Generally the Greatest Force Wins
On the topic of the interaction between L, D, &R: This small interaction reveals distinct patterns of significant human behavior. It exhibits the difference between Compassionate Confrontation (Non-violent Communication), & Violent Confrontation (Violent Communication) - and the consequences of each type of behavior.
Now that our general topic has been introduced, let’s look at our specific question by first introducing some simplifying notation.
Remember with each layer of summary that more layers of complexity are added. There are two reasons. Each layer of summary or generalization removes us further from the source. Further with each new layer we have new emergent properties to deal with and they are most easily dealt with the summary symbols rather than the descriptors of lower level symbols.
Let LN = L’s vector, which determines the probability of behavior Y at moment N.
Let YN = the relative success or failure of behavior Y at moment N
Then L1 = Y1/D + KL0
Similarly RN = R’s probability vector at time N.
The following is a representation of the interaction.
Explanation of the Arrow diagram:
R0 = R conquers the Driveway.
L0 = L attempts to reclaim Driveway.
R1 = R exhibits threatening behavior.
L1 = L changes her behavioral direction and gives up the Driveway.
R continues to occupy the Driveway.
While this describes what happened, how did it happen?
This is a common phenomenon. This could refer to conquering a city, state, or country. Or it could refer to a coup, when one group or individual seizes power from another group or individual. In general one Person or Group attempts to claim or reclaim what another Person or Group has. In the Force diagrams the outcome is simple. The greater Force wins; the lesser Force must withdraw. In general he who has the biggest army wins. The larger force dominates the lesser force.
While there exists other ways of changing a dominant physical Force, this is not our present topic. This has to do with convincing the occupiers that they would like to move. This means changing the underlying beliefs of the attacker so that their behavior probability changes. This is a feature of ‘bottom up organization’. The changes of this type are more permanent because they are internal rather enforced through external means.
Punished Examines Abuser Carefully
The child acts spontaneously and is whipped, i.e. receives strong pain. The child either stops all spontaneous behavior - or attempts to determine a specific spontaneous behavior that initiated the pain - or examines the Abuser to see if there is a pattern to their behavior.
A Person is punished for some behavior. The Person wants to avoid this painful experience in the Future. They examine the moment carefully.
“Did I do something to draw this Pain upon myself? Was it avoidable? Or did the impersonal Universe inflict the Pain, in which case my behavior had nothing to with the Pain? It was just a case of ‘bad luck’.”
Self Reflection leads to an appropriate response to Pain
Most of these questions are posed subliminally and never really reach consciousness. Our automatic response system from the very beginning wants to avoid pain and attempts to pursue pleasure. We are naturally drawn to the Light and avoid the Dark. Through self-reflection we can bring these processes to consciousness and ask more specific questions, which might initiate a more specific response. For instance, the child might have just spoke up at the wrong time, in which case it is unnecessary to stop speaking altogether. It is only important to stop speaking up at an inappropriate time. Or perhaps the one who did the whipping was drunk. Then the child might just avoid the Abuser when they are drunk, rather than changing behavior at all. The less the self-reflection, the more likely that the response to the pain will be inappropriate.
R attempts to suppress L’s revolt
In the case of R & L everything was very clear. R conquered the driveway. L attempted to reclaim it. R attempted to suppress the revolt. He used Intimidation as his method. Because of this threat of Pain, L’s Probability Vector for her specific behavior changed radically from the initial moment 0 to moment 1.
L1 = -Pain/D + KL0
For instance:
Let L0 = +0.80: Let D = 10: Let -Pain = -20
Then L1 = -20/10 + .9*0.8 = -1.28
Because of the experience of extreme pain or its potential, rated at -20 for the sake of example, the probability of resistance went from extremely likely, L0 = +0.80, to extremely unlikely, L1 = -1.28.
Indeed sometimes all blatant behaviors associated with moment 0 might be discontinued altogether at moment 1, depending upon the intensity of the inflicted pain. For instance a dog might avoid a location where pain occurred, although the location had nothing to do with the pain. R was just hoping that L would discontinue a specific behavior - namely ‘complaining about his trailer’.
Let Y = complaining about trailer
Then L0(Y) = High
L’s probability of complaint about R’s trailer at point 0 is high. Therefore L complained or objected - telling R that he had to move his trailer. R, to squelch the revolt of the peasantry, attempted to use the threat of pain to both deflect the energy of the revolt as well as reverse the probability that it would happen again.
This hoped for scenario was indicated in the Force Diagram above. R was hoping that the force of his behavior would change the Direction of L’s Probability Vector.
L0= High, L1= 0
While at the initial moment 0, L’s probability of complaint was high, at moment 1 the probability of complaint had changed to 0, because of R’s implied potential for inflicting pain.
Pain must be inflicted to radically change behavior
The Peasants are abused/a country is invaded. This increases the probability of revolt. The Peasants/indigenous population/L revolts, hoping by this behavior to change the status quo.
The royalty/conquerors/R could perhaps easily maintain their ground by restraining the populace. In this case the Revolt behavior would have yielded a zero, not an extreme negative. The Probability of Revolt would lessen - but it would still be high. Further revolt behavior would probably occur again because the pressures that created the probability haven’t gone away. The conqueror still retains possession; abuses still occur; R’s trailer is still in the driveway.
Because of this the royalty, military aristocracy, the conglomerate establishment, R, aren’t content with restraining the Rebellion, instead they want to teach a lesson - to dramatically change the probability vector of those reacting to the invasion. Thus - instead of just using a minimum of force to control the rebellion - the ruler ruthlessly crushes the village and kills all the men, as a lesson to any other village who might have been considering this behavior. After seeing the US bomb Baghdad to rubble and reduce Iraq to chaos - the other puppet governments that we control choose to obey. Their probability of revolt/disobedience drops precipitously. Further this was an underlying intent of the military operation. On one level its intent was to discourage the Iraqis from revolt. On another level the intent was to send a message to the other nations of the world. “If you consider revolting from our domination - then this will be your fate.”
Thus while the Iraqi’s, Saudis, Afghanis, Panamanians, etc. - perhaps the entire Arab and Muslim world, and the European too - perhaps none of these cultures want to comply with the international conglomerates, whose military arm is the USA, but they do comply from fear of consequence. Their compliance is external, not internal - forced, not voluntary.
Sometimes Intimidation - Threat of Violence - enough
There are two ways to learn: from experience or example. Iraq, Panama, and Nicaragua learned from experience. Most of the rest of us learn from their examples.
What did we learn?
If we disobey, then the Ranchers will punish us severely. The Rancher Rulers of the US don’t really care what we believe as long as we obey. R didn’t care what L thought as long as she obeyed. While the conglomerate leaders had the power to inflict severe pain - R didn’t, or would choose not to. However in both cases, the process began with the Threat. This is not always the process, but was in these cases.
Because we all want to avoid Pain, the Threat of Pain is many times enough to change the Probability of our Behavior.
Home The Firing Process V. Differentiation Previous Next Comments