Conflict Scripts:
Seeing The Forest From The
Trees
Marc MacYoung
(Author's
note: Get a cup of coffee, this is a long article)
Time
Intensity
Tactics
Self
How is it that an ex-thug (MacYoung) and an ex-correctional officer
(Miller)
recognized behavioral 'scripts' about arguing, fighting and
violence that others don't see? This especially in light of the
fact that we say we're not telling you anything that you don't
know already.
That's actually two different questions And each has a
different answers, except, they're interrelated. The
short answer to question one is "We had to." The second question
doesn't have a simple answer. But the reasons 'why we don't
consciously see them' can be explained in four parts,
time,
intensity,
tactics
and self.
But before we go
there, here's a question: Do you think a fish is aware of the water
it swims in?
We ask because fish are evolutionarily designed
to function in that environment. All of the fishes' conscious actions,
instinctual behaviors and, in fact, their lives will be conducted within H2O.
While the fish is seeking food, mating and avoiding being
eaten itself, it isn't paying attention to the water it swims
in and 'breathes'.
Granted that people are more complex
creatures than fish, but the same idea applies. If you liken
these scripts and behaviors to the environment, then we are
designed
to function within them. People engaging in these scripts and
behaviors are usually no more consciously aware of them than they
are of the air they breathe.
What people are very aware of is their thoughts,
emotions and perceptions while
engaging in these scripts. You know you're angry. You
know your feelings are hurt. You know you've been insulted.
But, in a very real sense, those blind
you to the larger strategies and patterns that you are
following. When you're angry with someone are you focusing on
finding scripts? Or are you focusing on your anger and the other
person?
We're talking the classic forest from the trees situation.
Later when they are calmer, people may
sense these
scripts, but they can't quite put their finger on
them.
But, if that's the case, how did Rory Miller and Marc MacYoung see them?
Well two major points. First, both Miller and MacYoung are
both 'wired'
differently and they were raised in unusual circumstances. This
blended with traveling between different cultures,
socio-economic levels and lifestyles. That doesn't sound like
much, but it's important.
Watch an argument between two people when you don't
understand the language. You'll quickly realize that an argument
is an argument in any language. In fact, not speaking the
language helps you see the same patterns are being followed.
This applies to more than just conflict, Teenagers are
sullen and rebellious anywhere you go. Couples flirt and fall in
love around the world.
Movement between these different
'worlds' required Miller and MacYoung to consciously seek to
understand the social rules the locals tended to unconsciously
follow. This was an important skill because, in many places
they went, violence was a consequence of violating the rules.
In moving through these different cultural and social strata's,
they quickly realized standards of conduct varied wildly. What
remained consistent, however, is anywhere you go, there are
rules and standards of behavior.
That's actually the toughest part. Once you're aware
knowable and learnable rules exist, the only challenge is to
figure them out before you make a mistake. And that's not much
of a challenge. There's lots of ways NOT to make a
mistake until you've figured out the rules. (And yes, we teach
that too).
Being long term 'pattern seekers' in order to
function socially, it's no surprise that Miller and MacYoung turned this trait
towards conflict and violence ... especially in light of their
professions. What's perhaps most interesting is they both did it
independently and came to many of the same conclusions.
|
If nations desire peace, they
should avoid the pin-pricks that precede cannon-shot
--Napoleon
Bonaparte
|
The second point is Miller and MacYoung
needed to see them.
They were in accelerated circumstances, both personally and
professionally. Simply
stated if they couldn't talk someone down, they
bled. When
dealing with volatile, violent and dangerous people these
patterns are on 'fast forward.'
Under these circumstances disagreements often
skipped the arguing stage and went directly into physical
violence. It's easy to see movement when it's happening
fast. It's also easy to spot patterns when you see the same thing
over and over again. Not only were Miller and MacYoung in
conditions where conflict was common and it happened fast, but
after a while you become inoculated to the stress and emotion
most people feel about conflict. When that happens you can start thinking
again. And when you can think and pay attention, you can see
patterns -- even in emotionally intense situations.
These scripts are the medium that
conflicts are occurring within. This brings us back to the
fish/water idea. More than that, this brings us the second
question of 'why don't people normally see these patterns?' Aside from being inside
these patterns and 'otherwise occupied' emotionally, there are
four more reasons most people don't recognize these scripts:
1) Time
2) Intensity
3) Tactics
4) Self
For clarity in this article, let's call these factors. The first
factor is Time.
When dealing with violent people, there is a pretty direct
cause and effect. Causality is not hard to figure out. You
said something, he physically attacks you. There's an immediate
and obvious connection. These were the conditions that Miller and
MacYoung functioned in daily for many years. This connection is
what they have seen -- and this is not exaggeration -- thousands
of times.
So how does seeing so much physical violence apply here?
Alfred Hitchcock observed "Drama is life with the boring parts
taken out." This concept can be applied to seeing conflict
patterns.
While it's
easy to see a screaming argument, what's hard to see the
pattern that lead to it. That's because of all those 'boring
parts.' It's the time and clutter in between the
dramatic highlights that makes it hard to see the pattern in
less extreme circumstances.
To
give you an idea of this concept, imagine a computer. Push this button and the computer crashes
immediately. It's pretty obvious that you don't push that
particular button
from now on and you make sure nobody else does either. In time,
you can even start to recognize when someone is reaching for the
button That's
conflict in an accelerated context.
Now imagine you're working
on your computer on Friday and you push a button. It's one among
many you key during the day. Nothing happens and you keep on
working. You go home, spend the weekend away from the office and
when you come back you boot up your computer, there's no problem.
Then, just before lunchtime, your computer crashes. How likely
are you to see the causal relation between that one particular
keystroke on Friday and a mid-day Monday crash?
That's the time element we're talking about.
Most people do
not function in conditions of highly accelerated
conflict. While the emotional reaction that triggers a
particular argument
might be somewhat obvious, that's 'the computer crash.'
It's not what caused it to crash. Those conditions were
set up much earlier. Since the
conflict cycle can take days, weeks or even months, we often fail
to see the patterns and connections.
Worse is we often fail to realize that this 'new' conflict
isn't new at all. It isn't just round two, but round four or five of a much longer,
drawn out conflict cycle. If a disagreement is not resolved to the
satisfaction of both parties, it will go into smoldering mode
waiting for the next flare up. (This is why management must take
a 'hot spotting' strategy from wilderness firefighters. After
'handling' a situation, you must follow up to make sure there
are no banked and smoldering unresolved issues waiting to flare
up again)
|
You may have to fight a battle
more than once to win it
-- Margaret
Thatcher
|
The second factor in these patterns
not showing up on most
people's radars is the intensity. You can x-ray a broken jaw,
but you can't take a picture of a hurt feeling. Injured pride can't
be put on a scale and weighed. A torpedoed idea or being
passed over for promotion does not have a physical existence.
Simply stated we know a fistfight when we see one. We also
can easily recognize a screaming argument as conflict. But, in
many circles, interpersonal conflict remains hidden under
protocols, subtle digs, smiles, office politics and proxy fighting.
In other situations, it never manifests more obviously than
a campaign of slander and vicious rumors.
Because we have
been conditioned to believe that
conflict is bad, we tend to focus more on our emotional
discomfort when we witness or are involved in conflict. Not to
make light of it, but when was the last time you got
popcorn and sat back to watch people engage in an argument?
If you haven't, how likely are to you
consciously see these patterns?
Most of the time people
are at a loss as to how to behave in the presence of conflict.
And this applies to both witnessing a dispute and being in one.
Think about it, when
you're looking at the table in embarrassment and discomfort because how others are behaving, it's hard to see
these patterns(1).
The same goes for when your
emotions are spurring you on to
engage in these scripts.
So one aspect of intensity is while we might
watch a physical assault in horror, we tend to look away and
pretend that low-level conflicts aren't happening.
Another aspect of intensity is, quite simply,
it might be something else. Is this a false and malicious
rumor OR is the person actually doing that? Is an idea at work
being shot down as part of a complex and subtle struggle for
status and power OR is it an unworkable strategy given the
circumstances? Was that an intentional insult or an innocent
social gaff? Or was it, to that person, actually a complement?
What is a grievous insult in one social situation, means nothing
in another and in a different one still, is a compliment.
This last point is especially important in the
context of Time.
In a drawn out, low intensity conflict many of
the moves are not overt. In fact, they are often disguised
behind social conventions, work protocols, casual conversations
and under the guise of rational discourse. Obvious examples are
found in 'causes' and politics. Some of the most vicious attacks
are presented as impassioned cries for the 'other side' to see
sweet reason and not to be so selfish.
|
Never ascribe to an opponent
motives meaner than your own.
-- John M Barrie |
The third factor preventing people from seeing
patterns of conflict is Tactics. Before we proceed we need to clarify something.
That's the difference between strategy and tactics
Strategy is the over-arching ways and means,
considerations, principles and guidelines one uses to achieve a
goal. Think of it as an umbrella subject on achieving a goal.
Tactics are how you manifest strategy in an
immediate situation given specific circumstances.
Putting this in military terms, strategy is the
principles you use to secure a fire zone. Tactics are the
exact positions you put your men into to secure a fire zone in
that particular location. Strategy = principles, guidelines and
standards. Tactics = making it happen in real time and on the
ground.
As strategy and tactics are often a forest from
the trees issue, so too are the tactics someone uses in
conflict. We often are so busy looking at the person's tactics,
we fail to see the strategy. And the strategy is the
primate conflict scripts that we
are all born with.
Another way of looking at this is it's a matter
of stylistic preference. Someone from a lower socio-economic
level may view physical violence as just another tool for
achieving his or her goals. Whereas someone who prides him or
herself on being intellectual and civilized is abhorred by
the thought of physical violence. That person -- who would never
stoop to physical violence -- will instead commonly use verbal
violence or social/career sabotage to achieve goals.
The stakes and tactics are different, but the
motivations and strategies are the same. In both cases, the
individual is striving to achieve something over someone else.
And odds are, the other person is returning the favor.
This brings us to the fourth factor, Self
Two things should be noted here. First is that
the term 'Self' is used as a kind of catch all term for many
elements, emotions, roles, self-perception and our perceptions
of the world around us. It's also how we habitually and
subconsciously interface with the world around us.
The second thing to note is that Self is put
last in this list.
That's because it's hard to talk about without
making it sound like you're being blamed. (Which is another
tactic we use to keep us from seeing these behaviors, but we'll
get to that in a bit). While the other factors are the most
common ways we miss seeing these
scripts, concept of self is more of a 'why' issue.
In this context, the concept of 'Self' can be
likened to a fleet admiral who is orchestrating the movements of
a particular fleet (Pacific/Atlantic). When we use this analogy, many people jump to the idea that the
admiral must, by definition, be all powerful and aware of what
he's doing. Well no. But that does bring up an important point. We must remind people that an admiral
doesn't act on his own initiative, but instead acts upon the
policies and orders of the government.
There's a reason why we say it's you vs.
millions of years of evolution and human psychology. Look upon
nature (and the species drives to survive) as the 'government.'
Those effect the brain, drives, core behaviors and faculties you
were born with. For good measure, throw in the culture you were
born into. That's who's giving orders to the Admiral.
The Admiral isn't an overnight
sensation either. In fact, it's taken all your life for the
Admiral to get there. The Admiral is your sense of self, habits,
coping mechanisms and strategies you've developed over your
lifetime. You've done this to function in the
cultural/socio-economic/familial conditions you exist(
2).
You are the Captain of yourself, make no mistake
about it. But evolution, culture, experience and sense of Self
are the parameters in which you make all of your conscious
decisions. Not only that, they strongly influence your
decisions.
This is where we get into issues of unconscious,
subconscious, non-conscious, habitual, paradigms, emotions and
core beliefs. These are the guiding parameters within which we
make conscious decisions. And it a huge subject.
But for the sake of brevity, let's just look at
only four ways the Self can keep you from seeing scripts (there
are many more):
Roles
Emotions
Self-Protection
Rationalizations
You might
imagine by the concept of scripts, there are also roles in those
scripts. How we identify ourselves (and other in relationship to
ourselves) has major influence on what role we'll take in a
script.
A good example is how you react to a slight from
your boss versus how you react to an insult from an underling
vs. how you react when your spouse hurts your feelings. While
the tactics you will choose will vary with each of them, the
choice of tactics will be strongly influenced by your 'role' in
each situation.
First,
What you subconsciously think of yourself in the context of the
role of employee, boss, spouse is going to affect your choices.
Second, what you expect each person's behavior to be is going to
affect the degree of perceived injury. Third, the socially
acceptable rules and your perception of the consequence will
influence your decisions. The list goes on.
All of these elements will influence your
'conscious' decisions. And they will be happening not just
faster than conscious thought, but actually guiding your
thinking and limiting your possible options. Hold this thought,
we'll come back in a moment.
Another way that the Self can and does interfere
with you seeing scripts is emotions.
Not only do emotions
motivate us to do things, but they can blind us to what it is we
are actually doing. This, in contrast, to what we believe we are doing.
This is closely tied in with the previous point.
The more emotional we become the more tunnel vision we develop
as to other options. Also the more convinced we become that our
interpretation of events is 'reality.' With emotions spurring us
on, we often react to our internal version of what is happening
rather than double checking if our assessment is correct.
For example, someone says something that hurts
your feelings. Not only do you immediately feel an emotion, but
your monkey brain automatically assumes it was intentional or
that you are being threatened. This mixed with an uncomfortable
emotion can motivate us to say something hurtful to another
person in retaliation.
In this hypothetical example, the assumption
is it IS retaliation. Your emotional brain has already decided
that a danger to your Self is occurring. To make matters worse
is it assumes intent on the other person's part. This prompts you to
act to defend yourself. Except, what if it wasn't an intentional
attack?
We ask because from your perspective, it's going
to seem like you're defending yourself. But, to the other person,
it looks like you just intentionally attacked him -- for no
reason. Then, using the same process, his or her monkey brain is going to kick in and
you're both on a monkey dance, conflict script.
In case you haven't guessed, Self-protection is
a big issue when it comes to your emotional, monkey brain. It's
easy to see this idea in the context of hurt feelings and
physical violence. Where it gets a little more subtle is in
other areas, such as protecting social status and core beliefs.
Remember earlier we mentioned part of the reason
we talked about Self last was sounding like we're blaming
people? That's an example of how the Self protects itself. Often
it rejects new information that it perceives threatens its
Admiralty. A common example is to veer away from new information
by attaching an 'evil' to it.
This is a classic monkey brain strategy. By
identifying the information with a hot button topic (e.g.
blaming you, racism, the 'other' political agenda) any
information can be rejected. This preserves the sense of Self by
allowing unwanted or 'dangerous' information to be dismissed
because it is (fill in the blank).
What's more is this emotional rejection usually
triggers a monkey brain response in the other person. This
diverts the situation from the actual problem and the monkey
dance beings along scripted lines. At the end of it all, the
problem isn't resolved and yet the group remains together for
one more day. Which is exactly what these conflict scripts are
designed to do.
The forth way the Self blinds us is through
rationalizations. These are commonly related to the previous
point, but they also are used to justify behaviors that, while
we know they are wrong, benefit us. For example, the Random House Unabridged
Dictionary gives us this definition:
Violence: 1) Swift and intense force: the violence of a storm.
2) Rough or injurious physical force, action, treatment: to
die by violence. 3) An unjust or unwarranted exertion of
force or power, as against rights, laws, etc.: To take over a
government by violence. 4) a violent act or proceeding . 5)
Rough or immoderate vehemence as of feeling or language: the
violence of his hatred. 6) Injury, as in distortion of
meaning or fact: to do violence to a translation.
The first two are easily associated with
physical violence. While the third definition might also seem so
because of the example, you've begun to move into other,
non-physical kinds of violence. Violence that we can easily
rationalize as not being what we are doing because we haven't
physically assaulted someone.
By telling themselves that they are not being
violent, aggressive or vindictive because they don't hit someone
(to get what they want), many people engage in intellectual
sophism. They are also blinding themselves to the fact that they
are engaging in scripted conflict behaviors. Behaviors that
while tactically different are strategically and motivationally
the same as any other kind of conflict.
These four factors, time, intensity, tactics and
Self combine not only to keep us in these scripts, but unaware
that we're following them.
A big part of why people don't see these scripts
is they can reveal some very uncomfortable truths about
ourselves. The truth is, however, is we all engage in these
behaviors.
Another truth is that while we may deny it to
ourselves, others can see these aspects within us as plainly as
the Emperor's New Clothes. Have you ever had someone say
something to you -- that they pretended to be altruistic or
reasonable -- but you knew it was an insult, an attack, sabotage
or a lie? How did you know?
You knew because you unconsciously spotted a
tactic in a conflict script.
While we may not be consciously aware of these
scripts, because
1) we live with them every day,
2) we all do them
3) we are designed to react to the cues
4) we are designed to follow these scripts
5) we are not trained to recognize them.
You know it when you see it. That is why we say
we're not going to teach you anything you don't already know.
All we do here at Conflict Communications is bring patterns and
scripts that you already unconsciously know and bring them up to
your conscious attention. When you are conscious of these
scripts, then you can take control of
yourself and choose to follow them or not.
