Happy Families (E09)
Eliminating unnecessary suffering
“All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” —Leo Tolstoy (1828-1910)
The way Tolstoy expressed his conclusion in the above quote inspired the way I am expressing a similar conclusion in the following essay.
When we inherited our uniquely human DNA at conception, we inherited a uniquely human talent for language and conflict resolution.
A natural talent needs to be developed to be useful. Undeveloped, the tangible impact of a large effort is insignificant. Fully developed, a small effort’s impact is invariably positive and potentially significant.
A natural talent is developed through deliberate practice. A deliberate practice does not focus on tangible outcomes. Instead, the focus is on identifying and eliminating deviations from a knowledge standard.
We can’t read the original version of the conflict resolution knowledge standard because we can’t read the language of DNA the way we read English, but our inherited knowledge allows us to translate the original and/or judge a translation’s accuracy. The following five-step process is a translation of the original:
1. Be tolerant.
2. Select a pair of conflicting conclusions.
3. Identify relevant evidence and conflicting assumptions.
4. Identify and address the issues until the conflict is resolved.
5. Respect the resolution.
Disclaimer: The procedure to be followed is in our wordless thoughts when they are informed by a knowledge standard that emerged at the origin of our species. This essay is a “deliberate practice” guide.
A person with a good habit doesn’t “decide” to perform the habit. Instead, a stimulus triggers an automatic habitual response. The response might be exercising or brushing one’s teeth. A major league batter doesn’t see a 100-mph fastball and then “decide” how to respond. Resolving conflicts is another good habit formed with deliberate practice.
To paraphrase Aristotle (384-322 BCE), a family is what it repeatedly does. A family’s happiness is not in how it responded to a conflict, but in how it habitually responds when within-family conflicts inevitably emerge.
On the one hand, following the five-step process involves completing a series of simple tasks in a defined sequence. On the other hand, because the process is iterative, it can become incredibly complicated. Regardless, a happy family habitually follows the process, and a family that habitually deviates from the process is unhappy.
Expertise in conflict resolution is developed through deliberate practice. There are challenging contexts where expertise is necessary. However, it is easy for nonexperts to detect deviations from the simple process. Real experts appear to be adhering to the process. When deviations are readily apparent, the appearance of expertise is an illusion.
Step 1: Be tolerant.
The knowledge of a conflict’s beginning and end is stored in our inherited knowledge even if we are not aware of it. Happy families habitually behave as if they know, and unhappy families habitually behave as if they don’t. But be aware of it. It’s described in Step 1, it’s easily understood, and it helps.
Family members are a family’s “limited” interests, and the family is the “common” interest. A conflict is between two limited interests.
For as long as it is free of conflict, an interaction within a family is mutually beneficial, but then a conflict of interest inevitably emerges.
Before the conflict emerges, a happy family is acting like a healthy system because its members are following a familiar behavior pattern in a familiar context. The conflict “begins” when a novel context emerges while the family keeps following the familiar pattern. However, the family does not become aware of the conflict until the end of the following four-step process:
1. The same evidence is observed by different family members.
2. Conflicting sets of assumptions are used to interpret the observation.
3. Conflicting conclusions are drawn.
4. The conclusions inform conflicting responses.
A conflict does not “end” until it has been resolved. A “resolution” benefits the common interest. Leaving a conflict unresolved serves a limited interest. Either the conflict is resolved, or it is added to the family’s inventory of unresolved conflicts.
A happy family’s response to conflict is predictable, and so is the response’s effect. A small short-term cost is incurred while conflicts are habitually being resolved. As each conflict is resolved, the bonds holding the family together are strengthened. An enormous long-term benefit is accrued due to the family’s strength, and due to its small and stable inventory of unresolved conflicts.
Because of the happy family’s habitually tolerant response to conflicts, the family is not a source of unnecessary suffering.
An unhappy family’s response to conflict is predictable, and so is the response’s effect. A small short-term benefit is accrued while conflicts are habitually left unresolved, but an enormous long-term cost is incurred. Each addition to the family’s large and growing inventory of unresolved conflicts weakens the bonds holding the family together.
Because of the unhappy family’s habitually intolerant response to conflicts, the family is itself a source of its own unnecessary suffering.
When a conflict triggers a mutual intent to serve the common interest, Step 1 ends and Step 2 begins.
Step 2: Select a pair of conflicting conclusions.
No family can resolve every conflict one-by-one in the sequence in which it emerges, but every family can begin one cycle of the deliberate practice process by selecting a pair of conflicting conclusions from its inventory of unresolved conflicts.
There is only one lesson learned by selecting a challenge that is fully within or too far beyond the learner’s current threshold of knowledge. That lesson is that learning occurs because the selected conflict is challenging without being too challenging because it is just one small step beyond the current threshold.
In a deliberate practice cycle, the cycle’s focus is on a specific step or task within the five-step process. Focusing on Step 1 is a good place to start.
When a pair of conflicting conclusions are identified and stated, Step 2 ends and Step 3 begins.
Step 3: Identify relevant evidence and conflicting assumptions.
Step 3 is a three-task process.
Recall that evidence is observed, a set of assumptions are used to interpret the observation, and then a conclusion is drawn (see Step 1).
Task 3.1: Identify and state the assumptions supporting Step 2’s conclusions.
Task 3.2: Identify and state the evidence supporting Task 3.1’s assumptions and describe how the evidence can be observed.
When there is no disagreement about the stated evidence, Step 3 ends and Step 4 begins. When there is a disagreement, Task 3.2 ends and Task 3.3 begins. The bad news is that each disagreement involves a separate iteration of Task 3.3. The good news is that Task 3.3 might resolve the conflict.
Each iteration of Task 3.3 is an application of one principle in one of three scenarios. The one principle is that observable evidence is irrefutable because it cannot conflict with itself. Instead, conclusions conflict because of testable assumptions.
Scenario 1: Observable evidence is described, and there are no conflicting descriptions. In Scenario 1, include the evidence.
Scenario 2: Observable evidence is described, but there are conflicting descriptions. That means the observation was not accurately described. Instead, the conflicting descriptions are testable interpretations of an observation that needs to be more accurately described. In Scenario 2, include the accurately described evidence.
Scenario 3: Evidence that cannot be observed is described. That means a testable assumption was described and then mislabeled as evidence. In Scenario 3, correct the mislabeling.
When the last iteration of Task 3.3 ends, Step 4 begins.
Step 4: Identify and address the issues until the conflict is resolved.
The difficulty of a resolution is a function of the number of iterations in Step 4. Unfortunately, there is no way to predict the number of iterations. Fortunately, each individual iteration is a simple process.
If the five-step process gets to be too complicated, then break the whole into smaller conflicts and return to Step 2 to select a smaller conflict.
Recall that Task 3.3 is an application of the “conclusions conflict because assumptions conflict” principle. Step 4 is a different application of the same principle.
There is no logic involved in observing evidence. However, an interpretation of evidence employs a set of assumptions, and an assumption is logic, all logic, and nothing but logic.
Observable evidence is irrefutable. If tested, then logic is either refuted or confirmed.
In one iteration of Step 4, an assumption from Step 3 is tested. When tested, either the logic is sound, or an apparent logic flaw was identified. There are three possibilities:
Possibility 1: The assumption’s logic is challenged. The challenge is an issue that can be addressed, and then the assumption is confirmed, or cannot be addressed, and then the assumption is refuted.
Because the challenge is itself an assumption, Possibility 1 is another iteration of Step 3 that begins by stating the assumption (which is the apparent logic flaw) with supporting evidence.
Possibility 2: The assumption’s logic is not challenged, the assumption is confirmed, there are no issues to address, one iteration of Step 4 is complete, and the next iteration begins.
Possibility 3: The last iteration is complete, every issue has been addressed, Step 4 ends, and Step 5 begins.
Step 2 ends when a pair of different and conflicting conclusions are identified and stated. When a pair of different but harmonious conclusions are identified and stated, Step 4 ends, and Step 5 begins.
Step 5: Respect the resolution.
A happy family acts like a healthy social system. Instead of having parts that are all the same, a healthy system is comprised of a diversity of parts that work together because of a small and stable inventory of unresolved conflicts. The unhealthy system’s parts work at cross purposes because of a large and growing inventory of unresolved conflicts.
Before Step 1, the happy family was acting like a healthy system in a familiar context as its members followed a familiar behavior pattern. Step 1 begins when a novel context emerges while the family is following the familiar pattern. Step 4 ends when the family adapts to the novel context by establishing a novel behavior pattern.
When Step 5 begins, the newly established behavior pattern is novel. In Step 5, the novel behavior pattern is practiced until the novel habit is fully formed.
When the old habit is broken, Step 5 ends, meaning that Step 1’s novel context is now familiar.
The five-step process is now complete.
Conclusion:
In a happy family, everything can—and anything might—change except the original version of the conflict resolution knowledge standard, which has remained unchanged since it emerged at the origin of our species.
Ideally, and generally, a child begins to use and develop their innate talents by resolving within-family conflicts. However, if the only challenge was to resolve within-family conflicts, we would not have or need our uniquely human language and conflict resolution talents. Instead, we need our species-specific talents because of our species-specific challenge. Only one species on Earth can and needs to resolve conflicts between families. We can, and assuming we don’t want to be the source of unnecessary suffering, we must.
In a happy family, family members repeatedly resolve conflicts by following a simple process. In a healthy community, families repeatedly resolve conflicts by following the same process. In a healthy nation, communities repeatedly resolve conflicts by following the same five-step process. In a healthy civilization, nations repeatedly resolve conflicts by following the same simple process.
When following the simple process appears to be exceedingly complicated or impossible, the appearance is an illusion, and the root cause is a bad habit of disregarding the five-step process.
What next?
Test drive the simple process with a close personal relationship. If you are willing, please share your questions, comments, and suggestions either publicly by commenting to this newsletter or privately through my website’s contact page: