Contents
What to Do
|
Keep the square (cursor) over the point of intersection of the two blue lines (target) by moving the mouse to compensate for the disturbances to the cursor. A graph of the results appears after several seconds of tracking. Press the "Run" button at any time to restart the tracking task.
Conflict occurs when two control systems, in an effort to control their own perceptions, end up acting to prevent each other from controlling their perceptions. Conflict is something that only happens to control systems. Conflict is the down side of being a purposeful (control) system.
This tracking task shows what happens when two of your lower level control systems get into a conflict with each other. What happens is that you lose control of the higher level perception that is controlled by means of these lower level systems.
In this demonstration, the higher level perception is the two-dimensional position of the cursor. You control this perception by controlling two lower level perceptions; the X and Y positions of the cursor. For a brief period at the beginning of each tracking run there is no conflict between the systems controlling X and Y cursor position so it is possible to control the higher level perception (two-dimensional cursor position). After a few seconds, however, the systems controlling X and Y cursor position are put into conflict with each other. When the X position cursor controller acts to compensate for disturbances in the X dimension it disturbs the cursor in the Y dimension. Similarly, when the Y position cursor controller acts to compensate for disturbances in the Y dimension it disturbs the cursor in the X dimension. So, when the X and Y cursor position controllers try to control their own perception, they end up working against each other; the harder these lower level control systems try to control their own perceptions, the harder they work to prevent the other system from controlling its perception.
The higher level control system, the one trying to keep the cursor over the intersection of lines, experiences this conflict as a frustrating inability to get the perception it wants (cursor over intersection); the conflict between the lower level control systems has functionally removed these systems from service. The lower level control systems still work -- they still try to control X and Y cursor position-- but the more they try to control, the more they cancel out each others' efforts. These lower level systems use all their output capability to fight against each other so there is no output left for the higher level system to achieve it's goal (cursor over intersection).
The cost of conflict between control systems at one level is loss of control of higher level perceptions that depend on those systems.
You can tell that your lower level control systems are in conflict when you are no longer able to keep the cursor over the intersection of lines. The graph of the results shows response (mouse movements), cursor and disturbance variations before (to the left of the vertical black line) and after the lower level conflict goes into effect. The first thing to notice is the plot of variations in the "net" cursor position (red squares) over time ("net" refers to the sum of variations in the X and Y dimension). Before the conflict goes into effect the plot of "net" cursor position is a nearly straight line, indicating the cursor stays on target in the X and Y dimension. After the conflict the plot of cursor position falls on the plot of "net" disturbance position (yellow squares), indicating that the cursor was no longer under control; there is no resistance to the disturbance to the two-dimensional position of the cursor so the disturbance is completely effective. The higher level system controlling the two-dimensional position of the cursor was not in control. If it were in control, the plot of the net position of the cursor would have been as straight a line after as it was before the conflict was in effect.
The reason for loss of control by the two-dimensional position control system can be seen by looking at the plots of the outputs of the lower level X and Y position control systems (the open and closed blue squares, respectively). The plot of the open squares mirrors the plot of closed squares. This shows that the outputs of the two lower level control systems were opposing each other; the effect of the X controller's output on the Y position of the cursor is being opposed by the output of the Y controller; and the effect of the Y controller's output on the X position of the cursor is, at the same time, being opposed by the X controller. The mirror relation between the plots of the responses of the X and Y cursor position control systems shows that these two control systems are fighting against each other -- and neither is winning. This conflict between the lower level control systems makes them useless to the higher level two-dimensional position control system.
The plot of closed and open black squares at bottom of graph show variations in X and Y position, respectively. This graph is provided so that you can see what happens when you change your higher level goal from keeping the cursor over the intersection to keeping it over the horizontal or the vertical line; that is, you control the cursor in just the X or Y dimension, respectively. When you do this you will see that the lower level conflict no longer has any effect on your ability to achieve you higher level goal.
When your higher level goal is to control only the X or Y position of the cursor, you can achieve this goal because it requires use of only one of the conflicted lower level systems. When only one lower level system is controlling there is no longer a conflict between these systems. This is one way to avoid the cost of conflict; just stop controlling for perceptions (such as cursor over intersection) that require the use of the systems that are in conflict. But this approach to avoiding the cost of conflict has its own cost; it limits the kinds of perceptions you are willing to control. That is, it limits what you can achieve in your life.
This demonstration works best if you try very hard to keep the cursor over the intersection of lines even when this has become impossible due to the existence of the lower level conflict. We are very good a solving conflicts by avoiding them. In order to learn about the cost of conflict, you have to be willing to experience the frustrating reality of being in one for a while.