[From Bruce Nevin (980811.1918 EDT)]
i.kurtzer (980811.1500)
Rick Marken (980811.0920)
Thank you Isaac.
Rick, I said this was sarcastic and did not take it seriously because of
the various jabs and barbs and rhetorical parentheses that are sprinkled
through it, and because #6 and sequel are so tendentious. I'll go with
Isaac's redaction.
1. Coercion occurs when a stronger person forces a weaker person
to do something.
Coercion(1): two autonomous control systems are in conflict, one so much
stronger than the other that the weaker one cannot control the contested
variable. The weaker one goes up a level. It has no choice about
relinquishing control of the variable.
Coercion(2): one autonomous control system persuades another to control a
certain variable v to a certain value, or not to disturb the coercer's
control of v. The means of persuasion is to begin coercion(1) over a
different variable v', together with an offer to stop coercing(1) the other
if the other complies. The weaker one goes up a level to where control of v
to the requested value is means for controlling v' (removing the
disturbance to control of v'). At this level it has a choice about control
of v vs. control of v', an internal conflict introduced by and exploited by
the coercer.
(An alternative is to notice some variable the other is unable to control,
call attention to it, perhaps make control worse, and offer to enable
control. This shades from coercion into politicking and benign quid pro quo
horsetrading and negotiating.)
Coercion(3): one autonomous control system persuades another to control a
certain variable v to a certain value, or not to disturb the coercer's
control of v. The means of persuasion is a threat to begin a conflict over
a different variable that the other system cannot win. one autonomous
control system persuades another to control a certain variable v to a
certain value, or not to disturb the coercer's control of v. The means of
persuasion is a threat to begin coercion(1) over a different variable v',
together with an offer not to start coercing(1) the other if the other
complies. The weaker system imagines coercion(1), and goes up a level to
where control of v to the requested value is means for continued control of
v' (removing the threat to disturb control of v'). At this level it has a
choice about control of v vs. control of v', an internal conflict
introduced by and exploited by the coercer.
Coercion(4): A control system sets a reference signal to comply with the
imagined demand of an imagined or remembered coercer of type 2 or 3 who is
not present and will not be present in the foreseeable future.
The types do not map 1-1 onto the diagrams I sent earlier, but the
relationships should be obvious.
2. Coercion is not control of behavior
This is a semantic issue that we should drop. I believe that if you twist
my arm behind my back and I cannot move it then arm position is not an
aspect of my behavior, just as if my arm is amputated then arm position is
not an aspect of my behavior. You believe that when you twist my arm behind
my back and I cannot move it then you are controlling an aspect of my
behavior, namely arm position. Perhaps we can resolve this down the road.
While the maxim, you cannot control the behavior of an autonomous control
system, is important to me and I believe true, the issue is not important
for our present discussion.
3; it is just two people, one strong and one weak, controlling their
own perceptions; the stronger person is controlling his
perceptions of the weaker person's behavior and the weaker
is controlling his perceptions, period.
A preliminary quibble: two autonomous control systems, could be people, not
necessarily.
the stronger [one] is controlling his
perceptions of the weaker [one's] behavior
Tendentious, see point 2. Applies to control of qo' if you claim that e.g.
arm position (with arm twisted and can't move it) is the weaker one's
behavior. Applies to control of qi only if you claim that qi'=qi is the
weaker one's behavior. If I straighten a book on my shelf book position is
not my behavior, it's book position. What if the weaker one is trying to
control qi'=qo, trying to move the coercer's arm from blocking his way: is
he then controlling his perception of the coercer's behavior?
Much cleaner and simpler if you just say the stronger one and the weaker
one are controlling the same variable, but the weaker one cannot control
successfully.
The above formulation leaves out forms of threat and offer, coercion(2-5)
above.
4. In order to know that coercion is going on, you have to know
the intentions of both the weaker and the stronger person.
Seems that way to me. Your formulation is that coercion is just control by
a strong control system, and that because the weaker one's actions are
ineffectual its intentions are irrelevant. The issue is what happens when
the weaker system is not controlling the variable. (Or is controlling it
the way the coercer wants, a transient state, see below.) Your conclusion
from the above formulation that is that the weaker system is still being
coerced because if it ever tried to control the variable in conflict with
the coercer it would not be able to. It is because I disagree with this
that I say "yes" to this #4 statement.
5. If their intentions are the same, then there is no coercion. If
their intentions are not the same, then there is coercion.
You and Bill convinced me that for coercion(1), which is what you are
describing, this can only be a transient state if the weaker one is
controlling at all. Sooner or later they will come in conflict.
For you, coercion is a function of one being stronger than the other,
whether they are in conflict or not. For me, coercion is a form of conflict
in which one party can't control at all. No conflict, no coercion. So long
as their intentions are the same, there is no conflict, so no coercion.
For coercion(1) or coercion(2) conflict must be present. For coercion(2)
the victim must imagine a resolution of conflict in exchange for
compliance. For other forms of coercion conflict must be imagined by the
victim as an alternative to compliance. You certainly have to know about
intentions of both parties.
Bruce Nevin