Base Modeling

[From Bruce Gregory (980821.1700 EDT)]

Rick Marken (980821.1325)

Bruce Gregory (980821.1320 EDT)

> If we do not know that two systems are controlling the same
> perceptual variable, it is not clear to me that an appropriate
> model is one in which both systems are trying to control the
> same perceptual variable.

That was only one version of the model, where coercer and victim
both controlled the same variable (qi). In another version
(selectable in the spreadsheet itself) the coercer controlled
the victim's output (qo). So control of the same perceptual
variable was not an essential component of the model; the
essential component of the model was control of the behavior
of a weaker control system by a stronger one.

O.K.

> Nothing in the descriptions provided by Ed, Tom, or Tim led me
> to conclude that both teacher and student were attempting to
> control the same perceptual variable and that one overwhelmed
> the other.

It seemed to ne that the descriptions provided by Ed, Tim and
Tom state that the teacher is required to _control_ the student's
_location_; if a student disrupts twice the student's location
is supposed to be changed by the teacher from "in class" to "in
RTC room". The implication was that this change of location is
supposed to happen no matter what; whether the kid goes without
protest to the RTC room or not.

You'll agree that this "control of location" is characteristic of all social
systems? I assume then that you are making the point that RTP is indeed part
of a social system despite what others might have intimated. I agree.

Whether or not the student's location is under control by the
student himself (and I think there is good evidence that it _is_)
is unimportant. I count Ed, Tom, and Tim's descriptions as data
regarding how the teacher deals with students. What they are
describing is control of behavior. The simple spreadsheet model
accounts for this data.

But only the data dealing with the physical location of the student, no?

> Absent tests that were not performed, I am reluctant to assume
> that this was the case.

As I noted, tests to determine whether teacher and student are
controlling the same perception are unnecessary. The necessary
tests involve determining whether the teacher is actually
_controlling_ the child's location. This can be tested by
introducing disturbances to that variable, such as by having
a disruptive child resist the teacher's efforts to move him
to the RTC room. Tim says such resistance never occurs. So
perhaps the teacher's control of the location of the kids has
never been tested. Perhaps when the teacher sends the kid to
the RTC room the teacher really doesn't care whether the kid
goes there or not. If this is the case, then the spreadsheet
model would, indeed, _not_ be the correct model of the behavior
of the RTP teacher.

Good, we agree.

> If the student must be physically ejected from the classroom, I
> would accept that as data consistent with model.

Yes. This would expose the controlling done by the teacher.

> Even if the student does not struggle, the model still _might_
> be appropriate, but only data could make the case convincing.

Ah, we agree!

This is a banner day!

Execpt that I would say that, once you have exposed
the teacher's controlling by showing that the teacher will
physically eject a kid who does not go voluntarily to the RTC
room, you know that the teacher is controlling, whether or not
she ever again has to struggle to get another kid to the RTC.

I don't follow this. Suppose she had a change of heart and vowed never to
physically eject a kid again. Why would we say that she is still
controlling?

This is really easy to test, by the way. Just send a kid into class
and ask him to disrupt like crazy and to refuse going to the RTC
room no matter what. If the teacher does _nothing_ to try to
get the kid out of class (other than to keep saying "I see you have
chosen to go to the RTC room"), then I would enthusiastically agree
that my model is _not_ the correct model of the teacher/student
relationship in RTP. I would also enthusiastically agree that
the RTC program is non-coercive. But I would also recommend
that it _should_ be coercive because you never know when you
might end up with a persistent disruptor who won't leave class.

On that happy and harmonious note I will end.

Bruce Gregory

From [ Kenny Kitzke (980822.0800 EDT) ]

<Marc Abrams (980821.1517)>

<The teacher is still trying to be coercive. Again, what am i missing?>

You are missing whether the student is perceiving coercion against their
will. If a student wants to leave class and take a "time out" in the RTC,
and belches as loud as possible, why would anyone suggest the teacher is
coercing the student by saying, "I see you have decided to go to the RTC.?"

In fact, in this case one could argue that the student is coercing the
behavior (action) of the teacher. I would not. For even if the student is
trying to coerce the teacher into asking the $64 question, the teacher is
not being forced to ask it against his/her will. Both the teacher and the
student in this scenario are just controlling their own perceptions of what
they want.

Two intentions matter to describe an interaction called coercion. 1) The
coercer intends, and is able, to control an action (behavior) of another no
matter what the other does. 2) The coercee perceives this action to be
against their will.

Under the one person (King Kong) definition, when a man picks an elderly
lady up out of her wheel chair and carries her to the backyard of her
nursing home, it would *always* be defined as coercion, whether or not she
wanted to be moved.

If however the intention of the lady is to escape a burning building, and
she is crying for help, and a fireman hears her plea and wisks her away to
save her life, is this coercion?

I say no. And, anyone trying to label an interaction between two control
systems "coercion" based on one person's perception of the interaction will
discredit PCT before non-PCT scientists.

Will it never end?

Kenny

[From Bill Powers (980822.0910 MDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (980822.0800 EDT)--

<Marc Abrams (980821.1517)>

<The teacher is still trying to be coercive. Again, what am i missing?>

You are missing whether the student is perceiving coercion against their
will.

Guys, there is just one way to settle the issues that have come up on this
about whether coercion exists when the coercee happens to want what the
(so-called) coercer wants. Some people say yes it does, others say no it
doesn't. So this high-level scholarly argument sounds like "Yes it does, no
it doesn't, yes it does, no it doesn't, yes it does, no it doesn't, yes it
does, no it doesn't, yes it does, no it doesn't, yes it does, no it
doesn't, yes it does, no it doesn't, yes it does, no it doesn't, yes it
does, no it doesn't, yes it does, no it doesn't, yes it does, no it
doesn't, yes it does, no it doesn't, yes it does, no it doesn't, yes it
does, no it doesn't, yes it does, no it doesn't, yes it does, no it doesn't
---"

How many more times do we have to repeat this cycle to realize that the
question will never be settled this way?

Will it never end?

Not until you use a model to say what you mean. Natural language is not
precise enough to do the job.

Best,

Bill P.

ยทยทยท

subject: write your models. Right now the argument seems to be entirely

From [ Marc Abrams (980822.0800 ) ]

From [ Kenny Kitzke (980822.0800 EDT) ]

Will it never end?

The best question you asked in your post.

For me it has. I'm comfortable with my understanding and you seem comfortable
with yours. Lets leave it at that.

Marc