[From Bruce Nevin (980707.1011 EDT)]
Marc Abrams (980706.2115) --
I wrote about how the spreadsheet behavior does not include aspects of the
victim's behavior, kinds of behavior that we have attributed in the past to
reorganization and a speculative "universal error curve".
Marc:
At This point your model has stopped talking and you have started to
speculate. Without knowing _more_ about what the actual effects are
between control loops and _levels of control loops_ your statement is
pure speculation.
I answered that yes, reorganization and the "universal error curve" are
both speculative, but I'm talking about observed behavior of coercion
victims that is not observed in the behavior of the spreadsheet.
Marc:
What level of the Hierarchy did the spreadsheet model purport to
represent?
We've talked about this before, e.g.
Rick Marken (980705.1030)
All of these variables are modeled as a single output variable (o');
we could have had multiple outputs affecting qi but that would
be irrelevant to the point you are trying (incorrectly) to make
here. The "struggles" of the weaker system (as I noted above) _are_
clearly shown in the variations in the weaker system's Range Limited
output (o') when that output is within the range of possible
variation.
Bruce Nevin (980705.1923 EDT)
If o' and qo' include all outputs, whether in the absence of the coercer's
qo they would be effective on qi or not, you have well emphasized another
point: the non-specificity of this kind of model. To make a generalization
about coercion it models the behavior of individuals in particular
instances of coercion poorly. That's not to say it's a bad model, just to
say what kind of model it is.
And I answered you in particular on this point, in my (980705.1003 EDT)
responding to Marc Abrams (980704.1113):
A vast amount of detail at lower levels of control can be similated in a
single variable. The variable qi above could be position of fist or it
could be the national affiliation of Northern Ireland. In either case, qi
subsumes many other variables not included in the model.
In other words, the spreadsheet simulation refers to any variable or set of
variables you please. It is a generalization about coercion (actually,
about conflict) no matter what variable is being contested.
Marc:
My understanding ( please correct me if i am mistaken ) was that the
spreadsheet model represented a very basic relationship between 2
control systems showing how one "coerced" the other. I do not believe
it represented an entire organism. To extrapolate from 2 to
potentially 2 million (control systems ) is a bit out of my reach. To
suggest how an _entire_ organism is going to react based on the
"interaction" of two, to me is speculative.
Bill (980705.1811 MDT) carried this objection further. I am not saying that
a spreadsheet simulation can incorporate all this detail, and as Bill says,
there's a great deal of basic research (modelling and testing) to be done
before we can seriously consider modelling it even by more sophisticated
programming means. I did not make the point of this clear until my answer
to him (06 Jul 1998 14:51:11, "Re: A Question, tennis anyone", mis-labelled
as though from Bill):
My complaint really is about the interpretations that were being made of
this avowedly incomplete model, as though it were in fact telling us
everything that was relevant about coercion. Instead of acknowledging that
we had an excellent model of some important aspects of coercion, the claim
was made that the model provided a definition of coercion. Strange
conclusions were then drawn as to what coercion "really" is.
[...]
These absurd claims arose from misapplication of an incomplete model back
to the full situation that was modelled, attempting to redefine the
original in its image.
We should learn everything that we can from our models, but not more than
that. In other words, it is important to be clear what a given model cannot
tell us about the situation being modelled, and not to make claims that it
does not warrant.
Marc:
are you _really_ sure you want to call "coercion" a "social"
interaction :-)?
Bruce:
In the world of the model you do see the interaction of two models. You do
see that the weaker system is attempting to control and is prevented from
doing so by the action of the stronger system.
Marc:
The weaker system can be attempting to control _without_ interacting
with the coercer. [For the stronger system to prevent it ...]
no interaction is needed. Your use of the word "prevented"
indicates a conscience high level awareness. That does _not_ have to
be the case for "coercion" to occur.
What is "conscience high level awareness"? In any case, all that is
involved is two control loops and two sources of disturbance, such that for
each control loop the disturbance is due to the action output of the other
control loop.
Two control systems are controlling their respective input. The actions of
the weaker disturb the stronger one and the actions of the stronger disturb
the weaker one. This fits my definition of an interaction, which you quoted
next:
Bruce:
I would define an
interaction as behavior of two or more control systems such that the
actions of each either disturb or are the source of some of the
perceptions that the other is or others are controlling.
The fact that the stronger one is completely able to resist the disturbance
and the weaker one is completely unable to resist is what makes this
particular interaction coercion.
Marc:
Would you be interacting with a dream or fantasy then?
Is a dream or fantasy an autonomous control system?
If a member of
an opposing ballclub beat your favorite team, would you be interacting
with that player?
Are any of my actions a disturbance to the ballplayer?
Not trying to be a smart alec, genuinely asking.
I think you could have answered those questions for yourself.
Bruce:
In the world of naturalistic observation where we find the phenomena that
we seek to model, can there be any doubt that coercion is an interaction?
I think so.
Then you *must* have a different definition of interaction. Please provide it.
I do not currently ( I am open to change) believe coercion
is an interaction. I believe it is something someone does to another
_regardless_ of what the other attempts to do.
This has no relevance for the definition. Unless you believe in victimless
coercion. Is that what you mean?
If I go over to
someone who never sees me and I bash him over the head with a stick,
is that an interaction?
That by itself is not coercion. It fits one side of the definition, since
presumably being bashed on the head is a disturbance to various perceptions
controlled by the other person, the one who is bashed. But you left out
part of your story. Why did you bash him over the head? For coercion,
something that the other person is doing is a disturbance to a perception
that you are controlling, and bashing them on the head has the effect of
opposing that disturbance. By bashing them on the head you are compelling
them to behave in a way that you want. Include in your story a motivation
for bashing the guy on the head and you might have an instance of coercion.
Might be botched coercion too. Suppose you wanted him to drive the car for
you, and now he can't. Looks like punishment to me, which might play a role
in coercion, but is not itself coercion.
Remember that coercion is a special case of conflict. Describe a conflict
situation. Some aspect of the environment must be in one state for one
control system to control its input, and in a different state for the other
one to control its input. For conflict to become coercion, one of them is
able to control and the other isn't.
Is he interacting with me?
To me interactions are reciprical events. Flows must take place _to
and from_ entities.
Watch out for that flow metaphor, it will gum up your thinking. Diagram the
control loops. If you insist on "flow" talk, there is a "flow" around the
loop for each control system. The two loops intersect at the contested
environment variable. The "flow" of one loop is blocked by the fact that
the "flow" of the other requires that variable to be in a state that is
incompatible with the first one. That is the nature of the interaction. The
action of each causes a disturbance to the controlled input of the other.
The coercer is able to resist the disturbance caused by the victim; the
victim is unable to resist the disturbance caused by the coercer.
I ask again: what do *you* mean by interaction?
Bruce Nevin