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

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/coercion-was-measuring-freedom-was/2610>\
**Category:** CSG2011\
**Created:** [April 20, 2011, 3:41pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/coercion-was-measuring-freedom-was/2610 "2011-04-20T15:41:46Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/ee7513/32.png) [@MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/MartinT)\
**Post date:** [April 20, 2011, 3:41pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/coercion-was-measuring-freedom-was/2610/1 "2011-04-20T15:41:46Z")

</div>

[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
> 
> ```

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bob\_Hintz](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/db5fbb/32.png) [@Bob\_Hintz](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bob_Hintz)\
**Post date:** [April 20, 2011, 4:29pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/coercion-was-measuring-freedom-was/2610/2 "2011-04-20T16:29:14Z")

</div>

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](mailto: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
> > 
> > ```

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/rsmarken/32/3553_2.png) [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)\
**Post date:** [April 20, 2011, 4:32pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/coercion-was-measuring-freedom-was/2610/3 "2011-04-20T16:32:24Z")

</div>

[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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/ee7513/32.png) [@MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/MartinT)\
**Post date:** [April 20, 2011, 6:02pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/coercion-was-measuring-freedom-was/2610/4 "2011-04-20T18:02:03Z")

</div>

[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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/rsmarken/32/3553_2.png) [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)\
**Post date:** [April 20, 2011, 7:59pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/coercion-was-measuring-freedom-was/2610/5 "2011-04-20T19:59:16Z")

</div>

[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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bob\_Hintz](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/db5fbb/32.png) [@Bob\_Hintz](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bob_Hintz)\
**Post date:** [April 21, 2011, 4:09am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/coercion-was-measuring-freedom-was/2610/6 "2011-04-21T04:09:34Z")

</div>

[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](mailto: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](mailto: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](mailto: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](mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com)
> > 
> > [www.mindreadings.com](http://www.mindreadings.com)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/rsmarken/32/3553_2.png) [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)\
**Post date:** [April 22, 2011, 12:52am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/coercion-was-measuring-freedom-was/2610/7 "2011-04-22T00:52:43Z")

</div>

[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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/2acd7d/32.png) [@BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA)\
**Post date:** [April 22, 2011, 2:00am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/coercion-was-measuring-freedom-was/2610/8 "2011-04-22T02:00:34Z")

</div>

( 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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/ee7513/32.png) [@MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/MartinT)\
**Post date:** [April 22, 2011, 3:02am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/coercion-was-measuring-freedom-was/2610/9 "2011-04-22T03:02:30Z")

</div>

[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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bob\_Hintz](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/db5fbb/32.png) [@Bob\_Hintz](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bob_Hintz)\
**Post date:** [April 22, 2011, 4:10am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/coercion-was-measuring-freedom-was/2610/10 "2011-04-22T04:10:53Z")

</div>

[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](mailto: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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/2acd7d/32.png) [@BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA)\
**Post date:** [April 22, 2011, 4:38am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/coercion-was-measuring-freedom-was/2610/11 "2011-04-22T04:38:32Z")

</div>

(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](mailto: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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/rsmarken/32/3553_2.png) [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)\
**Post date:** [April 22, 2011, 4:54pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/coercion-was-measuring-freedom-was/2610/12 "2011-04-22T16:54:26Z")

</div>

[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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bob\_Hintz](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/db5fbb/32.png) [@Bob\_Hintz](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bob_Hintz)\
**Post date:** [April 22, 2011, 5:13pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/coercion-was-measuring-freedom-was/2610/13 "2011-04-22T17:13:45Z")

</div>

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](mailto: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](mailto: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
> 
> >

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/ee7513/32.png) [@MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/MartinT)\
**Post date:** [April 22, 2011, 7:04pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/coercion-was-measuring-freedom-was/2610/14 "2011-04-22T19:04:22Z")

</div>

[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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/rsmarken/32/3553_2.png) [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)\
**Post date:** [April 22, 2011, 8:18pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/coercion-was-measuring-freedom-was/2610/15 "2011-04-22T20:18:55Z")

</div>

[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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![amatic](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/13edae/32.png) [@amatic](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/amatic)\
**Post date:** [April 22, 2011, 8:35pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/coercion-was-measuring-freedom-was/2610/16 "2011-04-22T20:35:14Z")

</div>

AM:

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

the way libertarians predict.

Until then… 😃

Best, Adam

> **···**
>
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Richard Marken [rsmarken@gmail.com](mailto: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).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bob\_Hintz](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/db5fbb/32.png) [@Bob\_Hintz](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bob_Hintz)\
**Post date:** [April 22, 2011, 9:16pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/coercion-was-measuring-freedom-was/2610/17 "2011-04-22T21:16:37Z")

</div>

[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](mailto: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](mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com)
> > 
> > [www.mindreadings.com](http://www.mindreadings.com)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/2acd7d/32.png) [@BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA)\
**Post date:** [April 22, 2011, 9:49pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/coercion-was-measuring-freedom-was/2610/18 "2011-04-22T21:49:00Z")

</div>

\*\*(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](mailto: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
> 
> >

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bob\_Hintz](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/db5fbb/32.png) [@Bob\_Hintz](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bob_Hintz)\
**Post date:** [April 23, 2011, 1:25am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/coercion-was-measuring-freedom-was/2610/19 "2011-04-23T01:25:48Z")

</div>

[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](mailto: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](mailto: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
> 
> > >
> 
> >

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/2acd7d/32.png) [@BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA)\
**Post date:** [April 23, 2011, 4:39am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/coercion-was-measuring-freedom-was/2610/20 "2011-04-23T04:39:08Z")

</div>

(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](mailto: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](mailto: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
> 
> > >
> 
> >

[Next page](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/coercion-was-measuring-freedom-was/2610.md?page=2)