CHUCK TUCKER [920992]
RE: On the conversation about controlling another (manipulation)
[A getting B to control B as a direct effect of A's behavior]
WTP 920828.1800; 920829.2130; 920830.1545; 920901.1000 + MT 920902
0030; 920902 11:15 + GW 920829; 920830; 920830-2; 920903-2; 920903-
3 {last post}
Let's return to to Bill's (my WTP) statement of the difference
between his and Greg's (my GW) position in WTP 920829.2130):
"Greg's thesis is that there are ways of controlling the behavior
of other people against their will or without their awareness other
than by the use of overwhelming physical force.
My thesis (WTP) is that such apparent control (a) is an illusion,
or (b) is of not importance to the "victim", or (c) is carried out
only with the aid of the "victim", or (d) rests on a threat of
force in the background. I contend that a properly fuctioning
control system cannot be controlled from the outside, so that any
apparent success by a manipulator results from some defect of
organization in the control system."
Later, Greg (920830) stated the he was mainly concerned with (c)
yet he had a few examples where some of the others may be involved
but let us consider all (a-d) of these ways that another apparently
is controlling a person (A is attempting to control B).
ILLUSION
If A asks B to do X and B is in the early phases of doing X and
completes the act then it will appear that A's request is
responsible for B's act; it will appear like A is "controlling" B.
If A is driving down the street behind B and B's auto has its
right-turn signal flashing and B slows down and turns right, A
might claim responsibility for B's right turn and/or an observer
might judge that A caused B's turning act. There are many acts
where one person will ask or figure out what another will be doing
next and either do it with them or ask him/her to do some within
that act. Most "elementary collective forms" (i.e., queues, rings,
arcs) appear as if A has "controlled" B (and even C, D,. . .) but
that is not the case; this can be clearly illustrated with the
simulation program "Gatherings" (formerly "CrowdV2"). In fact,
driving on the highways and byways may be one of the best
illustrations of persons controlling themselves while appearing to
be "controlled" by another. [I recall an article written years ago
in the Pacific Sociological Review with a title like "Taking the
Role of the other in Driving" which made a similar point.]
NO IMPORTANCE or AID OF OTHER ["Victim"]
This apparent control technique does assume that B is controlling a
perception but rather than being of "no importance" I see it as
controlling for "cooperation," "participation," "involvement" or
other names for "joint acts". It could look like Bill suggests
that B is controlling for a perception contrary to the request of A
but it is so trivial as compared with A's request that is "a
difference that makes no difference". [When someone tells me that it
"makes no difference" I take them at their word; on some occasions
I have found that they either did not "mean it that way" or
"changed their mind later" but I had a heck of a time telling the
difference] Thus, only the TEST would help determine whether B was
controlling for "no importance" or for "cooperation" or the like.
But in either case it seems to me that that B is controlling for a
perception.
All of the examples and illustration stated by Greg and those that
I infer from statements cited by me and Greg from Skinner assume
that B has a perception for an act similar to that of A's request
or a perception at a higher level that would be accomplished by
complying with A's request. What Skinner does (which he does not
recognize because he wants to be a SCIENTIST) is that he takes what
is a purpose of B and puts it outside of B in either the natural or
social environment as a stimulus or makes what was an external
stimulus into the "history" of B. This is, in part, what Bill
pointed out in "Skinner's Mistake".
The "Con man" (A in this example) can't get to "first base" without
B (the "mark") having a purpose that A will use to exploit B. My
Father ran a "boiler room" back after WWII where he and his friends
"sold" ads for a party for the Veterans and appealed to patriotism.
They did have a party for the Veterans (everything donated) and
printed enough booklets so each advertiser could see their ad and
they pocketed the rest of the money (profit on the scam was about
1000%). Jerry Lewis just "conned" people out of 43 million dollars
this last weekend based on the notion that they were helping
"victims" of a disease. We know about Jim and Tammy Bakker and
those of their ilk who swindled people out of their life savings on
the promise that they would get into Heaven. In all cases of this
type of "manipulation" (and all others) those people could not be
conned if they did not have a purpose (one of the most widespead
purposes used for a con today is "getting something for nothing"-
send your letter to Ed McMann). All "con jobs" are founded on a
person having a purpose (some of my students believe that a degree
will lead to the "good life") and "con man" (like myself) exploit
that purpose [actually I tell my students that it is not true but
few believe me]. I would limit "manipulation" to these instances
where deception is involved (like 95% of the experiments in the so-
called social and behavioral sciences, e.g., Milgram) rather than
MAKE IT AS BROAD AS THOSE SUGGESTED BY GREG (I DON'T THINK PAT IS
DECEIVING THEIR CHILDREN; DO YOU GREG?) [GOFFMAN HAS A WONDERFUL
piece on this process called "Cooling the Mark Out".
FORCE OR THREAT OF PHYSICAL (EVEN PSYCHOLOGICAL) FORCE
Force or threat of physical force will not work unless a person has
a concern for staying alive, healthy or avoiding physical harm. A
will have only limited success in getting B to do much of any
importance by using direct force since such acts make it difficult
for B to perform. This is perhaps the reason that Southern
plantations had so many slaves so some could be healing while
others were working. Forced labor and torture requires many people
to work and it is not a very efficient system. It is much more
efficient to beat a few people as examples of what could happen if
you don't obey while at the showing pity and concern while
impressing upon the people how important staying alive is for them.
If a person loses all hope of staying alive and that life is not
worth living then the possibilities of using force or threat of
force for compliance is severly reduced if not eliminated.
All of the above can be stated for the notion of "psychological"
health and well-being; this is why Watson could make more money in
business than in academia. Modern techniques of manipulation focus
on "mind control". But even here, it won't work if a person does
not believe his/her psychological well-being is a perception worth
controlling.
CONCLUSION
If a control system is functioning properly by controlling its own
conduct with regard to maintaining low error between reference
signals and perceptual signals thus being "self-governing" or
"self-regulating" then no one can DIRECTLY determine any of its
signals or the processes that are involved in such controlling.
The human organism (which I call 'self' or 'selves') is self-
programing, self-governing and autonomus.
CODA: THE DARK SIDE OF PCT
Since we can't directly determine through our action how another
will control him/herself then we must use indirect means to get
another to behave consistent with our intentions. In so far as
people use theories of human behavior based on the notions that
"stimuli cause response or behavior" then they will be unsuccessful
(or, at the best, randomly and unwittingly successful) at getting
others to comply with their requests and do what they intend for
them to do. Their success will increase or improve to the extent
that they understand PCT and how to use the TEST to determine with
great precision "what and how a person is controlling him/herself".
When one learns that and then finds out what might be the
"occasions" for reorganization then he/she is prepared to devise
ways to get another to better comply with requests and way to
devise arrangements which serve the purpose of those requests.
This, of course, could be used by those who want people to harm
themselves or others; for purposes that we might consider
"inhumane" or "destructive" to humankind. We cannot directly
determine that others won't use these ideas for other purposes. We
can only attempt to stress that when people do not treat each other
as living control systems which are self-governing then conflict
will arise and perhaps subvert the accomplishing of everyone
purposes. But, of course, we can only do this indirectly.
QUESTION AND COMMENTS
What are the references to the work(s) of Chapman and/or Agre? I
just missed it.
There is an article that will be in a future issue of the AMERICAN
PSYCHOLOGIST by James O. Prochaska, Carlo C. DiClemente and John C.
Norcross "In Search of How People Change: Applications to Addictive
Behaviors" which is quite relevant to PCT. I would like someone's
comment on it when it is published.
Regards, Chuck