Language Lesson (was Re: Galileo bi)

CSGnet Archive CSG1999
1

[From Rick Marken (991109.0740)]

Bill Powers (991109.0449 MDT) --

My intentions would have been aligned with those of the
Church leaders only to the extent of governing what I said
and published where they might hear or see it. The reason
for such alignment would have been my fear of physical
torture, which I would have had good reason to expect they
would apply to me if I said what I really thought. The reason
would not have been that I actually agreed with them, or
had changed my thoughts about PCT. If the threat of torture
for heresy had not been present, I would have spoken freely.

After the previous discussions of "coercion," I don't know
what that word means any more, so my long statement above
will have to suffice.

The Church leaders are "giving you a choice" (between agreeing
with them or being tortured). You are "thinking responsibly"
by choosing to agree with them. There is no "coercion" involved
in this situation at all.

Best

Rick

···

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

2

[From Bruce Gregory (991109.1130 ET)

Rick Marken (991109.0740)

The Church leaders are "giving you a choice" (between agreeing
with them or being tortured). You are "thinking responsibly"
by choosing to agree with them. There is no "coercion" involved
in this situation at all.

Exactly! This is comparable to the choice I am given every day between
driving on the left and driving on the right. I am thinking responsibly
by choosing to drive on the right. There is no coercion involved in this
situation at all.

Bruce Gregory

3

[From Bill Powers (991110.0910 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (991109.1130 ET)

The Church leaders are "giving you a choice" (between agreeing
with them or being tortured). You are "thinking responsibly"
by choosing to agree with them. There is no "coercion" involved
in this situation at all.

Exactly! This is comparable to the choice I am given every day between
driving on the left and driving on the right. I am thinking responsibly
by choosing to drive on the right. There is no coercion involved in this
situation at all.

See? I was right. The word "coercion" has no meaning at all.

On the other hand, if a person makes a credible threat of torturing you if
you fail to behave as that person wants, I think that _something_ bad is
being done to you. Too bad there's no name for it.

Best,

Bill P.

4

[From Rick Marken (991110.1250)]

Me:

The Church leaders are "giving you a choice" (between agreeing
with them or being tortured). You are "thinking responsibly"
by choosing to agree with them. There is no "coercion" involved
in this situation at all.

Bruce Gregory:

Exactly!

Bill Powers (991110.0910 MDT) --

See? I was right. The word "coercion" has no meaning at all.

On the other hand, if a person makes a credible threat of
torturing you if you fail to behave as that person wants,
I think that _something_ bad is being done to you. Too bad
there's no name for it.

Me:

There _is_ a name for it. Bruce Gregory (991110.1241 EST)
says it's called "empowering". The Church leaders apparently
_empowered_ Galileo.

Marc Abrams (991110.1223) --

Keep up the great work, but _please_ stay away from coercion :slight_smile:

But coercion is part of my great work. PCT leads to conclusions
that some people may not like for political or professional
reasons. If you want to be politically correct and not talk
about those conclusions that's fine with me; but I didn't get
involved with PCT to achieve political or financial gain.

"Giving a choice" is just a politically correct way of
describing control of behavior. If the person who "gives
the choice" has the power to enforce that choice then
"giving a choice" is coercion. I don't see how anyone
who understands PCT could think otherwise; it would be like
a modern physicist thinking that the planets orbit the earth.

Best

Rick

···

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

5

[From Bruce Gregory (991110.1712 EST)]

Rick Marken (991110.1250)

but I didn't get
involved with PCT to achieve political or financial gain.

Maybe your not as unbalanced as everyone claims.

I don't see how anyone
who understands PCT could think otherwise; it would be like
a modern physicist thinking that the planets orbit the earth.

The next thing I know, you'll be telling me that the earth isn't flat and
claiming that its true shape is obvious to anyone who understands PCT. Maybe
I should pay closer attention to Bruce A's arguments....

Bruce Gregory

6

from [ Marc Abrams (991110.2109) ]

[From Rick Marken (991110.1250)]
Marc Abrams (991110.1223) --

> Keep up the great work, but _please_ stay away from coercion :slight_smile:

But coercion is part of my great work.

Maybe in your eyes. Coercion is currently an intractable problem. I'll try
using an analogy here. You might say ( with a lot of confidence ) that all
matter is made up of atoms. All behavior is made up of control processes
including coercion ) Thinkgs start getting a bit sticky when we start
forming molecules. ( the analogy to more then one control process ).
Currently according to PCT we understand that atoms ( basic control
processes ) are _foundational to _all_ behavior (matter) What is less clear
is how various control process interact and effect other processes. This
includes coercion. Coercion is a mukti-level mukti-varaible phenomenon that
has not yet been explained by _any_ current models. we know the basic
control processes that make up coercion but we don't yet knoe how it
_actually_ plays out among all the control processes.

PCT leads to conclusions
that some people may not like for political or professional
reasons. If you want to be politically correct and not talk
about those conclusions that's fine with me; but I didn't get
involved with PCT to achieve political or financial gain.

Here's where I think you cross the line. What does this have to do with a
better understanding of coercion. it seems like a personal vendetta to me.
What's wrong with making a living? It's nice to know that you, in Aerospace
Corp. can devoute hours to PCT on your companies time but not everyone is so
fortunate. If you are refering to the RTP people then I think you are making
one huge mistake.

"Giving a choice" is just a politically correct way of
describing control of behavior.

So whats the big deal Sir Gallahad. You aren't really this pompous are you
:slight_smile:

If the person who "gives
the choice" has the power to enforce that choice then
"giving a choice" is coercion.

So?

I don't see how anyone
who understands PCT could think otherwise;

You can't but others don't see or define things as narrowly as you do. Why
can't you accept that?

it would be like
a modern physicist thinking that the planets orbit the earth.

I don't think so. The distinction is this clear in _your_ mind.

As an afterthought Rick, why not do the honorable thing and return the
percentage of salary you get while working privately on PCT projects. After
all you don't need or want the money and you are not interested in any type
of gain.

Do the right thing.

Marc

7

[From Rick Marken (991110.1920)]

Me:

"Giving a choice" is just a politically correct way of
describing control of behavior. If the person who "gives
the choice" has the power to enforce that choice then
"giving a choice" is coercion. I don't see how anyone
who understands PCT could think otherwise; it would be like
a modern physicist thinking that the planets orbit the earth.

Bruce Gregory (991110.1712 EST) --

The next thing I know, you'll be telling me that the earth
isn't flat and claiming that its true shape is obvious to
anyone who understands PCT. Maybe I should pay closer
attention to Bruce A's arguments....

I promise that I'm going to spend as much time as it takes
to figure out why this is funny. But, in the mean time,
could you tell me why it's so important to you that behavior
such as the Pope's treatment of Galileo not be considered
coercive?

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 Rick Marken (991110.1920)]

I promise that I'm going to spend as much time as it takes
to figure out why this is funny.

Don't strain yourself. It's probably beyond you.

But, in the mean time,
could you tell me why it's so important to you that behavior
such as the Pope's treatment of Galileo not be considered
coercive?

In fact, Cardinal Belarmino was perfectly reasonable and a lot more
sophisticated in his understanding of models than Galileo. Galileo shot
himself in the foot by ridiculing the Pope (by putting the church's position
in the mouth of an individual named Simplicio). Owen Gingerich did a nice
piece on this in _Scientific American_ quite some time ago. If you're really
interested, I'm sure you can find it. Since you and Bill are persuaded that
all social norms are coercive, the Pope was as coercive as whoever threatens
me with dire consequences for driving on the left.

Bruce Gregory

9

[From Rick Marken (991110.2030)]

Me:

If you want to be politically correct and not talk
about those conclusions that's fine with me; but I didn't get
involved with PCT to achieve political or financial gain.

Marc Abrams (991110.2109)--

Here's where I think you cross the line. What does this have
to do with a better understanding of coercion. it seems like a
personal vendetta to me.

No vendetta. Just trying to figure out why people get so upset
when I (or Bill or Mary) point out that "giving a choice" is
control of behavior; and giving an _enforcable_ choice, as
the Church gave to Galileo, is coercion.

What's wrong with making a living?

Nothing. I didn't say there was.

If you are refering to the RTP people then I think you are
making one huge mistake.

I was referring to people (like you, Bruce Gregory, Isaac
Kurtzer -- who sent me a nasty note in private about my
Galileo comments-- and many others) who seem to have an
otherwise excellent grasp of PCT but go ballistic when the
coercive nature of "giving a choice" is pointed out. I suppose
it could be because these folks really don't think that '
"giving a choice" is coercive. But why the intensity of the
disagreement? That's why I think there is something other than
mere intellectual disagreement here. But I honestly don't
know what it is. I really don't think it's financial gain.
I'm sorry if my comment above made it seem like I was
accusing people of having this motive. I really don't know
what it is. I guess I can drop the topic. But it would
certainly be dreadful, would it not, if people reading
this list got the impression that PCT somehow shows that
Galileo was not coerced into recanting; that offering a
choice between agreeing with the Church or getting tortured
is a way to empower people.

Me:

"Giving a choice" is just a politically correct way of
describing control of behavior.

Marc:

So whats the big deal Sir Gallahad.

What's the big deal about PCT itself? What's the big deal
about calling food a reinforcer instead of a controlled
perception? What's the big deal about calling the sight
of a red light a "cue" rather than a disturbance? I think
it's a big deal because saying that you are "giving a
choice" gives a humane face to what, from a PCT perspective,
is a very ugly way to deal with other people.

Me:

If the person who "gives the choice" has the power to
enforce that choice then "giving a choice" is coercion.

Marc:

So?

I guess I just had a hard time, when I was a kid, with people
who "gave me choices" between options, neither of which I
wanted. I don't care about these people now but I guess it
does get me a tad pissed off when I see people doing that to
others and saying that it's consistent with PCT.

You can't but others don't see or define things as narrowly
as you do. Why can't you accept that?

Because I don't think you can define away evil (see Bill
Powers (991110.0910 MDT) post about the Church's treatment
of Galileo). You can define away coercion but you can't take
out the bad smell.

As an afterthought Rick, why not do the honorable thing and
return the percentage of salary you get while working privately
on PCT projects.

Why? I said I was _not_ into PCT for financial gain; I didn't
say that I was not into financial gain. My PCT posting activity
takes up very little of my time and, more importantly, it
does not interfere with my work at Aerospace.

Do the right thing.

I am. And I hope that you are too (you are if you are
experiencing no error induced stress).

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 Richard Kennaway (991111.1425 JST)]

Bruce Gregory 991110.2238 (-0500):

Since you and Bill are persuaded that
all social norms are coercive, the Pope was as coercive as whoever threatens
me with dire consequences for driving on the left.

Boggle. "If all social norms are coercive, then all social norms are
equally coercive." Reminds me of deep green cranks who say "a tree is
a dog is a cow is a boy".

Please explain how you didn't mean that.

-- Richard Kennaway, jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk, http://www.sys.uea.ac.uk/~jrk/
   School of Information Systems, University of East Anglia, Norwich, U.K.
   Temporarily at ETL, Tsukuba, Japan until 20 November 1999.
   My UEA email address is still valid during this time.

11

[From Rick Marken (991110.2140)]

Me:

could you tell me why it's so important to you that behavior
such as the Pope's treatment of Galileo not be considered
coercive?

Bruce Gregory (991110) --

In fact, Cardinal Belarmino was perfectly reasonable and
a lot more sophisticated in his understanding of models
than Galileo. Galileo shot himself in the foot by ridiculing
the Pope

This doesn't actually answer my question. I'm glad to hear
that the Pope was reasonable and wise and I don't doubt that
Galileo can be been as an asshole.

My question was this: assume that the Pope offered Galileo
a choice: recant or be tortured. You said that if this
happened (and I think there is pretty good evidence that it
did) that thos is not coercion.. I have never met anyone
(other than you and the others who are arguing along with you),
whether they were knowledgable in PCT or not, who did not
recognize this as an example of coercion. SO my question: Why
is it important to you that this not be called coercion?
Has this always been your point of view? Is it a conclusion
you have arrived at since learning PCT?

Since you and Bill are persuaded that all social norms
are coercive

I certainly don't think social norms are coercive; and
I'm quite sure Bill doesn't think so either. I think
social norms are perceptions (program level); people have
references that specify perceiving social norms at certain
levels (drive on the right) and not at other levels (drive
on the left), depending on the society they have learned
to live in. Coercion (I believe) occurs when a powerful
agent forces you (directly or with the credible threat of
force) to follow a particular social norm.

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

from [ Marc Abrams (991111.0028) ]

There are really two points i'd like to address

[From Rick Marken (991110.2030)]

I was referring to people (like you, Bruce Gregory, Isaac
Kurtzer -- who sent me a nasty note in private about my
Galileo comments-- and many others) who seem to have an
otherwise excellent grasp of PCT but go ballistic when the
coercive nature of "giving a choice" is pointed out.

Maybe your version is not as airtight as you think.

I suppose
it could be because these folks really don't think that '
"giving a choice" is coercive. But why the intensity of the
disagreement?

May I remind you that _you_ baited Bruce G. Why?

That's why I think there is something other than
mere intellectual disagreement here.

Take a look in the mirror.

But I honestly don't
know what it is. I really don't think it's financial gain.

You haven't looked long enough

I'm sorry if my comment above made it seem like I was
accusing people of having this motive.

Can you actually see that it might have?

I really don't know
what it is. I guess I can drop the topic. But it would
certainly be dreadful, would it not, if people reading
this list got the impression that PCT somehow shows that
Galileo was not coerced into recanting; that offering a
choice between agreeing with the Church or getting tortured
is a way to empower people.

Who are these mythical lurkers you concern yourself with so much. I can tell
you from the record that _no one_ has ever come on the net and said, "Gee,
I'm glad Marken made that statement. I would not be here if it wasn't for
that statement. Do you have evidence otherwise?

Me:

> "Giving a choice" is just a politically correct way of
> describing control of behavior.

Marc:

> So whats the big deal Sir Gallahad.

What's the big deal about PCT itself?

No "Political correctness"

> If the person who "gives the choice" has the power to
> enforce that choice then "giving a choice" is coercion.

Marc:

> So?

I guess I just had a hard time, when I was a kid, with people
who "gave me choices" between options, neither of which I
wanted. I don't care about these people now but I guess it
does get me a tad pissed off when I see people doing that to
others and saying that it's consistent with PCT.

Your personal feelings and justifications for anger are of little importance
to the PCT world. Right now you have more anger and personal feelings then
scientific fact when it comes to coercion.

> You can't but others don't see or define things as narrowly
> as you do. Why can't you accept that?

Because I don't think you can define away evil (see Bill
Powers (991110.0910 MDT) post about the Church's treatment
of Galileo). You can define away coercion but you can't take
out the bad smell.

I thought PCT could not define "good' or "evil". I guess, unless you can
"justify" it. heh?

Is PCT religous in nature or not? Is it or is it not _moralistic_? Please
address the mass of lurkers.

I am. And I hope that you are too (you are if you are
experiencing no error induced stress).

Not anymore. I simply ask the questions I have. Whether you answer them or
even consider them is something I have no control over. the sun will come up
tomorrow :slight_smile:

Marc

13

[From Bruce Gregory (991111.0529 EST)]

Rick Marken (991110.2140)

I certainly don't think social norms are coercive; and
I'm quite sure Bill doesn't think so either. I think
social norms are perceptions (program level); people have
references that specify perceiving social norms at certain
levels (drive on the right) and not at other levels (drive
on the left), depending on the society they have learned
to live in. Coercion (I believe) occurs when a powerful
agent forces you (directly or with the credible threat of
force) to follow a particular social norm.

Such as Air Traffic Control? Or driving on the right? Or not devoting your
front yard to a collection of used truck tires? I trust all of these are
backed by a coercive government are they not? Any law is coercive is it not?
A well armed man in an anarchistic society might be able to avoid coercion,
but no one else as far as I can see. Perhaps that's why Bill feels the term
has no meaning any longer.

Bruce Gregory

14

[From Rick Marken (991111.0720)]

Bruce Gregory (991111.0529 EST)--

I guess I'll give up on trying to get you to explain why
you think that "giving a choice" between agreeing with the
Church and getting tortured is not coercion.

Perhaps that's why Bill feels the term [coercion] has no
meaning any longer.

I think Bill (like me) feels that the term "coercion" has
meaning in virtually any forum except this one, where for
some reason, there is a strong desire not to use the word
"coercion" to refer to the phenomenon of coercion.

Best

Rick

···

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

15

[From Rick Marken (991111.0820)]

Me:

But why the intensity of the disagreement?

Marc Abrams (991111.0028) --

May I remind you that _you_ baited Bruce G. Why?

This is what's called a _non-sequiter_; it doesn't seem to
be a logical reply to my question. But I'll answer it. I
didn't mean to bait Bruce G. I was just moved by Bill's
comments about Galileo's (and other scientists') situation
with respect to the Church at that time (they faced horrible
torture if they publicly disagreed with Church dogma) to
point out the similarity of their situation to that of
anyone who is "given a choice". I was joking with Bill
about this "not" being coercion. I was then astonished
when Bruce G. volunteered that this was, indeed, not coercion.
So, once again, I am wondering what in the world is going
on here.

Me:

it would certainly be dreadful, would it not, if people reading
this list got the impression that PCT somehow shows that
Galileo was not coerced into recanting; that offering a
choice between agreeing with the Church or getting tortured
is a way to empower people.

Marc:

Who are these mythical lurkers you concern yourself with so
much.

I don't know. They are lurkers. I hear (nice things, thank
heavens) from lurkers every so often. But this is beside my
point which was that it would certainly be dreadful if
_anyone_ (lurker or not) got the impression that PCT
somehow shows that "giving a choice" is not coercive;
don't you agree?

I can tell you from the record that _no one_ has ever come
on the net and said, "Gee, I'm glad Marken made that statement.
I would not be here if it wasn't for that statement. Do you
have evidence otherwise?

I am too modest to say.

Right now you have more anger and personal feelings then
scientific fact when it comes to coercion.

We have as much scientific "fact" regarding coercion as
we do about any other aspect of control. Coercion is a
well understood, easily modeled control phenomenon. The
only "scientific" problem with coercion is that people
don't want to use the word "coercion" to describe coercion.

I thought PCT could not define "good' or "evil".

It can't. But it can discriminate forced control of behavior
(coercion) from cooperation, conflict and other control
phenomena. I have a feeling that the reason people don't want
to use the word "coercion" is because it is considered
"evil"; so the word is avoided, I think, for reasons of
political correctness ("we would never do something as evil
as "coercion") rather than scientific caution.

the sun will come up tomorrow :slight_smile:

It did indeed. And it's a beautiful day.

Best

Rick

···

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

16

[From Rick Marken (911111.0822)]

Me:

I guess I'll give up on trying to get you to explain why
you think that "giving a choice" between agreeing with the
Church and getting tortured is not coercion.

Bruce Gregory (991111.1033 EST) --

It will become clear to you just as soon as Bruce A. realizes
that cueing is not a viable alternative to control of sequence.

But cueing _is_ a viable alternative to control of sequence. If
cues cause sequences of behavior then cueing is not only a
viable alternative to control of sequence; it is the correct
alternative. There is nothing to "realize"; there is something
to _test_. Since neither you nor Bruce A. have done any tests
to show that a particular behavioral sequence is controlled
or not, I think you are both equally ignorant of the "viability"
of the cueing model.

My guess is that exactly the same mechanism is at work in both
"misunderstandings".

What is that "mechanism"?

Best

Rick

···

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

17

[From Bruce Gregory (991111.1033 EST)]

Rick Marken (991111.0720)

Bruce Gregory (991111.0529 EST)--

I guess I'll give up on trying to get you to explain why
you think that "giving a choice" between agreeing with the
Church and getting tortured is not coercion.

It will become clear to you just as soon as Bruce A. realizes that cueing is
not a viable alternative to control of sequence. My guess is that exactly
the same mechanism is at work in both "misunderstandings".

Bruce Gregory

18

[From Bill Powers (991111.0834 MDT)]

Marc Abrams (991110.2109) --

Hey, Marc, don't you get the message? "Coercion" means whatever you want it
to mean.

Best,

Bill P.

19

[From Bill Powers (991111.0839 MDT)]

Rick Marken (991110.2140)--

My question {to Bruce G] was this: assume that the Pope offered Galileo
a choice: recant or be tortured. You said that if this
happened (and I think there is pretty good evidence that it
did) that this is not coercion.

Wrong way to put the question, Rick. "Coercion" means only and exactly what
you understand it to mean, and Bruce G. does not understand it to mean the
threat of force. So for him it does not include that meaning. You can't win
an argument like that.

The real question is this: Is it OK to threaten someone with torture for
saying things you don't want him to say? And actually to torture people who
go ahead and say what they want anyhow? Whether you would call doing this
"coercion" or "applesauce" is not the point.

I really would like to know what various people think about threatening
torture, and using it if necessary when people don't do what you want. I
want to know so I can avoid the people who think it's OK, and presumably
would act the same if they felt the need. I truly don't care what they call
it. I just don't want it done to me or anyone I like.

Best,

Bill P.

. I have never met anyone

···

(other than you and the others who are arguing along with you),
whether they were knowledgable in PCT or not, who did not
recognize this as an example of coercion. SO my question: Why
is it important to you that this not be called coercion?
Has this always been your point of view? Is it a conclusion
you have arrived at since learning PCT?

Since you and Bill are persuaded that all social norms
are coercive

I certainly don't think social norms are coercive; and
I'm quite sure Bill doesn't think so either. I think
social norms are perceptions (program level); people have
references that specify perceiving social norms at certain
levels (drive on the right) and not at other levels (drive
on the left), depending on the society they have learned
to live in. Coercion (I believe) occurs when a powerful
agent forces you (directly or with the credible threat of
force) to follow a particular social norm.

Best

Rick
---

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

20

[From Bruce Gregory (991111.1116 EST)]

Bill Powers (991111.0834 MDT)

Marc Abrams (991110.2109) --

Hey, Marc, don't you get the message? "Coercion" means whatever
you want it
to mean.

Exactly. According to some on this list I am coerced by Air Traffic Control,
since I will be punished for not "choosing" to descend and maintain 6,000
feet altitude when they offer me the choice of descending to 6,000,
declaring an emergency, or facing loss of my license. I don't choose to see
it that way. I choose to perceive that ATC is doing its best to expedite
traffic and to get me safely to my destination. Calling the coercion seems
absurd to me.

Different strokes for different folks.

Bruce Gregory