# 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:** 5

<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 30, 2000, 10:19am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/test-of-variable-under-conflict/11137/81 "2000-10-30T10:19:18Z")

</div>

[From Bill Powers (2000.10.30.0305 MST)]

Bruce Nevin (2000.10.29.2245 EST)--

> But that it  
> might indeed take a bit of effort to jolt a jaded insurance adjuster out of  
> his expectation of being met with exaggerated claims and aggravated haggling.

It's interesting that so far, all the scenarios involved a threat of some  
kind, mostly legal action, which creates an error outside the terms of the  
conflict. Without some such threat, it's hard to see why (for example) the  
insurance adjuster would accept any "principle" that would end up costing  
his company more money. I don't think that insurance companies are  
dedicated to the principle of paying whatever it takes to provide realistic  
compensation for a loss. I think the business principle is to pay as little  
as possible. A legal threat factors in as a possible increase in costs.  
Adopting Tom's suggested principle of fair replacement value might, in the  
IA's judgement, work out to a smaller cost than taking the case to court.  
Thus the IA is not necessarily adopting the principle as a higher-order  
goal; it may merely be a means to the end, the same end as before, of  
minimizing the total cost.

So I think I side with Rick on this: the threats have to be figured into  
the analysis.

Despite what you say about the reported conversations, these are still not  
transcripts or videos of what went on in any of the scenarios. It is not  
unthinkable to me that the authors could have summarized or edited what  
they were told so as to fit their theory of negotiation just a little  
better. When your aim is to support a theory, facts become pretty flexible.

Best,

Bill P.

---

<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 30, 2000, 1:38pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/test-of-variable-under-conflict/11137/82 "2000-10-30T13:38:14Z")

</div>

[Bill Curry (2000.10.30.0830 EST)]

> Bill Powers (2000.10.30.0305 MST)--

Looks like you're working the night shift, Bill!

> It's interesting that so far, all the scenarios involved a threat of some  
> kind, mostly legal action, which creates an error outside the terms of the  
> conflict. Without some such threat, it's hard to see why (for example) the  
> insurance adjuster would accept any "principle" that would end up costing  
> his company more money....\<snip\>
> 
> So I think I side with Rick on this: the threats have to be figured into  
> the analysis.

I agree threats need to be figured in but, stated or implied, power positioning  
is always an integral part of the negotiation dance, not some exogenous factor.  
A threat of a lawsuit is certainly not a bolt out of the blue to the IA--he knows  
it's one of many possible alternatives that a claimant might pursue...and his  
outcome goal and negotiating plan encompass all such contingencies.

One of the problems I have witnessed in our analysis of the F&U scenario, is that  
some have confused the IA's opening negotiating position with his outcome goals.  
Negotiation for the IA is largely a discovery process to surface 1) the outcome  
variables controlled by the other side, and 2) the gain they place on attaining  
them. In this sense, his negotiating positions are planned disturbances intended  
to reveal information about the other side's protected bottomline objectives. I  
think it is error to use the IA's opening negotiating position, as Rick has done  
for example, to define the ultimate "win/lose" yardstick.

When the claim first hits the IA's desk, the respective controlled outcome  
variables might be stated as:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Tom: "I need a replacement car."  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;IA: "I see I have another claim to close subject to our policy of  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;paying the least amount possible."

Tom, a knowledgable principled negotiator, lets his opponent know from the outset  
that his opening position \_is\_ his outcome goal. The IA hears this but tests  
Tom's gain by offering Blue Book as his opening position. If Tom was a less  
sophisticated claimant, the IA might have run a low ball past him in feeling for  
the bottom. As the discussion ensues, the IA collects the gain information (Tom  
may sue if not satisfied) and he makes Tom earn each step on the way to the final  
settlement. By doing so, the IA does not over-commit and violate company policy  
of paying the least amount possible. He is merely following his well rehearsed  
negotiating program of phased strategies that gets him to closure at minimum cost  
(and he knows this will vary from claimant to claimant).

Importantly, I agree with Bill, that the IA did not receive an altruistic  
conversion on the road to Damascus. He held firm and attained his original  
outcome goal. Resolution occurred because, in the final analysis, the outcome  
goals of the parties were inherently non-conflictive. In this example, the  
negotiating process itself is where the "conflict" resides. "Conflict" here is  
merely the means by which controlled variables and related gain are elucidated by  
the parties. Isn't it exciting to see the TEST revealed as any ordinary part of  
human interactions?

Does anyone really think that the IA's opener of $3,500 was his outcome goal?  
Does anyone \_really\_ think that that this was anything other than a "Win-Win"  
negotiation where both parties arrived at zero error? If you do, forget it. You  
are wrong because I say you are wrong. I win, you lose ;-).

Regards,

Bill C.

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

---

<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 30, 2000, 8:08pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/test-of-variable-under-conflict/11137/83 "2000-10-30T20:08:33Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Nevin (2000.10.30. EST)]

Bill Curry (2000.10.30.0830 EST)--

I think this is a much clearer analysis. I have only one disagreement. the IA is not applying the Test to determine what variable Tom is controlling--he has no doubt that Tom is controlling the payment amount. This is not the Test for the controlled variable, it is a test of the (presumed) controlled variable, to determine its reference value. He first tested whether a value of $3300 is a disturbance to Tom's control of "payment". Then when Tom did not accept that value, he tested whether a value of $3500 was a disturbance.

Tom consistently said he was controlling a different variable -- replacing his car. The payment amount is crucially one of the means, but he cannot give a specific reference value. The payment is whatever value accomplishes that end. He says I shopped for a car like mine, and this is what it cost. This is how I would figure out the replacement cost, how do you do it? (We could say that he is asking what variables the IA is controlling by means of setting the payment amount at $3300, though of course Tom wouldn't put it that way.) The IA perceives all of this as input to his acceptance/resistance test: Tom is rejecting his initial value, so he tries a higher value, $3500. Then Tom indicates high gain on knowing how he gets that value. The contingency for going to court is "unless you can state objectively why that amount is what I'm entitled to." Then the IA does some car shopping too, and they are talking about the same variable -- replacing a specific car.

Any examination of case histories can be dismissed as

Bill Powers (2000.10.30.0305 MST)--

> When your aim is to support a theory, facts become pretty flexible.

Since this is a prescription for improved negotiation, a good way to test its validity would be to learn the principles and apply them, and observe what happens. There should be some third-party evaluation of whether the principles were applied effectively.

Bill Curry (2000.10.30.0830 EST)--

> **···**
>
> At 08:38 AM 10/30/2000 -0500, Bill Curry wrote:
> 
> > Negotiation for the IA is largely a discovery process to surface 1) the outcome  
> > variables controlled by the other side, and 2) the gain they place on attaining  
> > them. In this sense, his negotiating positions are planned disturbances intended  
> > to reveal information about the other side's protected bottomline objectives.  
> > [...]  
> > the IA does not over-commit and violate company policy  
> > of paying the least amount possible. He is merely following his well rehearsed  
> > negotiating program of phased strategies that gets him to closure at minimum cost  
> > (and he knows this will vary from claimant to claimant).  
> > [...]  
> > "Conflict" here is  
> > merely the means by which controlled variables and related gain are elucidated by  
> > the parties. Isn't it exciting to see the TEST revealed as an[...] ordinary part of  
> > human interactions?

---

<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 30, 2000, 9:24pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/test-of-variable-under-conflict/11137/84 "2000-10-30T21:24:05Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2000.10.30.1330)]

Bill Powers (2000.10.30.0305 MST) --

> So I think I side with Rick on this: the threats have to  
> be figured into the analysis.

Bill Curry (2000.10.30.0830 EST) --

> Does anyone really think that the IA's opener of $3,500 was his  
> outcome goal? Does anyone \_really\_ think that that this was anything  
> other than a "Win-Win" negotiation where both parties arrived at  
> zero error? If you do, forget it. You are wrong because I say you are  
> wrong. I win, you lose ;-).

I think Bill Powers' point is that scenarios are not a particularly  
useful way to show how conflicts are resolved. The problem is that  
they can be interpreted in whatever you want; there is really no way  
to test whether a particular interpretation is valid. In the IA/Tom  
case, for example, you can interpret it as an example of win-win  
conflict resolution through reorganization of higher level goals or  
you can interpret it as the usual kind of negotiation, where people  
compromise to minimize overall error (satisficing). The IA's "opener"  
offer of $3500 can be interpreted as an indication of his outcome goal  
(as I do), which is consistent with the satisficing strategy, or it  
can be interpreted as an indication of his first attempt at finding a  
fair price, which is consistent with the win win strategy. I would  
be more inclined to go with the second interpretation of the IA's  
behavior if the scenario had the IA's "opener" offer be $10000  
which the IA brings down to $4200 after Tom talks him \_down\_ using  
the blue book data.

I think that it is always possible to \_imagine\_ ways for the parties  
to a conflict to reorganize so that there is a win-win solution to the  
conflict. If the IA reorganized and adopted the high level goal of  
giving Tom fair compensation then there \_is\_ certainly a win win  
solution to the conflict. The same would be true if Tom reorganizes  
and adopts the higher level goal of taking whatever he is offered  
by the insurance company.

The problem, of course, is getting people to reorganize in the  
ways that will produce these nice win win solutions. If people  
don't reorganize appropriately then the negotiation must be aimed  
at satisficing; getting everyone's error to acceptably low levels.  
This, I think, is what happens in \_most\_ of the real world  
negotiations with which I am familiar. Since the negotiations  
described in the negotiation scenarios presented on CSGNet look  
an awful lot like those with which I am familiar from real life,  
I did not interpret than as examples of reorganizing for win-win.

I agree with you and Bruce Nevin that this type of solution to  
conflict -- the kind where one or both parties reorganize and  
adopt higher level goals-- does allow a win win solution to a  
negotiation. My impression, however, is that this rarely happens.  
I'm certainly not convinced that it happened in the case of the  
IA and Tom. My impression is that most negotiations end up with  
a "satisficing" solution, as did the one between the IA and Tom,  
in my opinion. Often the satisficing solution is achieved by  
avoidance of the issues that are in conflict; this, I believe, is  
the reason Catholics and Protestants get along reasonably well now  
in most countries; they just avoid the issues that lead to fights  
(my recovering Catholic wife still goes nuts when she hears people  
say that people can be saved by faith rather than deeds;-).

I would like to see evidence of a negotiation where a conflict was  
clearly solved by reorganization. I think such negotiations have  
occurred. But I wouldn't automatically count a negotiation as a  
win win (resulting from reorganization) just because the parties  
to the negotiation were satisfied with (or even thrilled by) the  
results. The same result is expected from a negotiation that ends  
with satisficing.

Anyway, I would be interested in hearing about examples of real  
negotiations, that seem to have been solved by reorganization. And,  
of course, I would like to know what the evidence is that leads to  
the conclusion that the solution is the result of reorganization  
and not loss reduction (as is likely the case in negotiations where  
the parties threaten action that can hurt the other party).

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:** ![Bruce\_Gregory](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_Gregory](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory)\
**Post date:** [October 30, 2000, 9:55pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/test-of-variable-under-conflict/11137/85 "2000-10-30T21:55:17Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Gregory (2000.1030.1655)]

> Rick Marken (2000.10.30.1330)
> 
> Anyway, I would be interested in hearing about examples of real  
> negotiations, that seem to have been solved by reorganization. And,  
> of course, I would like to know what the evidence is that leads to  
> the conclusion that the solution is the result of reorganization  
> and not loss reduction (as is likely the case in negotiations where  
> the parties threaten action that can hurt the other party).

It seems highly unlikely to me that reorganization occurs during  
negotiations. Since reorganization, at least as I understand it, is a  
random process, evidence for its occurrence would consist of participants  
adopting random positions as the negotiations proceed.

BG

---

<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 31, 2000, 2:30am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/test-of-variable-under-conflict/11137/86 "2000-10-31T02:30:33Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2000.10.30.1830)]

Bruce Gregory (2000.1030.1655)--

> It seems highly unlikely to me that reorganization occurs during  
> negotiations. Since reorganization, at least as I understand it,  
> is a random process, evidence for its occurrence would consist  
> of participants adopting random positions as the negotiations  
> proceed.

I don't think every random step has to be visible. But I think  
there are signs that reorganization is going on when negotiators  
come up with innovative options that had never been thought of  
(or, at least, never been brought up) before. These options  
are not always acceptable to both parties but they are, I think,  
evidence that the negotiators are doing some reorganization,  
perhaps mainly in their heads.

I would like to take this opportunity to admit that I was wrong  
about "no compromise, win-win negotiation". I had been arguing  
that it can't exist but Bill P. has convinced me that it certainly  
can exist. I thought the Tom/IA scenario was an obvious example  
of a "win-lose" negotiation that Tom won by threatening a law  
suit and that the IA lost by being the only party to compromise.  
That's why I got a bit exasperated when people kept claiming  
that it was an example of "win win"; that seemed kind of rude to  
the party I saw as the loser; the only one who ended up making any  
concesssions (the IA).

But Bill Powers has convinced me (why do I ever doubt him?) that the  
"win win" interpretation, where the IA goes up a level and ends the  
conflict by controlling what Tom is controlling for also -- getting  
paid the fair replacement value of the car -- is also perfectly  
reasonable. I still think this is a very unlikely interpretation of  
what was going on (in a real negotiation we could test whether both  
Tom and the IA are controlling for Tom getting fair market value by  
having the IA offer Tom more than fair market value and see if Tom  
resists this disturbance). But, still, it is a definite possibiliy  
and so I have to admit that reorganization (in the IA, in this case)  
can produce a win win resolution to a conflict.

A conflict becomes win win when one or both parties end up agreeing  
on what they had disagreed about. The conflict between advocates of  
helio and geo centered models of the universe became win win when  
the advocates of the geo model changed their mind and agreed that  
the helio model was correct. The conflict between advocates of  
PCT and SR models of behavior will become win win when the advocates  
of one of the models change their minds and agree that the other  
model is either correct or, at least, completely compatible with  
their own model.

Looked at this way, it seems like getting to win win solutions to  
conflict is really very easy. Why do people have so much trouble  
with it? 😉

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\_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 31, 2000, 8:26am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/test-of-variable-under-conflict/11137/87 "2000-10-31T08:26:05Z")

</div>

[From Bill Powers (2000.10.31.0039 MST)]

Bruce Nevin (2000.10.30. EST)]

> Any examination of case histories can be dismissed as
> 
> Bill Powers (2000.10.30.0305 MST)--
> 
> > When your aim is to support a theory, facts become pretty flexible.

I didn't say that well. My point was that case histories are limited in  
their relevance because they don't show what might have happened with a  
different approach, so we get a distorted picture of the facts. For  
example, suppose we had been teaching principled negotiation to the other  
party in each example: the insurance adjuster, the landlady, and so on.  
What "higher order goal" might each of those opposite parties have tried to  
get the other party to adopt, what leverage might have been applied, and  
what objective criteria might have been proposed? I can see the insurance  
adjuster proposing that the insurance company pay no more than the average  
amount it has paid in similar cases. I can see the IA proposing that they  
look into court cases in which settlements have been reduced because of  
finding some degree of negligence on the part of the claimant, and further  
proposing that they let the final amount of the settlement be determined by  
looking into the circumstances of the accident -- for example, did Tom  
routinely clean his windshield before each use of the car? The IA can use  
the threat of court action just as readily as Tom can, although the subject  
of the lawsuit would be quite different.

The problem I see is that principled negotiation will be adopted only if  
the adoptor ends up better off than he could expect from doing things in  
the usual way ("haggling"). The negotiation would go much more smoothly --  
one could say automatically -- once the initial agreement has been reached,  
but \_which\_ initial agreement it is to be has a strong effect on the kind  
of outcome that will be reached. The case histories have all been presented  
while favoring one point of view -- it would be a good exercise to work  
them all out again favoring the other point of view. The idea that there is  
only one "objective" way to cast the problem is not really tenable. If it  
were, we wouldn't need a court system.

Best,

Bill P.

---

<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 31, 2000, 8:29am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/test-of-variable-under-conflict/11137/88 "2000-10-31T08:29:19Z")

</div>

[From Bill Powers (2000.10.31.0126 MST)]

Bruce Gregory (2000.1030.1655)--

> It seems highly unlikely to me that reorganization occurs during  
> negotiations. Since reorganization, at least as I understand it, is a  
> random process, evidence for its occurrence would consist of participants  
> adopting random positions as the negotiations proceed.

Excellent point. If any reorganization were involved, it would be only at  
those points in the negotiation where one party simply didn't know what to  
do next and had no prepared way of taking the next step. It would be  
precisely at those turns in the negotation that did \_not\_ resemble what had  
happened in any previous negotiation.

Best,

Bill P.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_Gregory8](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Bruce\_Gregory8](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory8)\
**Post date:** [October 31, 2000, 11:36am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/test-of-variable-under-conflict/11137/89 "2000-10-31T11:36:44Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Gregory (2000.1031.0631)]

> Bill Powers (2000.10.31.0126 MST)
> 
> If any reorganization were involved, it would be only at  
> those points in the negotiation where one party simply didn't know what to  
> do next and had no prepared way of taking the next step. It would be  
> precisely at those turns in the negotation that did \_not\_ resemble what had  
> happened in any previous negotiation.

I would further expect that, if reorganization occurred, at the next  
negotiation the negotiator would begin the process using the same approach  
he or she adopted as a result of the reorganization.

BG

---

<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 31, 2000, 11:37am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/test-of-variable-under-conflict/11137/90 "2000-10-31T11:37:05Z")

</div>

[Bill Curry (2000.10.31.2000.0645 EST)]

> Bruce Nevin (2000.10.30. EST)]--
> 
> I have only one disagreement. the  
> IA is not applying the Test to determine what variable Tom is  
> controlling--he has no doubt that Tom is controlling the payment amount.  
> This is not the Test for the controlled variable, it is a test of the  
> (presumed) controlled variable, to determine its reference value. He first  
> tested whether a value of $3300 is a disturbance to Tom's control of  
> "payment". Then when Tom did not accept that value, he tested whether a  
> value of $3500 was a disturbance.

Excellent point. Thanks, Bruce.

Bill C.

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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_Gregory8](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Bruce\_Gregory8](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory8)\
**Post date:** [October 31, 2000, 11:42am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/test-of-variable-under-conflict/11137/91 "2000-10-31T11:42:35Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Gregory (2000.1021.0638)]

> Rick Marken (2000.10.30.1830)
> 
> Looked at this way, it seems like getting to win win solutions to  
> conflict is really very easy. Why do people have so much trouble  
> with it? 😉

The Great Way is not difficult, for those who have no preferences.

BG

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_Gregory](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_Gregory](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory)\
**Post date:** [October 31, 2000, 3:23pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/test-of-variable-under-conflict/11137/92 "2000-10-31T15:23:28Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Gregory (2000.1031.1023)]

> The Great Way is not difficult, for those who have no preferences.

Let me translate the teachings of the Third Patriarch into PCT-speak. If  
you control an appropriate perception at the level of principle, it will  
reset the reference levels for lower systems in a way that eliminates conflict.

BG

---

<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 31, 2000, 3:30pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/test-of-variable-under-conflict/11137/93 "2000-10-31T15:30:14Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2000.10.31.0730)]

Me:

> Looked at this way, it seems like getting to win win solutions to  
> conflict is really very easy. Why do people have so much trouble  
> with it? 😉

Bruce Gregory (2000.1021.0638)--

> The Great Way is not difficult, for those who have no preferences.

Yes. That does, indeed, explain why it's so difficult for perceptual  
control systems, which are nothing \_but\_ preferences.

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 31, 2000, 3:51pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/test-of-variable-under-conflict/11137/94 "2000-10-31T15:51:26Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2000.10.31.0800)]

Bruce Gregory (2000.1031.1023) --

> \>The Great Way is not difficult, for those who have no preferences.
> 
> Let me translate the teachings of the Third Patriarch into  
> PCT-speak. If you control an appropriate perception at the level  
> of principle, it will reset the reference levels for lower systems  
> in a way that eliminates conflict.

This says that you have to have a preference for a particular  
"perception at the level of principle": for the "appropriate" one.  
So PCT reveals that the Third Patriarch is saying that "have no  
preferences" means "have a specific preference". I think this  
again shows why The Great Way is so hard for living control  
systems; they can't help but have preferences, even preferences  
for the preferences they should or should not have.

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 31, 2000, 4:13pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/test-of-variable-under-conflict/11137/95 "2000-10-31T16:13:27Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2000.10.31.0820)]

Bruce Nevin (2000.10.30. EST) to Bill Curry --

> I have only one disagreement. the IA is not applying the Test to  
> determine what variable Tom is controlling--he has no doubt that  
> Tom is controlling the payment amount. This is not the Test for the  
> controlled variable, it is a test of the (presumed) controlled  
> variable, to determine its reference value. He first tested whether  
> a value of $3300 is a disturbance to Tom's control of "payment". Then  
> when Tom did not accept that value, he tested whether a value of  
> $3500 was a disturbance.

If the IA was trying to find Tom's reference for payment, he could  
have done a much better job. All he found by offering $3300 and $3500  
was that both were \_below\_ the reference. He learned no more than if  
he had offered $0 and $1. If the IA was really trying to determine  
Tom's reference for "payment" he could have done it more quickly and  
easily by asking "how much do you want?". Let's say Tom said $4200.  
The IA could then have checked to see if this was really Tom's  
reference for payment by offering less \_and\_ more than $4200. If  
$4200 is the reference for payment then Tom should reject both. I  
have a feeling he wouldn't.

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:** ![Bruce\_Gregory](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_Gregory](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory)\
**Post date:** [October 31, 2000, 4:20pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/test-of-variable-under-conflict/11137/96 "2000-10-31T16:20:41Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Gregory (2000.1031.1120)]

> Rick Marken (2000.10.31.0800)
> 
> This says that you have to have a preference for a particular  
> "perception at the level of principle": for the "appropriate" one.  
> So PCT reveals that the Third Patriarch is saying that "have no  
> preferences" means "have a specific preference". I think this  
> again shows why The Great Way is so hard for living control  
> systems; they can't help but have preferences, even preferences  
> for the preferences they should or should not have.

How true. But nobody said it would be easy. Or did they?

BG

---

<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 31, 2000, 6:44pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/test-of-variable-under-conflict/11137/97 "2000-10-31T18:44:37Z")

</div>

[From Bill Powers (2000.10.31.1141 MST)]

Rick Marken (2000.10.31.0820)--

> If the IA was really trying to determine  
> Tom's reference for "payment" he could have done it more quickly and  
> easily by asking "how much do you want?". Let's say Tom said $4200.  
> The IA could then have checked to see if this was really Tom's  
> reference for payment by offering less \_and\_ more than $4200. If  
> $4200 is the reference for payment then Tom should reject both. I  
> have a feeling he wouldn't.

This would be a one-way control system: Tom would accept "not less than"  
the replacement cost, just as (in my example) the IA would accept an offer  
of "not less than" the minimum amount he would accept.

Buyt of course none of this actually happened.

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 31, 2000, 8:55pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/test-of-variable-under-conflict/11137/98 "2000-10-31T20:55:41Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2000.10.31.1250)]

Me:

> I think this again shows why The Great Way is so hard for living  
> control systems; they can't help but have preferences, even  
> preferences for the preferences they should or should not have.

Bruce Gregory (2000.1031.1120)--

> How true. But nobody said it would be easy. Or did they?

Not in so many words. But I think the difficulties of rising above  
one's own preferences are often ignored. In fact, we can't really  
get rid of our preferences; at least, not according to PCT. All  
we can do is reorganize and \_change\_ what we prefer and how we  
set the lower level preferences that achieve the higher level ones.

I think what's difficult is admitting to ourselves that it is  
our own preferences that are creating the problems for us. We  
tend to see problems from the point of view of our own preferences  
so these preferences serve as the definition of what constitutes  
an objectively right or wrong solution to a problem. Solutions that  
we prefer seem objectively right and solutions that deviate from  
our preferences seem objectively wrong.

Bill Powers (2000.10.31.0039 MST) alluded to this problem in the  
context of the case histories that were used to illustrate  
principled negotiation:

> The case histories have all been presented while favoring one  
> point of view -- it would be a good exercise to work them all  
> out again favoring the other point of view. The idea that there  
> is only one "objective" way to cast the problem is not really  
> tenable. If it were, we wouldn't need a court system.

I think this is a great idea. Once it is seen that one solution  
(such as the one in which Tom and the IA agree to replace the car)  
is just as good as another (such as one in which Tom and the IA  
agree to pay Tom an amount equal to the average paid in similar cases)  
one can get above one's preferences and see that, in terms of conflict  
resolution, no preference is objectively better or worse than another.  
Conflicts are only resolved when the parties to the conflict can  
prefer the \_same\_ result, whatever it is.

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 31, 2000, 9:13pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/test-of-variable-under-conflict/11137/99 "2000-10-31T21:13:05Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2000.10.31.1320)]

Me:

> Let's say Tom said $4200. The IA could then have checked to  
> see if this was really Tom's reference for payment by offering  
> less \_and\_ more than $4200. If $4200 is the reference for  
> payment then Tom should reject both. I have a feeling he  
> wouldn't.

Bill Powers (2000.10.31.1141 MST)--

> This would be a one-way control system: Tom would accept "not  
> less than" the replacement cost, just as (in my example) the IA  
> would accept an offer of "not less than" the minimum amount he  
> would accept.

Yes. But you wouldn't find that minimum amount unless you offered  
settlements above and below the stated payment.

If Tom is actually controlling for a payment of "fair market value",  
however, we could only determine this by offering payments below  
and above that value. It would presumably be just as unfair to  
offer $10000 for a car with a fair market value of $4200 as it  
would be to offer $3200.

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:** ![Bruce\_Gregory](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_Gregory](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory)\
**Post date:** [October 31, 2000, 9:17pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/test-of-variable-under-conflict/11137/100 "2000-10-31T21:17:26Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Gregory (2000.1031.1617)]

> Rick Marken (2000.10.31.1250)
> 
> Once it is seen that one solution  
> (such as the one in which Tom and the IA agree to replace the car)  
> is just as good as another (such as one in which Tom and the IA  
> agree to pay Tom an amount equal to the average paid in similar cases)  
> one can get above one's preferences and see that, in terms of conflict  
> resolution, no preference is objectively better or worse than another.  
> Conflicts are only resolved when the parties to the conflict can  
> prefer the \_same\_ result, whatever it is.

Yes. This seems to be exactly what is missing in Northern Ireland and in  
the Middle East at this time. Absent a common desired outcome, conflict  
apparently cannot be resolved.

BG

[Previous page](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/test-of-variable-under-conflict/11137.md?page=4)

[Next page](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/test-of-variable-under-conflict/11137.md?page=6)