Is anyone listening:-), Was Re:empowerment

From [Marc Abrams (980706.1125)]

Look folks, I am not very good at communicating in this medium and not
very comfortable. I tried making a couple of points and in retrospect,
I haven't been able to express myself the way I intended, so I am
going to give this another shot. Please excuse any repetition from my
prior post.

In talking about various behavioral phenomenon (i.e. coercion,
cooperation, empowerment, whatever) I think another interesting
phenomenon has been taking place and I think it is a _major_ cause and
root of irritation and annoyance on the net. This goes back to my
conversation on the phone yesterday with Dag Forssell.

During the coercion thread I think we had _TWO_ conversations going on
in _one_ thread. Bill and Rick were/are/and always will ( and this is
one of my main points ) try to describe the phenomenon ( erstwhile
known as coercion :-))as a _FUNCTIONAL_ part of the model. Hence
Rick's seeming idiotic notion, by showing that _functionally_, in PCT,
_no_ other party need to be present except for the coercer. Obviously
a person "coercing" no one is equivalent to the person having an
argument with himself :slight_smile: So if you were going to describe what was
_PERCEIVED_ it would be a totally different matter. Rick, and Bill
_ALWAYS_ try to describe the phenomenon as a _FUNCTIONAL_ part of the
PCT model. That _does not_ always jibe with what we perceive. That is
one reason why it is _so_ important to truly understand the difference
between a _functional model_ of how things _work_ ( Newton, Powers, et
al.) and a _descriptive model_ of how things _look _( Ptolemy
Glasser Skinner et al).
All of this ( talk of various phenomenon ) really seems to takes place
on both these levels and at cross purposes. Bill and Rick are
committed to trying to figure out _what_ makes it work
( functionally ) and the other camp seems to be more interested in
_how its _perceived_
PCT is about learning, understanding and utilizing our knowledge of
_how_ we behave. Not about inventing or redefining old words and terms
_describing what we perceive_
I, Like alot of you get frustrated with the _seeming_ slow progress
and large gaps in PCT But I am beginning to see that _I_ can make a
difference. We need to _Learn_ PCT. _Understand it_, and _Utilize it_
( model, test, explore, etc.) Breakthroughs in science often come
unexpectedly. If we don't explore ( test, model ) we have _no_ hope.
Bill and Rick understand this. All this ( as Richard Kenneway might
say :-)) Coffee house chat about various phenomenon is interesting but
is it contributing to our understanding how things _functionally_ work
or are we just trying to redefine what things look like?

This is _not_ about RTP. It's about PCT. Lets give it a chance.

Marc

[From Bruce Gregory (980706.1445 EDT)]

Bruce Nevin (980706.1423)

In fact, as error persists (as shown in coercion4c.xls -- oops!
should have
given that a DOS compatible 8.3 file name) we expect reorganization to
start. Perhaps before that or perhaps as a symptom of that (we don't know)
we expect the victim to stop resisting that insurmountable disturbance, to
"give up," or at least that's what the universal error curve was about.

Probably not reorganization. Reorganization would imply a loss of the
ability to act in way the organism acted _before_ it was coerced. It seems
more likely that the systems sets the reference level for "struggling" to
zero and adopts another strategy, i.e., increases the reference level on a
perception related to other behaviors, "pleading" perhaps.

Bruce Gregory

From [Marc Abrams (980706.1631)]

[From Bruce Nevin (980706.1423)]

You may be correct about two of the points of view in the coercion

thread.

The one I was expressing was a third one.

No, I think your modeling attempt fits into the functional realm. I
think you ( I certainly did :-)) also discovered how difficult it is
to represent "what is going on" inside two interacting control
systems. Your spreadsheet program was a gallant attempt to understand
the "effects" of coercion on 2 control systems. As long as you keep it
simple it serves as a terrific pedgogical tool. The problem of
"reading" to much into it is because you have no way of currently
modeling how _all_ interactions both horizontally and vertically
ultimately play out.

Functionally, in terms of variables in control loops, there is

something

going on in the victim of coercion.

Yes, I agree, but what?

In the spreadsheet model, the victim just keeps on increasing the

rate of

firing to effectors (the value o' keeps increasing) far beyond the

maximum

to which effectors are capable of responding (the value at which (o')

stops

climbing), and the victim keeps on producing the same effort qo'

against

the coercer.

Ok, So what is your interpretation of these events?

In fact, as error persists (as shown in coercion4c.xls -- oops!

should have

given that a DOS compatible 8.3 file name) we expect reorganization

to

start. Perhaps before that or perhaps as a symptom of that (we don't

know)

we expect the victim to stop resisting that insurmountable

disturbance, to

"give up," or at least that's what the universal error curve was

about.

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 happen to love this. I think it drives Bill and
Rick nuts. :slight_smile:

This is not in terms of appearances ("Ptolemy Glasser Skinner et al")

but

in terms of "a _functional model_ of how things _work_ ( Newton,

Powers, >et al)". In the course of an episode of coercion there is
more going on in >the victim than our model or our discussions
permitted us to consider, and >what is going on *functionally* in the
victim is most relevant to what is >going on *functionally* in a model
of the social interaction we call >coercion. To model a social
interaction between two people, you model >two autonomous control
systems in such a way that they interact in the >way that the people
do.

I absolutely agree with you, _except_ :slight_smile: ( here goes some chat again
:-)) are you _really_ sure you want to call "coercion" a "social"
interaction :-)?

Bill brought this up ( I forgot exactly which post ) and I happen to
agree. The reason is that the model shows that with "coercion" there
is _NO_ interaction actually taking place, the effects flow one way.
Now what happens internally to the coercee is of _extreme_ interest to
you and me but doesn't redefine the _functionality_ of the model to
Bill and Rick, as it shouldn't.

Marc

[From Bruce Nevin (980706.1423)]

Marc Abrams (980706.1125)--

You may be correct about two of the points of view in the coercion thread.
The one I was expressing was a third one.

Functionally, in terms of variables in control loops, there is something
going on in the victim of coercion.

In the spreadsheet model, the victim just keeps on increasing the rate of
firing to effectors (the value o' keeps increasing) far beyond the maximum
to which effectors are capable of responding (the value at which (o') stops
climbing), and the victim keeps on producing the same effort qo' against
the coercer.

In fact, as error persists (as shown in coercion4c.xls -- oops! should have
given that a DOS compatible 8.3 file name) we expect reorganization to
start. Perhaps before that or perhaps as a symptom of that (we don't know)
we expect the victim to stop resisting that insurmountable disturbance, to
"give up," or at least that's what the universal error curve was about.

This is not in terms of appearances ("Ptolemy Glasser Skinner et al") but
in terms of "a _functional model_ of how things _work_ ( Newton, Powers, et
al)". In the course of an episode of coercion there is more going on in the
victim than our model or our discussions permitted us to consider, and what
is going on *functionally* in the victim is most relevant to what is going
on *functionally* in a model of the social interaction we call coercion. To
model a social interaction between two people, you model two autonomous
control systems in such a way that they interact in the way that the people
do.

This is _not_ about RTP. It's about PCT. Lets give it a chance.

Yes.

  Bruce Nevin

[From Bruce Nevin (980706.1912 EDT)]

Marc Abrams (980706.1631) --

The credit for the spreadsheet model is Rick's, not mine. I just joined in
refining it.

In the spreadsheet model, the victim just keeps on increasing the
rate of firing to effectors (the value o' keeps increasing) far
beyond the maximum to which effectors are capable of responding
(the value at which (o') stops climbing), and the victim keeps on
producing the same effort qo' against the coercer.

Ok, So what is your interpretation of these events?

This is a characteristic of the model that is not a characteristic of the
phenomenon being modelled. Remember we have to observe the same behavior
from the model as we observe from the living control systems that are
modelled. With this model we observe some aspects of that behavior. The
model captures those aspects very well, and seems to give us a good solid
PCT explanation of them. That is good. However, we also observe that the
weaker control system persists in resisting infinitely long as its internal
output signal o' approaches infinity. (Infinite here meaning there is no
principalled end point, just whenever you the observer choose to stop the
program from recalculating, or the PC runs out of memory, etc., conditions
extraneous to the functional design of the model.) That tells us that
something is missing from the model. It also warns us to be careful about
how we use the model to provide explanations of the phenomenon as observed
in nature.

In fact, as error persists ... we expect reorganization to
start. Perhaps before that or perhaps as a symptom of that ...
we expect the victim to stop resisting that insurmountable
disturbance, to "give up," or at least that's what the
universal error curve was about.

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 happen to love this. I think it drives Bill and
Rick nuts. :slight_smile:

The reorganization system and the universal error curve are both
speculative but again I can't take credit for them. I am referring to the
phenomena found by naturalistic observation of organisms. They are not
speculative, but if they are specified by precise observational data I
haven't seen it on the net here. That's also a concern, one that Isaac has
been talking about.

are you _really_ sure you want to call "coercion" a "social"
interaction :-)?

Bill brought this up ( I forgot exactly which post ) and I happen to
agree. The reason is that the model shows that with "coercion" there
is _NO_ interaction actually taking place, the effects flow one way.
Now what happens internally to the coercee is of _extreme_ interest to
you and me but doesn't redefine the _functionality_ of the model to
Bill and Rick, as it shouldn't.

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. 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.

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?
You have been in both roles, stronger and weaker. Was it not an
interaction? If not, what do you mean by interaction?

  Bruce Nevin

From [Marc Abrams (980706.2115)]

[From Bruce Nevin (980706.1912 EDT)]

The credit for the spreadsheet model is Rick's, not mine. I just

joined in

refining it.

OK, Then I thank you for helping Rick refine it.

Bruce said:

In fact, as error persists ... we expect reorganization to
start. Perhaps before that or perhaps as a symptom of that ...
we expect the victim to stop resisting that insurmountable
disturbance, to "give up," or at least that's what the
universal error curve was about.

I responded:

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 happen to love this. I think it drives Bill and
Rick nuts. :slight_smile:

Bruce's reply:

The reorganization system and the universal error curve are both
speculative but again I can't take credit for them. I am referring to

the

phenomena found by naturalistic observation of organisms. They are

not

speculative, but if they are specified by precise observational data

I

haven't seen it on the net here. That's also a concern, one that

Isaac has

been talking about.

What level of the Hierarchy did the spreadsheet model purport to
represent?
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.

I asked:

are you _really_ sure you want to call "coercion" a "social"
interaction :-)?

Bruce responded:

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

Me:
The weaker system can be attempting to control _without_ interacting
with the coercer.

Bruce:

and is prevented from
doing so by the action of the stronger system.

Me:
Again, 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.

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.

Me:
Would you be interacting with a dream or fantasy then? If a member of
an opposing ballclub beat your favorite team, would you be interacting
with that player? Not trying to be a smart alec, genuinely asking.

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. 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 . If I go over to
someone who never sees me and I bash him over the head with a stick,
is that an interaction? Is he interacting with me?
To me interactions are reciprical events. Flows must take place _to
and from_ entities.

You have been in both roles, stronger and weaker. Was it not an
interaction? If not, what do you mean by interaction?

I don't think so. See above.

Marc

From [ Marc Abrams (980706.1152) ]

[From Bruce Nevin (980707.1011 EDT)]

Marc:

What level of the Hierarchy did the spreadsheet model purport to
represent?

This question was meant to be rhetorical.

Marc:

are you _really_ sure you want to call "coercion" a "social"
interaction :-)?

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?

Sorry Bruce, I misread your statement. Guess I shouldn't do this when
i'm tired. My apologies.

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.

Again, my apologies. Part of the mis-read.

Bruce:

Then you *must* have a different definition of interaction. Please

provide it.

Me:

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.

Bruce:

This has no relevance for the definition. Unless you believe in

victimless

coercion. Is that what you mean?

Me:
I don't understand what you mean. Why does it have no relevance?

Me:

If I go over to
someone who never sees me and I bash him over the head with a stick,
is that an interaction?

Bruce:

That by itself is not coercion.

Me:
I am not talking about coercion. I am talking about an "interaction".

Bruce:

I ask again: what do *you* mean by interaction?

Me:
A recipricol situation where _each_ entity specifically responds back
to a specific entity. One person can coerce many at the same time. Is
that person in fact interacting with all? Disturbances can be contacts
without "interaction".

Marc

[From Bruce Gregory (980707.1237 EDT)]

Bruce Nevin (980707.1011 EDT)

Is a dream or fantasy an autonomous control system?

This is one of the more interesting rhetorical questions raised on CSGnet of
late. The only way we can ever tell if a dream or fantasy is an autonomous
control system is by applying the TEST and discovering what, if any,
perception it is controlling. I will conduct the experiment tonight and
report back with my results. (I have sometimes speculated that Rick is a
nightmare, and the TEST reveals that he is definitely an autonomous control
system.)

Bruce Gregory

[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