[From Bruce Nevin (980809.0430)]
Marc Abrams (980808.1035) --
I do not believe that there is an "interaction"
taking place when coercion exists. My definition of "interaction"
follows the dictionary defintion. "to act on _each_ other". When
coercion is taking place the action is "flowing" only _one_ way.
This might apply to the simplest form of coercion, the hand twisting the
arm, if the victim is not resisting. The only *observable* action is that
of the coercer if *all* action of the victim is overwhelmed. Rarely is that
true. In any case, this does not apply where a threat of coercion or an
offer to stop coercing is communicated, and the victim complies (or not)
based upon imagined consequences. Those are clearly interactions.
Bill Powers (980808.0954 MDT) --
All our problems seem to arise,
as you say, when people start trying to deal with ordinary language by
trying to make technical terms out of non-technical words. That's why I
can't get very interested in all the proposed taxonomies of coercion,
extortion, and the rest. Those aren't technical terms and never will be.
Within a science terms must be strictly defined or it is not a science. PCT
terms like control, reference signal, error signal, and so on, are defined
by reference to a specification of the theory that is implemented in PCT
demos, simulations, and models. To introduce other words for use within the
science we must specify what we mean by them in terms of variables,
signals, connections, and so on in a proposed or actual model of what we
are talking about. This might gives you the impression of constructing
taxonomies, like the five types of coercion that I posted, but the point is
not the taxonomy, it is making explicit what we mean. Modelling is the main
basis for defining terms in PCT; it may be the only one. We can use
whatever words we please; if we don't know how to implement them in a model
we don't know what in PCT we are talking about.
Bill Powers (980807.1501 MDT)]
Bruce Nevin (980806.1715 EDT)--
Since no force was being applied at the time of the recantation, some
people here would claim that no coercion was taking place.
[...] waffley bullhooey.
Which is bullhooey? The statement that some people claim that no coercion
takes place unless force is actually used?
No. The ambiguity of the word coercion.
Which coercion? The hand on the arm? No one ever claimed that no coercion
was taking place in that case.
The threat of coercion or the offer to stop coercing? Well, yes, there have
been demurrals about that. You insist that the same word, coercion,
applies. OK, but then the word is defined with reference to more than one
PCT model or simulation. The arm-twisting that everyone agrees is coercion
is defined by models and simulations like the spreadsheet that Rick and I
were playing with. So far as I know there has been *no* model or simulation
implemented or designed of a victim deciding to comply (or not) because of
imagining the follow-through on a threat of arm-twisting or an offer to
stop arm-twisting.
"Stop doing that (or: Do this the way I want it done, or: don't rock my
boat) or else I'll twist your arm" types of coercion-by-threat have no
coercion-by-present-armtwisting. I bet anybody who makes the above claim
(the claim "that no coercion takes place unless force is actually used")
does so on the basis of making this distinction. You may disagree with the
distinction, but if they're confused about it why compound it by throwing
the word "coercion" at them as if it referred to only one thing. It doesn't.
Note the equivalence of violence and intimidation (the threat of
violence, which makes the victim timid).
Now you're making me feel astonished. I have long accepted that one person
cannot cause another's feeling or thought. Reading this as an insight
attributed to PCT was part of my recognition that PCT was on to something
valid, eight or nine years ago. How would you implement a model of this
process by which a threat reaches into a person's control hierarchy and
causes them to be timid?
There are lots of words and lots of definitions in the dictionary
expressing received notions of how things work that are contrary to PCT. We
were just talking about the dictionary definition of behavior and whether
it might not be better to set that word beyond the pale (the paling or
fence around our field). Is not "intimidation" another such word?
The dictionary is an authority on usage. Models and simulations are our
authority on what words mean within PCT, the science. Show me the model.
Coercion is forcing or threatening
to force a person to DO something, to produce some action. I use
extortion to mean obtaining something of value from a person by
force or the threat of force.
You're objecting to "extortion". I'll just talk about force, threat, and
offer.
That definition of coercion refers to at least two different models or
simulations. One, overwhelming force, has been implemented as a
spreadsheet. The others have not been implemented as far as I know.
You cannot force me to DO something, that is, to control a perception by a
certain reference value. You can grab my hand and force it over the salt
shaker, but you are not forcing me to DO that, it is not my control of a
perception "hand over salt shaker." Your action appears to force me to do
what you want only if what you want involves the crudest of motor control.
You can force me to leave the room. You can force my arm over the salt
shaker. It is much more difficult to force me to pick up the salt shaker
and put a certain amount of salt on something. You cannot force me to type
the words that you want at 60 words per minute. You cannot force me to
recant. You cannot force a surgeon to perform a delicate operation.
Just as a side observation, forcing me to (appear to) do something is very
costly to you as the coercer, in terms of attention and effort. You can't
do much else while you're forcing me to shake salt onto your plate.
I might CHOOSE to do what you want because of your threat or because of
your offer to stop some unwanted contingency that you control (two
different kinds of models there). This brings in the recently discussed
issue of choosing.
The offer is typically not an offer to stop forcing me to (appear to) do
what you want. As I said, most activities of interest are too complex or
involve too fine motor control to be forced by another person. Typically,
something unwanted is forced, like arm twisting, and the offer is to stop
that in exchange for doing what is wanted.
The threat might be a threat of forcing me to do what you want if it is
something that can be forced (leave the room or I'll throw you out) but
typically it's some otherwise more or less unrelated contingency (sell me
the store or unpleasant things will happen to your family).
Because of a credible threat (or because of your credible offer to stop
inflicting something I don't want) I might CHOOSE to do something (to
control a certain perception by a certain reference value). If it's what
you want, you perceive that you have forced me to do what you want.
That is a misperception. Despite a credible threat I might CHOOSE to do not
quite what you want, or to do something different from what you want, or to
defy you by "doing nothing."
You might then inflict the threatened consequence. If you did, you would
couple it with an offer to stop if I comply. (That is usually how a threat
can escalate into an offer.)
I could continue defiant. With direct use of overwhelming force there is no
choice.
What I object to as waffley mush is attributing characteristics of
overwhelming force to situations of threat or offer. There are important
differences. We have been led to ignore them, and then repeatedly to
stumble, because we are using the same word, coercion, for different
things. We will surely continue using that word. We need to be clear
whether we mean force or imagined force (threat or offer).
Bruce Nevin
