# Is anyone listening:-), Was Re:empowerment

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/is-anyone-listening-was-re-empowerment/5843>\
**Category:** CSG1998\
**Created:** [July 6, 1998, 4:37pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/is-anyone-listening-was-re-empowerment/5843 "1998-07-06T16:37:30Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 9\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Marc\_Abrams5](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@Marc\_Abrams5](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Marc_Abrams5)\
**Post date:** [July 6, 1998, 4:37pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/is-anyone-listening-was-re-empowerment/5843/1 "1998-07-06T16:37:30Z")

</div>

> 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 🙂 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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_Gregory](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_Gregory](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory)\
**Post date:** [July 6, 1998, 6:46pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/is-anyone-listening-was-re-empowerment/5843/2 "1998-07-06T18:46:56Z")

</div>

[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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Marc\_Abrams5](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@Marc\_Abrams5](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Marc_Abrams5)\
**Post date:** [July 6, 1998, 9:04pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/is-anyone-listening-was-re-empowerment/5843/3 "1998-07-06T21:04:49Z")

</div>

> 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. 🙂

> 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\_ 🙂 ( 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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/bnhpct/32/34_2.png) [@bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/bnhpct)\
**Post date:** [July 6, 1998, 9:32pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/is-anyone-listening-was-re-empowerment/5843/4 "1998-07-06T21:32:21Z")

</div>

[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.

&nbsp;&nbsp;Bruce Nevin

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/bnhpct/32/34_2.png) [@bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/bnhpct)\
**Post date:** [July 7, 1998, 2:12am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/is-anyone-listening-was-re-empowerment/5843/5 "1998-07-07T02:12:35Z")

</div>

[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. 🙂

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?

&nbsp;&nbsp;Bruce Nevin

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Marc\_Abrams5](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@Marc\_Abrams5](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Marc_Abrams5)\
**Post date:** [July 7, 1998, 2:14am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/is-anyone-listening-was-re-empowerment/5843/6 "1998-07-07T02:14:12Z")

</div>

> 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. 🙂

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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Marc\_Abrams5](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@Marc\_Abrams5](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Marc_Abrams5)\
**Post date:** [July 7, 1998, 4:20pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/is-anyone-listening-was-re-empowerment/5843/7 "1998-07-07T16:20:08Z")

</div>

> 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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_Gregory](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_Gregory](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory)\
**Post date:** [July 7, 1998, 4:37pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/is-anyone-listening-was-re-empowerment/5843/8 "1998-07-07T16:37:46Z")

</div>

[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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/bnhpct/32/34_2.png) [@bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/bnhpct)\
**Post date:** [July 7, 1998, 5:11pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/is-anyone-listening-was-re-empowerment/5843/9 "1998-07-07T17:11:38Z")

</div>

[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?

&nbsp;&nbsp;Bruce Nevin