Error, victims, evolution

R_Marken · June 16, 1998, 6:24pm

[From Rick Marken (980616.1020)]

Me:

This is the kind of phenomenon that suggests the _possibility_ of
a universal error curve.

Bruce Nevin (980615.2046 EDT)

No, it is not.

Yes, it is so

Or it could be something simpler yet. As reorganization starts why
is it surprising that behavior resulting from the old organization
stops?

I don't see see how reorganization is a "simpler" model of this
phenomenon than is the universal error curve. This suggests to me
that you may not understand the simplicity of the universal error
curve model. So I will put a demo of the model up at my site ASAP.
It's really very simple and elegant. Whether it's right or not is
another matter -- to be decided by data.

Also, I don't think reorganization can explain the phenomenon I have
in mind because, in that phenomenon, the control system seems to
remain in tact (same control organization) while the person is _not_
controlling for the perception specified by that system. Perhaps a
clearer example of the phenomenon I have in mind is "falling on and
off the wagon". In this case it seems like the system that controls
alcohol consumption remains in tact while the person abstains (is
"on the wagon"); as long as the person manages to keep himself
away from situations where controlling for alcohol consumption is easy
(he keeps the error in the alcohol consumption control system very
large), abstinance is possible. But as soon as he gets into a
situation where alcohol consumption is easy (the host at the party
hands him a drink) the alcohol consumption control system swings
into operation and he falls off the wagon.

Reorganization, higher-order change of means, dropped latch, low
gain, imagination.... It appears to me that there is variety here,
and not a unitary phenomenon.

The variety here is in the _explanations_; I'm looking for an
explanation for only one phenomenon -- which I'll call the "on and
off the wagon" phenomenon.

And it seems very peculiar that you of all people should be
generalizing from the form of behavioral outputs and assuming
that because the outward forms are similar the inward origin
must be the same.

I'm just saying that the "on and off the wagon" type phenomenon (which
is, indeed, just an observation of behavioral outputs) _suggests_
the _possibility_ of a universal error curve. Reorganization doesn't
explain this phenomenon but hierarchical control _might_ explain
it too. We have to get _data_ before we can decide _what_ to explain
and _how_ to explain it. But I think the universal error curve is
likely to be a contender. How about suggesting an experiment to test
the universal error curve explanation of the "on and off the wagon"
phenomenon?

Bruce Nevin (980615.2235 EDT) --

qo' is not just any disturbance, like a gust of wind. You would
not say that the car driver is coercing the wind. Why? Because
the wind does not intend to influence the direction of the car.

Correct!

For you to model coercion you must model the presence of thwarted
control. Otherwise you cannot distinguish between coercion and
resistance to inanimate disturbances.

True. You do have to know that the coercee is an intentional
system. But you don't have to know what it's intentions are.
And coercion doesn't stop happening just because the intentions of
the coercee are the same as those of the coercer. Coercion refers
to what the coercer is doing; it refers to the fact that the
coercer is controlling the behavior of the coercee.

it is not by superior output capacity muscle strength) that an
expert in martial arts maintains control in the face of a would-be
coercer. "If he wants to occupy that space, I move and let him
occupy that space. If he happens to be falling, I let him fall."
Is that coercion?

Unsuccessful coercion. If the martial arts guy maintains control
of the behavior of the would-be "coercer" then the martial arts
guy is the coercer.

Is the falling brute a coercer because of his superior strength?

No. If he's not in control then he's not coercing successfully
(though he might be trying to coerce).

By your logic he is a coercer despite his failure. His output
capacity is far greater than that of this wiry old man (with
the black belt).

Then you don't understand my "logic". All I am saying is that
coercion is control of an aspect of the behavior of a living
control system. I don't care how that control is achieved; threats,
cleverness, brute force, whatever. But when one person successfully
controls the behavior of another there is coercion. Even if the
control is unsuccessful, if a person is _trying_ to control the
behavior of another person then the former is trying to do coercion.

The claim that the teacher is coercing even when the students
are obedient is the box forged by specious logic...Coercion is
not an attribute of the coercer, it is a relationship between
the coercer and a victim of coercion.

So you want the isaac definition of "coercion"; it's only coercion
when there is resistance from the coercee. I guess if that's what
makes you happy I can't do anything about it. So the RTP program
is not coercive; nor were the Soviets or the Nazis. No resistance =
no coercion. Fine. But can you at least see that these people were
trying to control behavior even though they are trying to control
for the behavior desired by the coercee (go to the RTC room, go to
the Gulag, go to the death camp) as indicated by the lack of
resistance by the coercee?

Bob C. (980616.0015) --

If I understand you correctly, what you have proposed is a
mechanism which varies the rate of mutation according to the
error of critical variables.

Exactly!

Such a mechanism might exist and accelerate evolution in a time
period, but I'm not sure I'd call this a selection mechanism as
it seems more of a variation mechanism.

It is a selection mechanism; the references are selecting the
states of intrinsic variables. It's exactly equivalent to the
"biased random walk" control mechanism described in my "Selection
of consequences" demo at

http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/demos.html

If you think of the black dot as "adaptive success" then natural
selection is equivalent to the reinforcement model in that demo;
the organism randomly varies (mutates) its direction at the
same rate, whether it is moving toward or away from the dot.
Purposeful selection is equivalent to the control model in that demo;
the organism randomly varies its direction at at higher rate when it
is moving away rather than toward the dot.

Further, I don't not see how this makes unessisary the contribution
of external factors in selection.

It doesn't make them unnecessary; it just changes their role. External
factors are now disturbances to intrinsic perceptions or variations
in the feedback connection between phenotype and intrinsic perceptions.
External factors still determine what kinds of phenotypes will keep
intrinsic variables under control just as disturbances determine what
outputs will keep a controlled perception under control. The difference
between natural and purposeful selection has to do with _what_ is
selected as well as with _who_ does the selecting. In natural
selection, phenotypes are selected by the environment; in purposeful
selection, intrinsic perceptions are selected (by variation of
phenotypes) by the organisms themselves.

The only way an animal survives and reproduces is via interaction
with environment and I don't see any way around it.

I don't either.

Best

Rick

···

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

Matthew_Heaney · June 16, 1998, 9:18pm

[From Matthew Heaney (980616.2112)]

[From Rick Marken (980616.1020)]

Perhaps a
clearer example of the phenomenon I have in mind is "falling on and
off the wagon". In this case it seems like the system that controls
alcohol consumption remains in tact while the person abstains (is
"on the wagon"); as long as the person manages to keep himself
away from situations where controlling for alcohol consumption is easy
(he keeps the error in the alcohol consumption control system very
large), abstinance is possible. But as soon as he gets into a
situation where alcohol consumption is easy (the host at the party
hands him a drink) the alcohol consumption control system swings
into operation and he falls off the wagon.

> Reorganization, higher-order change of means, dropped latch, low
> gain, imagination.... It appears to me that there is variety here,
> and not a unitary phenomenon.

The variety here is in the _explanations_; I'm looking for an
explanation for only one phenomenon -- which I'll call the "on and
off the wagon" phenomenon.

Perhaps this is common knowledge, but a systems interpretation of
alcoholism appears in Bateson's book.

The Cybernetics of "Self": A Theory of Alcoholism
Steps to an Ecology of Mind
Gregory Bateson

(For some bone-headed reason, this book is out of print.)

bnhpct · June 17, 1998, 3:47am

[From Bruce Nevin (980616.1730)]

[Power outage, didn't get this off right away.]

Rick Marken (980616.1020)--

You do have to know that the coercee is an intentional
system.

Agreed. Coercion is not an attribute of the coercer, it is a relationship
between the coercer and a victim of coercion.

But you don't have to know what it's intentions are.

Agreed. You can't. (Even if you factor out all other sources of
disturbance, you still can't get at what their output o' would have been if
they were able to control successfully, so you can't derive r'. I was wrong
about that.)

And coercion doesn't stop happening just because the intentions of
the coercee are the same as those of the coercer. Coercion refers
to what the coercer is doing; it refers to the fact that the
coercer is controlling the behavior of the coercee.

I agree with this in part. I'll return to the agreement and disagreement
farther on. But note that your model can't distinguish between "I control a
perception of your controlling qi" and "I control a perception of qi that
is affected by your behavior"; in the universe of this model, teaching does
not exist (in the latter sense).

coercion is control of an aspect of the behavior of a living
control system. I don't care how that control is achieved; threats,
cleverness, brute force, whatever. But when one person successfully
controls the behavior of another there is coercion. Even if the
control is unsuccessful, if a person is _trying_ to control the
behavior of another person then the former is trying to do coercion.

The would-be brute-force coercer of the skinny 90-pound black belt loses
control. What aspect of the brute's behavior (his control of his
perceptions) is the martial arts guy controlling, please?

How's this: The brute is controlling a perception of the martial arts guy
being in a certain place (and of jumping on him and grabbing him); the
martial arts guy is no longer there, and he falls.

My granddaughter is sneaking down the hall. I knew she was coming and
slipped away into the next room. She slips up behind my now empty chair,
jumps out and says "boo!" She is controlling a perception of my being in
the chair (and jumping with surprise); I'm no longer there, and she is
disappointed. If the martial arts guy coerced the falling brute, then you
have to say that I coerced my daughter. Rick, is that a reasonable conclusion?

The claim that the teacher is coercing even when the students
are obedient is the box forged by specious logic...Coercion is
not an attribute of the coercer, it is a relationship between
the coercer and a victim of coercion.

So you want the isaac definition of "coercion"; it's only coercion
when there is resistance from the coercee.

You don't need resistance intended by the victim, just disturbances caused
by the victim. As you have pointed out, you can't distinguish the two
(because you can't know r'). And as you have reminded me, there will
*always* sooner or later be disturbances caused by the victim, even when
the victim is trying very hard to comply with the coercer's intentions.

Coercion can seem benign if the victim is successfully controlling for not
disturbing the coercer. Coercive control is either overt, in which case
stifling of resistance is observable, or covert, in which case you must use
the Test to determine that the victim is controlling "don't disturb the
coercer". In either case you must model control or attempted control by the
victim. In the first case, the actions of attempted control of qi appear
among the disturbances; in the second case, the victim is controlling a
perception of the coercer's intentions for qi, which could at least in
principle be determined by the Test.

There is a third case. Our disagreement is as to whether or not it is
coercion. Here's an example. A child is walking around the swimming pool
with shorts and T-shirt on. There is a rule about swimming trunks, no
shorts in the pool, and the lifeguard stands ready to enforce that rule.
The child has no intention of going in the pool, is just talking with
friends and hanging out. The child is ignorant of the rule and of the
lifeguard's intentions. The lifeguard keeps monitoring the child (among
others) but does nothing that the child notices. Eventually the child goes
away. According to you, the lifeguard was coercing the child; according to
me she was not. According to me, the notion "victimless coertion" is an
absurdity. I put it up as the point of a reductio ad absurdam argument.
Your reply was, in effect, "that's not absurd at all, because my model says
it is coercion." Do you still claim that?

Bill Powers (980616.-909 MDT)--

I agree with your observations about helping and "helping". They have no
bearing on the above that I can see.

Sorry you're not interested in the discussion. You don't have to be
involved in it.

Bruce Nevin

R_Marken · June 17, 1998, 5:29am

[From Rick Marken (980616.2130)]

Bruce Nevin (980616.1730)

But note that your model can't distinguish between "I control a
perception of your controlling qi" and "I control a perception
of qi that is affected by your behavior"

Sure it can. In the first case the controlled variable (call it
qi') is "your control of qi"; in the second the controlled
variable is qi itself. In both cases the controlled variable is
an aspect of the behavior of the coercee.

My granddaughter is sneaking down the hall. I knew she was coming
and slipped away into the next room. She slips up behind my now
empty chair, jumps out and says "boo!" She is controlling a
perception of my being in the chair (and jumping with surprise);
I'm no longer there, and she is disappointed. If the martial arts
guy coerced the falling brute, then you have to say that I coerced
my daughter. Rick, is that a reasonable conclusion?

Sure. If you left the chair in order to make her appear disappointed
then you were controlling for this perception of her behavior; if
you disappointed her by accident then it's not coercion.

Coercive control is either overt, in which case stifling of
resistance is observable, or covert, in which case you must use
the Test to determine that the victim is controlling "don't disturb
the coercer".

Control is _never_ overt; it is _always_ necessary to Test in
some way to determine whether or not a variable is under control.

In either case you must model control or attempted control by the
victim.

This is demonstrably false. All you have to do is keep track of
disturbances to the hypothetical controlled (coerced) variable;
it doesn't matter _why_ these disturbances are produced or even
whether they are produced by the victim. So you need no model of
the victim -- any more than you need a model of the causes of wind
in order to determine that a driver is controlling the position
of a car on a windy (or windless) day.

A child is walking around the swimming pool with shorts and
T-shirt on. There is a rule about swimming trunks, no shorts
in the pool, and the lifeguard stands ready to enforce that rule.
The child has no intention of going in the pool, is just talking
with friends and hanging out. The child is ignorant of the rule
and of the lifeguard's intentions. The lifeguard keeps monitoring
the child (among others) but does nothing that the child notices.
Eventually the child goes away. According to you, the lifeguard
was coercing the child; according to me she was not. According
to me, the notion "victimless coertion" is an absurdity. I put
it up as the point of a reductio ad absurdam argument. Your reply
was, in effect, "that's not absurd at all, because my model says
it is coercion." Do you still claim that?

Sure. The child does not feel coerced but the life guard is definitely
coercive (controlling for, among other things, no one swimming in
shorts). Coercion refers to the behavior of the coercer (the
lifeguard in this case), not to the feelings of the "victim" (the
child in this case). But if you don't like using the word "coercion"
to describe control of behavior when the controllee is doing what
the controller wants then that's fine with me. But can you at least
see that the lifeguard (like the RTP teacher) is _controlling
behavior_ -- and is doing so even when there is no resistance to
that control? If so, then perhaps we can agree to call this behavior
something other than "coercion"; like "manage" or "govern", perhaps.

Best

Rick

···

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

KENNETH_J_KITZKE1 · June 17, 1998, 2:58pm

[From Kenny Kitzke: 980617.1000EDT]

<Sure. The child does not feel coerced but the life guard is definitely
coercive (controlling for, among other things, no one swimming in
shorts).>

Hopefully, everyone agrees the lifeguard is controlling his perceptions by
watching the child. He is not forcefully coercing the behavior of the
child by this watching. Most childen want the life guard to be watching
them to avoid drowning or getting hurt while at the pool.

Watching is controlling; it is not coercing. If the child goes on the
diving board with his shorts on, the watching behavior will change to
coercive behavior by the lifeguard and the child will be forced out of the
pool (regardless of whether the child wanted to get out).

Great! That sounds like a potential solution. We need to have that
accepted by you and Bill to get over the issue that: having the potential
to coerce when not exercising that potential is not coercion. But, when
the coercer does in fact control the behavior of another person against the
will of the coercee, this is clearly evidence of coercion.

No. The lifeguard is only controlling their perceptions for no shorts in
the pool. Not until they force the child to do what the child does not
want (put on shorts, leave the pool) does the relationship become coercive.

The public school system is potentially coercive all the time. Authorities
who do not use their power to force behavior unwanted by the students are
not being coercive. When they disrupt the class, the teacher/administrator
will resist and begin using coercion to get what they (not the student)
want. RTP is inherentily coercive all the time. Actions taken by
authorities in the system are not necessarily coercive. We need to cause
behavior not wanted by the coercee before a coercive interaction actually
takes place between two people.

Best wishes,

Kenny

Bill_Powers1 · June 17, 1998, 3:35pm

[From Bill Powers (980617.0927 MDT)]

Kenny Kitzke: 980617.1000EDT--

Hopefully, everyone agrees the lifeguard is controlling his perceptions by
watching the child. He is not forcefully coercing the behavior of the
child by this watching. Most childen want the life guard to be watching
them to avoid drowning or getting hurt while at the pool.

...

We need to have that
accepted by you and Bill to get over the issue that: having the potential
to coerce when not exercising that potential is not coercion. But, when
the coercer does in fact control the behavior of another person against the
will of the coercee, this is clearly evidence of coercion.

OK, so if there are TV cameras at every street-corner watching to see if
more than two people are having a conversation (larger gatherings are
forbidden by law under penalty of imprisonment), and people are avoiding
gathering in groups larger than two, there is no coercion going on.

I don't think I would have much use for "coercion" defined that way.

Best,

Bill P.

Richard_Kennaway2 · June 17, 1998, 4:05pm

[From Richard Kennaway (980617.1640 BST)]

Ok, hold it, hold it right there. I mean, this thread started out very
promising, some good ideas there, but now it's just got silly. (3 points
to whoever spots the inspiration for that comment.)

This all started with the observation that in the RTP, when a student
disrupts twice in class, they are made to leave the classroom whether they
want to or not, and that the recommended form of words for use by the
teacher, "I see you have chosen to go to the RTC" is a lie. Does anyone
dispute that observation?

Now the argument is over the "real" meaning of the word "coercion", and
people are inventing ever more bizarre scenarios to prove (in some sense of
that word which escapes me) that this or that verbal formula is or is not
identical in meaning to the one-word formula "coercion". I mean, ordering
a child to have an icecream on pain of a spanking? Have you ever witnessed
that actually happen?

It's about as idiotic as arguing over whether black is a colour.

But I can't resist putting on my idiot hat and asking a few leading questions.

Actually, I can.

-- Richard Kennaway, jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk, http://www.sys.uea.ac.uk/~jrk/
School of Information Systems, Univ. of East Anglia, Norwich, U.K.

R_Marken · June 17, 1998, 4:41pm

[From Rick Marken (980617.0840)]

Kenny Kitzke: (980617.1000EDT) --

Watching is controlling; it is not coercing.

Watching is watching. Controlling is controlling. Coercing
is whatever you guys want it to mean.

Me:

But can you at least see that the lifeguard (like the RTP teacher)
is _controlling behavior_ -- and is doing so even when there is
no resistance to that control?>

Kenny:

No.

I'm afraid you couldn't be more wrong.

The lifeguard is only controlling their perceptions for no shorts
in the pool.

Right. The lifeguard is controlling one aspect of the behavior
of the kids: what they wear when they swim. What did you say "no"
to my question about whether the lifeguard is controlling behavior?

Not until they force the child to do what the child does not
want (put on shorts, leave the pool) does the relationship
become coercive.

I'm (reluctantly) willing to go with this definition of
coercion if you are willing to see that the lifeguard is
_always_ controlling behavior. According to you, coercion
only happens when the lifeguard has to _act_ to protect his
perception of behavior from disturbance (a kid swimming in
shorts must be pulled out of the water). But no action
certainly doesn't mean no _control_; you are still controlling
a car even when you don't have to turn the wheel to keep it in
its lane. Similarly, the lifeguard is still controlling behavior
even when she doesn't have to pull behavior offenders out of the
water.

The public school system is potentially coercive all the time.

_All_ school systems are potentially coercive (in your new meaning
of coercion) and _always_ controlling.

RTP is inherentily coercive all the time.

Not according to your definition of "coercion". Indeed, it seems
like RTP is _rarely_ "Kitzke coercive"; but it is _always_ "PCT
controlling".

Me:

Would you be willing to agree that RTP is not coercive but that
it does involve the control of behavior?>

Kenny Kitzke (980617.1100EDT)

No. I would agree that RTP is a fundamentally coercive system
used to get what its leaders want regardless of what students
want.

But RTP people say they rarely (if ever) have to act to force kids
to do what they want; the kids just want to do it. This is not
coercion by your definition. What's up Kenny?

Best

Rick

···

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

Richard_Kennaway2 · June 17, 1998, 5:24pm

[From Richard Kennaway (980617.1824 BST)]

Bruce Nevin (980617.1305 EDT):

Yes, it would be best not to give a special technical PCT definition to a
word that already has a well established meaning.

Rats. There go "behaviour", "control", and "perception".

-- Richard Kennaway, jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk, http://www.sys.uea.ac.uk/~jrk/
School of Information Systems, Univ. of East Anglia, Norwich, U.K.

R_Marken · June 17, 1998, 6:00pm

[From Rick Marken (980617.1000)]

Richard Kennaway (980617.1640 BST) --

re: coercion thread

Ok, hold it, hold it right there. I mean, this thread started
out very promising, some good ideas there, but now it's just
got silly. (3 points to whoever spots the inspiration for that
comment.)

I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole;-)

This all started with the observation that in the RTP, when a
student disrupts twice in class, they are made to leave the
classroom whether they want to or not, and that the recommended
form of words for use by the teacher, "I see you have chosen to
go to the RTC" is a lie. Does anyone dispute that observation?

Sounds right on the money to me.

How about a quick summary of the European CSG meeting.
Who was there? What were the topics? How do we get a
copy of the Proceedings?

Best

Rick

···

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

R_Marken · June 17, 1998, 6:48pm

[From Rick Marken (980617.1045)]

Me:

can you at least see that the lifeguard (like the RTP teacher)
is _controlling behavior_ -- and is doing so even when there
is no resistance to that control?

Bruce Nevin (980617.1305 EDT)

Then you have to include in the model what the coercer is
controlling: behavior. The victim does not cease to behave...

Is that a "yes' or a "no"?

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 · June 17, 1998, 8:06pm

[From Bruce Nevin (980617.1305 EDT)]

Rick Marken (980616.2130)--

I was not explicit enough. When I say "your model" I refer to your diagram,
in which the victim produces an output o' among the disturbances without
any control loop or reference value r'. Your model of coercion (as
represented by that diagram) can't distinguish between "I control a
perception of your controlling qi with a value x" and "I control a
perception of qi with a value x that is affected by your behavior". Both of
these are coercion.

Your simple model of coercion obscures a variety of relationships.

C and V are in conflict over qi, C is overwhelmingly stronger, C does not
perceive V's participation.

C and V are in conflict over qi, C controls a perception of overwhelming V
as well as a perception of the state of qi.

C controls a perception of overwhelming V's control, and C's control of a
perception of qi is means to that end.

C controls V's cooperation as means of controlling a perception of a state
of qi. (C couldn't do it without V's participation.)

C controls a perception of V controlling a state of qi.

C controls a perception of V controlling a state of qi in a certain manner
-- qi' etc. are V's behavioral outputs.

C controls perceptions of V's behavioral outputs, irrespective of whatever
V is controlling with them (for example, posture, handwriting, gestures,
etc.).

If you left the chair in order to make her appear disappointed
then you were controlling for this perception of her behavior; if
you disappointed her by accident then it's not coercion.

I have no control over her emotional reaction. Perhaps she is delighted
that I am now playing hide and seek. What I thwarted was her intention of
perceiving me in the chair and surprising me.

You say that violating her expectation in this way is coercion. It follows
that any violation of another's expectation is coercion, unless it is truly
by accident. Being late for an appointment is coercion, unless my control
of being on time would have been successful but for some unpredictable
disturbance, such as a traffic accident.

Perhaps you're late because you didn't control being on time with
sufficient gain. Control of being on time was in conflict with control of
enjoying a Mozart concert. That would count as coercion. You had a
preference for listening to Mozart instead of being on time.

Perhaps you controlled neither perception well in the conflict. You slipped
out of the Mozart concert early *and* you were late for the appointment.
You did not *intend* to be late. Does this count as not coercing? Note that
this gets us close to a PCT definition of responsibility. Many an outright
criminal act arises out of conflict.

If you ran out of gas and you didn't really *want* to be on time, we begin
to wonder about ends that you might deny having and means that you might
deny using. Denial (in the Kuebler-Ross => pop psych sense) gets us into
the area of awareness, which we don't know how to model.

Coercive control is either overt, in which case stifling of
resistance is observable, or covert, in which case you must use
the Test to determine that the victim is controlling "don't disturb
the coercer".

Control is _never_ overt; it is _always_ necessary to Test in
some way to determine whether or not a variable is under control.

The coercive aspect of control is either overt (the victim is in conflict
with the coercer over qi) or covert (the victim is controlling not being in
conflict with the coercer over qi).

It is not clear to me how you use the Test to determine that two control
systems are in conflict. This is the same difficulty that we have
determining the intentions of the victim of coercion. In conflict, we
cannot identify the intentions of either control system, because neither is
successfully controlling.

In either case you must model control or attempted control by the
victim.

This is demonstrably false. All you have to do is keep track of
disturbances to the hypothetical controlled (coerced) variable;
it doesn't matter _why_ these disturbances are produced or even
whether they are produced by the victim. So you need no model of
the victim -- any more than you need a model of the causes of wind
in order to determine that a driver is controlling the position
of a car on a windy (or windless) day.

Then you are not modelling coercion. You are modelling control with a
bystander.

A child is walking around the swimming pool with shorts and
T-shirt on. There is a rule about swimming trunks, no shorts
in the pool, and the lifeguard stands ready to enforce that rule.
The child has no intention of going in the pool, is just talking
with friends and hanging out. The child is ignorant of the rule
and of the lifeguard's intentions. The lifeguard keeps monitoring
the child (among others) but does nothing that the child notices.
Eventually the child goes away. According to you, the lifeguard
was coercing the child; according to me she was not. According
to me, the notion "victimless coertion" is an absurdity. I put
it up as the point of a reductio ad absurdam argument. Your reply
was, in effect, "that's not absurd at all, because my model says
it is coercion." Do you still claim that?

Sure. The child does not feel coerced but the life guard is definitely
coercive (controlling for, among other things, no one swimming in
shorts). Coercion refers to the behavior of the coercer (the
lifeguard in this case), not to the feelings of the "victim" (the
child in this case).

I have said nothing about the feelings of the victim. The *behavior* of the
victim is very much necessary to model if you want to model coercion.
Coercion is not a property of a single control system. It is a relationship
between a coercer and one or more victims of coercion.

can you at least
see that the lifeguard (like the RTP teacher) is _controlling
behavior_ -- and is doing so even when there is no resistance to
that control?

Then you have to include in the model what the coercer is controlling:
behavior. The victim does not cease to behave. Having no control loop in
the victim, but somehow a magically present output o' among the overpowered
disturbances (as in your diagram) is not a model of what the victim is
doing. You have to at least make a best guess as to what r' is and model o'
being overpowered. Then what the victim does subsequently is where the
model *starts* to get interesting.

But if you don't like using the word "coercion"
to describe control of behavior when the controllee is doing what
the controller wants then that's fine with me.

Your diagram does not describe anything about the victim of coercion except
the stipulated or null value o'. There is no reason to suppose that the
state of qi as controlled by the coercer has any relevance to the victim's
behavior, because you show no control loop from qi around to o'.

perhaps we can agree to call this behavior
something other than "coercion"; like "manage" or "govern", perhaps.

Yes, it would be best not to give a special technical PCT definition to a
word that already has a well established meaning. Humpty Dumpty was no
scientist. It would be an invitation to endless stupid conflicts and
misunderstandings as more people become involved with PCT.

KENNETH_J_KITZKE1 · June 18, 1998, 4:46am

[From Kenny Kitzke (980617.2300EDT)]

<OK, so if there are TV cameras at every street-corner watching to see if
more than two people are having a conversation (larger gatherings are
forbidden by law under penalty of imprisonment), and people are avoiding
gathering in groups larger than two, there is no coercion going on.>

If I want to hold a conversation with you on the streets of Durango, those
TV cameras would not coerce me one iota. They will not even coerce me if I
want to party with four PCTers and then spend some time in the Durango
hooskow, gathering my thoughts about PCT and its applications.

I take it the cameras would coerce you even if just the two of us decided
to talk? Bill, nuclear warheads were/are pointed at America. A large
meteorite could hit the earth any day. Are these possible situations
coercing you and controlling your behavior?

Well, I feel like this is a "tar baby" issue and I'm gettin stuck.

I do find the use of inanimate objects, rather than two living control
systems, to describe, define, model, etc., coercion missing the point of an
interaction of two animate control systems.

The way you define coercion, people like parents, teachers and managers are
coercing their children, students and employees almost all the time. Is
this useful to anyone?

Shucks, here I thought all people behave to control their own perceptions
all the time. Under certain conditions, they coerce the behavior of other
people against their will to realize the perceptions they want.

Never mind.

Kenny

KENNETH_J_KITZKE1 · June 18, 1998, 4:47am

[From Kenny Kitzke: (980617.2300EDT)]

Rick Marken (980617.0840)

Watching is behavior by the lifeguard to control his perception that no kid
will choose to swim in the pool in shorts. If the kid does not know about
the rule, are you saying that the lifeguard watching him is being coercive?

But can you at least see that the lifeguard (like the RTP teacher)
is _controlling behavior_ -- and is doing so even when there is
no resistance to that control?>

Kenny:

No.

<I'm afraid you couldn't be more wrong.>

So you perceive. With your definition, does an IRS review agent do
anything except coerce taxpayers?

<I'm (reluctantly) willing to go with this definition of
coercion if you are willing to see that the lifeguard is
_always_ controlling behavior.>

Sorry, no deal yet. The lifeguard is always behaving to control his own
perceptions. The lifeguard does not control the behavior of the swimmer
until he physically intervines with as much force as necessary to prevent
the swimmer from swimming in the pool wearing shorts.

Bingo, Ricky.

But no action certainly doesn't mean no _control_; you are still
controlling
a car even when you don't have to turn the wheel to keep it in
its lane. Similarly, the lifeguard is still controlling behavior
even when she doesn't have to pull behavior offenders out of the
water.>

If the lifeguard sees the swimmer entering the pool, but does not act to
prevent the swimmer from staying in (even if he had the power to do so),
there is no coercion. Both lifeguard and swimmer are behaving to control
their own perceptions of what they want.

If the lifeguard blows his bull horn or threatens the kid enough to get the
kid to quit doing what he wants, it would be coercive. Both the lifeguard
and the kid would agree that coercion was being used in their interaction.

<_All_ school systems are potentially coercive (in your new meaning
of coercion) and _always_ controlling.>

I think you mean the people in authority in schools are always controlling.
PCT is about living beings, isn't it? While they are always controlling,
they are not always coercing.

Teachers behave to control their perceptions. If a student sneezes, and
temporarily disrupts the class, the teacher will behave to control her
perceptions that sneezing does not require coercive behavior. They may
behave by saying, "God bless you!" Is this coercive behavior under your
definition? If the teacher says "choose either to stop sneezing and
disturbing my class -or- go to the RTP room" they are using their authority
and coercing the student.

If a student passes gas in class, the teacher will behave to control her
perceptions probably choosing much more often to use coercion to prevent
future farting.

<<RTP is inherentily coercive all the time.>>

Sorry, poor statement. I meant to say that like the school system, RTP
inherently has the capability all the time, to coerce the behavior of
students. If a day goes by when the kids are so engrossed in what the
teacher is doing, that they do not disrupt the class in any way or decide
to go to the RTP themselves, I would call this teaching and perhaps
learning, but not coercing.

That's right, no coercion in that case by my definition. I don't think
this is the condition at the start of RTP. As the disruption decreases so
does the coercion. As disruption increases, so does coercian. Isn't this
exactly what PCT experiments show for interactions between living control
systems, like in the rubber band experiment?

Coercion is not used when kids are behaving in a way that satisfies all the
teachers wants. The teacher is not coercing the student, and not even
trying to control the student's behavior. And the student does not
perceive any coercion since their behavior is getting them what they want
without any interference from the teacher.

That's what's up! As well as June 17, 1998. I'm going to bed because I'm
coerced to do so by the early morning customer meeting I have scheduled.

KENNETH_J_KITZKE1 · June 18, 1998, 4:47am

[From Kenny Kitzke (980618.0030 EDT)]

Works for me.

<Ok, hold it, hold it right there. I mean, this thread started out very
promising, some good ideas there, but now it's just got silly.>

So you percieve. It quickly moved from saying that "the kid makes a
choice" is a lie to saying the teacher coerces the desired behavior of the
student. RTP was fundamentally coercive. The public school system was
fundamentally coercive.

That is when the feathers began to fly with Tim Cary who did not believe
that was a correct representation. I still see the systems as condoning
coercive behavior. However, coercion is not always present when a teacher
is behaving to control her own perceptions.

<I mean, ordering a child to have an icecream on pain of a spanking? Have
you ever witnessed that actually happen?

It's about as idiotic as arguing over whether black is a colour.>

So, I'm an idiot Richard. What is your excuse for not offering anything
constructive about a topic that has consumed others interest for months?
BTW, black is a color except in England. What is you favorite ice cream?

Kenny

R_Marken · June 18, 1998, 6:48am

[From Rick Marken (980617.2240)]

Me:

According to you, coercion only happens when the lifeguard has to
_act_ to protect his perception of behavior from disturbance (a kid
swimming in shorts must be pulled out of the water).

Kenny Kitzke: (980617.2300EDT) --

Bingo, Ricky.

Bad answer. This means that you would have to class some very coercive
people (mobsters, for example) as non-coercive because they rarely
have to act to get the behavior they want from their "clients".

Kenny Kitzke (980617.2300EDT) to Bill Powers (980617.0927 MDT) --

The way you define coercion, people like parents, teachers and
managers are coercing their children, students and employees
almost all the time. Is this useful to anyone?

It's as useful as PCT is because it _is_ PCT. This is what PCT is
about. PCT lets us see that people _are_ controllers and that among
the things they control are perceptions of the behavior of other
people. PCT lets us see that parents, teachers and managers _do_
spend much of their time controlling the behavior of children,
students and employees; they _are_ coercing almost all the time.
PCT shows us what coercion is and what it means from the point of
view of both the coercer and coercee. PCT also lets us see what
it means to deal with people non-coercively. Defining coercion the
way we do is useful because it lets us talk about a ubiquitous
control phenomenon that is easily understood from a PCT perspective.
It is also useful because once we can see when coercion is going on
we can start considering _alternatives_ to coercion (if we want to).

What is not useful (I think) is defining coercion in such a way that
it does not exist in situations where one feels it _should not exist_.

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 · June 18, 1998, 10:41am

[From Bill Powers (980618.0434 MDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (980617.2300EDT)--

]

<Bill Powers (980617.0927 MDT)>

<OK, so if there are TV cameras at every street-corner watching to see if
more than two people are having a conversation (larger gatherings are
forbidden by law under penalty of imprisonment), and people are avoiding
gathering in groups larger than two, there is no coercion going on.>

If I want to hold a conversation with you on the streets of Durango, those
TV cameras would not coerce me one iota. They will not even coerce me if I
want to party with four PCTers and then spend some time in the Durango
hooskow, gathering my thoughts about PCT and its applications.

I guess I should have made it plain that in my hypothetical example, the law
against gatherings of more than two people is ALWAYS ENFORCED. That is,
every time such a gathering is seen by the TV cameras, it is forcibly broken
up and the participants are punished.

If everyone, through fear of punishment, carefully avoids getting into
gatherings or more than two people, there will never be any action to
enforce the law (the law is not being broken). As I read certain comments in
this discussion, that would mean that nobody is being coerced and this is
not a "coercive system."

Best,

Bill P.

···

I take it the cameras would coerce you even if just the two of us decided
to talk? Bill, nuclear warheads were/are pointed at America. A large
meteorite could hit the earth any day. Are these possible situations
coercing you and controlling your behavior?

Well, I feel like this is a "tar baby" issue and I'm gettin stuck.

I do find the use of inanimate objects, rather than two living control
systems, to describe, define, model, etc., coercion missing the point of an
interaction of two animate control systems.

<I don't think I would have much use for "coercion" defined that way.>

The way you define coercion, people like parents, teachers and managers are
coercing their children, students and employees almost all the time. Is
this useful to anyone?

Shucks, here I thought all people behave to control their own perceptions
all the time. Under certain conditions, they coerce the behavior of other
people against their will to realize the perceptions they want.

Never mind.

Kenny

KENNETH_J_KITZKE1 · June 18, 1998, 10:11pm

[From Kenny Kitzke 980618.1800EDT]

<It's as useful as PCT is because it _is_ PCT. This is what PCT is
about. PCT lets us see that people _are_ controllers and that among
the things they control are perceptions of the behavior of other
people. PCT lets us see that parents, teachers and managers _do_
spend much of their time controlling the behavior of children,
students and employees; they _are_ coercing almost all the time.
PCT shows us what coercion is and what it means from the point of
view of both the coercer and coercee. PCT also lets us see what
it means to deal with people non-coercively. Defining coercion the
way we do is useful because it lets us talk about a ubiquitous
control phenomenon that is easily understood from a PCT perspective.
It is also useful because once we can see when coercion is going on
we can start considering _alternatives_ to coercion (if we want to).>

Your point is something I need to focus on more. You may be correct after
all. Although, one of these days both you and Bill are gonna slip up.

I just came back from a client's Awards Day where good suppliers and
employees were recognized. The CEO sort of coerced the awardees to the
stage by asking them to come up. But they seemed happy to go there. I can
see where the CEO was controlling his perceptions for them to come up. It
is just hard to admit that since they did not overpower them against their
will, we should describe this as coercion.

I am afraid that businesses will not like claiming that most of what
managers do is coerce. Could that be why Ed Ford has used the choice
illusion to hide the coercion?

I gave an award to the CEO, and his employees gave him a rousing standing
ovation. It was a surprise. I can see from your point, that I coerced him
to be recognized whether he wanted to be or not. I set him up.

I sense he was sincerely moved for he is always the one recognizing others.
I don't think what happened disturbed him or kept him from saying or doing
whatever he wanted. How can it be called coercion? How did I use
overwhelming force to actually control his behavior against his will? I do
assume you believe that generally people do not like being coerced?

If he perceived my coercion, I suspect he'll be on the phone saying "never
again" I hate awards. Shove that Star Award up your nose. Don't hold
your breath. I don't think he experienced coercion, he experienced
respect.

Kenny

R_Marken · June 19, 1998, 12:00am

[From Rick Marken (80618.1600)]

My demo of the Universal Error Curve is now available at:

http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/demos.html

Kenny Kitzke (980618.1800EDT) --

The CEO sort of coerced the awardees to the stage by asking
them to come up.

This is not evidence of coercion, Kenny. Coercion is _control_.
You have to Test to determine whether control is going on,
remember? Can you think of a Test to determine whether the CEO
was coercing the awardees?

I gave an award to the CEO, and his employees gave him a rousing
standing ovation. It was a surprise. I can see from your point,
that I coerced him to be recognized whether he wanted to be or
not.

What makes you think that you coerced him to be recognized? If
he had not shown up would you have taken steps to get him there.
Would you have dragged him to the podium if he wouldn't go?

I don't think what happened disturbed him or kept him from
saying or doing whatever he wanted. How can it be called
coercion?

How he felt has nothing to do with whether or not it "could be
coercion".

I do assume you believe that generally people do not like being
coerced?

Your assumption is wrong. For the 4000th time, coercion is
control of behavior. How the victim feels about being coerced
is completely irrelevant to whether coercion is going on or not.

If he perceived my coercion, I suspect he'll be on the phone
saying "never again" I hate awards. Shove that Star Award
up your nose. Don't hold your breath.

You clearly did not understand my point about coercion at all.
Too bad.

Best

Rick

···

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

KENNETH_J_KITZKE1 · June 19, 1998, 3:51pm

[From Kenny Kitzke (980619.1200EDT)

I would say the system is still fundamentally coercive all the time. When
potentially coercive people choose not use that coercive system to coerce,
there is no corercion occurring.

I hope you realize I am not trying to refute the definition you and Rick
find most useful to you just to win an argument. I'm searching for a way
to define, observe and measure coercion that we all can accept. The
concept of coercion is essential to PCT.

Your definition has repulsed some pretty strong PCT advocates. You may
perceive, TS! But, I would hope we could find an acceptable operational
definition of coercion like we have for most other PCT terms.

I perceive I'm trying to help PCT advance but others seem to perceive my
behavior as not useful or even that of an idiot. I may decide to give up,
or to keep fussing. No coercion here that I can tell. You are not trying
to force your definition on me, are you? Even if you could, is that what
you are trying to get me do?

Kenny