Coercion (was Measuring freedom (was ...))

[Martin Taylor 2011.04.18.11.31]

I've shifted the thread subject line, because it seems to me a bit

off the topic of whether and how one can quantify “freedom”.

  [Martin

Lewitt 17 Apr 2011 2219 MDT]

  *** snip ***
    You seem to say that any use of force is coercion. But that

doesn’t make sense to me, since all output of a control system
is the use of force. There must be something more to it than
that.

  The part that is missing, is coercion involves the initiation of

force or threat of force against another human being, not just
initiation of force in control of the environment in general.
The emphasis on “initiation” is to distinguish coercion from the
use of force against another person in self-defense or defense of
others from coercion. Probably most libertarians add fraud to the
definition as a form of coercion.

A long time ago, probably in the early 90's, there was a long thread

here on coercion. I don’t intend to go back to it for reference, but
if there’s any interest, one could probably find it in Dag’s
archives. It didn’t really get anywhere, as far as I remember, so I
prefer to start anew with possibly different initial assumptions (as
well as the further developed understanding of PCT by many of the
participants here).

Let's take it one small part at a time, beginning with "force

against another human being" (deliberately ignoring “initiation” at
first.

The word "against" appears to be critical, or you would have used

“applied to” or “on” or some other neutral word. “Against” seems to
imply that the coercer (C) and.or the coercee (E) either are or
imagine they are in conflict. Perhaps it’s only C who experiences
this.

Do we agree so far?

Let's take the case in which C wants E to produce some action, or to

not produce some specific action. The former is the easier case,
since C has only to disturb some perception E is controlling, in a
way that E would be expected to counter by producing the desired
action.

Let's use my favourite example as an illustration. I will use

several related scenarios, and ask whether each involves coercion.
In all of them, assume my words and my tone of voice are the same.

0 (this is the basic situation for all of the following scenarios):

I am sitting down. You are standing by a closed window. I say “Would
you mind opening the window. please”. You do so (or not in some of
the following instances). Have I coerced you? Most probably you
would answer “No”.

But let's look a little deeper into the situation. What perceptions

are you controlling that I disturbed by my words? According to PCT,
I must have disturbed some perception you are controlling, or you
would not have performed the action of closing the window; “All
(intentional) behaviour is the control of perception”.

Scenario 1: Suppose I am an invalid, and cannot get out of the

chair. You control a self-image perception (presumably developed
through reorganization in your cultural milieu) in which one element
is that you perceive yourself to be helpful to disabled people. In
imagination you determine that not opening the window would create
error in a perception you control with rather high gain (it’s
important to you to heklp a disabled person when you can). Your
helping me by opening the window avoids introducing error into your
self-image perception. Am I coercing you by being disabled and
potentially thereby disturbing a perception you control at high
gain?

Scenario 2: Again suppose I am an invalid in the same situation, but

now you know that the institution has a rule that the windows must
stay closed. Am I coercing you? Is the institution?

Scenario 3: Same situation as in 2, but as I speak, I pick up a gun

that was lying on the table and casually look at it. Am I coercing
you?

Scenario 4: Same situation as in 3, but rather than causally looking

at the gun, I point it in your general direction. Am I coercing you?

Scenario 5: Same situation as in 3 (not 4), but I know you know I am

a keen gun collector and the gun I pick up was recently bought at
auction. Am I coercing you?

In the next few examples, I am not an invalid, but I am sitting in a

comfortable chair. To repeat the base situation, I ask in a normal
tone of voice: “Would you mind opening the window, please?” when you
are standing by the window. In the following, you would prefer to
have the window closed because you feel cold and outside it is
colder.The differences in the scenarios are not in my actions or
words, but in our social relationship. In the next few, the
relationship is parent-child.

Scenario 6: You are a child and I am your parent. You know me to

show disapproval by frowning and looking unhappy. You do not like
this, as it is a disturbance to your controlled perception that I
perceive you to be a good child. Am I coercing you?

Scenario 7: Same as 6 except that you know me to show disapproval by

expressing anger verbally and strongly, though the anger usually
dissipates quickly. Am I coercing you?

Scenario 8: Same as 6 except that you know me to show disapproval by

hitting or beating you. Am I coercing you?

Scenario 9: I am the child and you are I am the parent. I normally

show disapproval by looking glum and getting sulky. Am I coercing
you?

Scenario 10: Same as 9, but I often show disapproval by launching

into a temper tantrum in which I kick and throw things. Am I
coercing you?

In the next few scenarios, we work at the same company.

Scenario 11: I am the CEO, and you are a low-level manger. I am

visiting you because I have learned we have a common interest in
chess. Am I coercing you?

Scenario 12: Same, except that I am the low level manager and you

are the CEO, visiting me. Am I coercing you?

Scenario 13: Same as 11, except that I am visiting you to discuss

whether you have any future with the company. Am I coercing you?

···
  On 4/17/2011 9:57 PM, Martin Taylor wrote:
-----------------

The point of these different scenarios is to illustrate that it is

difficult to define a precise boundary on coercion, since different
outside observers may give different answers for some of the 13
scenarios, and to suggest that coercion is something the coercee may
perceive without the coercer having any intention to coerce. In all
of the scenarios, if the person by the window wanted the window
open, there would be no obvious coercion, even though the coercer
might have intended to coerce.

  *** snip ***
    I

asked in my last message that you define “Bad Guy”. I’d still
like to know.

  A bad guy is someone who coerces.
Having considered the foregoing scenarios, is a "Bad Guy" someone

you perceive to be coercing you, someone you perceive to be coercing
another, or someone who intends to coerce?

Martin T

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 11

Whenever we as observers label a behavior as the first action we have made a decision about where to start our analysis. Would this situation be dramatically different if E has just entered the room and closed the window before C makes his request? I would propose that coercion can only be observed in the initial situation when C responds to E’s response to the request. A single action would not be recognizable by either participant or an observer until it is contextualized within the interaction. Even a threat “your money or your life” might be a joke in a given situation.

bob hintz

···

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 11:41 PM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2011.04.18.11.31]

I've shifted the thread subject line, because it seems to me a bit

off the topic of whether and how one can quantify “freedom”.

  [Martin

Lewitt 17 Apr 2011 2219 MDT]

  On 4/17/2011 9:57 PM, Martin Taylor wrote:

  *** snip ***
    You seem to say that any use of force is coercion. But that

doesn’t make sense to me, since all output of a control system
is the use of force. There must be something more to it than
that.

  The part that is missing, is coercion involves the initiation of

force or threat of force against another human being, not just
initiation of force in control of the environment in general.
The emphasis on “initiation” is to distinguish coercion from the
use of force against another person in self-defense or defense of
others from coercion. Probably most libertarians add fraud to the
definition as a form of coercion.

A long time ago, probably in the early 90's, there was a long thread

here on coercion. I don’t intend to go back to it for reference, but
if there’s any interest, one could probably find it in Dag’s
archives. It didn’t really get anywhere, as far as I remember, so I
prefer to start anew with possibly different initial assumptions (as
well as the further developed understanding of PCT by many of the
participants here).

Let's take it one small part at a time, beginning with "force

against another human being" (deliberately ignoring “initiation” at
first.

The word "against" appears to be critical, or you would have used

“applied to” or “on” or some other neutral word. “Against” seems to
imply that the coercer (C) and.or the coercee (E) either are or
imagine they are in conflict. Perhaps it’s only C who experiences
this.

Do we agree so far?



Let's take the case in which C wants E to produce some action, or to

not produce some specific action. The former is the easier case,
since C has only to disturb some perception E is controlling, in a
way that E would be expected to counter by producing the desired
action.

Let's use my favourite example as an illustration. I will use

several related scenarios, and ask whether each involves coercion.
In all of them, assume my words and my tone of voice are the same.

0 (this is the basic situation for all of the following scenarios):

I am sitting down. You are standing by a closed window. I say “Would
you mind opening the window. please”. You do so (or not in some of
the following instances). Have I coerced you? Most probably you
would answer “No”.

But let's look a little deeper into the situation. What perceptions

are you controlling that I disturbed by my words? According to PCT,
I must have disturbed some perception you are controlling, or you
would not have performed the action of closing the window; “All
(intentional) behaviour is the control of perception”.

Scenario 1: Suppose I am an invalid, and cannot get out of the

chair. You control a self-image perception (presumably developed
through reorganization in your cultural milieu) in which one element
is that you perceive yourself to be helpful to disabled people. In
imagination you determine that not opening the window would create
error in a perception you control with rather high gain (it’s
important to you to heklp a disabled person when you can). Your
helping me by opening the window avoids introducing error into your
self-image perception. Am I coercing you by being disabled and
potentially thereby disturbing a perception you control at high
gain?

Scenario 2: Again suppose I am an invalid in the same situation, but

now you know that the institution has a rule that the windows must
stay closed. Am I coercing you? Is the institution?

Scenario 3: Same situation as in 2, but as I speak, I pick up a gun

that was lying on the table and casually look at it. Am I coercing
you?

Scenario 4: Same situation as in 3, but rather than causally looking

at the gun, I point it in your general direction. Am I coercing you?

Scenario 5: Same situation as in 3 (not 4), but I know you know I am

a keen gun collector and the gun I pick up was recently bought at
auction. Am I coercing you?

In the next few examples, I am not an invalid, but I am sitting in a

comfortable chair. To repeat the base situation, I ask in a normal
tone of voice: “Would you mind opening the window, please?” when you
are standing by the window. In the following, you would prefer to
have the window closed because you feel cold and outside it is
colder.The differences in the scenarios are not in my actions or
words, but in our social relationship. In the next few, the
relationship is parent-child.

Scenario 6: You are a child and I am your parent. You know me to

show disapproval by frowning and looking unhappy. You do not like
this, as it is a disturbance to your controlled perception that I
perceive you to be a good child. Am I coercing you?

Scenario 7: Same as 6 except that you know me to show disapproval by

expressing anger verbally and strongly, though the anger usually
dissipates quickly. Am I coercing you?

Scenario 8: Same as 6 except that you know me to show disapproval by

hitting or beating you. Am I coercing you?

Scenario 9: I am the child and you are I am the parent. I normally

show disapproval by looking glum and getting sulky. Am I coercing
you?

Scenario 10: Same as 9, but I often show disapproval by launching

into a temper tantrum in which I kick and throw things. Am I
coercing you?

In the next few scenarios, we work at the same company.



Scenario 11: I am the CEO, and you are a low-level manger. I am

visiting you because I have learned we have a common interest in
chess. Am I coercing you?

Scenario 12: Same, except that I am the low level manager and you

are the CEO, visiting me. Am I coercing you?

Scenario 13: Same as 11, except that I am visiting you to discuss

whether you have any future with the company. Am I coercing you?

-----------------



The point of these different scenarios is to illustrate that it is

difficult to define a precise boundary on coercion, since different
outside observers may give different answers for some of the 13
scenarios, and to suggest that coercion is something the coercee may
perceive without the coercer having any intention to coerce. In all
of the scenarios, if the person by the window wanted the window
open, there would be no obvious coercion, even though the coercer
might have intended to coerce.

  *** snip ***
    I

asked in my last message that you define “Bad Guy”. I’d still
like to know.

  A bad guy is someone who coerces.
Having considered the foregoing scenarios, is a "Bad Guy" someone

you perceive to be coercing you, someone you perceive to be coercing
another, or someone who intends to coerce?

Martin T

[From Rick Marken (2011.04.20.0930)]

Martin Taylor (2011.04.18.11.31)--

A long time ago, probably in the early 90's, there was a long thread here on
coercion...It didn't really get anywhere, as far as I remember...

These things rarely do. But as I recall the main point of contention
there was whether people can be controlled. One faction in the debate
was arguing that PCT showed that people could not be controlled, even
when they were subjected to the ultimate form of control, coercion.
The idea seemed to be that people were still autonomous controllers
even when they were forcibly prevented from being able to control. I
think there was a final resolution; yes, people are always autonomous
controllers but they can certainly be controlled, using coercion,
deception or disturbance to known controlled variables (as when you
get change from a cashier who is controlling for collecting only the
amount of the purchase, returning any excess to the purchaser).

I now return you to your "Bad Guy" discussion with Martin L.

By the way, right now my definition of a "Bad Guy" is someone who
wants to cut the Federal deficit by eliminating Medicare while at the
same time demanding further tax cuts for the rich. A "Bad Guy" is
defined by the following formula:

BG = 1/RH

where BG is the Badness of the Guy (or Gal) and RN is Robin Hoodness

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[Martin Taylor 2011.04.20.13.59]

It's rare that one can reply to two messages with a single word, but that is what I will do (if you ignore this sentence).

···

On 2011/04/20 12:32 PM, Richard Marken wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2011.04.20.0930)]

Martin Taylor (2011.04.18.11.31)--

A long time ago, probably in the early 90's, there was a long thread here on
coercion...It didn't really get anywhere, as far as I remember...

These things rarely do. But as I recall the main point of contention
there was whether people can be controlled. One faction in the debate
was arguing that PCT showed that people could not be controlled, even
when they were subjected to the ultimate form of control, coercion.
The idea seemed to be that people were still autonomous controllers
even when they were forcibly prevented from being able to control. I
think there was a final resolution; yes, people are always autonomous
controllers but they can certainly be controlled, using coercion,
deception or disturbance to known controlled variables (as when you
get change from a cashier who is controlling for collecting only the
amount of the purchase, returning any excess to the purchaser).

--------------
[From Bob Hintz, apparently Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 11]

Whenever we as observers label a behavior as the first action we have made a decision about where to start our analysis. Would this situation be dramatically different if E has just entered the room and closed the window before C makes his request? I would propose that coercion can only be observed in the initial situation when C responds to E's response to the request. A single action would not be recognizable by either participant or an observer until it is contextualized within the interaction. Even a threat "your money or your life" might be a joke in a given situation.
---------------

Yes.

Martin

[From Rick Marken (2011.04.20.1300)]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 11
Whenever we as observers label a behavior as the first action we have made a
decision about where to start our analysis.

A PCT observer does not look at behavior as a sequential process; so
there is no "first action" to be seen. PCT understands behavior to be
a control process that occurs in a closed loop, which has no first or
last action; all variables are influencing each other at the same
time. From a PCT perspective, behavior should be looked at in terms
of the variables under control and how those variables are kept under
control, protected from disturbance. Looking at behavior as though it
were sequential is one of the main reasons that psychologists came up
with the idea that behavior is a component of a cause effect chain
(S-R and cognitive psychology). PCT shows that behavior occurs in a
circle, not a chain, and that the circle will be unbroken, bye and
bye, lord, by and bye.

Best

Rick

�Would this situation be

···

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Bob Hintz <bob.hintz@gmail.com> wrote:

dramatically different if E has just entered the room and closed the window
before C makes his request? �I would propose that coercion can only be
observed in the initial situation when C responds to E's response to the
request. �A single action would not be recognizable by either participant or
an observer until it is contextualized within the interaction. �Even a
threat "your money or your life" might be a joke in a given situation.
bob hintz

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 11:41 PM, Martin Taylor <mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net> > wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2011.04.18.11.31]

I've shifted the thread subject line, because it seems to me a bit off the
topic of whether and how one can quantify "freedom".

[Martin Lewitt 17 Apr 2011 2219 MDT]

On 4/17/2011 9:57 PM, Martin Taylor wrote:
*** snip ***

� You seem to say that any use of force is coercion. But that doesn't make
sense to me, since all output of a control system is the use of force. There
must be something more to it than that.

The part that is missing, is coercion involves the initiation of force or
threat of force against another human being, not just initiation of force
in control of the environment in general.� The emphasis on "initiation" is
to distinguish coercion from the use of force against another person� in
self-defense or defense of others from coercion.� Probably most libertarians
add fraud to the definition as a form of coercion.

A long time ago, probably in the early 90's, there was a long thread here
on coercion. I don't intend to go back to it for reference, but if there's
any interest, one could probably find it in Dag's archives. It didn't really
get anywhere, as far as I remember, so I prefer to start anew with possibly
different initial assumptions (as well as the further developed
understanding of PCT by many of the participants here).

Let's take it one small part at a time, beginning with "force against
another human being" (deliberately ignoring "initiation" at first.

The word "against" appears to be critical, or you would have used "applied
to" or "on" or some other neutral word. "Against" seems to imply that the
coercer (C) and.or the coercee (E) either are or imagine they are in
conflict. Perhaps it's only C who experiences this.

Do we agree so far?

Let's take the case in which C wants E to produce some action, or to not
produce some specific action. The former is the easier case, since C has
only to disturb some perception E is controlling, in a way that E would be
expected to counter by producing the desired action.

Let's use my favourite example as an illustration. I will use several
related scenarios, and ask whether each involves coercion. In all of them,
assume my words and my tone of voice are the same.

0 (this is the basic situation for all of the following scenarios): I am
sitting down. You are standing by a closed window. I say "Would you mind
opening the window. please". You do so (or not in some of the following
instances). Have I coerced you? Most probably you would answer "No".

But let's look a little deeper into the situation. What perceptions are
you controlling that I disturbed by my words? According to PCT, I must have
disturbed some perception you are controlling, or you would not have
performed the action of closing the window; "All (intentional) behaviour is
the control of perception".

Scenario 1: Suppose I am an invalid, and cannot get out of the chair. You
control a self-image perception (presumably developed through reorganization
in your cultural milieu) in which one element is that you perceive yourself
to be helpful to disabled people. In imagination you determine that not
opening the window would create error in a perception you control with
rather high gain (it's important to you to heklp a disabled person when you
can). Your helping me by opening the window avoids introducing error into
your self-image perception. Am I coercing you by being disabled and
potentially thereby disturbing a perception you control at high gain?

Scenario 2: Again suppose I am an invalid in the same situation, but now
you know that the institution has a rule that the windows must stay closed.
Am I coercing you? Is the institution?

Scenario 3: Same situation as in 2, but as I speak, I pick up a gun that
was lying on the table and casually look at it. Am I coercing you?

Scenario 4: Same situation as in 3, but rather than causally looking at
the gun, I point it in your general direction. Am I coercing you?

Scenario 5: Same situation as in 3 (not 4), but I know you know I am a
keen gun collector and the gun I pick up was recently bought at auction. Am
I coercing you?

In the next few examples, I am not an invalid, but I am sitting in a
comfortable chair. To repeat the base situation, I ask in a normal tone of
voice: "Would you mind opening the window, please?" when you are standing by
the window. In the following, you would prefer to have the window closed
because you feel cold and outside it is colder.The differences in the
scenarios are not in my actions or words, but in our social relationship. In
the next few, the relationship is parent-child.

Scenario 6: You are a child and I am your parent. You know me to show
disapproval by frowning and looking unhappy. You do not like this, as it is
a disturbance to your controlled perception that I perceive you to be a good
child. Am I coercing you?

Scenario 7: Same as 6 except that you know me to show disapproval by
expressing anger verbally and strongly, though the anger usually dissipates
quickly. Am I coercing you?

Scenario 8: Same as 6 except that you know me to show disapproval by
hitting or beating you. Am I coercing you?

Scenario 9: I am the child and you are I am the parent. I normally show
disapproval by looking glum and getting sulky. Am I coercing you?

Scenario 10: Same as 9, but I often show disapproval by launching into a
temper tantrum in which I kick and throw things. Am I coercing you?

In the next few scenarios, we work at the same company.

Scenario 11: I am the CEO, and you are a low-level manger. I am visiting
you because I have learned we have a common interest in chess. Am I coercing
you?

Scenario 12: Same, except that I am the low level manager and you are the
CEO, visiting me. Am I coercing you?

Scenario 13: Same as 11, except that I am visiting you to discuss whether
you have any future with the company. Am I coercing you?

-----------------

The point of these different scenarios is to illustrate that it is
difficult to define a precise boundary on coercion, since different outside
observers may give different answers for some of the 13 scenarios, and to
suggest that coercion is something the coercee may perceive without the
coercer having any intention to coerce. In all of the scenarios, if the
person by the window wanted the window open, there would be no obvious
coercion, even though the coercer might have intended to coerce.

*** snip ***

I asked in my last message that you define "Bad Guy". I'd still like to
know.

A bad guy is someone who coerces.

Having considered the foregoing scenarios, is a "Bad Guy" someone you
perceive to be coercing you, someone you perceive to be coercing another, or
someone who intends to coerce?

Martin T

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[from bob hintz (2011.04.20.2200)]

When I type this series of letters, I am producing a sequence of discrete actions. The “W” that began that sequence did not cause the “h” which followed it, but the order is intentional and important. The same is true of the words in the sentence and the sentences in this message. The same is true of this message as a response to your message which was a response to my message which was a response to Martin’s message, etc. When I respond to someone’s message, I attempt to provide evidence of this feature of my behavior, just as you provided evidence that you were responding to my message. We have created a sequence, but I did not cause you to respond and you did not cause me to respond. Whenever I interact with anyone, we both generally take turns in this same fashion and we do our best to assist each other in recognizing the sequential nature of our respective activities. Only part of what each of us is doing is related to the other, but that is how we join together to do something as a social unit rather than simply as individuals who happen to be in each other’s presence.

Coersion is a feature of how I or you or we might describe a sequence of interaction, but we might disagree about who started it.

bob

···

On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 3:59 AM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2011.04.20.1300)]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Bob Hintz bob.hintz@gmail.com wrote:

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 11

Whenever we as observers label a behavior as the first action we have made a

decision about where to start our analysis.

A PCT observer does not look at behavior as a sequential process; so

there is no “first action” to be seen. PCT understands behavior to be

a control process that occurs in a closed loop, which has no first or

last action; all variables are influencing each other at the same

time. From a PCT perspective, behavior should be looked at in terms

of the variables under control and how those variables are kept under

control, protected from disturbance. Looking at behavior as though it

were sequential is one of the main reasons that psychologists came up

with the idea that behavior is a component of a cause effect chain

(S-R and cognitive psychology). PCT shows that behavior occurs in a

circle, not a chain, and that the circle will be unbroken, bye and

bye, lord, by and bye.

Best

Rick

Would this situation be

dramatically different if E has just entered the room and closed the window

before C makes his request? I would propose that coercion can only be

observed in the initial situation when C responds to E’s response to the

request. A single action would not be recognizable by either participant or

an observer until it is contextualized within the interaction. Even a

threat “your money or your life” might be a joke in a given situation.

bob hintz

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 11:41 PM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net > > > wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2011.04.18.11.31]

I’ve shifted the thread subject line, because it seems to me a bit off the

topic of whether and how one can quantify “freedom”.

[Martin Lewitt 17 Apr 2011 2219 MDT]

On 4/17/2011 9:57 PM, Martin Taylor wrote:

*** snip ***

You seem to say that any use of force is coercion. But that doesn’t make

sense to me, since all output of a control system is the use of force. There

must be something more to it than that.

The part that is missing, is coercion involves the initiation of force or

threat of force against another human being, not just initiation of force

in control of the environment in general. The emphasis on “initiation” is

to distinguish coercion from the use of force against another person in

self-defense or defense of others from coercion. Probably most libertarians

add fraud to the definition as a form of coercion.

A long time ago, probably in the early 90’s, there was a long thread here

on coercion. I don’t intend to go back to it for reference, but if there’s

any interest, one could probably find it in Dag’s archives. It didn’t really

get anywhere, as far as I remember, so I prefer to start anew with possibly

different initial assumptions (as well as the further developed

understanding of PCT by many of the participants here).

Let’s take it one small part at a time, beginning with "force against

another human being" (deliberately ignoring “initiation” at first.

The word “against” appears to be critical, or you would have used "applied

to" or “on” or some other neutral word. “Against” seems to imply that the

coercer (C) and.or the coercee (E) either are or imagine they are in

conflict. Perhaps it’s only C who experiences this.

Do we agree so far?

Let’s take the case in which C wants E to produce some action, or to not

produce some specific action. The former is the easier case, since C has

only to disturb some perception E is controlling, in a way that E would be

expected to counter by producing the desired action.

Let’s use my favourite example as an illustration. I will use several

related scenarios, and ask whether each involves coercion. In all of them,

assume my words and my tone of voice are the same.

0 (this is the basic situation for all of the following scenarios): I am

sitting down. You are standing by a closed window. I say "Would you mind

opening the window. please". You do so (or not in some of the following

instances). Have I coerced you? Most probably you would answer “No”.

But let’s look a little deeper into the situation. What perceptions are

you controlling that I disturbed by my words? According to PCT, I must have

disturbed some perception you are controlling, or you would not have

performed the action of closing the window; "All (intentional) behaviour is

the control of perception".

Scenario 1: Suppose I am an invalid, and cannot get out of the chair. You

control a self-image perception (presumably developed through reorganization

in your cultural milieu) in which one element is that you perceive yourself

to be helpful to disabled people. In imagination you determine that not

opening the window would create error in a perception you control with

rather high gain (it’s important to you to heklp a disabled person when you

can). Your helping me by opening the window avoids introducing error into

your self-image perception. Am I coercing you by being disabled and

potentially thereby disturbing a perception you control at high gain?

Scenario 2: Again suppose I am an invalid in the same situation, but now

you know that the institution has a rule that the windows must stay closed.

Am I coercing you? Is the institution?

Scenario 3: Same situation as in 2, but as I speak, I pick up a gun that

was lying on the table and casually look at it. Am I coercing you?

Scenario 4: Same situation as in 3, but rather than causally looking at

the gun, I point it in your general direction. Am I coercing you?

Scenario 5: Same situation as in 3 (not 4), but I know you know I am a

keen gun collector and the gun I pick up was recently bought at auction. Am

I coercing you?

In the next few examples, I am not an invalid, but I am sitting in a

comfortable chair. To repeat the base situation, I ask in a normal tone of

voice: “Would you mind opening the window, please?” when you are standing by

the window. In the following, you would prefer to have the window closed

because you feel cold and outside it is colder.The differences in the

scenarios are not in my actions or words, but in our social relationship. In

the next few, the relationship is parent-child.

Scenario 6: You are a child and I am your parent. You know me to show

disapproval by frowning and looking unhappy. You do not like this, as it is

a disturbance to your controlled perception that I perceive you to be a good

child. Am I coercing you?

Scenario 7: Same as 6 except that you know me to show disapproval by

expressing anger verbally and strongly, though the anger usually dissipates

quickly. Am I coercing you?

Scenario 8: Same as 6 except that you know me to show disapproval by

hitting or beating you. Am I coercing you?

Scenario 9: I am the child and you are I am the parent. I normally show

disapproval by looking glum and getting sulky. Am I coercing you?

Scenario 10: Same as 9, but I often show disapproval by launching into a

temper tantrum in which I kick and throw things. Am I coercing you?

In the next few scenarios, we work at the same company.

Scenario 11: I am the CEO, and you are a low-level manger. I am visiting

you because I have learned we have a common interest in chess. Am I coercing

you?

Scenario 12: Same, except that I am the low level manager and you are the

CEO, visiting me. Am I coercing you?

Scenario 13: Same as 11, except that I am visiting you to discuss whether

you have any future with the company. Am I coercing you?


The point of these different scenarios is to illustrate that it is

difficult to define a precise boundary on coercion, since different outside

observers may give different answers for some of the 13 scenarios, and to

suggest that coercion is something the coercee may perceive without the

coercer having any intention to coerce. In all of the scenarios, if the

person by the window wanted the window open, there would be no obvious

coercion, even though the coercer might have intended to coerce.

*** snip ***

I asked in my last message that you define “Bad Guy”. I’d still like to

know.

A bad guy is someone who coerces.

Having considered the foregoing scenarios, is a “Bad Guy” someone you

perceive to be coercing you, someone you perceive to be coercing another, or

someone who intends to coerce?

Martin T

Richard S. Marken PhD

rsmarken@gmail.com

www.mindreadings.com

[From Rick Marken (2011.04.21.1750)]

bob hintz (2011.04.20.2200)--

When I type this series of letters, I am producing a sequence of discrete
actions. �The "W" that began that sequence did not cause the "h" which
followed it, but the order is intentional and important.

Yes, indeed. The order is itself a controlled variable. In PCT we
would see typing a word like "When", not as a sequence of actions but
as a sequence of configuration perceptions ("W","h","e","n") and the
resulting word ("When") as a controlled sequence perception. It's not
really a sequence of actions that is produced since the actions that
result in the perception "When" are different (due to changing
disturbances) each time the perception "When" is produced.

The same is true
of the words in the sentence and the sentences in this message.

Yes.

�The same is
true of this message as a response to your message which was a response to
my message which was a response to Martin's message, etc.

Possibly. But I see the response to a message as simply a response to
a disturbance to a controlled variable. There is no intentionally
produced sequence; just an action (the posted message) which
compensates for the disturbance.

When I respond to
someone's message, I attempt to provide evidence of this feature of my
behavior, just as you provided evidence that you were responding to my
message. �We have created a sequence, but I did not cause you to respond and
you did not cause me to respond. �Whenever I interact with anyone, we both
generally take turns in this same fashion and we do our best to assist each
other in recognizing the sequential nature of our respective activities.

OK, that's your theory. I think the sequence in this case is a side
effect of control rather than an intentionally produced (controlled)
result. But this is testable. If I sent two messages, one replying to
my reply, this should be a disturbance to anyone controlling the
sequence in the interchange and it should be protested. I have done
this kind of reply to a reply many times in the past and don't recall
ever having gotten reprimanded for it. People tend to get mad at what
I say (a clear indication that I'm disturbing a controlled variable)
not at the sequence in which I post (a clear indication that the
sequential nature of the interaction is not under control).

�Only part of what each of us is doing is related to the other, but that is
how we join together to do something as a social unit rather than simply as
individuals who happen to be in each other's presence.

This is often the case; for example, in contrapuntal music it is
crucial that all musicians control for the relative sequence of the
notes each plays. But in the case of these email interactions I think
the sequence is an uncontrolled "side effect"; the disturbance
resistance characteristic of control.

Coersion is a feature of how I or you or we might describe a sequence of
interaction, but we might disagree about who started it.

I think sequence is at best a side effect of coercion.. To me,
coercion is simply a conflict where one person (the coercer) is
intentionally trying to control some aspect of the behavior (the
controlling) of another (the coercee); the coercer is either trying to
prevent the coercee from controlling some variable (don't Bogart that
joint) or is trying to force the coercee to control some variable(pay
those taxes). It's called coercion when the coercer has the resources
that allow it to win this conflict (otherwise it's just a fight). I
think it's true that he coercer is always the one who starts the
conflict; but the resistance that follows the initial "push" of
coercive force is not an intentionally produced sequence; it's just
the normal disturbance resistance characteristic of control.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

( Gavin
Ritz 2011.04.22.1.52NZT)

[From Rick Marken
(2011.04.21.1750)]

bob hintz (2011.04.20.2200)–

This is often the case; for example, in contrapuntal
music it is

crucial that all musicians control for the relative
sequence of the

notes each plays. But in the case of these email
interactions I think

the sequence is an uncontrolled “side
effect”; the disturbance

resistance characteristic of control.

They are controlling
sound energy. The sequences are the accumulation of those energies in the environment.
Sound in a solid is a phonon. So in the musical instruments it’s phonons
that are being controlled.

Coersion is a feature of how I or you or we might
describe a sequence of

interaction, but we might disagree about who
started it.

I think sequence is at best a side effect of
coercion… To me,

coercion is simply a conflict where one person (the
coercer) is

intentionally trying to control some aspect of the
behavior (the

controlling) of another (the coercee); the coercer is
either trying to

prevent the coercee from controlling some variable
(don’t Bogart that

joint) or is trying to force the coercee to control
some variable(pay

those taxes).

That’s because one
is trying to control their energies. The variable is always some form of
energy.

It’s called coercion when the coercer has the
resources

That’s the word
resources, resources are just another word for energy.

Regards

Gavin

[Martin Taylor 2011.04.21.22.53]

[From Rick Marken (2011.04.21.1750)]

bob hintz (2011.04.20.2200)--

.....

Coercion is a feature of how I or you or we might describe a sequence of
interaction, but we might disagree about who started it.

I think sequence is at best a side effect of coercion.. To me,
coercion is simply a conflict where one person (the coercer) is
intentionally trying to control some aspect of the behavior (the
controlling) of another (the coercee); the coercer is either trying to
prevent the coercee from controlling some variable (don't Bogart that
joint) or is trying to force the coercee to control some variable(pay
those taxes). It's called coercion when the coercer has the resources
that allow it to win this conflict (otherwise it's just a fight). I
think it's true that he coercer is always the one who starts the
conflict; but the resistance that follows the initial "push" of
coercive force is not an intentionally produced sequence; it's just
the normal disturbance resistance characteristic of control.

Bob can correct me on this, but I think Rick's objections are a bit off the track of why Bob mentioned sequence in the first place, though they may be correct about sequence perception and control.

I had set up a series of 13 related scenarios in which a seated C asked E standing by a window to open the window, and asked Martin L whether for each of them he thought the scenario represented coercion. Bob introduced a prior condition (E had just closed the window) and asked whether that condition would make a difference to the answer, thus making 26 scenarios. The sequence in question was not a controlled sequence perception but the sequence: E closes the window, C asks E to open it again.

He wanted to make the point that you can't tell whether coercion is occurring without knowing the context. As he said: "A single action would not be recognizable by either participant or an observer until it is contextualized within the interaction. Even a threat "your money or your life" might be a joke in a given situation."

I agreed with him. And still do.

Martin

[bob hintz 2011.04.21.2211]

I am responding primarily to Rick’s comments, but in the context of Gavin’s and Martin’s responses.

I would propose the controlled variable is “an agreement on how we will use the word “coercion” when attempting to describe phenomena that can be observed in the on-going interaction of two complex, independent control systems that are able to use a common language to communicate about past, present or future control”.

If C asks E to close the window and E closes the window, a sequence of changes in the behavior of both persons will be observed. The talk of C is easily recognized as a message in that it has no effect on the window. However, the act of closing the window is an obvious use of energy and does affect the window and might not be noticed as also being a message, which will likely be followed by a comment such as “thank you”. This would not seem to involve any conflict, but has coercion been observed by either C or E or any of us as possible witnesses to the scene?

On the other hand, if E says “no, it’s too warm in here”, now C is aware of a disagreement. If at that point C picks up the gun and says, “shut the window” I would want to label that act an example of coercion. Similarly, if C says, “I’m your mother and you better do what I say”, I would also label that coercive. However, if C says, “OK, but I’m chilly, would you please hand me my sweater?”, that would not seem to be coercive, but now E has a choice to make. This is a new request. E is no longer being asked to ignore his own preference, but simply to help C control her own variable. If E says, “get it yourself” is he being coercive (recall that C is handicapped and might need help)?

I would propose an initial definition of coercion focus on any effort by C to get E to help C control variables without any consideration of E’s ability to simultaneously continue to control his own variables.

Cooperation occurs when A and B agree to help each other control a variable or set of variables that neither could control alone, ie., move a heavy piece of furniture. This is quite different from simply doing what another requests.

bob

···

On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2011.04.21.22.53]

[From Rick Marken (2011.04.21.1750)]

bob hintz (2011.04.20.2200)–

Coercion is a feature of how I or you or we might describe a sequence of

interaction, but we might disagree about who started it.

I think sequence is at best a side effect of coercion… To me,

coercion is simply a conflict where one person (the coercer) is

intentionally trying to control some aspect of the behavior (the

controlling) of another (the coercee); the coercer is either trying to

prevent the coercee from controlling some variable (don’t Bogart that

joint) or is trying to force the coercee to control some variable(pay

those taxes). It’s called coercion when the coercer has the resources

that allow it to win this conflict (otherwise it’s just a fight). I

think it’s true that he coercer is always the one who starts the

conflict; but the resistance that follows the initial “push” of

coercive force is not an intentionally produced sequence; it’s just

the normal disturbance resistance characteristic of control.

Bob can correct me on this, but I think Rick’s objections are a bit off the track of why Bob mentioned sequence in the first place, though they may be correct about sequence perception and control.

I had set up a series of 13 related scenarios in which a seated C asked E standing by a window to open the window, and asked Martin L whether for each of them he thought the scenario represented coercion. Bob introduced a prior condition (E had just closed the window) and asked whether that condition would make a difference to the answer, thus making 26 scenarios. The sequence in question was not a controlled sequence perception but the sequence: E closes the window, C asks E to open it again.

He wanted to make the point that you can’t tell whether coercion is occurring without knowing the context. As he said: “A single action would not be recognizable by either participant or an observer until it is contextualized within the interaction. Even a threat “your money or your life” might be a joke in a given situation.”

I agreed with him. And still do.

Martin

(Gavin Ritz 2011.04.22.16.20NZT)

[bob hintz
2011.04.21.2211]

Bob

Each one of those statements you chose are
Imperative Logic Statements. They are commanding. A command can be asking, commanding,
objective setting, agreed objective, coercing, pleading whatever etc.

We have a problem no body knows how to
deal with Imperative Logic. (Well maybe de
Lange he created a calculus)

Our entire scientific concept is built
from Declarative Logic Statements (with a Truth system) and Interrogative logic
but not Imperative Logic.

Control and Imperative logic are partners
in crime.

In fact where does any logic come from,
nobody knows. It’s a mystery.

The Information Theory guys are having a
field day because of this.

Actually one doesn’t control their variables
they control their perceptions (or internal energy or personal Reality).

Cooperation occurs when A and B control the
same perception.

Regards

Gavin

I am responding primarily
to Rick’s comments, but in the context of Gavin’s and Martin’s
responses.

I would propose the
controlled variable is “an agreement on how we will use the word
“coercion” when attempting to describe phenomena that can be observed
in the on-going interaction of two complex, independent control systems
that are able to use a common language to communicate about past, present or
future control”.

If C asks E to close the
window and E closes the window, a sequence of changes in the behavior of both
persons will be observed. The talk of C is easily recognized as a message
in that it has no effect on the window. However, the act of closing the
window is an obvious use of energy and does affect the window and might not be
noticed as also being a message, which will likely be followed by a comment
such as “thank you”. This would not seem to involve any
conflict, but has coercion been observed by either C or E or any of us as possible
witnesses to the scene?

On the other hand, if E
says “no, it’s too warm in here”, now C is aware of a disagreement.
If at that point C picks up the gun and says, “shut the window”
I would want to label that act an example of coercion. Similarly, if C
says, “I’m your mother and you better do what I say”, I would also
label that coercive. However, if C says, “OK, but I’m chilly, would
you please hand me my sweater?”, that would not seem to be coercive, but
now E has a choice to make. This is a new request. E is no longer
being asked to ignore his own preference, but simply to help C control her own
variable. If E says, “get it yourself” is he being coercive
(recall that C is handicapped and might need help)?

I would propose an
initial definition of coercion focus on any effort by C to get E to help C
control variables without any consideration of E’s ability to simultaneously
continue to control his own variables.

Cooperation occurs when A
and B agree to help each other control a variable or set of variables that
neither could control alone, ie., move a heavy piece of furniture. This
is quite different from simply doing what another requests.

bob

···

On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:

[ Martin
Taylor 2011.04.21.22.53]

[From
Rick Marken (2011.04.21.1750)]

bob hintz
(2011.04.20.2200)–

Coercion is a feature of
how I or you or we might describe a sequence of

interaction, but we might disagree about who started it.

I
think sequence is at best a side effect of coercion… To me,

coercion is simply a conflict where one person (the coercer) is

intentionally trying to control some aspect of the behavior (the

controlling) of another (the coercee); the coercer is either trying to

prevent the coercee from controlling some variable (don’t Bogart
that
joint) or is trying to force the coercee to control some variable(pay
those taxes). It’s called coercion when the coercer has the resources
that allow it to win this conflict (otherwise it’s just a fight). I
think it’s true that he coercer is always the one who starts the
conflict; but the resistance that follows the initial “push” of
coercive force is not an intentionally produced sequence; it’s just
the normal disturbance resistance characteristic of control.

Bob can
correct me on this, but I think Rick’s objections are a bit off the track of
why Bob mentioned sequence in the first place, though they may be correct about
sequence perception and control.

I had set up a series of 13 related scenarios in which a seated C asked E
standing by a window to open the window, and asked Martin L whether for each of
them he thought the scenario represented coercion. Bob introduced a prior
condition (E had just closed the window) and asked whether that condition would
make a difference to the answer, thus making 26 scenarios. The sequence in
question was not a controlled sequence perception but the sequence: E closes
the window, C asks E to open it again.

He wanted to make the point that you can’t tell whether coercion is occurring
without knowing the context. As he said: “A single action would not be
recognizable by either participant or an observer until it is contextualized
within the interaction. Even a threat “your money or your life”
might be a joke in a given situation.”

I agreed with him. And still do.

Martin

[From Rick Marken (2011.04.22.0955)]

Martin Taylor (2011.04.21.22.53)--

Rick Marken (2011.04.21.1750)--

RM: I think sequence is at best a side effect of coercion...

MT: Bob can correct me on this, but I think Rick's objections are a bit off the
track of why Bob mentioned sequence in the first place, though they may be
correct about sequence perception and control.

After reading this and Bob's latest (bob hintz 2011.04.21.2211) I
think you're right. My objections were way off the track. I was trying
to analyz coercion from a PCT perspective. You and Bob are analyze it
from a behavioral perspective; trying to tell whether a person is
coercing (or being coerced) by looking at at their behavior (actions,
including the context of those actions) as you make clear here:

He wanted to make the point that you can't tell whether coercion is
occurring without knowing the context. As he said: "A single action would
not be recognizable by either participant or an observer until it is
contextualized within the interaction. �Even a threat "your money or your
life" might be a joke in a given situation."

I agreed with him. And still do.

I'm more interested in looking at behavior (coercion included) from a
control theory perspective, which means trying to analyze what we see
as coercive interactions in terms of the perceptual variables the
participants might be controlling. So carry on without me.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

I did a quick scan of imperative logic and fail to see its relevance. In interpersonal communication, the practical question seems to be, “Does B understand A’s message well enough to be able to comply, if he is willing to comply”? A message is not typically true or false. It is adequate or not for the purposes at hand. A message is always about the difference between what the message sender is perceiving, what the message sender wishes to perceive, and what the message sender wants the message receiver to do about this difference. In this example, C only provides explicit information about what he wants the receiver to do. Whether it was intended as a demand, a request, or even a prayer would influence tone of voice, volume, posture, etc. and would be meta-communication (information about the relationship perceived between the sender and intended receiver). This may also be adequate or inadequate for the purposes at hand. C learns about the adequacy of the message when perceiving E’s behavior after it has been sent. If C perceives no change in E’s behavior, he may wonder if the message was received at all, or if it is being intentionally ignored. C could decide it is intentional and not do anything. Perhaps C will try again, but louder, or will alter the message to provide more information as in, “I’m really chilly” or “that open window is wasting heat”.

Is the above at all responsive to your message?

Conflict also occurs when A and B control their perceptions of the “same” variable but have different reference settings. It is crucial for intentional cooperation that we communicate about references. Otherwise, cooperation is accidental and may cease whenever one changes focus for whatever reason.

bob

···

On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Gavin Ritz garritz@xtra.co.nz wrote:

(Gavin Ritz 2011.04.22.16.20NZT)

[bob hintz
2011.04.21.2211]

Bob

Each one of those statements you chose are
Imperative Logic Statements. They are commanding. A command can be asking, commanding,
objective setting, agreed objective, coercing, pleading whatever etc.

We have a problem no body knows how to
deal with Imperative Logic. (Well maybe de
Lange he created a calculus)

Our entire scientific concept is built
from Declarative Logic Statements (with a Truth system) and Interrogative logic
but not Imperative Logic.

Control and Imperative logic are partners
in crime.

In fact where does any logic come from,
nobody knows. It’s a mystery.

The Information Theory guys are having a
field day because of this.

Actually one doesn’t control their variables
they control their perceptions (or internal energy or personal Reality).

Cooperation occurs when A and B control the
same perception.

Regards

Gavin

I am responding primarily
to Rick’s comments, but in the context of Gavin’s and Martin’s
responses.

I would propose the
controlled variable is “an agreement on how we will use the word
“coercion” when attempting to describe phenomena that can be observed
in the on-going interaction of two complex, independent control systems
that are able to use a common language to communicate about past, present or
future control”.

If C asks E to close the
window and E closes the window, a sequence of changes in the behavior of both
persons will be observed. The talk of C is easily recognized as a message
in that it has no effect on the window. However, the act of closing the
window is an obvious use of energy and does affect the window and might not be
noticed as also being a message, which will likely be followed by a comment
such as “thank you”. This would not seem to involve any
conflict, but has coercion been observed by either C or E or any of us as possible
witnesses to the scene?

On the other hand, if E
says “no, it’s too warm in here”, now C is aware of a disagreement.
If at that point C picks up the gun and says, “shut the window”
I would want to label that act an example of coercion. Similarly, if C
says, “I’m your mother and you better do what I say”, I would also
label that coercive. However, if C says, “OK, but I’m chilly, would
you please hand me my sweater?”, that would not seem to be coercive, but
now E has a choice to make. This is a new request. E is no longer
being asked to ignore his own preference, but simply to help C control her own
variable. If E says, “get it yourself” is he being coercive
(recall that C is handicapped and might need help)?

I would propose an
initial definition of coercion focus on any effort by C to get E to help C
control variables without any consideration of E’s ability to simultaneously
continue to control his own variables.

Cooperation occurs when A
and B agree to help each other control a variable or set of variables that
neither could control alone, ie., move a heavy piece of furniture. This
is quite different from simply doing what another requests.

bob

On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net > wrote:

[ Martin
Taylor 2011.04.21.22.53]

[From
Rick Marken (2011.04.21.1750)]

bob hintz
(2011.04.20.2200)–

Coercion is a feature of
how I or you or we might describe a sequence of

interaction, but we might disagree about who started it.

I
think sequence is at best a side effect of coercion… To me,

coercion is simply a conflict where one person (the coercer) is

intentionally trying to control some aspect of the behavior (the

controlling) of another (the coercee); the coercer is either trying to

prevent the coercee from controlling some variable (don’t Bogart
that
joint) or is trying to force the coercee to control some variable(pay
those taxes). It’s called coercion when the coercer has the resources
that allow it to win this conflict (otherwise it’s just a fight). I
think it’s true that he coercer is always the one who starts the
conflict; but the resistance that follows the initial “push” of
coercive force is not an intentionally produced sequence; it’s just
the normal disturbance resistance characteristic of control.

Bob can
correct me on this, but I think Rick’s objections are a bit off the track of
why Bob mentioned sequence in the first place, though they may be correct about
sequence perception and control.

I had set up a series of 13 related scenarios in which a seated C asked E
standing by a window to open the window, and asked Martin L whether for each of
them he thought the scenario represented coercion. Bob introduced a prior
condition (E had just closed the window) and asked whether that condition would
make a difference to the answer, thus making 26 scenarios. The sequence in
question was not a controlled sequence perception but the sequence: E closes
the window, C asks E to open it again.

He wanted to make the point that you can’t tell whether coercion is occurring
without knowing the context. As he said: “A single action would not be
recognizable by either participant or an observer until it is contextualized
within the interaction. Even a threat “your money or your life”
might be a joke in a given situation.”

I agreed with him. And still do.

Martin

[Martin Taylor 2011.04.22.14.00]

[From Rick Marken (2011.04.22.0955)]

He wanted to make the point that you can't tell whether coercion is
occurring without knowing the context. As he said: "A single action would
not be recognizable by either participant or an observer until it is
contextualized within the interaction. Even a threat "your money or your
life" might be a joke in a given situation."

I agreed with him. And still do.

I'm more interested in looking at behavior (coercion included) from a
control theory perspective, which means trying to analyze what we see
as coercive interactions in terms of the perceptual variables the
participants might be controlling. So carry on without me.

Don't go away. Your endeavour is most worthwhile. The libertarians see coercion as an overriding principle in their political structure, and to analyze the controlled variables in a coercive interaction is useful if we are to understand how their imagined politico-ecomonic structures would work if they were ever to be brought into being.

My intent in starting this renamed thread was to see if anyone could define coercion other than as a perception in either party. In my view, if E perceives him/herself to be being coerced, then s/he is being coerced. If C perceives him/herself to be coercing, then s/he is coercing.

My scenarios were intended to show that external observers may have different opinions as to whether coercion is occurring, and I understood Bob to be adding more conditions that might affect that judgment. If an external observer is trying to control for ending coercion (as are the libertarians among us), that observer must have some way of determining whether coercion is occurring. So far, Adam seems to have defined any interaction among humans as coercion, but I don't think that definition will last long.

Martin

[From Rick Marken (2011.04.22.1320)]

Martin Taylor (2011.04.22.14.00)--

Don't go away. Your endeavour is most worthwhile. The libertarians see
coercion as an overriding principle in their political structure, and to
analyze the controlled variables in a coercive interaction is useful if we
are to understand how their imagined politico-ecomonic structures would work
if they were ever to be brought into being.

Thanks but no thanks. I think it's a waste of time and depressing.
The ideas of libertarianism are no more subtle than those of the nutty
militia guy I say interviewed on the TV last night who hated the
government because it limited everyone's freedom to carry a gun in
public: freedom (to paraphrase John Lennon) is a warm gun. He also
didn't like the socialist redistribution of wealth that was going on.
When the interviewer pointed out that over the last 30 years the
redistribution has been from the bottom to the top, he changed the
subject to something else. Facts are of no interest to libertarians
(as you can see in Adam's reply to me).

This all was depressing because it made me realize that a smart,
decent guy like Obama isn't going to get anywhere with making the
country better when a large minority (or possibly even a majority) of
the population considers the government an enemy. This interview with
the anti-government militiaman came about a week after I saw this
lovely travel show about Norway. The host pointed out that interest in
government has replaced an interest in religion in Norway. People
there are really concerned about good governance (just like our
founding fathers, actually) and the result is a beautiful country with
a high standard of living and virtually no poverty. But this happened
because most people in Norway want to make their country better and
they understand that this is done through government.

I think government has become a dirty word in the US -- the
libertarians have basically won -- and I don't think things will get
better before they get much, much worse, which they almost certainly
will soon unless by some miracle Obama turns into FDR. But I don't
think Obama (or any progressive) can do it because he has two main
things to contend with that FDR didn't: 1) he's black and this is a
very racist country still and 2) the media is dominated by corporate
ownership that puts a right wing spin on everything.

So it looks like I'll just have to enjoy living in interesting times.

But have a nice weekend;-)

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

AM:

I know you’ll believe when you see PCT models behaving

the way libertarians predict.

Until then… :smiley:

Best, Adam

···

On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2011.04.22.1320)]
Facts are of no interest to libertarians

(as you can see in Adam’s reply to me).

[bob hintz.2011.04.21

Rick said
I’m more interested in looking at behavior (coercion included) from a
control theory perspective, which means trying to analyze what we see
as coercive interactions in terms of the perceptual variables the
participants might be controlling. So carry on without me.

I am more than a little curious to know how Rick would do it in a different way. Any suggestions on a better way to do quotes would also be appreciated.

bob

···

On Apr 23, 2011 12:54am, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2011.04.22.0955)]

Martin Taylor (2011.04.21.22.53)–

Rick Marken (2011.04.21.1750)–

RM: I think sequence is at best a side effect of coercion…

MT: Bob can correct me on this, but I think Rick’s objections are a bit off the

track of why Bob mentioned sequence in the first place, though they may be

correct about sequence perception and control.

After reading this and Bob’s latest (bob hintz 2011.04.21.2211) I

think you’re right. My objections were way off the track. I was trying

to analyz coercion from a PCT perspective. You and Bob are analyze it

from a behavioral perspective; trying to tell whether a person is

coercing (or being coerced) by looking at at their behavior (actions,

including the context of those actions) as you make clear here:

He wanted to make the point that you can’t tell whether coercion is

occurring without knowing the context. As he said: "A single action would

not be recognizable by either participant or an observer until it is

contextualized within the interaction. Even a threat "your money or your

life" might be a joke in a given situation."

I agreed with him. And still do.

I’m more interested in looking at behavior (coercion included) from a

control theory perspective, which means trying to analyze what we see

as coercive interactions in terms of the perceptual variables the

participants might be controlling. So carry on without me.

Best

Rick

Richard S. Marken PhD

rsmarken@gmail.com

www.mindreadings.com

**(Gavin Ritz 2011.04.23.9.32NZT)**I did a quick scan of imperative logic and fail to see its relevance. In interpersonal communication, the practical question seems to be, “Does B understand A’s message well enough to be able to comply, if he is willing to comply”? A message is not typically true or false.

Outcomes of Imperative logic is not true or false (that is declarative logic), it’s if the command is obeyed or not.

“'Open the window”" is a imperative logic command.

eg DNA is an imperative logic operator. Gene switching is the key to form and content of life. That is how life will communicate.

So in fact the control system can be regarded as an imperative logic operator.

It’s relevance for PCT is all encompassing, just like the bookkeeping laws of energy.

Regards
Gavin

···

(Gavin Ritz 2011.04.22.16.20NZT)

[bob hintz
2011.04.21.2211]

Bob

Each one of those statements you chose are Imperative Logic Statements. They are commanding. A command can be asking, commanding, objective setting, agreed objective, coercing, pleading whatever etc.

We have a problem no body knows how to deal with Imperative Logic. (Well maybe de Lange he created a calculus)

Our entire scientific concept is built from Declarative Logic Statements (with a Truth system) and Interrogative logic but not Imperative Logic.

Control and Imperative logic are partners in crime.

In fact where does any logic come from, nobody knows. It’s a mystery.

The Information Theory guys are having a field day because of this.

Actually one doesn’t control their variables they control their perceptions (or internal energy or personal Reality).

Cooperation occurs when A and B control the same perception.

Regards

Gavin

I am responding primarily to Rick’s comments, but in the context of Gavin’s and Martin’s responses.

I would propose the controlled variable is “an agreement on how we will use the word “coercion” when attempting to describe phenomena that can be observed in the on-going interaction of two complex, independent control systems that are able to use a common language to communicate about past, present or future control”.

If C asks E to close the window and E closes the window, a sequence of changes in the behavior of both persons will be observed. The talk of C is easily recognized as a message in that it has no effect on the window. However, the act of closing the window is an obvious use of
energy and does affect the window and might not be noticed as also being a message, which will likely be followed by a comment such as “thank you”. This would not seem to involve any conflict, but has coercion been observed by either C or E or any of us as possible witnesses to the scene?

On the other hand, if E says “no, it’s too warm in here”, now C is aware of a disagreement. If at that point C picks up the gun and says, “shut the window” I would want to label that act an example of coercion. Similarly, if C says, “I’m your mother and you better do what I say”, I would also label that coercive. However, if C says,
“OK, but I’m chilly, would you please hand me my sweater?”, that would not seem to be coercive, but now E has a choice to make. This is a new request. E is no longer being asked to ignore his own preference, but simply to help C control her own variable. If E says, “get it yourself” is he being coercive (recall that C is handicapped and might need help)?

I would propose an initial definition of coercion focus on any effort by C to get E to help C control variables without any consideration of E’s ability to simultaneously continue to control his own variables.

Cooperation occurs when A and B agree to help each other control a variable or set of variables that neither could control alone, ie., move a heavy piece of furniture. This is quite different from simply doing what another requests.

bob

On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2011.04.21.22.53]

[From
Rick Marken (2011.04.21.1750)]

bob hintz (2011.04.20.2200)–

Coercion is a feature of how I or you or we might describe a sequence of

interaction, but we might disagree about who started it.

I think
sequence is at best a side effect of coercion… To me,
coercion is simply a conflict where one person (the coercer) is
intentionally trying to control some aspect of the behavior (the
controlling) of another (the coercee); the coercer is either trying to
prevent the coercee from controlling some variable (don’t Bogart that
joint) or is trying to force the coercee to control some variable(pay
those taxes). It’s called coercion when the coercer has the resources
that allow it to win this conflict (otherwise it’s just a fight). I
think it’s true that he coercer is always the one who starts the
conflict; but the resistance that follows the initial “push” of
coercive force is not an intentionally produced sequence; it’s just
the normal disturbance resistance characteristic of control.

Bob can correct me on this, but I think Rick’s objections are a bit off the track of why Bob mentioned sequence in the first place, though they may be correct about sequence perception and control.

I had set up a series of 13 related scenarios in which a seated C asked E standing by a window to open the window, and asked Martin L whether for each of them he thought the scenario represented coercion. Bob introduced a prior condition (E had just closed the window) and asked whether that condition would make a difference to the answer, thus making 26 scenarios. The sequence in question was not a controlled sequence perception but the sequence: E closes the window, C asks E to open it again.

He wanted to make the point that you can’t tell whether coercion is occurring without knowing the context. As he said: “A single action would not be recognizable by either participant or an observer
until it is contextualized within the interaction. Even a threat “your money or your life” might be a joke in a given situation.”

I agreed with him. And still do.

Martin

[bob hintz 2011.04.21]

Does this imply that a valid imperative will be obeyed and an invalid imperative will be refused? If so, does the sender get to decide the validity or the receiver? Who gets to decide if obedience has occurred, the sender or the receiver? Are these even questions that can be asked in the context of imperative logic?

bob

···

On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 5:49 AM, Gavin Ritz garritz@xtra.co.nz wrote:

(Gavin Ritz 2011.04.23.9.32NZT)
I did a quick scan of imperative logic and fail to see its relevance. In interpersonal communication, the practical question seems to be, “Does B understand A’s message well enough to be able to comply, if he is willing to comply”? A message is not typically true or false.

Outcomes of Imperative logic is not true or false (that is declarative logic), it’s if the command is obeyed or not.

“'Open the window”" is a imperative logic command.

eg DNA is an imperative logic operator. Gene switching is the key to form and content of life. That is how life will communicate.

So in fact the control system can be regarded as an imperative logic operator.

It’s relevance for PCT is all encompassing, just like the bookkeeping laws of energy.

Regards
Gavin

(Gavin Ritz 2011.04.22.16.20NZT)

[bob hintz
2011.04.21.2211]

Bob

Each one of those statements you chose are Imperative Logic Statements. They are commanding. A command can be asking, commanding, objective setting, agreed objective, coercing, pleading whatever etc.

We have a problem no body knows how to deal with Imperative Logic. (Well maybe de Lange he created a calculus)

Our entire scientific concept is built from Declarative Logic Statements (with a Truth system) and Interrogative logic but not Imperative Logic.

Control and Imperative logic are partners in crime.

In fact where does any logic come from, nobody knows. It’s a mystery.

The Information Theory guys are having a field day because of this.

Actually one doesn’t control their variables they control their perceptions (or internal energy or personal Reality).

Cooperation occurs when A and B control the same perception.

Regards

Gavin

I am responding primarily to Rick’s comments, but in the context of Gavin’s and Martin’s responses.

I would propose the controlled variable is “an agreement on how we will use the word “coercion” when attempting to describe phenomena that can be observed in the on-going interaction of two complex, independent control systems that are able to use a common language to communicate about past, present or future control”.

If C asks E to close the window and E closes the window, a sequence of changes in the behavior of both persons will be observed. The talk of C is easily recognized as a message in that it has no effect on the window. However, the act of closing the window is an obvious use of
energy and does affect the window and might not be noticed as also being a message, which will likely be followed by a comment such as “thank you”. This would not seem to involve any conflict, but has coercion been observed by either C or E or any of us as possible witnesses to the scene?

On the other hand, if E says “no, it’s too warm in here”, now C is aware of a disagreement. If at that point C picks up the gun and says, “shut the window” I would want to label that act an example of coercion. Similarly, if C says, “I’m your mother and you better do what I say”, I would also label that coercive. However, if C says,
“OK, but I’m chilly, would you please hand me my sweater?”, that would not seem to be coercive, but now E has a choice to make. This is a new request. E is no longer being asked to ignore his own preference, but simply to help C control her own variable. If E says, “get it yourself” is he being coercive (recall that C is handicapped and might need help)?

I would propose an initial definition of coercion focus on any effort by C to get E to help C control variables without any consideration of E’s ability to simultaneously continue to control his own variables.

Cooperation occurs when A and B agree to help each other control a variable or set of variables that neither could control alone, ie., move a heavy piece of furniture. This is quite different from simply doing what another requests.

bob

On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2011.04.21.22.53]

[From
Rick Marken (2011.04.21.1750)]

bob hintz (2011.04.20.2200)–

Coercion is a feature of how I or you or we might describe a sequence of

interaction, but we might disagree about who started it.

I think
sequence is at best a side effect of coercion… To me,
coercion is simply a conflict where one person (the coercer) is
intentionally trying to control some aspect of the behavior (the
controlling) of another (the coercee); the coercer is either trying to

prevent the coercee from controlling some variable (don’t Bogart that
joint) or is trying to force the coercee to control some variable(pay
those taxes). It’s called coercion when the coercer has the resources
that allow it to win this conflict (otherwise it’s just a fight). I
think it’s true that he coercer is always the one who starts the
conflict; but the resistance that follows the initial “push” of
coercive force is not an intentionally produced sequence; it’s just
the normal disturbance resistance characteristic of control.

Bob can correct me on this, but I think Rick’s objections are a bit off the track of why Bob mentioned sequence in the first place, though they may be correct about sequence perception and control.

I had set up a series of 13 related scenarios in which a seated C asked E standing by a window to open the window, and asked Martin L whether for each of them he thought the scenario represented coercion. Bob introduced a prior condition (E had just closed the window) and asked whether that condition would make a difference to the answer, thus making 26 scenarios. The sequence in question was not a controlled sequence perception but the sequence: E closes the window, C asks E to open it again.

He wanted to make the point that you can’t tell whether coercion is occurring without knowing the context. As he said: “A single action would not be recognizable by either participant or an observer
until it is contextualized within the interaction. Even a threat “your money or your life” might be a joke in a given situation.”

I agreed with him. And still do.

Martin

(gavin Ritz 2011.04.22.16.04NZT)
[bob hintz 2011.04.21]

Does this imply that a valid imperative will be obeyed and an invalid imperative will be refused?

that’s a good question. An imperative logic statement is not valid or invalid. It’s just a command.

If so, does the sender get to decide the validity or the receiver?

Outcomes of commands are very interesting thing because there are potentially 20 000
outcomes as compared to declarative logic which only has 16 potential truths.

Commands are obeyed in a booking (accounting) fashion between two or more individuals. eg take the concept of role relationships and the accountability between roles.

It doesn’t only involve commands, objectives may also be regarded as Imperative logic.

In organisations accountability is the single biggest problem because it is undefined.

Who gets to decide if obedience has occurred, the sender or the receiver?

Isn’t accountability one of the biggest issues in human communication. That’s what’s the law does in “jury” but not in ethics.
If might is right then like in Roman times then the Roman Empire.
And in modern times?
And between people, what about a couple who disagree about child custody.
What about about a general disagreement even in normal
discourse.

Are these even questions that can be asked in the context of imperative logic?

Yes they can be. Because decision making and judgements are very close cousins. Objectives, goals, commands is what drives our society and it’s mostly unaccounted.
That’s what PCT is trying to take into account. But it’s a much bigger picture.

Gavin

bob

···

On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 5:49 AM, Gavin Ritz garritz@xtra.co.nz wrote:

**(Gavin Ritz 2011.04.23.9.32NZT)
**
I did a quick scan of imperative logic and fail to see its relevance. In interpersonal communication, the practical question seems to be, “Does B understand A’s message well enough to be able to comply, if he is willing to comply”? A message is not typically true or false.

Outcomes of Imperative logic is not true or false (that is declarative logic), it’s if the command is obeyed or not.

“'Open the window”" is a imperative logic command.

eg DNA is an imperative logic operator. Gene switching is the key to form and content of life. That is how life will communicate.

So in fact the control system can be regarded as an imperative logic operator.

It’s
relevance for PCT is all encompassing, just like the bookkeeping laws of energy.

Regards
Gavin

(Gavin Ritz
2011.04.22.16.20NZT)

[bob hintz 2011.04.21.2211]

Bob

Each one of those statements you chose are Imperative Logic Statements. They are commanding. A command can be asking, commanding, objective setting, agreed objective, coercing, pleading whatever
etc.

We have a problem no body knows how to deal with Imperative Logic. (Well maybe de Lange he created a calculus)

Our entire
scientific concept is built from Declarative Logic Statements (with a Truth system) and Interrogative logic but not Imperative Logic.

Control and Imperative logic are partners in crime.

In fact where does any logic come from, nobody knows. It’s a mystery…

The Information Theory guys are having a field day because of this.

Actually one doesn’t control their variables they control their perceptions (or internal energy or personal Reality).

Cooperation occurs when A and B control the same perception.

Regards

Gavin

I am responding primarily to Rick’s comments, but in the context of Gavin’s and Martin’s responses.

I would propose the controlled variable is “an agreement on how we will use the word “coercion” when attempting to describe phenomena that can be observed in the on-going interaction of two complex, independent control systems that are able to use a common language to communicate about past, present or future control”.

If C asks E to close the
window and E closes the window, a sequence of changes in the behavior of both persons will be observed. The talk of C is easily recognized as a message in that it has no effect on the window. However, the act of closing the window is an obvious use of energy and does affect the window and might not be noticed as also being a message, which will likely be followed by a comment such as “thank you”. This would not seem to involve any conflict, but has coercion been observed by either C or E or any of us as possible witnesses to the scene?

On the other hand, if E says “no, it’s too warm in here”, now C is aware of a
disagreement. If at that point C picks up the gun and says, “shut the window” I would want to label that act an example of coercion. Similarly, if C says, “I’m your mother and you better do what I say”, I would also label that coercive. However, if C says, “OK, but I’m chilly, would you please hand me my sweater?”, that would not seem to be coercive, but now E has a choice to make. This is a new request. E is no longer being asked to ignore his own preference, but simply to help C control her own variable. If E says, “get it yourself” is he being coercive (recall that C is handicapped and might need help)?

I would propose an initial definition of coercion focus on any effort by C to get E to help C control variables without any consideration of E’s ability to simultaneously continue to control his own variables.

Cooperation occurs when A and B agree to help each other control a variable or set of variables that neither could control alone, ie., move a heavy piece of furniture. This is quite different from simply doing what another requests.

bob

On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2011.04.21.22.53]

[From Rick Marken (2011.04.21.1750)]

bob hintz (2011.04.20.2200)–

Coercion is a feature of how I or you or we might describe a sequence of

interaction, but we might disagree about who started it.

I think sequence is at best a side effect of coercion… To me,
coercion is simply a conflict where one person (the coercer) is
intentionally trying to control some aspect of the behavior (the
controlling) of another (the coercee); the coercer is either trying to
prevent the coercee from controlling some variable (don’t Bogart that
joint) or is trying to force the coercee to control some variable(pay
those taxes). It’s called coercion when the coercer has the resources
that allow it to win this conflict (otherwise it’s just a fight). I
think it’s true that he coercer is always the one who starts the
conflict; but the
resistance that follows the initial “push” of
coercive force is not an intentionally produced sequence; it’s just
the normal disturbance resistance characteristic of control.

Bob can correct me on this, but I think Rick’s objections are a bit off the track of why Bob mentioned sequence in the first place, though they may be correct about sequence perception and control.

I had set up a series of 13 related scenarios in which a seated C asked E standing by a window to open the window, and asked Martin L whether for each of them he thought the scenario represented coercion. Bob introduced a prior condition (E had just closed the window) and asked whether that condition would make a difference to the answer, thus making 26 scenarios. The sequence in question was not a controlled sequence
perception but the sequence: E closes the window, C asks E to open it again.

He wanted to make the point that you can’t tell whether coercion is occurring without knowing the context. As he said: “A single action would not be recognizable by either participant or an observer until it is contextualized within the interaction. Even a threat “your money or your life” might be a joke in a given situation.”

I agreed with him… And still do.

Martin