Test of variable under conflict

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

         Bruce Nevin

[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.

         Bruce Nevin

···

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

[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.

         Bruce Nevin

···

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

[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

[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?

         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:

[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

[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

[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.

         Bruce Nevin

···

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

[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

[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

[From Dick Robertson,2000.10.21.1555CDT]

   [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.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:

[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

[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 mailto: marken@mindreadings.com
www.mindreadings.com

[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.

[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