[From Bill Powers (980624.1001 MDT)]
It now occurs to me that all this argument about coercion is about how to
classify control under different circumstances; there is no actual
difference of organization involved between controlling another's behavior
and coercing another person.
If I am controlling your behavior, and you are behaving in the way I wish
to see, I do nothing. If your behavior changes (because something disturbs
the variable you are controlling), I see an error and override your efforts
as I bring your behavior back to my reference level for it. This prevents
you from counteracting the disturbance of your perception, but it permits
me to see the behavior I want from you.
All of that happens as a result of my controlling your behavior. I am
organized in exactly the same way whether I am acting to correct your
behavior or simply observing that it is already what I want. The block
diagram would be the same, and the reference signals would be the same.
However, the "other" view is that while the coercee is acting to alter the
coercee's output, coercion is going on, and otherwise no coercion is going
on. So this definition of coercion simply classifies the behavior of a
control system according to whether it is producing output or not. The same
system with the same organization is operating in the same way whether you
say it is coercing or not coercing. Thus coercion is merely an observer's
way of classifying the behavior of a control system. The model of the two
control systems controlling as they do is already a model of coercion;
there is no separate model of coercion needed.
Best,
Bill P.