Test of variable under conflict

CSGnet Archive CSG2000
81

[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.

82

[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:

     Tom: "I need a replacement car."
     IA: "I see I have another claim to close subject to our policy of
     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

83

[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?

84

[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

85

[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

86

[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? :wink:

Best

Rick

···

--

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

87

[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.

88

[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.

89

[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

90

[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

91

[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? :wink:

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

BG

92

[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

93

[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? :wink:

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

94

[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

95

[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

96

[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

97

[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.

98

[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

99

[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

100

[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