
of these perceptions (say, pn+1), when added to the simultaneous set,  
could allow the readjustment of all existing perceptions to get to  
an acceptable total error level for all parties. For example,  
adding "day care" as a perception up for negotiation is taking a  
perception that is already controlled by both labor and management  
(labor controls it by sending their kids to private day care if they  
can; management controls it as a labor expense, possibly keeping it  
at zero) and adding it to the set up simultaneous equations that  
define the negotiation.

> Are you negotiable on substituting "different" for "less than"  
> in your statement above?

I hope I have answered that. I could accept substituting "different"  
for "less than" as long as it's clear that "different" means  
"different from the reference level". A successful negotiation  
is one that minimizes (or brings to an acceptably low level) the  
difference between all perceptions and their reference levels for  
all parties. This seems consistent with your second definition of  
"win-win", which I would rewrite slightly as: the parties win because  
they are all satisfied with the outcome (level of total error) even  
though they all have different references for the set of perceptions  
involved in the negotiation.

Best

Rick

> **···**
>
> --  
> Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313  
> Life Learning Associates e-mail: marken@mindreadings.com  
> mindreadings.com

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/edb3f5/32.png) [@Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Richard_Marken2)\
**Post date:** [October 23, 2000, 6:05pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/test-of-variable-under-conflict/11137/38 "2000-10-23T18:05:04Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2000.10.23.1050)]

I kind of liked my idea [Rick Marken (2000.10.21.1830)] of  
looking at negotiation as an attempt to find settings for a  
set of perceptions, p1..pn, that solve a set of simultaneous  
equations, each equation representing total error as a  
function of the references and perceptions for each party  
to the negotiation. The equations are "solved" when the total  
error produced by each is acceptably low for each equation  
(party to the negotiation).

If there are settings for all perceptions, p1..pn, that result  
in zero error (a "win") for all parties then I think it would  
be better to call the process of finding this set a perceptual  
values a \_problem solving\_ session rather than a \_negotiation\_  
since there is really nothing to be negotiated; everyone can, in  
fact, get exactly what they want and no one needs to give up  
anything, in the sense of accepting a non-reference value of a  
perception.

Does this make sense?

Best

Rick

> **···**
>
> --  
> Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313  
> [MindReadings.com](http://MindReadings.com) mailto: [marken@mindreadings.com](mailto:marken@mindreadings.com)  
> [www.mindreadings.com](http://www.mindreadings.com)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dick\_Robertson](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/2acd7d/32.png) [@Dick\_Robertson](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Dick_Robertson)\
**Post date:** [October 25, 2000, 5:57pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/test-of-variable-under-conflict/11137/39 "2000-10-25T17:57:14Z")

</div>

[From Dick Robertson,2000,10,26.1255CDT]

Rick Marken wrote:

> [From Rick Marken (2000.10.21.1830)]
> 
> Me:
> 
> \> It challenges my PCT informed belief that a negotiated settlement  
> \> to an interpersonal conflict must involve compromise on the part  
> \> of one or all parties to the conflict.
> 
> Bill Curry (2000.10.20.1000 EDT)
> 
> \> Rick, please define the terms "compromise" and "giving in"  
> \> in PCTspeak.
> 
> As you note, I did so in a later part of my post: ....
> 
> I think it's not so much a shift in controlled variables as finding  
> the perceptions (out of the n total perceptions involved in the  
> negotiation) which, when adjusted appropriately, reduce the total  
> error in all parties to the negotiation.
> 
> \> An open minded, exploratory negotiating process, creates and allows  
> \> new variables (options) to develop which give participants the  
> \> means to slip the lockage of conflict by agreeing to control  
> \> different but acceptable perceptions.
> 
> I agree. I think what you are doing is finding \_existing\_ perceptions  
> that are being controlled by all parties and adding them to the set  
> of perceptions that are already in the simultaneous equations;. Some  
> of these perceptions (say, pn+1), when added to the simultaneous set,  
> could allow the readjustment of all existing perceptions to get to  
> an acceptable total error level for all parties. For example,  
> adding "day care" as a perception up for negotiation is taking a  
> perception that is already controlled by both labor and management  
> (labor controls it by sending their kids to private day care if they  
> can; management controls it as a labor expense, possibly keeping it  
> at zero) and adding it to the set up simultaneous equations that  
> define the negotiation.
> 
> \> Are you negotiable on substituting "different" for "less than"  
> \> in your statement above?
> 
> I hope I have answered that. I could accept substituting "different"  
> for "less than" as long as it's clear that "different" means  
> "different from the reference level". A successful negotiation  
> is one that minimizes (or brings to an acceptably low level) the  
> difference between all perceptions and their reference levels for  
> all parties. This seems consistent with your second definition of  
> "win-win", which I would rewrite slightly as: the parties win because  
> they are all satisfied with the outcome (level of total error) even  
> though they all have different references for the set of perceptions  
> involved in the negotiation.
> 
> Best Rick

This seems like a good analysis and synthesis of the issue. I wonder to  
what extent it matches the concept of "Reframing" that is used to  
charaterize a psychotherapy procedure of finding emotionally neutral  
terminology for a concept that some participant(s) have an emotionally  
negative reference in its "normal" terminology?  
I haven't thought through the whole question of whether or not it's a  
different name for what you have proposed here. Any reactions?

Best, Dick R.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/edb3f5/32.png) [@Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Richard_Marken2)\
**Post date:** [October 26, 2000, 4:39pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/test-of-variable-under-conflict/11137/40 "2000-10-26T16:39:55Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2000.10.26.0930)]

Me:

> I think it's not so much a shift in controlled variables as finding  
> the perceptions (out of the n total perceptions involved in the  
> negotiation) which, when adjusted appropriately, reduce the total  
> error in all parties to the negotiation.

Dick Robertson (2000,10,26.1255CDT) --

> This seems like a good analysis and synthesis of the issue.

Thanks you!

> I wonder to what extent it matches the concept of "Reframing"  
> that is used to charaterize a psychotherapy procedure of finding  
> emotionally neutral terminology for a concept that some participant(s)  
> have an emotionally negative reference in its "normal" terminology?

I don't know. But I don't think it could have \_that\_ much to do  
with it. "Reframing" seems to be like "spin"; finding a way to \_say\_  
things so that it sounds like what is going on is better than what  
is really going on. That seems to be the Fisher/Ury meaning of  
reframing: Don't call it "compromise"; call it "win win".

My notion of what goes on in negotiation has little to do with  
finding an acceptable ("emotionally neutral") way of saying things.  
What I was pointing out was that the "reframing" described by  
Fisher and Ury was actually an example of a negotiation that  
involved bringing another variable into the simultaneous equations  
that define the domain of the negotiation. For example, the car  
negotiation between the IA and Tom started with just one perception  
in dispute: money. So the simultaneous equations for the negotiation  
looked something like this:

IA's total error = |r11 - p1|

Tom's total error = |r12 - p1|

where total error is equal to the absolute error in a system.  
The perception, p1, was money and the IA suggested setting that  
at 3400. The IA's reference (r11) for p was about 3400; Tom's  
(r12) was about 4200. So at the start of the negotiation the  
IA's total error was |3400-3400| = 0 and Tom's error was |4200-  
3400| = 800.

Then Tom brought up another variable: lawsuit. So the simultaneous  
equations that defined the domain of the negotiation became:

IA's total error = |r11 - p1| + |r21 - p2|

Tom's total error = |r12 - p1| + |r22 - p2|

In these equations, p2 is the perception of a lawsuit. The IA's  
reference (r21) for a lawsuit is presumably 0; Tom's reference (r22)  
is apparently higher, say 600. Tom suggests setting p2 (the per-  
ception of a lawsuit) to 1000. So after Tom points out this new  
variable in the negotiation, the IA's total error is |3400-3400| +

> 0-1000| = 1000 and Tom's error is |4200-3400| + |600-1000| = 1200. So

now the \_absolute\_ size of the both Tom's and the IA's error is larger  
than it was with only p1 (money) at issue and both have nearly the  
same amount of error (1000 vs 1200).

Now the aim of the negotiation (assuming the parties are willing to  
minimize error by compromise) is to try to find mutually acceptable  
values of \_both\_ p1 and p2, that is, values of p1 and p2 that lead  
to the least error for both parties. Apparently the solution is found  
when p1 is set to about $4100 and p2 is set to 0 (no law suit). In  
that case, the total error for the IA is 700 and the total error  
for Tom is 700. So both parties have about the same level of error  
and both have much less error (700 and 700) than they \_would\_ have  
had (1000 vs 1200) if they had not found acceptable compromise values  
of p1 and p2.

Best

Rick

> **···**
>
> --  
> Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313  
> MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com  
> www.mindreadings.com

[Previous page](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/test-of-variable-under-conflict/11137.md?page=1)

[Next page](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/test-of-variable-under-conflict/11137.md?page=3)