demo of coercion

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (980506.1903 MDT)]

Bruce Nevin (980506.1818 EDT)--

(to Rick)

The control system in your demo does not intend anything about any aspect

of >my behavior (my control of perceptions). It intends that a certain
aspect of >the environment be in a certain state.

I think you've actually caught an error in the design, Bruce. The coercing
control system should be trying to control the _output_ of the other
system,not a controlled variable. Hmm. This depends, of course, on the
level of control you're thinking of. We can't really do this with a
computer, can we? In a tracking experimnent, we would need the ability to
apply superior forces to the hand (say, up to 300 pounds) so the person
could not control the mouse.

Going up a level, we could make the computer's control system add
disturbances to the cursor position. If the computer's control system could
produce 10 times the output that the person could produce with the mouse,
the cursor position (representing the person's action at the appropriate
level) would be completely determined by the computer's control system and
only to a very slight degree by the person.

There seems to be a law of nature that nothing is as simple as it seems at
first.

Best,

Bill P.

[bnhpct]

[From Bruce Nevin (980506.1818 EDT)]

Rick Marken (980505.0915)--

Or what if they parked a forklift next to the door so it can't
open, having no reason to expect anyone to use that door. This
fits the proposed definition of coercion.

Not quite. Part of the definition of coersion is that the coercer
_intends_ to perceive some aspect of the behavior of the coercee
in a particular state. The forklift driver doesn't intend to
keep you in the room. The control system in the "Different Worlds"
demo does _intend_ to keep the sum of the lower two number in
a particular state. When you are also trying to keep that sum in
a particular state, that sum is an aspect of _your_ behavior; so
the control system becomes a coercer of you.

The control system in your demo does not intend anything about any aspect of my behavior (my control of perceptions). It intends that a certain aspect of the environment be in a certain state.

Maybe you're just being careless with the word "behavior" and we should take "behavior" in the non-technical sense of "observed actions". But the demo control system only perceives an aspect of its environment, it does not perceive my actions (my means of controlling perception) as such.

Let's change your statement (above) to refer just to the environment:

"Part of the definition of coercion is that the coercer intends to perceive some aspect of the environment in a particular state, and the coerced intends to perceive that same aspect of the environment in a different state."

This sounds like the definition of conflict. (Incidentally, it surfaces a problem with the definition of conflict, since the aspect of the environment whose perception the forklift driver is controlling is different from the aspect whose perception I am controlling. Blocking the door is an unintended side effect from the driver's point of view.)

What aspect of the environment am I perceiving? The sum of two numbers, which I control relative to a fixed reference value. You say (above):

The control system in the "Different Worlds"

demo does _intend_ to keep the sum of the lower two number in
a particular state.

I have not been able to Test, but I do not think that your demo has that perception; in any case, I could switch to controlling the sum of two other numbers, or the product of two numbers, or some other operation and combination of numbers (I am, after all, part of its unpredictable environment) but it would still coerce me.

So your program's conflict with me (which it always wins) is an unintended side effect of its control, just like the forklift driver and the door.

Maybe Bill is right, we will have multiple definitions of "coercing", a kind of PCT taxonomy.

Coercion with conflict (resistance).
Coercer overwhelms control.
Coercer threatens to overwhelm control.
Coerced remembers coercer overwhelming control.
Coerced imagines coercer overwhelming control.

Coercion without conflict (compliance).
Coerced stopped controlling
  Because of prior conflict.
  Because of imagined conflict.
  For some reasons unrelated to conflict.
Coerced has never controlled that perception (but would be prevented).
  Coerced does not notice effects of coercer.
  Appearance of compliance is side effect of coerced controlling
  some other perceptions.
Coerced adopted reference levels taught or exemplified by coercer.
  Because of prior conflict.
  Because of imagined conflict.
  For some reasons unrelated to conflict (e.g. adores & wants to be
  like coercer).

etc. The ramifications are possibly not finite.

How's this for a generalization?

conflict (environmental): control system A intends to perceive some aspect of the environment E1 in a particular state E1(s1), and control system B intends to perceive E1 in some different state E1(s2), or intends to perceive some other aspect of the environment E2 in some state which has a side effect through the environment changing E1(s1) to some different state E1(s2).

coercion: If the coercer and the coerced are in conflict over the state of some aspect of the environment E1 (as defined above), then the coercer's control of perceptions of E1 has the effect of negating the coerced's control, overwhelmingly.

The conditional covers the case where the coerced does not actually come into conflict, but is not free to because of the coercer's superior capacity to control.

Part of what clouds the issue is that we expect social beings to be considerate. "Oops! I'm sorry. I had no idea anyone would want to use that door. Let me move this forklift for you." Ability to be considerate, without significant loss of control (the considerate one parks the forklift some other place equally out of his way), but refusal to be considerate nonetheless, is commonly an aspect of ordinary usage of the word. We ordinarily assume that coercion (as perceived by the coerced) is deliberate: not only the intention to control the perceived state E1(s1), but also the intention to prevent the coerced person from controlling E1(s1). The coerced person attributes that intention to the coercer. More commonly (and more confusingly) the coerced person attributes the intention to prevent the coerced person from controlling the state of E2, without perceiving the state E1(s1) that the coercer actually is controlling. "Hey! Why are you blocking my door?"

(BTW, I just switched to controlling the sum of the top and bottom numbers as zero and got -4 and 4 on my first click. A win-win solution! I even got there twice. Middle number is 5, reference is 10, so I think you have a bug.)

  Bruce Nevin

[R_Marken]

[From Rick Marken (980506.2130)]

Fred Nickols (980506.1735 EDT) --

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.

Bruce Nevin (980506.1818 EDT) --

The control system in your demo does not intend anything about
any aspect of my behavior (my control of perceptions). It intends
that a certain aspect of the environment be in a certain state.

Bill Powers (980506.1903 MDT) --

I think you've actually caught an error in the design, Bruce. The
coercing control system should be trying to control the _output_
of the other system,not a controlled variable.

Ok.Ok. Guys. Easy on me. At least I'm tryin'

First, let me note that the demo was not developed as an illustration
of coercion. One point was that conflict is not a _result_ of
controlling in different perceptual "worlds". Another was that conflict
can be _avoided_ by controlling perceptions that represent aspects
of the world (sums in this case) that differ from those controlled
by other controllers. The demo shows that conflict occurs when
controllers control the _same_ perceptual aspects of the real world.

Second, since I managed to get the demo up during the coercion
discussion I noticed that the computer control system, since it
was rather high gain, could be viewed as "coercive". This would
be true when the person doing the demo is trying to control
the sum that is also being controlled by the computer control
system.

It seems to me that the coercion in this demo is exactly
analogous to the coersion that occurs when someone controls where
a kid spends his time. The sum of the lower two numbers is
analogous to the kid's location: - 20 might be "in the RTP room",
0 might be "in the class" and 20 might be "at the beach". When
you decide to control these two numbers, keeping them at 20, you
are trying to control for yourself being at the beach. But the
computer control system has other ideas about where you will
spend your time; if the computer's reference is -20 it is controlling
for you being in the RTP room. And that's where you stay --
the sum stays at -20 -- because the computer can generate outputs
that overwhelm anything you can do to get yourself to the beach
(get the sum to 20).

Of course, it's easy to abandon control of the sum of the lower
two numbers when it becomes clear that it is impossible to get this
sum you want. This is because control of this sum isn't particularly
important to anything else you want to control. So the coercion is
easy to avoid; you just go off and control something you _can_
control -- or just stop doing the demo.

It's much harder for a kid to abandon control of where he wants
to be since his location influences so many other perceptions
he is controlling. But when there is total coercion (as there is
in this demo) this seems to be what happens; the kid simply stops
controlling his own location since the coercer is in complete
control of it. It seems like coerced kids do something like what
one does in this demo -- they goes off and start controlling
perceptions that they _can_ control -- like the (imagined)
perception of overwhelming the coercer;-)

When there is total coercion, the coercer moves the kid wherever
he wants him; the kid doesn't have to move a muscle. This is
exactly what happens when you abandon control of the lower two
numbers; the computer control system makes this sum what it wants
it to be and you don't have to move a muscle.

Best

Rick

···

--

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

[bnhpct]

X-UIDL: a0e2749cf6483cd0e3872c51219edd3f

[From Bruce Nevin (980506.2257 EDT)]

Bill Powers (980506.1903 MDT)--

The coercing
control system should be trying to control the _output_ of the other
system,not a controlled variable.

It seems to me that all that is required is

o That the coerced system's output have no effect (or little effect) on the variable controlled by the coercer.

o That this be a consequence of the coercer's control of some variable, to which the coerced system's output is a disturbance.

If coercion is founded on conflict that is mediated through the environment, then the point of contact between the two systems is at the level of sensors and effectors. Is that why you're talking about trying to control the output of the other system? If you open your newspaper on the table as you read it, seated at the side of the table, and the turned pages cover the book that I am reading, seated at the end of the table, then the point of contact for the conflict (and, given adequate "power," the point of contact for coercion) is the position of the newspaper pages. If you grab my arm to prevent me from disturbing the pages, even to remove the book from under them, the perceptions at the point of contact are pressure and effort, pain perhaps. Configuration and transition perceptions in me and in thee are separate and disparate, and more obviously so are higher level perceptions such as position of book or newspaper page, visual images of our respective texts, reading and understanding of our respective texts, and so on. If we get into threats, real or imagined, we're talking about the coerced system giving up on controlling in order to avoid those low-level perceptions at the point of contact, which are currently only imagined and perhaps remembered.

What the computer program does is remove the "traction" of my actions. You don't have to come to my house and force me to turn down the loud music by physically constraining and moving my arms and hands to turn the knob if you can flip the switch on the electrical power. You don't have to physically prevent me from driving my car by constraining my hands and feet if you remove the distributor cap or steal the car key. Are these power plays not acts of coercion?

As you pointed out early on, it isn't necessary that the coercer control a perception of the coerced system not controlling, but commonly this seems to be the case, probably when conflict escalates to coercion and they view one another as adversaries. The coerced system could be controlling its perception of the same variable, or it could be controlling its perception of some other variable but unintended side effects of that control disturb the coercer's control; it does not matter which.

(There's a challenge: what does it take to perceive one another as adversaries?)

This depends, of course, on the
level of control you're thinking of.

I'm not clear about this. Is stealing the car key or flipping the main going up to a higher level? It arranges contingencies so that actions that normally control a perception no longer have the desired effect. And that is the *appearance* of Rick's demo.

Going up a level, we could make the computer's control system add
disturbances to the cursor position. If the computer's control system could
produce 10 times the output that the person could produce with the mouse,
the cursor position (representing the person's action at the appropriate
level) would be [almost]
completely determined by the computer's control system and
only to a very slight degree by the person.

If the computer program is successfully coercive, then it is no longer a demonstration of my control, by definition. You have to show somehow that without the coercive opposition my efforts to control would be successful.

Seems to me that you can demonstrate that the successful coercer is controlling since disturbances are resisted, including in particular those introduced by the coerced system. By the same token, you cannot demonstrate that the coerced system is attempting to control, or what the coerced system is attempting to control, since its effects on the controlled variable are determined by the coercer. Not its effects on other variables, but its control of variables that are of no consequence to the coercer are of no consequence to us as observers of coercion.

  Bruce Nevin

[David2]

This happened at the residential treatment center where I work. Four
residents went AWOL, two couples. They returned the following morning.
The girls wanted to shower. They were not allowed to shower because it
wasn't the proper time. They were sent to school unshowered. One of
the girls snuck into the shower and showered anyway.

I had a big discussion with the Director of Residential Living about
this. The action of not allowing them to shower was supposed to teach
them a consequence of going AWOL.

I see it as a way for the staff to assert their authority and show who
is the boss. The residents went AWOL. There will be a penalty under
the behavior modification system for this infraction. I don't see the
action of not letting them shower as an effective deterrent for AWOLS.
I don't even see residents returning at the proper time in order to
shower.

I anticipated that the residents would not like going to school
unshowered and would react emotionally to this which would likely lead
to defiance and misbehavior in the school setting.

Question: How do the participants see the above incident in terms of
the discussion of coercion?

···

From: David Goldstein
Date: 5/7/98
Subject: Re: demo of coercion

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (980507.0234 MDT)]

Bruce Nevin (980506.2257 EDT)--

It seems to me that all that is required is

o That the coerced system's output have no effect (or little effect) on

the >variable controlled by the coercer.

o That this be a consequence of the coercer's control of some variable, to
which the coerced system's output is a disturbance.

I think we've drifted away from the central idea of coercion as I have seen
and experienced it (and sometimes done it). Coercion is control of somebody
else's behavior, not just incidentally while controlling some random
perception of one's own, but specifically to control a perception of the
other's actions. Say please, say thank you, sit still, wait until everyone
is served, don't say that word, don't run out into the street, raise your
hand if you want to speak, tell the truth, keep your eyes on your own
paper, and so on. We want others, particularly children, to do some things
and not do other things. We require and forbid certain actions.

As Rick so brilliantly observed, coercion does not "give" choices, but
takes choices away. If I say "You have two choices," I am saying you do not
have any of the other 998 (or whatever) options any more. You have only the
two I mention; all others are forbidden.

Controlling another's actions does not necessarily cause any problems. If I
say "pass the salt, please," you will normally pass it without even
interrupting your conversation. The problems arise when the behavior I ask
of you, directly or indirectly, creates an error for you. If doing what I
ask causes error for you, your natural inclination will be to refuse, with
or without explanation. And if I am a coercer, my reaction to that will be
to apply more pressure until you do what I ask. Of course this creates
conflict, but if I am really intent on controlling your actions, I will
raise the level of force on my side far past your ability to resist (if I
can't do that, I can't really coerce you).

If coercion is founded on conflict that is mediated through the

environment, >then the point of contact between the two systems is at the
level of sensors >and effectors. Is that why you're talking about trying to
control the output >of the other system?

Maybe now you can see that it's not why. The conflict may or may not arise,
depending on how important the actions are to the other's ability to
control. What marks coercion off from other experiences, for me, is that
someone else is specifically trying to force or limit my _actions_, the
very actions I have to use to control my own perceptions, and about which,
basically, I don't care and don't want to _have_ to care. Of course as we
grow up we all learn to care about side-effects of our actions, but
unfortunately much of this learning comes through coercion, not through
seeing the reasons for voluntarily watching out for side-effects on other
people.

If you open your newspaper on the table as you read it, seated at the side
of the table, and the turned pages cover the book that I am reading,

seated >at the end of the table, then the point of contact for the conflict
(and, given adequate "power," the point of contact for coercion) is the
position of the newspaper pages. ...

This is conflict until one party tries to resolve it by controlling the
other's actions. Then it shades into coercion.

This depends, of course, on the
level of control you're thinking of.

I'm not clear about this. Is stealing the car key or flipping the main

going >up to a higher level? It arranges contingencies so that actions that

normally control a perception no longer have the desired effect. And that

is >the *appearance* of Rick's demo.

All I meant by that was that "action" at one level (driving a car) is
"controlled perception" at the next lower level (the result of manpulations
of the car's controls).

Seems to me that you can demonstrate that the successful coercer is
controlling since disturbances are resisted, including in particular those
introduced by the coerced system.

Suppose we just say that coercion is setting a reference level for another
person's actions and doing whatever is necessary to control them. Does that
cover enough cases to be useful?

Best,

Bill P.

[Bruce_Gregory]

[From Bruce Gregory 9980507.0958 EDT)]

Bill Powers (980507.0234 MDT)

Suppose we just say that coercion is setting a reference level for another
person's actions and doing whatever is necessary to control them.
Does that
cover enough cases to be useful?

Sounds reasonable to me. But doesn't this definition imply that Rick's new
demonstration has more to do with frustration than with coercion?

Best offer

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (980507.0749 MDT)]

From: David Goldstein
Date: 5/7/98
Subject: Re: demo of coercion

This happened at the residential treatment center where I work. Four
residents went AWOL, two couples. They returned the following morning.
The girls wanted to shower. They were not allowed to shower because it
wasn't the proper time. They were sent to school unshowered. One of
the girls snuck into the shower and showered anyway.

I had a big discussion with the Director of Residential Living about
this. The action of not allowing them to shower was supposed to teach
them a consequence of going AWOL.

I see it as a way for the staff to assert their authority and show who
is the boss.

I agree, although it's also obviously intended as a punishment. The problem
with this kind of "consequence" is that it's not a natural consequence, nor
it is a well-known social or cultural consequence. It was made up by some
person on the spot to apply to a specific case that probably never happened
before and may never happen again: "What happens when you go AWOL and
return the next morning and want to take a shower at the wrong time before
going to class."

The residents went AWOL. There will be a penalty under
the behavior modification system for this infraction. I don't see the
action of not letting them shower as an effective deterrent for AWOLS.
I don't even see residents returning at the proper time in order to
shower.

It's really a shame that this reward-punishment method is still being used
while you're trying to introduce PCT methods. The idea of "deterrence" is,
of course, just what we've been trying to sort out on the net: the threat
or use of force to control someone's behavior.

I anticipated that the residents would not like going to school
unshowered and would react emotionally to this which would likely lead
to defiance and misbehavior in the school setting.

Yep. That's one consequence of using this method. Too bad the authorities
don't learn from the consequences of their own actions.

Question: How do the participants see the above incident in terms of
the discussion of coercion?

I guess that the authorities see it through the eyes of operant
conditioning theory. They don't see their own actions as the other side of
the opposition and defiance by the residents. I'm sure they would explain
that they're up against a whole history of reinforcement, so it will take
time for the new schedule to have its effect. That's why their manipulation
of consequences didn't keep the one girl from showering. In my terms,
they're clearly trying to control the residents' behavior by applying as
much force as they think necessary.

The residents, I think, are simply trying to control their own lives as
best they can despite being physically confined and being forced to obey
rules with which they have little sympathy. I suppose that these residents
will find it harder to get free the next time they want to leave the facility.

Best,

Bill P.

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (980507.0813 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory 9980507.0958 EDT)--

Suppose we just say that coercion is setting a reference level for another
person's actions and doing whatever is necessary to control them.
Does that cover enough cases to be useful?

Sounds reasonable to me. But doesn't this definition imply that Rick's new
demonstration has more to do with frustration than with coercion?

Have to think about that. It's pretty hard to write a computer program that
will try to control a participant's behavior, because the program probably
won't be able to see if the participant is doing something unwanted.

Best,

Bill P.

[R_Marken]

[From Rick Marken (980507.0730)]

Bruce Nevin (980506.2257 EDT) --

You have to show somehow that without the coercive opposition my
efforts to control would be successful.

Excellent point. I will modify the demo to show this!

Best

Rick

···

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

[Fred_Nickols3]

[From Fred Nickols (980507.1802 EDT)] --

From: David Goldstein
Date: 5/7/98
Subject: Re: demo of coercion

This happened at the residential treatment center where I work. Four
residents went AWOL, two couples. They returned the following morning.
The girls wanted to shower. They were not allowed to shower because it
wasn't the proper time. They were sent to school unshowered. One of
the girls snuck into the shower and showered anyway.

I had a big discussion with the Director of Residential Living about
this. The action of not allowing them to shower was supposed to teach
them a consequence of going AWOL.

I see it as a way for the staff to assert their authority and show who
is the boss. The residents went AWOL. There will be a penalty under
the behavior modification system for this infraction. I don't see the
action of not letting them shower as an effective deterrent for AWOLS.
I don't even see residents returning at the proper time in order to
shower.

I anticipated that the residents would not like going to school
unshowered and would react emotionally to this which would likely lead
to defiance and misbehavior in the school setting.

Question: How do the participants see the above incident in terms of
the discussion of coercion?

I don't see any coercion. I see a system of rules and the possibility of
force or the threat of force, but I don't see any force used in enforcing
them. I do see conflict. I also see it resolved on the part of one of the
girls as a result of sneaking into the shower and showering anyway. My
guess is that the others experienced in quick order feelings of
helplessness, anger, resentment, and vengefulness. I concur with your
prediction of defiance and misbehavior -- intended to reverse the chain
just defined by engendering feelings of power, gloating, contempt and
superiority -- in other words, behavior aimed at restoring some perception
of self that has been disturbed by the actions of the "authorities."

But that's all speculation on my part...
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."

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (980508.1947 MDT)]

Fred Nickols (980507.1802 EDT)--

I don't see any coercion. I see a system of rules and the possibility of
force or the threat of force, but I don't see any force used in enforcing
them.

It seems to me that the basic question is always this: Are the people who
obey the rules doing so because they have seen the wisdom of the rules and
spontaneously decide to obey them, or are they simply aware of the threat
of force that lurks in the background, and obey because they are afraid of
having force applied to them?

If the latter, then we would expect to see the rules obeyed only when there
is some possibility of disobedience being detected. After thinking this
over, I've concluded that sometimes _disobeying_ a rule when there's nobody
looking is probably an indicator that the person has understood and
accepted the rule on its own merits, while slavishly obeying it under such
conditions probably shows that fear of getting caught is the operative factor.

Picking a rule of the sort where I think this phenomenon would be seen:

Consider the traffic light at a lonely country intersection where you can
see cross-traffic for several miles in each direction. At three o'clock in
the morning, with no other cars visible, do you stop for a red light or do
you coast on through it?

Here's my reasoning. I claim that if you understand the function of traffic
lights, and stop for them because you agree with the principle behind the
rule, you will probably run the light at 3 in the morning because you can
see that the principle doesn't apply. On the other hand, if your motive is
only the fear of getting caught, I claim that you will always stop at any
time of day or night, because somebody might be watching even though you
can't see them, and your fear of getting caught outweighs your reasoning
that there is no purpose to be served by stopping. "The guilty flee where
no one pursueth," the saying goes: it is the fearful one who imagines that
there is a cop hiding in the darkness and who stops, irrationally, for fear
of this phantasm. "The fearful obey where no one commandeth."

Whatever you think of that reasoning, I think you'll agree that you can't
tell why a person obeys the rules just from observing the obedience.

Best,

Bill P.

[Fred_Nickols3]

[From Fred Nickols (980509.1715)]

Bill Powers (980508.1947 MDT)]

Fred Nickols (980507.1802 EDT)--

I don't see any coercion. I see a system of rules and the possibility of
force or the threat of force, but I don't see any force used in enforcing
them.

It seems to me that the basic question is always this: Are the people who
obey the rules doing so because they have seen the wisdom of the rules and
spontaneously decide to obey them, or are they simply aware of the threat
of force that lurks in the background, and obey because they are afraid of
having force applied to them?

I agree. My only point was that it wasn't clear from the example if the
fear of force lurking in the background was operating.

If the latter, then we would expect to see the rules obeyed only when there
is some possibility of disobedience being detected. After thinking this
over, I've concluded that sometimes _disobeying_ a rule when there's nobody
looking is probably an indicator that the person has understood and
accepted the rule on its own merits, while slavishly obeying it under such
conditions probably shows that fear of getting caught is the operative
factor.

Again, I agree. Compliance is something that must be maintained by
external agency. It does not sustain itself.

Picking a rule of the sort where I think this phenomenon would be seen:

Consider the traffic light at a lonely country intersection where you can
see cross-traffic for several miles in each direction. At three o'clock in
the morning, with no other cars visible, do you stop for a red light or do
you coast on through it?

I don't know about you or anyone else, but I'm likely to coast on through
it (unless, of course, I've noticed some other curbing factor -- like
"state troopers are as thick as the fleas on a dog.

Incidentally, many, many years ago, when I was a young sailor in San Diego,
it was rumored that a driver was cited for running a red light in the wee
hours of the morning and he offered as his defense that traffic ordinances
are meant to protect the public, not control the public's behavior. In the
wee hours, he argued, his running the red light posed no threat to the
public and he should not have been cited. As legend has it, his ticket was
dismissed.

Here's my reasoning. I claim that if you understand the function of traffic
lights, and stop for them because you agree with the principle behind the
rule, you will probably run the light at 3 in the morning because you can
see that the principle doesn't apply. On the other hand, if your motive is
only the fear of getting caught, I claim that you will always stop at any
time of day or night, because somebody might be watching even though you
can't see them, and your fear of getting caught outweighs your reasoning
that there is no purpose to be served by stopping. "The guilty flee where
no one pursueth," the saying goes: it is the fearful one who imagines that
there is a cop hiding in the darkness and who stops, irrationally, for fear
of this phantasm. "The fearful obey where no one commandeth."

Whatever you think of that reasoning, I think you'll agree that you can't
tell why a person obeys the rules just from observing the obedience.

I think I agree with the reasoning; I know I agree with your observation
about observations.

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."