Coercion

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (980505.1540 MDT)]

Bruce Abbott (970505.1215 EST)--

If Jill refuses to speak to Jack until Jack
promises to take her to the opera, then Jill's actions amount to coertion,
even though Jack definitely has the upper hand with respect to overwhelming
physical strength. If Jack values conversing with Jill, then Jack is faced
with an ugly choice: either give in to Jill's demands (thereby regaining the
pleasure of her conversation), refuse to give in (thereby depriving himself
of said pleasure), or attempt to counter-coerce Jill, say by threatening to
use his overwhelming physical force on Jill. Jill may choose to take
whatever Jack dishes out, holding out for a principle as the expense of
physical pain. But Jack can't make her talk.

I think that all you're describing here is bargaining. Jill says "I'll
speak to you if you'll take me to the opera." Jack says, "Sorry, your price
is too high. What if I take you to a movie?" And Jill says, "Sorry, I can
get a better offer than that. Bye." Or Jack says goodbye first.

Coercion starts to appear when one party tries to find a way to _make_ the
other comply. Jill says, "Jack, I have your wife's phone number and a tape
of our last phone call. Take me to the opera or I'll play the tape for her."

Jack now has a conflict, but that's his problem. He can resolve it either
way -- give in and take Jill to the opera, or refuse and face the
consequences when Jill plays the tape to his wife. Jill has presented the
dilemma, but she hasn't forced Jack to choose one way or the other. One
not-impossible outcome is that Jack realizes he doesn't have to be stuck
with this problem. All he has to do is kill Jill, or even just get
something on her that she would be equally unwilling to face. The latter
would be preferable because, Jack thinks, the poor boob, that Jill would
talk to him then.

The level of coercion escalates to the degree that either party _insists_
on the other's behaving in a certain way, provided no acceptable bargain
can be struck. One party or the other gets closer and closer to just
forcing the other to behave as desired (if possible -- as you point out,
it's not always possible). Jill says "Jack, look down here. This is a gun
in my handbag, with my hand on it and my finger on the trigger. Call a
taxi, we're going to the opera."

Jack still has a choice, but it's not much of a choice: die, or go to the
opera. The only escalation remaining is for Jill to signal to her
confederate, Crazy Wolfman Ringbuster, to tie Jack up and carry him to the
opera.

I think that the main problem here is that we've all been trying to make
technical sense out of a nontechnical term, coercion (as I think one of the
Bruces said -- I have to admit that I've been skimming lately). The word
coercion has been around a lot longer than PCT, and what it means is
whatever a given person understands it to mean. There has never been any
agreement on what it is to mean. When someone says no, it means that
someone has to feel coerced, and someone else says no, it means that the
coercer controls the behavior of the coercee without considering the
coercee's goals, the only verdict an impartial judge could give would be
"You know, I think you're right" (to both of them).

If we want to speak CLEARLY on this subject, we should abandon the vain
attempt to find just the right common-sense term from ordinary language,
and start using the technical language of PCT. What are the interactions
that are possible here?

1. The teacher attempts to control the behavior, meaning the actions, of
the student,

  a. by applying carefully chosen disturbances that let the student keep
control by producing a different behavior,

  b. by creating a conflict in the student between what the student now is
trying to accomplish and what will happen if the present behavior continues
(do that again and I'll shoot you).

  c. Bargaining with the student: if you will behave in a certain way, I'll
give up trying to get you to do your homework.

2. Going up a level with the student: what are we trying to do here?

etc.

When we try to resolve disagreements by using ordinary language, everything
immediately becomes dim and fuzzy, and all we find out is who wants the
most to be right. If we stick to technical language, at least we will all
agree on the meanings of the terms, and we can say whether a given
conclusion is consistent with the theory or not.

Anyone want to start by offering for discussion a _technical_ definition of
the term "choose?"

Best,

Bill P.
Best,

Bill P.

[Bruce_Gregory]

[From Bruce Gregory (980505.2027)]

Bill Powers (980505.1540 MDT)]

Anyone want to start by offering for discussion a _technical_
definition of
the term "choose?"

Sure. I don't think "choose" has a technical meaning in PCT. I think we only
act in order to reduce error. Any action that might be called a choice is
simply the result of a control system reducing error.

Best Offer

[Bruce_Abbott]

[From Bruce Abbott (980505.2000 EST)]

Bill Powers (980505.1540 MDT) --

Bruce Abbott (970505.1215 EST)

If Jill refuses to speak to Jack until Jack
promises to take her to the opera, then Jill's actions amount to coertion,
even though Jack definitely has the upper hand with respect to overwhelming
physical strength. If Jack values conversing with Jill, then Jack is faced
with an ugly choice: either give in to Jill's demands (thereby regaining the
pleasure of her conversation), refuse to give in (thereby depriving himself
of said pleasure), or attempt to counter-coerce Jill, say by threatening to
use his overwhelming physical force on Jill. Jill may choose to take
whatever Jack dishes out, holding out for a principle as the expense of
physical pain. But Jack can't make her talk.

I think that all you're describing here is bargaining. Jill says "I'll
speak to you if you'll take me to the opera." Jack says, "Sorry, your price
is too high. What if I take you to a movie?" And Jill says, "Sorry, I can
get a better offer than that. Bye." Or Jack says goodbye first.

Coercion starts to appear when one party tries to find a way to _make_ the
other comply. Jill says, "Jack, I have your wife's phone number and a tape
of our last phone call. Take me to the opera or I'll play the tape for her."

I can't see much difference between bargaining and coercion, in your view.
Coercion is simply bargaining in which the options are so loaded in the
favor of one party that the other must give in or face dire consequences.

Note that in your scenerio, the idea is to get Jack to go along, setting a
reference for taking Jill to the opera. That is what _I_ have in mind with
respect to coercion. Note that your scenario does not fit _your_
definition. In your definition it doesn't matter what reference Jack sets,
since the coercee will simply use his overwhelming physical force to drag
Jack (with Jill tied to his body so that he "takes" her with him) to the opera.

I think that the main problem here is that we've all been trying to make
technical sense out of a nontechnical term, coercion (as I think one of the
Bruces said -- I have to admit that I've been skimming lately). The word
coercion has been around a lot longer than PCT, and what it means is
whatever a given person understands it to mean. There has never been any
agreement on what it is to mean. When someone says no, it means that
someone has to feel coerced, and someone else says no, it means that the
coercer controls the behavior of the coercee without considering the
coercee's goals, the only verdict an impartial judge could give would be
"You know, I think you're right" (to both of them).

If we could agree on a definition, it would be relatively easy to model it.
It surprises me how differently the word is understood by different people.
But I'm still perplexed by _your_ definition. It seems anti-PCT to me. I
thought that, under PCT, nobody could _make_ anyone do _anything_ (execpt in
the trivial sense of moving their limbs for them). Yet this is precisely
what you propose in your definition. Whatever faults my proposal has, it
does put the coercee's behavior squarely under the control of the coercee.
Under yours, I guess you _can_ lead a horse to water _and_ make him drink.

Regards,

Bruce

[R_Marken]

[From Rick Marken (980505.1800)]

Bill Powers (980505.1540 MDT), cutting the Gordean knot,
suggests:

Anyone want to start by offering for discussion a _technical_
definition of the term "choose?"

Another intructive exercise is to analyze "give the student
a choice" in terms of the PCT model.

Best

Rick

···

--

Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (980506.0214 MDT)]

Bruce Abbott (980505.2000 EST)--

I can't see much difference between bargaining and coercion, in your view.
Coercion is simply bargaining in which the options are so loaded in the
favor of one party that the other must give in or face dire consequences.

Note that in your scenerio, the idea is to get Jack to go along, setting a
reference for taking Jill to the opera. That is what _I_ have in mind with
respect to coercion. Note that your scenario does not fit _your_
definition. In your definition it doesn't matter what reference Jack sets,
since the coercee will simply use his overwhelming physical force to drag
Jack (with Jill tied to his body so that he "takes" her with him) to the

opera.

That's almost what I mean. True coercion is what you call the "trivial
sense of moving their limbs for them" or of literally forcing them to do
what you want (the mother bodily snatching the child out of the street, the
experimenter putting the rat in the cage). But from the coercer's point of
view, that's the maximum-energy solution. It would be more efficient to get
the same effect without so much effort, which is where threats come in. To
make a threat credible, it must be demonstrated that one is willing and
able to carry it out. But most of the time, that's not necessary. Policemen
dress up in uniforms with straps, buckles, boots, and dark glasses, and
carry all sorts of intimidating equipment like a gun, a baton, Mace,
handcuffs, a radio to summon more policement, and a citation pad. The idea
is to imply that as much force as necessary is available and will be used,
so resistance is futile. As a result, direct physical force is seldom
really needed.

If we could agree on a definition, it would be relatively easy to model it.
It surprises me how differently the word is understood by different people.
But I'm still perplexed by _your_ definition. It seems anti-PCT to me. I
thought that, under PCT, nobody could _make_ anyone do _anything_ (execpt in
the trivial sense of moving their limbs for them). Yet this is precisely
what you propose in your definition. Whatever faults my proposal has, it
does put the coercee's behavior squarely under the control of the coercee.
Under yours, I guess you _can_ lead a horse to water _and_ make him drink.

I've said a control system can't be controlled, in the long run, by
anything but overwhelming physical force. That's how I think of real
coercion, as the application of overwhelming physical force. Effective
control can be achieved, however, without actually having to apply
overwhelming physical force, if the other person believes you have it
available and will use it.

When control of another's behavior is backed up by physical force (actual
or credibly threatened), the result can't be called bargaining. One party
presents demands, and there is no question of the other party bargaining
them down to lesser demands or asking anything in return. The only question
is how far toward the actual application of force the demander will have to
go before he gets his way. If you're being arrested, you might put up some
objections, but if the policeman puts his hand on his gun or his can of
Mace you're likely to say "All right, all right, I'll come peaceably."
That's the main point of carrying all this equipment -- not to use it, but
to let the other person see and understand that it's there to be used if
necessary.

Bargaining involves the acknowledgement that bargaining can fail -- one
possible outcome is always "no deal." It also involves equal consideration
of what both people want. Control of another person's behavior doesn't
usually permit this outcome: you approach the use of force as closely as
necessary (including using it) until the other person does what you want,
with no regard for what the other person wants.

Best,

Bill P.

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (980506.0300 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (980505.2027)--

Anyone want to start by offering for discussion a _technical_
definition of
the term "choose?"

Sure. I don't think "choose" has a technical meaning in PCT. I think we only
act in order to reduce error. Any action that might be called a choice is
simply the result of a control system reducing error.

To translate into a technical meaning, you first have to analyze the term
into its essential meanings. What does a person who is choosing do? What
does a person who has a choice have? It helps to think of some examples,
and to try to describe what's going on without using "choosing" or its
synonyms. You may find that the informal term is used in such different
ways that it will take several technical terms to cover them all.

Best,

Bill P.

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (980506.0304 MDT)]

Rick Marken (980505.1800)--

Another intructive exercise is to analyze "give the student
a choice" in terms of the PCT model.

Nice. It's like analyzing "giving feedback."

Best,

Bill P.

[Bruce_Gregory]

[From Bruce Gregory (0506.0655 EDT)]

Bill Powers (980506.0304 MDT)]

Rick Marken (980505.1800)--

>Another intructive exercise is to analyze "give the student
>a choice" in terms of the PCT model.

Nice. It's like analyzing "giving feedback."

Students are given a choice between: (a) taking a final exam and
(b)submitting a term paper. If they do neither they will (c) get an
incomplete. They must decide which course of action they will take by date
X. As date X approaches the error signal associated with the difference
between their perception that they have not decided and their reference
condition that they must decide grows (at a different rate for each
student). When this error signal is sufficiently large, their awareness is
drawn to the issue. A control system acting at the program level evaluates
each of the three options in imagination mode. Each option generates
imagined errors in different systems. The program level control systems
settles on the option with the minimal total imagined error. If the imagined
errors are of comparable magnitudes, the system will "hunt" making a series
of imagined selections until day X arrives or beyond.

Best Offer

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (980506.0730 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (0506.0655 EDT)--

Bill Powers (980506.0304 MDT)]

Rick Marken (980505.1800)--

>>
>> >Another intructive exercise is to analyze "give the student
>> >a choice" in terms of the PCT model.
>>

Nice. It's like analyzing "giving feedback."

Students are given a choice between: (a) taking a final exam and
(b)submitting a term paper. If they do neither they will (c) get an
incomplete.

I think Rick's main point has to do with the "giving" of a choice. What
must be the teacher's relation to the student in order that the student's
actual options be limited to those that the teacher describes? Can you
imagine what would happen if a student rejected _all three_ options and
insisted on some other option? What keeps the student from ending up
selecting some other option? Is this student likely to end up having his
behavior controlled by someone else?

However, assuming that the choices are those given:

They must decide which course of action they will take by date
X. As date X approaches the error signal associated with the difference
between their perception that they have not decided and their reference
condition that they must decide grows (at a different rate for each
student). When this error signal is sufficiently large, their awareness is
drawn to the issue. A control system acting at the program level evaluates
each of the three options in imagination mode. Each option generates
imagined errors in different systems. The program level control systems
settles on the option with the minimal total imagined error.

I think this is a reasonable analysis. I'm not sure what you intend the
function of awareness to be, however. Also, what is there about the
organization that would require waiting for the deadline to make the
choice? Wouldn't each choice have different implications for higher-level
purposes, and couldn't some people immediately pick the option that would
best suit their purposes, with no conflict? It would be interesting to see
how the person felt about each option as time passed --

If the imagined
errors are of comparable magnitudes, the system will "hunt" making a series
of imagined selections until day X arrives or beyond.

Not necessarily. The dynamics depend on how stable the control systems are.
The person could also simply approach a "frozen" state, in which the errors
driving behavior in different directions come to a balance and behavior
ceases. If this balance occurs with the outputs at less than their maximum
possible values, there will be a "virtual reference signal" which doesn't
match any of the conflicting reference levels but which acts like a single
average reference signal.

If all the control systems have reached their maximum outputs, resistance
to disturbance will be lost over some range around zero disturbance; a
disturbance that pushes the controlled variable too close to one of the
reference levels will cause the corresponding system to relax, leaving the
net effort pointed away from that reference level. So if an external agent
pushes the controlled variable toward any of the conflicted goals, after
some movement in that direction resistance to the "help" will appear.

The outcome of the conflict depends on the parameters of the individual
control systems. So, from the behavior that's really observed in an
individual, one can make a rough estimate of the parameters and use this as
a basis for predicting individual differences in behavior.

Best,

Bill P.

[Bruce_Gregory]

[From Bruce Gregory (980506.1020 EDT)]

Bill Powers (980506.0730 MDT)

Bruce Gregory (0506.0655 EDT)--

>
>Students are given a choice between: (a) taking a final exam and
>(b)submitting a term paper. If they do neither they will (c) get an
>incomplete.

I think Rick's main point has to do with the "giving" of a choice. What
must be the teacher's relation to the student in order that the student's
actual options be limited to those that the teacher describes? Can you
imagine what would happen if a student rejected _all three_ options and
insisted on some other option? What keeps the student from ending up
selecting some other option? Is this student likely to end up having his
behavior controlled by someone else?

In my case, the student has nothing to show for the tuition he or she has
paid to Harvard. They might feel this was a small price to pay. Or they
might not. In either case, nothing coercive is likely to happen to our
graduate students in this particular case--unless they demand that their
tuition be refunded!

However, assuming that the choices are those given:

>They must decide which course of action they will take by date
>X. As date X approaches the error signal associated with the difference
>between their perception that they have not decided and their reference
>condition that they must decide grows (at a different rate for each
>student). When this error signal is sufficiently large, their
awareness is
>drawn to the issue. A control system acting at the program level
evaluates
>each of the three options in imagination mode. Each option generates
>imagined errors in different systems. The program level control systems
>settles on the option with the minimal total imagined error.

I think this is a reasonable analysis. I'm not sure what you intend the
function of awareness to be, however.

I have no idea what the function of awareness is. I am reasonably
comfortable with the notion that it goes to where the error is greatest.
What is your view about this?

Also, what is there about the
organization that would require waiting for the deadline to make the
choice? Wouldn't each choice have different implications for higher-level
purposes, and couldn't some people immediately pick the option that would
best suit their purposes, with no conflict?

Nothing. It depends on the organization of the individual and therefore
differs from student to student. Yes and yes. I was simply trying to
describe a "typical" student, i.e., one like me who procrastinates.

It would be interesting to see
how the person felt about each option as time passed --

Yes it would.

>If the imagined
>errors are of comparable magnitudes, the system will "hunt"
making a series
>of imagined selections until day X arrives or beyond.

Not necessarily. The dynamics depend on how stable the control
systems are.
The person could also simply approach a "frozen" state, in which
the errors
driving behavior in different directions come to a balance and behavior
ceases. If this balance occurs with the outputs at less than their maximum
possible values, there will be a "virtual reference signal" which doesn't
match any of the conflicting reference levels but which acts like a single
average reference signal.

O.K.

If all the control systems have reached their maximum outputs, resistance
to disturbance will be lost over some range around zero disturbance; a
disturbance that pushes the controlled variable too close to one of the
reference levels will cause the corresponding system to relax, leaving the
net effort pointed away from that reference level. So if an external agent
pushes the controlled variable toward any of the conflicted goals, after
some movement in that direction resistance to the "help" will appear.

Wonderful!

The outcome of the conflict depends on the parameters of the individual
control systems. So, from the behavior that's really observed in an
individual, one can make a rough estimate of the parameters and
use this as
a basis for predicting individual differences in behavior.

Great!

Best Offer

[Fred_Nickols3]

From [Fred Nickols (980506.1735 EDT)] --

Darn it; I was going to stay out of this. Oh well...

From my Websters:

coercion - 1. the act or power of coercing; 2. government by force

coerce - 1. to restrain or constrain by force, esp. by legal authority;
2. to force or compel to do something; 3. to bring about by using force;
enforce --

Coerce, by the way, is a transitive verb.

Now I'll really go out on a limb (and then I'm off to Rick's demo).

I don't see how the demo Rick describes can be coercive. It might stymie
my moves and deny me the effects I'm seeking (restrain) but I don't see how
it forces anyone into a predetermined position or behavior pattern
(constrain). In short, it can be ignored; coercion, by definition, cannot
be ignored.

Anyway, having done my usual number of chiming in on an uninformed basis, I
think I'll go get better informed. Film at 11...

Regards,

Fred Nickols
The Distance Consulting Company
nickols@worldnet.att.net
http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm

        "The Internet offers the best graduate-level education
         to be found anywhere."

[bnhpct]

[From Bruce Nevin (980506.2205 EDT)]

Fred Nickols (980506.1735 EDT) --

coercion, by definition, cannot
be ignored.

It can be ignored if in ignorance you comply with it. If you ignore Rick's demo, it controls those numbers without disturbance. If your outputs were not merely disturbances, but were required for it to control its input, then it would be coercion that you would not be permitted to ignore. But Rick's programs lack that kind of teeth.

(I suppose outputs that you control automatically, like heartbeat, might be necessary for some coercive system's control of input, and you could ignore that.)

  Bruce Nevin

[Bruce_Abbott]

[From Bruce Abbott (980519.1355 EST)]

Richard Kennaway (980519.1843 BST)]

Rick Marken (980519.1020):
It controls one of your controlled variables.
...
A coercer is just a control system that can
successfully control some aspect of the behavior of another control
system.

What does it mean to say that a controlled variable is an "aspect" of the
behaviour of the control system that is (attempting to) control it?
...
In your demo, what the supposedly coercive system is controlling is rather
a long way removed from the subject's behaviour. The word "aspect" looks
to me like an attempt to create a category to contain them both, so as to
maintain the claim that the latter is a model of the coercion present in
the former. I don't think it works.

Bruce Nevin (980519.0901 EDT)

Rick, your demo does not control my actions. It does not stop me from
clicking the Down button (if I want a lower value). It does not require me
to perform certain actions, by comparing them to a reference perception of
my actions. It does not have any perception of my actions. It is an
interesting step in the "different worlds" issue, but doesn't say anything
about coercion, other than the participant's experience of frustration.

For what it's worth (probably very little), I agree. In Rick's demo, there
is conflict but not coercion. The computer's control system forces a
variable to a given state that is different from state desired by the
participant, and the participant can do nothing to prevent it. But the
variable in question is not some property of the participant's behavior.
Behavior is the means by which a perception is controlled; it is not a
controlled perception. Not unless Rick wishes to modify the title of Bill's
book to, say, "Behavior, the Controlled Perception." How about it Rick, is
that what you have in mind? (;->

An implication of Rick's position would be that all control is coercion.
Now, if you will excuse me, I've got to go coerce some coffee out of the
coffee maker. (It doesn't matter what the coffee maker wants to do.)

I still think that the main point about coercion has been minimized in these
discussions, by the way. Sure, it's coercion if you tie someone to a chair
and force food down his throat, but in the much more typical case, the
coercer uses threats and punishments to "persuade" the coercee to do it
"voluntarily."

Regards,

Bruce

[R_Marken]

[From Rick Marken (980519.1350)]

Bruce Abbott (980519.1355 EST) --

In Rick's demo, there is conflict but not coercion.

Coercion is conflict that one party (the coercer) "wins".

An implication of Rick's position would be that all control is
coercion.

Not at all. Coercion is _successful_ control of an _aspect_ of
the behavior of another control system (see my previous post for
a definition of "aspect of behavior").

Now, if you will excuse me, I've got to go coerce some coffee out
of the coffee maker. (It doesn't matter what the coffee maker
wants to do.)

No It only matters whether the coffee maker is a control system
controlling for keeping the coffee inside itself. If it is, when
you successfully take the coffee out of the coffee maker you are
coercing coffee from the coffee maker.

Do you remember how to determine whether or not the coffee maker is
controlling for keeping coffee inside of itself?

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

[Tim_Carey1]

[From Tim Carey (980520.1035)]

[From Rick Marken (980519.1350)]

No It only matters whether the coffee maker is a control system
controlling for keeping the coffee inside itself. If it is, when
you successfully take the coffee out of the coffee maker you are
coercing coffee from the coffee maker.

But Rick this is in complete contradiction to earlier statements you and
Bill have made on cercion. It is precisely this point that I have been
arguing for since the beginning. At the beginning of this you and Bill
maintained that coercion was when someone controlled the other person
_regardless_ of the references of the other person. Now your saying that
it's
coercion when someone acts in opposition to the references of someone
else.

Yippee

Tim

[R_Marken]

[From Rick Marken (980519.2100)]

Me re: Bruce Abbott coercing coffee from the coffee machine:

No It only matters whether the coffee maker is a control system
controlling for keeping the coffee inside itself.

Tim Carey (980520.1035) --

But Rick this is in complete contradiction to earlier statements
you and Bill have made on cercion. It is precisely this point
that I have been arguing for since the beginning. At the beginning
of this you and Bill maintained that coercion was when someone
controlled the other person _regardless_ of the references of the
other person.

This is a very astute observation and it shows that we're speaking
the same language. The way I said it above it seems like I am
saying that coercion occurs only when the coerced control system
(coffee maker) wants a perceptual variable (location of coffee)
in a _different_ state (inside itself) than that desired by the
coercer control system (outside). In order to prevent this
misconception, I should have said:

It only matters whether the coffee maker is a control system
controlling for the same perceptual variable (location of the
coffee) as you (the coercer).

Yippee

I hope it was fun while it lasted;-)

Best

Rick

···

--

Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/

[Bruce_Gregory]

[From Bruce Gregory 9980520.10000 EDT)]

Tim Carey (980520.1035)]

> [From Rick Marken (980519.1350)]

> No It only matters whether the coffee maker is a control system
> controlling for keeping the coffee inside itself. If it is, when
> you successfully take the coffee out of the coffee maker you are
> coercing coffee from the coffee maker.

But Rick this is in complete contradiction to earlier statements you and
Bill have made on coercion. It is precisely this point that I have been
arguing for since the beginning. At the beginning of this you and Bill
maintained that coercion was when someone controlled the other person
_regardless_ of the references of the other person. Now your saying that
it's
coercion when someone acts in opposition to the references of someone
else.

Tim,

It would probably be helpful to separate the PCT meaning of coercion from
the everyday meaning. Coercion in PCT, according to Rick, if not to Bill, is
simply the name given to the outcome of a conflict between two control
systems in which one prevails. When I step on the gas while the cruise
control is engaged, I am coercing the cruise control despite its total
indifference to my actions. (Fortunately there is no society dedicated to
the prevention of coercion of cruise controls.)

Best Offer

[Bruce_Gregory]

[From Bruce Gregory 9980520.1052 EDT)]

Rick Marken (980519.2100)

It only matters whether the coffee maker is a control system
controlling for the same perceptual variable (location of the
coffee) as you (the coercer).

Is it fair to say that whenever two systems attempt to control the same
perceptual variable coercion occurs unless neither system controls
successfully?

Best Offer

[R_Marken]

[From Rick Marken (980520.0845)]

Bruce Gregory 9980520.10000 EDT)

Coercion in PCT, according to Rick, if not to Bill, is simply the
name given to the outcome of a conflict between two control systems
in which one prevails. When I step on the gas while the cruise
control is engaged, I am coercing the cruise control despite its
total indifference to my actions.

This is correct _if_ you a pressing the gas with the _intent_ of
controlling the speed of the car. Coercion exists when you and
the cruise control are _controlling_ the same variable (speed of
car). When both you and the cruise control want the same speed,
you will do nothing to change the speed; when you and the cruise
control want different speeds, you will so whatever is necessary
(press the gas, press the brake, pull the emergency brake, run up
an embankment) to change the speed. You are coercing in both
cases because you are controlling the speed of the car in both
cases. It's not pressing the gas pedal that is coercive; it is
controlling the same variable (speed) that the coercee (cruise
control) is controlling _and_ having enough power to force that
variable to any value you want, regardless of what value the
coercee might want it at.

(Fortunately there is no society dedicated to the prevention of
coercion of cruise controls.)

That's for sure! If there were such a society then you would not
be allowed to control the speed of the car; you'd just have to
go along with whatever speed was selected by or for the cruise
control.

Me:

It only matters whether the coffee maker is a control system
controlling for the same perceptual variable (location of the
coffee) as you (the coercer).

Bruce Gregory (980520.1052 EDT) --

Is it fair to say that whenever two systems attempt to control
the same perceptual variable coercion occurs unless neither
system controls successfully?

Not necessarily. If both systems happen to want the controlled
variable at _exactly_ the same reference level then both systems
will be controlling successfully (no error in either system). In
fact, that is what is happening when the stronger (coercive) system
happens to be _forcing_ the controlled perception into a state
desired by both control systems (coercer and coercee). This is
the "B'rer Rabbit in the Briar Patch" case; B'rer Rabbit's
perception of where he is is being _coerced_ into the state
he _wants_; in the Briar Patch.

I think this discussion of coercion in RTP is unnecessarily
contentious becuase it keeps turning into a conflict over what
coercion "really" is. Bill's original observation about RTP was
really very simple and can be stated without using the word
"coercion" at all: RTP practitioners (just like everyone else in
the school system) are _required_ to control some aspects of student
behavior (disruptiveness in class, plan writing, etc). RTP
practitioners are controlling these behaviors of the students
whether the students themselves want to carry out these behaviors
or not. The RTP practitioners are generally stronger than the
students and they have societal resources (like police) available
to them so they will very likely be successful in their efforts
to control the students' behavior.

This is a simple, straightforward PCT - based observation about
the behavior of RTP practitioners. It is a _testable_ observation:
if the RTP practitioners are controlling for "disruptiveness in
class" then they will act to oppose disturbances to this perception
(such as when a kid disrupts class). This seems like basic PCT
to me; is there some reason to believe that this analysis of
RTP practitioner behavior is off the mark?

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

[Bruce_Gregory]

[From Bruce Gregory (980520.1232 EDT)]

Rick Marken (980520.0845)

This is correct _if_ you a pressing the gas with the _intent_ of
controlling the speed of the car. Coercion exists when you and
the cruise control are _controlling_ the same variable (speed of
car). When both you and the cruise control want the same speed,
you will do nothing to change the speed; when you and the cruise
control want different speeds, you will so whatever is necessary
(press the gas, press the brake, pull the emergency brake, run up
an embankment) to change the speed. You are coercing in both
cases because you are controlling the speed of the car in both
cases. It's not pressing the gas pedal that is coercive; it is
controlling the same variable (speed) that the coercee (cruise
control) is controlling _and_ having enough power to force that
variable to any value you want, regardless of what value the
coercee might want it at.

Therefore I am constantly coercing the speed control and the thermostat in
my living room. Whether or not I do anything, because I _could_ do
something. Parents constantly coerce their children and the government
constantly coerces the citizenry. Looks like the conspiracy folks are right
after all. There may be no black helicopters right now, but there could be
if the government decided to make it so.

Bruce Gregory (980520.1052 EDT) --

> Is it fair to say that whenever two systems attempt to control
> the same perceptual variable coercion occurs unless neither
> system controls successfully?

Not necessarily. If both systems happen to want the controlled
variable at _exactly_ the same reference level then both systems
will be controlling successfully (no error in either system). In
fact, that is what is happening when the stronger (coercive) system
happens to be _forcing_ the controlled perception into a state
desired by both control systems (coercer and coercee). This is
the "B'rer Rabbit in the Briar Patch" case; B'rer Rabbit's
perception of where he is being _coerced_ into the state
he _wants_; in the Briar Patch.

So whenever two systems attempt to control the same perceptual variable the
stronger always coerces the weaker.

This is a simple, straightforward PCT - based observation about
the behavior of RTP practitioners. It is a _testable_ observation:
if the RTP practitioners are controlling for "disruptiveness in
class" then they will act to oppose disturbances to this perception
(such as when a kid disrupts class). This seems like basic PCT
to me; is there some reason to believe that this analysis of
RTP practitioner behavior is off the mark?

Nothing is wrong with it, it just doesn't tell us what makes RTP different
from the system you and Bill grew up with.

Best Offer