How do you spell coercion?

CSGnet Archive CSG1999
1

[From Rick Marken (990429.0900)]

Me:

Thanks for sharing. Now how about either answering Bill's
question or just saying you don't want to answer it.

Bruce Gregory (990429.1140 EDT)]

Don't speak unless you are spoken to.

Are you speaking to me? :wink:

If so, I guess I can speak and tell you that this still doesn't
answer Bill's question: what word do _you_ use to refer to one
person using force or the credible threat thereof to control
another person's behavior?

Best

Rick

···

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

2

[From Bruce Gregory (990429.1200 ED)]

Rick Marken (990429.0900)

If so, I guess I can speak and tell you that this still doesn't
answer Bill's question: what word do _you_ use to refer to one
person using force or the credible threat thereof to control
another person's behavior?

Is this a discussion about models or a vocabulary test? If the latter,
the word I use is "Marken".

Bruce Gregory

3

[From Rick Marken (990429.0920)]

Bruce Gregory (990429.1200 ED)

Is this a discussion about models or a vocabulary test?

It's a question (not a test) about vocabulary, of course.
Bill (and I) would like to know what word you use to refer
to one person using force or the credible threat thereof to
control another person's behavior?

If the latter, the word I use is "Marken".

Ok. So what we call "coercion" you call "Marken". Is that
correct? If so, I wonder if there are a substantial number
of people who refer to "coercion" as "Marken". Perhaps it
was a mistake for my dad to have change the family name
from Tumarkin (or maybe that's the Russian word for "coercion").

Best

Rick

···

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

4

[From Bruce Gregory (990429.1245 EDT)

Rick Marken (990429.0920)

Bruce Gregory (990429.1200 ED)

> Is this a discussion about models or a vocabulary test?

It's a question (not a test) about vocabulary, of course.
Bill (and I) would like to know what word you use to refer
to one person using force or the credible threat thereof to
control another person's behavior?

You are playing a game here, and a not very nice one. How would you like
to be asked in Germany in 1936 "What do you call a person who has one
Jewish grandparent?" Would you call a mother who pulls her child from
the path of an oncoming car "a coercive parent"? Or all governments
coercive? Your demand for ideological purity takes you down strange
paths. But then again this is true of all demands for ideological
purity.

Bruce Gregory

5

[From Rick Marken (990429.1020)]

Me:

Bill (and I) would like to know what word you use to refer
to one person using force or the credible threat thereof to
control another person's behavior?

Bruce Gregory (990429.1245 EDT) --

You are playing a game here, and a not very nice one.

I'm trying to play communication; I think it's a very
nice game. What do you think I'm playing?

How would you like to be asked in Germany in 1936 "What do
you call a person who has one Jewish grandparent?"

What!?!?! Do you think I'm going to send you to a death camp
if you refer to "one person using force or the credible threat
thereof to control another person's behavior" as "coercion".

Would you call a mother who pulls her child from the path of an
oncoming car "a coercive parent"?

No. But I would call what she is doing to the child "coercion".
I presume you would call it "Marken":wink:

Or all governments coercive?

If they use coercion, which they do.

Your demand for ideological purity takes you down strange
paths.

Ideological purity?!?!?

Maybe it would help to go back to where this all started.

Bill said:

You have to suppose that the ant is not controlling other
perceptions to which the presence or absence of obstacles
is irrelevant, such as scents and light variations...

and you replied:

Bruce Gregory (990428.0928 EDT)

Well stated. My only wish is that an equally enlightened
position had emerged during the discussion of coercion.

I then asked you:

Why is PCT an "enlightened position" when one is explaining the
behavior of ants but not an enlightened position when explaining
the behavior of a person who controls the behavior of another
person using force or the credible threat thereof?

And you said (not very helpfully):

I'm afraid the point is too subtle for you.

Bill then asked you:

I _would_ like to know what word you use to refer to one
person using force or the credible threat thereof to control
another person's behavior.

I presume Bill was asking because he thought your subtle point
might be that "a person who controls the behavior of another
person using force or the credible threat thereof" might not
be doing what you call "coercion".

I suggest that a good way for you to avoid what you see as a
mean spirited "game" of word definition would be to go ahead
and explain the point you were making in the post [Bruce Gregory
(990428.0928 EDT)] that started this all off.

When Bill Powers (990427.1644 MDT) said:

You have to suppose that the ant is not controlling other
perceptions to which the presence or absence of obstacles
is irrelevant, such as scents and light variations. You
have to assume that its internal goal structure remains
completely fixed, and that all goals represent static (rather
than time-varying) states of affairs. Your example
is indeed not a brilliant point; it rests on unspoken
assumptions of which you seem unaware.

What did you mean [Bruce Gregory (990428.0928 EDT)] by your
reply:

Well stated. My only wish is that an equally enlightened
position had emerged during the discussion of coercion.

The point may be too subtle for me but I bet Bill and some
others on the net could understand it.

Best

Rick

···

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

6

[From Bruce Gregory (990429.1337 EDT)]

Rick Marken (990429.1020)

> Would you call a mother who pulls her child from the path of an
> oncoming car "a coercive parent"?

No. But I would call what she is doing to the child "coercion".

Fine. We agree. All of us at one time or another have acted coercively.
Some of us may even act coercively in the future. Coercion describes an
act; it is not a label to be applied to a person or a program. The word
contains no hint of moral or other opprobrium, it is pure descriptive.
Let's end on this happy note.

Bruce Gregory

7

[From Rick Marken (990429.1100)]

Bruce Gregory (990429.1337 EDT)--

Coercion describes an act;

Actually, a process.

it is not a label to be applied to a person or a program. The
word contains no hint of moral or other opprobrium, it is pure
descriptive.

Agreed! But you can certainly apply the term to what a program
requires a person to do, right?

Let's end on this happy note.

But don't we get to find out what you meant when you said

Well stated. My only wish is that an equally enlightened
position had emerged during the discussion of coercion.

In reply to Bill Powers (990427.1644 MDT) comment about the
ant controlling many perceptions?

Best

Rick

···

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

8

[From Bruce Gregory (990429.1436 EDT)]

Rick Marken (990429.1100)

But don't we get to find out what you meant when you said

> Well stated. My only wish is that an equally enlightened
> position had emerged during the discussion of coercion.

In reply to Bill Powers (990427.1644 MDT) comment about the
ant controlling many perceptions?

In the coercion "discussion," you and Bill _seemed_ to be committed to a
position that RTP was coercive in nature. This point is trivially
obvious to the extent that all schools are part of society and no
society can afford to eschew the implied use of force, if only to
protect some citizens from the coercive acts of other citizens. But this
did not appear to be the point you were making. Rather than asserting
the trivially obvious, you seemed to think you were making an important
point about RTP. Those of us who differed with you were not impressed
with either the importance or the accuracy of your remarks. When the vet
picks up my dog to put her on his examining stand, he is acting
coercively. Despite this, I am not tempted to call veterinary science a
coercive practice.

Bruce Gregory

9

[From Rick Marken (990429.1230)]

Me:

But don't we get to find out what you meant when you said

> Well stated. My only wish is that an equally enlightened
> position had emerged during the discussion of coercion.

In reply to Bill Powers (990427.1644 MDT) comment about the
ant controlling many perceptions?

Bruce Gregory (990429.1436 EDT)--

In the coercion "discussion," you and Bill _seemed_ to be
committed to a position that RTP was coercive in nature. This
point is trivially obvious to the extent that all schools are
part of society and no society can afford to eschew the implied
use of force, if only to protect some citizens from the coercive
acts of other citizens. But this did not appear to be the point
you were making. Rather than asserting the trivially obvious,
you seemed to think you were making an important point about RTP.
Those of us who differed with you were not impressed with either
the importance or the accuracy of your remarks. When the vet
picks up my dog to put her on his examining stand, he is acting
coercively. Despite this, I am not tempted to call veterinary
science a coercive practice.

Gee, that's not too subtle for me. Well, OK. I don't see how
it's related to ants controlling many perceptions. But I think I
get your point: the fact that RTP is coercive in nature is
trivially obvious so you and everyone else got all upset at Bill
and me because we seemed to think that this was important rather
than trivial.

Subtle, indeed. Especially since I don't recall anyone angrily
shouting at Bill and me saying "it's trivially obvious that
RTP is coercive in nature". I seem to recall people saying
things like "there is no coercion if the references of the
coercer and coercee are aligned" and "a control system cannot
be coerced". I guess I must have been hallucinating. What a
relief!

Best

Rick

···

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

10

from [ Marc Abrams (990429.1741) ]

[From Rick Marken (990429.1230)]

Subtle, indeed. Especially since I don't recall anyone angrily
shouting at Bill and me saying "it's trivially obvious that
RTP is coercive in nature". I seem to recall people saying
things like "there is no coercion if the references of the
coercer and coercee are aligned" and "a control system cannot
be coerced". I guess I must have been hallucinating. What a
relief!

Rick, you win the battles and _lose_ every single war. After this post I
just can't imagine why.

Marc

11

[From Rick Marken (990429.1545)]

Me:

Subtle, indeed. Especially since I don't recall anyone angrily
shouting at Bill and me saying "it's trivially obvious that
RTP is coercive in nature". I seem to recall people saying
things like "there is no coercion if the references of the
coercer and coercee are aligned" and "a control system cannot
be coerced". I guess I must have been hallucinating. What a
relief!

Marc Abrams (990429.1741)

Rick, you win the battles and _lose_ every single war. After
this post I just can't imagine why.

Actually, I don't recall winning any battles either. Could
you please tell me what in the world you mean here? What
was it about my post the kept you from imagining what?

Best

Rick

···

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

12

i.kurtzer (990429.2100)

[From Rick Marken (990429.1230)]

I seem to recall people saying
things like "there is no coercion if the references of the
coercer and coercee are aligned" and "a control system cannot
be coerced".

I remember and still support the former, though I don't recall
anyone supporting the latter per se. I remember the disagreement was with
one control system controlling the behavior of the another when behavior
is used in technical sense.

i.

13

from [ Marc Abrams (990429.2050) ]

[From Rick Marken (990429.1545)]

Me:

> Rick, you win the battles and _lose_ every single war. After
> this post I just can't imagine why.

You:

Actually, I don't recall winning any battles either. Could
you please tell me what in the world you mean here?

Sure. You asked publicly and I will respond publicly. This post was the last
of a long line of posts that started yesterday. It started when you
conjectured to me in a conversation that Bruce Gregory did not _really_
understand PCT. You used the old coercion thread as an example of this lack
of understanding. I told you that was not true. We made a friendly bet and I
even let you develop the initial questions you wanted asked. We started the
3-way conversation.

It seems that his answers were not good enough. For some still unexplained
reason you seemed to want to extract your pound of flesh. The posts came
onto the net and the attacks continued.

Rick, you proved your point. You were _right_. So? at what cost? You beat a
good friend of PCT into the ground in the process.

If your goal was to mash his face in it, you succeeded. If your goal was to
help someone further their understanding of PCT ( which i personally doubt )
you failed.

You seem to do this occasionally over the net and it bothers me for 2
reasons.

One. I like you, and your expertise in PCT has been extremely helpful to me.
I have also experienced a side of you that most on the net have never seen.

Two. I think it's important to _support_ people who show an interest in PCT.
You don't do that by making them look and feel foolish.

Did I answer your questions?

Marc

···

What was it about my post the kept you from imagining what?

14

[From Rick Marken (990429.1900)]

Marc Abrams (990429.2050)

You asked publicly and I will respond publicly. This post was
the last of a long line of posts that started yesterday. It
started when you conjectured to me in a conversation that Bruce
Gregory did not _really_ understand PCT.

Actually, that's not quite what started it. It started when
you privately chastized me for asking Bruce G. why Bill's post
about ants controlling many perceptions would be enlightening
regarding coercion. I had no idea why you thought my question
was impudent -- and I still don't. But you were going to educate
me; I guess I didn't pass the audition.

Rick, you proved your point. You were _right_. So? at what
cost? You beat a good friend of PCT into the ground in the
process.

Point taken. From now on, friends of PCT can say anything they
want about PCT; they're safe from me. I'll leave the friends
of PCT to Mary. I'll just take on the enemies, Ok? Actually, I've
never met any enemies of PCT -- nearly all psychologists have
known and loved PCT since well before Bill Powers published
B:CP -- so I guess I'll have to get back to doing real work. Drat.

Best

Rick

···

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

15

from [ Marc Abrams (990429.2225) ]

[From Rick Marken (990429.1900)]

You, my dear friend, are a piece of work. :slight_smile:

Come hell or high water you gotta get the last word in. I'll give you one
more shot at me :slight_smile: with regard to this and then I am off _this_ nonsense.
:slight_smile:

Actually, that's not quite what started it. It started when
you privately chastized me for asking Bruce G. why Bill's post
about ants controlling many perceptions would be enlightening
regarding coercion. I had no idea why you thought my question
was impudent -- and I still don't. But you were going to educate
me; I guess I didn't pass the audition.

I explained ( or more accurately, tried and failed to convey :-)) what _I_
thought Bruce was attempting toexplain ( always a risky thing to do :slight_smile: ).
The fact that you still don't understand is not, nor will it ever be someone
else's problem ( read that as mine :-)). I was not attempting to educate
you. All I tried to do was give a different perspective ( _mine_ :slight_smile: ). I
did that. You do with it what you will.

Point taken. From now on, friends of PCT can say anything they
want about PCT; they're safe from me.

You live in a world that is Black/White, Right/Wrong. I live in a world that
is _all_ gray. What is one way today may prove to be not that way tomorrow.
You are obviously comfortable in your world. I am comfortable in mine.
Someday, aspects of the current PCT model might prove to be mis-guided.
Maybe not. I am not expecting that to happen, but we certainly at this point
don't have all of _our_ ( yes Rick, as annoying as it might be to you :slight_smile: )
i's dotted and t's crossed. I can live with that and work to make a more
complete model of the individual. You may not be interested. Thats fine. But
don't tell me what should and should not be important to _me_ with regard to
PCT.

I'll leave the friends of PCT to Mary. I'll just take on the enemies, Ok?

Now your cooking. Good idea :-). You don't seem to have the stomach for it.

Actually, I've never met any enemies of PCT -- nearly all psychologists

have

known and loved PCT since well before Bill Powers published
B:CP -- so I guess I'll have to get back to doing real work. Drat.

Yes what a shame :slight_smile:

Marc

16

[From Rick Marken (990429.2010)]

Me:

I seem to recall people saying things like "there is no coercion
if the references of the coercer and coercee are aligned" and "a
control system cannot be coerced".

i.kurtzer (990429.2100)

I remember and still support the former

Suppose I have two kids, A and B. A wants to sit in her room
and read Chaucer; B wants to go out and party. Without asking
A and B what they want (it wouldn't matter to me anyway) I force
both to sit in their rooms and read Chaucer. Am I coercing B and
not coercing A?

Just curious.

Rick

···

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

17

i.kurtzer (990430.0000)

[From Rick Marken (990429.2010)]

Me:

> I seem to recall people saying things like "there is no coercion
> if the references of the coercer and coercee are aligned" and "a
> control system cannot be coerced".

i.kurtzer (990429.2100)

> I remember and still support the former

Suppose I have two kids, A and B. A wants to sit in her room
and read Chaucer; B wants to go out and party. Without asking
A and B what they want (it wouldn't matter to me anyway) I force
both to sit in their rooms and read Chaucer. Am I coercing B and
not coercing A?

Yes. I suppose this leads to Bill's argument where if you wanted A to
walk a straightpath and A wanted to walk a somewhat similar path--maybe
straight for a bit then veering and then straight again--then would you
be coerceing A only sometimes during the journey? I think this is an
interesting scenario, and don't have an answer for now except that it is
necessary to refer to the references of both persons to define an
interaction, though that is not sufficient. Likewise, just because
someone intends to help another doesn't mean that the interacton is
helping. And just because one person sincerely wants to dominate
another doesn't mean that that they are coercing the other. That has
been my position from the beginning and I think any number of examples
from passive resistance intended to fill the jails to grifting can be
drawn to support this modest position..that one person cannot
unilaterally establish what the interaction with another is..
Unless you have a new argument I'm dropping this can of worms.

i.

18

[From Kenny Kitzke (990430.1300EDT)]

<Rick Marken (990429.2010)>

<< Suppose I have two kids, A and B. A wants to sit in her room
and read Chaucer; B wants to go out and party. Without asking
A and B what they want (it wouldn't matter to me anyway) I force
both to sit in their rooms and read Chaucer. Am I coercing B and
not coercing A? >>

You perceive you are behaving in a coercive way toward both. B may well
perceive that you are coercing her. A may not feel you were coercing her
because she was already doing what she, and you, want. If you said to A, put
down that Chaucer and read the Torah I gave you, she too may perceive you to
be coercing her.

Without this definition, it would seem that when anyone in authority (with a
viable threat of force) speaks to you, it would be called coercive.

Here is one for you. A has been asking you to take her to the lovely
California beach for days. B told her girlfriend she would be over to see
her in the afternoon. You say, "Get your bathing suits on, we're going to
the beach in 10 minutes."

I have little doubt that you will keep insisting that you are coercing both
girls. But, IMHO, the definition of coercion that will most contribute to an
understanding of PCT is when coercion describes the nature of the human
interaction from the perception of both you and *a* daughter, not your
unilateral perception of what you are doing.

Kenny

19

[From Bruce Gregory (990430.1348 EDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (990430.1300EDT)

I have little doubt that you will keep insisting that you are
coercing both
girls. But, IMHO, the definition of coercion that will most
contribute to an
understanding of PCT is when coercion describes the nature of
the human
interaction from the perception of both you and *a* daughter, not your
unilateral perception of what you are doing.

Nicely said, even if you are a Christian.

Bruce Gregory

20

[From Rick Marken (990430.1200)]

Me:

Suppose I have two kids, A and B. A wants to sit in her room
and read Chaucer; B wants to go out and party. Without asking
A and B what they want (it wouldn't matter to me anyway) I force
both to sit in their rooms and read Chaucer. Am I coercing B and
not coercing A?

Kenny Kitzke (990430.1300EDT)--

You perceive you are behaving in a coercive way toward both.
B may well perceive that you are coercing her. A may not feel
you were coercing her because she was already doing what she,
and you, want.

I agree. What I am asking is how _you_ would describe my behavior.
All you see is me forcing both A and B to go to their rooms and
read Chaucer. You know nothing about what A and B want. So what
would you say am I doing? Coercing both? Coercing just B? Coercing
neither? Don't know enough to say?

Here is one for you. A has been asking you to take her to the
lovely California beach for days. B told her girlfriend she
would be over to see her in the afternoon. You say, "Get your
bathing suits on, we're going to the beach in 10 minutes."

I have little doubt that you will keep insisting that you are
coercing both girls.

It's hard to tell. I would say it's _not_ coercion if I'm
trying to figure out what A and B want and I'm not forcing
them to do what I _think_ they want to do. But if I just
force the kids to go to the beach with no regard for what
they say they want then, yes, I'd say it's still coercion.
That's because I think coercion is happening whenever a
stronger person (like a parent) unilaterally decides what
another person (like a kid) will do (even if what they decide
the kid will do is something "nice"), without being willing
to take into consideration what that other person might
actually want. It's true that A said she wants to go to the
beach; so I seem to be taking her wants into consideration
in your scenario. That's why it's hard to tell whether or
not this is coercion (at least with respect to A). If,
after I say we're going to the beach, A says "I don't want
to go to the beach anymore" and I don't force her to go, then
I'm _not_ being coercive.

the definition of coercion that will most contribute to an
understanding of PCT

I think it's PCT that will contribute to our understanding
of coercion, don't you?

Best

Rick

···

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