Marketing Non-Coercion

CSGnet Archive CSG1999
1

[From Rick Marken (990504.1445)]

Me:

Isn't it impossible, then, to say, in advance (before it is
actually used on a particular group of people) whether or not
a particular program (approach to dealing with people) is coercive?

Tim Carey (990504.2130)--

And the angels wept ....

I don't understand this. Was there something wrong with the
question?

In my opinion it would be nonsensical to market a program as
"particularly anything" if you said that you were basing it on
PCT. Could you market a program or even a particular strategy
as rewarding or punishing?

No. But I think it would be pretty easy to advertise the
program as one based on the use of rewards and punishments.
You just look and see if the program advises the use of
contingent rewards and punishments.

Would you be prepared to predict before the event that everyone
of the people you were going to use your favourite "rewarding
strategy" on would be rewarded?

Of course not. But I wasn't taking about prediction of the
_results_ of the program. I was talking about a _description_
of the program itself. Given the definition of coercion as
control of behavior (without regard to the intentions of the
victim) I can easily say in advance whether or not a program
is coercive because I can see whether the program requires
its practitioners to control behavior. Given the definition
of coercion as occurring only when force is required, I can't
say whether a programs is coercive or not until I see whether
or not force is required on any particular individual.

Coercion is just control of behavior, where the controller
can and will use force to get the behavior he wants. As Mary
notes, there are many degrees of coerciveness. Some coercion is
way over to Mary's "left"; the strict kind where you use whatever
force is necessary to get the desired behavior. Most real life coercion
is fairly moderate; the coercer uses some force if
necessary but doesn't pull out all the stops (probably because
doing so would disturb other perceptions the coercer is controlling).
The weakest kind of coercion (Mary's "right" side) is the kind
we see on CSGNet; people yell and scream in an effort to get
others to say the "right thing" but when this fails (as it
always does), that's it.

Coercion is just one end of the "control of behavior" spectrum.
PCT shows what control of behavior _is_ and what's wrong with
using it as an approach to dealing with other people. The fact
that many people on this list, who obviously understand PCT, are
so anxious to deny that people _are_ controlling behavior (using
force _if necessary), even when there is little or need for the
use of force, is really quite fascinating. It's like denying
that a driver is controlling the position of his car when he
doesn't have to turn the steering wheel. You certainly don't
need PCT to come to that mistaken conclusion; S-R theory will
get you there without all the pain in the ass science stuff.

Best

Rick

···

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

2

[From Tim Carey (990505.0700)]

[From Rick Marken (990504.1445)]

Coercion is just control of behavior, where the controller
can and will use force to get the behavior he wants.

OK. This is a scientific forum if that's the technically accepted definition
of coercion in this forum that's fine with me .... I just take a while to
catch on, sorry.

Cheers,

Tim

3

[From Rick Marken (990505.0750)]

Me:

Coercion is just control of behavior, where the controller
can and will use force to get the behavior he wants.

Tim Carey (990505.0700) --

OK. This is a scientific forum if that's the technically
accepted definition of coercion in this forum that's fine
with me .... I just take a while to catch on, sorry.

This is, indeed, a scientific forum. But we also have to
communicate our ideas to laymen. So I think it's best to use
words under the assumption that they will be understood to
have their common "dictionary" meaning. So when we talk about
"coercion" we should assume that listeners will understand
us to mean "restraining or dominating by nullifying individual
will" (Webster's New Collegiate, 1980). This is exactly what
Bill and I have meant by "coercion" all along. There is nothing
in this _definition_ about whether or not the victim of coercion
(the "individual") _feels_ coerced; nor is there anything about
whether or not the coercer and victim are of the _same will_
(want the same thing or not). All the definition says about
the victim ("individual") is that his will is _nullified_; that
is, it _doesn't matter_ (to the coercer) what the victim
wants (wills) -- whether it's what the coercer wants or not;
the victim's will is _nullified_. The coercer simply gets
the victim to produce the behavior the coercer wants (he
restrains and/or dominates the victim).

If it takes a while for you to catch on to Bill and my
definition of coercion, rest assured that it is the "correct"
(dictionary) definition -- at least in one ex-colony;-)

Best

Rick

···

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

4

I.KURTZER (990505.0750)

[From Rick Marken (990505.0750)]

Me:

>Coercion is just control of behavior, where the controller
>can and will use force to get the behavior he wants.

Tim Carey (990505.0700) --

> OK. This is a scientific forum if that's the technically
> accepted definition of coercion in this forum that's fine
> with me .... I just take a while to catch on, sorry.

This is, indeed, a scientific forum.

Being a scientific forum depends on certain criteria, not just because you
say so. Haggling about PCT implications for religion, that PCT is for gun
control, and totally ramming you idiosyncratic definition of social
interactions (without giving a reason), whether it from you and Bill or
not, are not points for science.

But we also have to
communicate our ideas to laymen. So I think it's best to use
words under the assumption that they will be understood to
have their common "dictionary" meaning. So when we talk about
"coercion" we should assume that listeners will understand
us to mean "restraining or dominating by nullifying individual
will" (Webster's New Collegiate, 1980). This is exactly what
Bill and I have meant by "coercion" all along.

And this exactly what the ONLY person who has done the research and
is competant in PCT thinks is malarky. Personhood is irrelevant, reasons,
are, data is, models are. You have a model of one limited circumstance,
have generalized far beyound what we know, still not given me any reason
to ignore the intentions of all members in an interaction, and now are
fluffing your feathers with the PCT's "scientific defintion" of social
interaction.

and then garbage like this.

It takes a while to get used to to Bill and my
definition of coercion, rest assured that it is the "correct"
(dictionary) definition -- at least in one ex-colony;-)

This is cant, selfeffacing-aint-it-cute cant.

signing off.

i.

5

[From Rick Marken (990505.1020)]

I.KURTZER (990505.0750) --

You have a model of one limited circumstance, have generalized
far beyound what we know, still not given me any reason to
ignore the intentions of all members in an interaction

The _coercer_ ignores the intentons of the victim. The _PCT
modeller_ can't ignore the intentions of the coercer _or_
the victim. That's why the PCT modeller is able to explain
why coercion is such a horrible way for stronger control systems
to deal with weaker ones.

Best

Rick

···

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

6

[From Tim Carey (990506.0550)]

[From Rick Marken (990505.0750)]

Hi Rick,

Thanks for your reply. This is all way too hard for me. I consider myself to
be a neophite in understanding PCT so I have come to the conclusion that
coercion as it is explained in PCT is one of those elusive concepts I'll
have to leave alone until I'm better versed in the theory.

I'll try and summarise the difficulties I'm having but I'm so confused these
points probably won't make much sense.

1. You define coercion as:

Coercion is just control of behavior, where the controller
can and will use force to get the behavior he wants.

2. In the American Behavioural Scientist volume dedicated to PCT (34/1)
behaviour is defined as: "controlled perceptual experience. From an
observer's point of view, behavior corresponds to environmental variables
that are controlled by the system and the response outputs that are used to
control these variables. Lifting a cup involves producing a particular
perception of the cup; to an observer, the behavior is movement of the cup
and the arm movements that produce this result."

3. This definition doesn't clarify the situation much as I would consider
the first part "controlled perceptual experience" to be what I described
behavior as a few days ago when I said that I thought it referred to the
working of the entire loop ie perceiving, comparing, and acting. The next
sentence seems to refer to an observer's point of view and this seems to be
where qo and qi come in. The third sentence seems to be a combination of the
two different definitions: the first part of the sentence talks about
producing a particular perception (which I consider to involve perceiving,
comparing, and acting) and the second part refers to the observer's point of
view again.

4. From your definitions though (of both coercion and behavior) you seem to
be saying that coercion is controlling another person's qo and qi and you
and Bill said a couple of days ago that the term "behaviour" referred to qo
and qi. Thus, "controlled perceptual experience" seems to mean qo and qi. I
thought in a closed causal loop a broader term for "controlled perceptual
experience" would be needed then qo and qi.

5. Then you use this definition:

have their common "dictionary" meaning. So when we talk about
"coercion" we should assume that listeners will understand
us to mean "restraining or dominating by nullifying individual
will" (Webster's New Collegiate, 1980). This is exactly what
Bill and I have meant by "coercion" all along.

which talks about the other person's _will_.

I had always considered "will" to refer to r in a control system not qo and
qi. I can see how the terms "restraining" and "dominating" might refer to qo
and qi but it would seem that to "nullify individual will" would imply some
knowledge of the other individual's r.

I say this because _under this definition_ if I send someone from a room
into another room and if this was what they wanted to have happen then it
wouldn't seem to me that I have "nullified their will".

To help clarify the situation I returned to the dictionary (since you
suggested in your post to: "use
words under the assumption that they will be understood to
have their common "dictionary" meaning.)

I discovered the following:
nullify: to neutralize or make invalid
invalid: not valid
valid: sound, well grounded
neutralize: render ineffective by opposite force or effect.

It seems that neutralize seems to be the best fit here so fitting it in to
the definition would seem to say: to render ineffective an individual's
will. This is my big stumbling block, I can't see how we can know that we
have rendered a person's will ineffective by controlling their actions.

I didnt' think actions were what people "did" according to PCT. My
understanding was that what people did was to control perceptions. In my
head therefore it seems that "will" would have to have something to do with
controlled perceptions. The PCT stance on coercion however seems to suggest
that you can render ineffective a person's will by controlling their
actions. Being a bear of very little brain, this all gets too much for me.

6. Finally, in the reading of PCT that I have done so far, I have seen the
environment aspect of the model discussed in either feedback function or
disturbance function terms. I've been trying to fit a coercer, therefore,
into either the d or f part of the model. The idea of "controlling qo or qi"
seems to suggest that they are neither part of f or part of d. Is there a
"coercer function" that I'm unaware of or some other aspect of the
environment that I've missed.

Cheers,

Tim

7

[From Rick Marken (990506.0740)]

Tim Carey (990506.0550)--

This is all way too hard for me.

I think you're making it way harder than it is.

coercion as it is explained in PCT is one of those elusive
concepts

"Coercion" is control of behavior. That's not elusive, is it?

3. This definition [of behavior] doesn't clarify the situation
much

Again, you don't need a definition to understand this. Are there
any people around where you are? Look at what they are doing:
sitting, talking, walking, whatever: that's their behavior;
those are perceptual variables that you can control (if you are
willing to do whatever it takes, including the use of force); you
can control where a person sits, what they say, how fast they
walk, etc.

4. From your definitions though (of both coercion and behavior)
you seem to be saying that coercion is controlling another
person's qo and qi

All you control is a perceptual aspect of what the "victim"
is doing. The behavior controller has no idea (or interest in)
whether what the victim controls corresponds to what, in PCT,
we call an action, a controlled perception or an irrelevant
side effect of controlling.

if I send someone from a room into another room and if this
was what they wanted to have happen then it wouldn't seem to
me that I have "nullified their will".

But the behavior controller knows (and cares) nothing about this.
The behavior controller is controlling behavior even when he has
to make no special effort to keep the behavior at the reference
(kid in the other room). If you simply cannot use the word
"coercion" to describe the rare (and unknown to you) times when
you force a person to do what he wanted to to anyway, can you
at least see that you are, nevertheless, controlling the kid's
behavior? It's the same in the car driving situation; the driver
is still controlling for the car being in it's lane even when he
has to make no steering wheel movements to correct the car's path
because the car already "wants" to stay in the lane.

The PCT stance on coercion however seems to suggest that you
can render ineffective a person's will by controlling their
actions.

The PCT "stance" on coercion (behavior control) is that when you
control a perception of someone else's behavior you will
be depriving that person of their ability to control one of
more of their own perceptions.

I've been trying to fit a coercer, therefore, into either the
d or f part of the model.

A coercer is a control system in the environment of the "victim"
control system (and the victim is in the environment of the
coercer control system); the coercer's outputs (the actions used to
control the coercer's perception of the victim's behavior) will
be an insuperable disturbance to one or more of the perceptions the
victim controls.

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 Bill Powers (990506.1145 MDT)]

Tim Carey (990506.0550)--

Thanks for your reply. This is all way too hard for me. I consider myself to
be a neophite in understanding PCT so I have come to the conclusion that
coercion as it is explained in PCT is one of those elusive concepts I'll
have to leave alone until I'm better versed in the theory.

It's really not complicated at all. But when anyone explains it, it's easy
to get confused about _whose_ behavior is being talked about. When Rick
says it's just control of behavior, he really ought to make it crystal
clear about who's doing the controlling and whose behavior (that is whose
actions or what consequence of whose actions) is being referred to.

If A is controlling B's behavior, then A is (as usual) really controlling
A's perceptions, and those perceptions are of B's behavior or some direct
consequence of B's behavior. In order to control his own perceptions of B's
behavior, A normally has to influence B in such a way that B's actions
change. The most direct way to do this is to take hold of B's arms or legs,
or whatever is necessary, and to manipulate them so as to produce the
behavior A wants to see. This is like the penmanship teacher taking hold of
the child's hand and moving it so the pencil draws the letter the teacher
wants the child to draw. This is not a great way to teach penmanship, but
some people use it.

If the child doesn't want to draw the letter that way, the child will
resist. However, the letter will still be drawn as the teacher wants to see
it drawn, because the child is too weak to overcome the teacher's forces.
This is what I mean when I say that one person coerces another: the teacher
coerces the child by applying an overwhelming (relative to the child)
physical force. An observer who can't measure the forces might believe that
the child is drawing the letter, but it's really the teacher who is drawing
it by using the child's hand. The child may be exerting resistive forces,
but since the teacher completely cancels their effects, they can't be seen
by the onlooker.

In other cases, B's behavior is influenced by A less directly. A makes an
offer that B can't refuse (or is highly unlikely to refuse), like "Draw the
letter (or hold the pencil) the way I want you to or I'll destroy this toy
of yours" (after Martin Taylor's example of the Ming vase). From there you
can go on to " ... or I'll spank you", and "or I'll cut off your little
finger" and "or I'll shoot you and find someone who can draw the way I
like." If A is truly intent on controlling his perception of B's behavior,
he will simply keep upping the ante until B complies, or dies. Of course in
most cases, there are other ways to influence B, such as simply turning B
over to someone else's authority.

I don't really care what you call this way of A's using B to make B act the
way A wants to perceive. I call it coercion, but if you say it's not
coercion because I left out something (paprika, maybe), I'll be content
just to describe whatever-it-is as I did above. A acts on B to force B's
actions (or their immediate effects) to be what A wants to percieve. To
assure that this will work, A needs to have effects on B that B can't, or
most likely won't, resist. And because A generally knows little about how B
is organized, A simply has to be strong enough, and ruthless enough, to
apply as much force as it takes.

Is that closer to making sense?

Best,

Bill P.

9

[From Tim Carey (990507.0616)]

[From Bill Powers (990506.1145 MDT)]

Hi Bill,

Thanks for the reply ....

If A is controlling B's behavior, then A is (as usual) really controlling
A's perceptions, and those perceptions are of B's behavior or some direct
consequence of B's behavior. In order to control his own perceptions of B's
behavior, A normally has to influence B in such a way that B's actions
change.

Yep, I understand this and don't have a problem with any of it. In fact, I
agree with it.

If the child doesn't want to draw the letter that way, the child will
resist. However, the letter will still be drawn as the teacher wants to see
it drawn

I also understand this and can I say at this point that I would
categorically call this coercion. Can someone put that on record please. I
have never had a problem with this kind of interaction being called
coercion. Here you have identified that the child doesn't want to draw.

The ONLY problem I have with the current discussions on coercion is that the
current discussion doesn't differentiate between instances where the child
doesn't want to draw and instances where the child wants to draw as well as
he can using the teacher for assistance.

This to me is the difference between a coercive interaction and a
cooperative one and it seems odd that the current PCT definition of coercion
isn't able to discriminate between the two.

Is that closer to making sense?

Yep, thanks. Is my confusion made any clearer by the last paragraph.

It might also be of interest to know that when I teach schools about RTP I
_don't_ talk about it as being noncoercive. In fact I have corrected people
when they say it is. I don't have a problem acknowledging that there are
coercive elements at times in RTP. If a kid has disrupted twice and doesn't
want to leave the room he is currently in then coercion is certainly going
to take place. I also know of instances however where kids have told the
person in the room that they disrupted twice _intentionally_ so that they
could get to the room.

I just can't understand that it makes any sense to label both these events
as coercive because overtly they are following the same procedure.

Sorry, that was more long winded than I intended.

Cheers,

Tim

10

[From Rick Marken (990506.1530)]

Tim Carey (990507.0616)

I also know of instances however where kids have told the
person in the room that they disrupted twice _intentionally_
so that they could get to the room.

I just can't understand that it makes any sense to label both
these events as coercive because overtly they are following
the same procedure.

Coercion (control of the behavior of another person; I hope
that clears it up, Bill) refers to what only _one_ person is
doing; the person controlling the behavior. The person
controlling the behavior of the other person (like the driver
controlling the position of a car) is _controlling_ whether
there are disturbances to the controlled variable (resistance
to going to the other room from the coerced kid, frictional
forces pulling the car off course) or not. You can agree
to that, right?

If you want different words for an interaction where the
coercee wants what the coercer wants and another for an
interaction where the coercee _doesn't_ want what the coercer
wants (the situation you are willing to call "coercion") how about
calling the first interaction "accidental interference" and
the second "accidental facilitation"? The "accidental" captures
the fact that the coercer doesn't know or care about the
coercee's intention; so any interference with or facilitation
of the coercee's ability to achieve his goals is completely
accidental (the coercer doesn't intend to hurt or help the
coercee; he just wants to control the coercee's behavior).
"Interference" captures the fact that the coercer's actions
_may_ interfere with the coercee's ability to achieve his goal;
"facilitation" means that the coercer's actions _may_ help the
coercee achieve his goal.

So we have words for the _interaction_ between a coercer and
a coercee (accidental interference and facilitation) and we
have words for what the coercer is doing (coercion) and for
what the coercee is doing (controlling successfully or
unsuccessfully).

The important thing to understand -- VERY IMPORTANT -- is that
a controller (like a coercer who is controlling the behavior
of another person) has _not_ stopped controlling just because
the disturbance to the controlled variable (the perceived aspect
of the coercee's behavior that is under control) has gone to zero
(the kid stops -- or never does -- struggle).

Best

Rick

···

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

11

Hi, Tim --

I guess we're in agreement about all but one thing.

That thing is exemplified by the behavior of a young man some years ago. He
brought along his four-year-old son to our house, and we all had lunch.
During the lunch, the father stood behind his son, watching over his
shoulder, reaching in to correct every mistake the little boy made, and to
prevent mistakes -- for instance, when the little boy reached for his milk
glass, the father's hand was right there with his, to keep him from
spilling. While the little boy was not making mistakes, the father hovered,
watching like a hawk, ready to pounce.

This boy had _severe_ psychological problems at home and at school.

Most of the time this father was not applying direct force to the little
boy. Yet I would maintain that there was an atmosphere of extreme coercion
at all times. I say the little boy behaved as he did because he didn't dare
to behave otherwise.

How would you analyze that sort of relationship?

Best,

Bill P.

12

[From Tim Carey (990507.2145)]

This boy had _severe_ psychological problems at home and at school.

Given the actions of the father I'm not surprised.

Most of the time this father was not applying direct force to the little
boy. Yet I would maintain that there was an atmosphere of extreme coercion
at all times. I say the little boy behaved as he did because he didn't dare
to behave otherwise.

How would you analyze that sort of relationship?

I would probably analyze it the same way as you. I don't think that the use
of force is an essential prerequisite for coercion to occur. I just think it
involves making someone do something against their will. If the little boy
didn't want his father watching over his shoulder and wanted to do things on
his own, then I would probably think of this as a coercive interaction.

Cheers,

Tim

···

From: Bill Powers <powers_w@FRONTIER.NET>

13

[From Tim Carey (990507.2150)]

[From Rick Marken (990506.1530)]

Coercion (control of the behavior of another person; I hope
that clears it up, Bill) refers to what only _one_ person is
doing; the person controlling the behavior.

I don't have a problem with talking about one person as a person who may
have intent to coerce. I just don't see that it makes any sense to
categorise an _interaction_ as coercive when both participants in the
interaction wanted the same thing.

The important thing to understand -- VERY IMPORTANT -- is that
a controller (like a coercer who is controlling the behavior
of another person) has _not_ stopped controlling just because
the disturbance to the controlled variable (the perceived aspect
of the coercee's behavior that is under control) has gone to zero
(the kid stops -- or never does -- struggle).

Yep, I think this is an important point and I think I understand it. I don't
think, however, that the point I make above negates this.

Cheers,

Tim

14

from [ Marc Abrams (990507.0901) ]

[From Tim Carey (990507.2145)]

... . I don't think that the use

of force is an essential prerequisite for coercion to occur. I just think

it

involves making someone do something against their will.

Not necessarily. Coercion is the process of the coercer controlling ( or
trying to ) someone else's behavior. There is no regard for the coercee.
problem with this though is that other behaviors might be taking place
either simultaneously with, or intermittently with, coercion. Coercion is
but a single aspect of our overall behavior.

I think if you tried a self MOL you would see this. It gets very complex,
that is the CV's we control and how they change) very quickly. I think
describing something ( or more accurately, somebody )as _being_ such and
such, rather then it being an _aspect_ of ones behavior could easily skew
your perceptions of what someone might be controlling;; for.

Marc.

15

[From Rick Marken (990506.0830)]

Tim Carey (990507.2150)-

I don't have a problem with talking about one person as a
person who may have intent to coerce. I just don't see that
it makes any sense to categorise an _interaction_ as coercive
when both participants in the interaction wanted the same thing.

If you don't have a problem with talking about _one_ person as
the coercer then you should have no problem seeing that that
person is coercing _regardless of the intentions of the coercee_.
And then we're definitely on track!

This stuff about categorizing an _interaction_ as coercive or
not has always been a red herring. The _interaction_ was brought
up in order to claim that _one_ person can't be said to be
coercing (controlling the behavior of) another person if the
coercee wants to do what the coercer wants him to do anyway.
If you now see that one person can be coercing another
_regardless_ of the intentions of that other person, then you
can see that this "non-coercive interaction" stuff is misleading.

As I said, if you want to categorize _interactions_ so as
to distinguish interactions where the coercee wants what
the coercer wants from those where the coercee _doesn't_ want
what the coercer wants, then it makes more sense to call
them "accidental facilitation" vs "accidental interference"
interactions, respectively, rather than "non-coercive" vs
"coercive" interactions, since the coercer is coercing in
these interactions all the time, regardless of the intentions
of the coercee.

Best

Rick

···

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

16

[From Bill Powers (990507.1203 MDT)]

Tim Carey (990507.2145)--

I would probably analyze it the same way as you. I don't think that the use
of force is an essential prerequisite for coercion to occur. I just think it
involves making someone do something against their will. If the little boy
didn't want his father watching over his shoulder and wanted to do things on
his own, then I would probably think of this as a coercive interaction.

I just realized what our problem is. The little boy, most of the time,
wants to drink his milk without spilling it, eat his food with a fork and
not his fingers, not drop food on the table or in his lap, and to eat
everything put in front of him. So his wants are aligned with his father's.
But why is that? It's because he doesn't dare want anything else! If he
ever did want anything else,he would DO something else, and as soon as he
did something else, his father would jump in with overwhelming physical
force. And by this time, he knows that would happen.

If you are forced to will something, your will is effectively nullified.
Your own higher systems can't adjust what you want at lower levels in the
way you need to adjust them. You have to satisfy someone else by willing
only what is acceptable to the other person.

None of this would amount to coercion, of course, if the parties were
equal. But they are not equal. One of them is so much stronger than the
other (as well as willing to use that strength) that in any conflict the
stronger one inevitably wins. And that is what turns a mere conflict, a
mere desire to control the behavior of someone else, into coercion.

Best,

Bill P.

17

[From Tim Carey (990508.0535)]

[From Rick Marken (990506.0830)]

If you don't have a problem with talking about _one_ person as
the coercer then you should have no problem seeing that that
person is coercing _regardless of the intentions of the coercee_.

Yep, I can see that. I just don't see that the above statement necessarily
implies this ...

This stuff about categorizing an _interaction_ as coercive or
not has always been a red herring.

I think understanding interactions is important and to do that I think you
need to understand the intent of both parties.

Cheers,

Tim

18

[From Rick Marken (990507.1510)]

Me:

If you don't have a problem with talking about _one_ person as
the coercer then you should have no problem seeing that that
person is coercing _regardless of the intentions of the coercee_.

Tim Carey (990508.0535) --

Yep, I can see that.

Good. Then you can see that a teacher, say, is being
coercive when she gives a student the "choice" of doing
either A or B even if the student really only wants to do
A or B. The reason the teacher is being coercive is
because we know that she _would_ force the child to do
A or B if the child actually chose C.

You might not want to call it a "coercive interaction" when
the child wants to do A or B (though you might rethink this
once you've thought about Bill Powers' (990507.1203 MDT)
case of the child who wants to do everything his father wants
him to to). But that's OK with me; we can call the interaction
"George" if you like. As long as you can see that what the
teacher is doing is coercion we can start talking coherently
about possible alternatives to coercion.

I just don't see that the above statement necessarily
implies this ...

>This stuff about categorizing an _interaction_ as coercive or
>not has always been a red herring.

I explained it in my post. What one _calls_ an interaction
has nothing to with what a particular party to the interaction
is doing. You might not like to call an interaction "coercive"
when both control systems happen to have their goals aligned;
but that has nothing to do with the fact that one of the
control systems _is_ controlling the behavior of the other.

A "red herring" is an argument that diverts attention. The
argument about the "proper way to categorize interactions"
diverted attention from the fact that one control system in
the interaction is _demonstrably_ controlling a perceptual
aspect of the behavior of another control system (irrespective
of _what_ the other control system intends) to the fact that
you have to consider the intentions of both control systems
when modeling interactions between them. The fact that the
latter is true doesn't change the fact that the former is
true as well.

I think understanding interactions is important and to do
that I think you need to understand the intent of both
parties.

Understanding interactions is _very_ important; there is
no question that you have to understand the intentions of
both parties in order to be able to correctly model
(ie. understand) those interactions. This is true (as
I alluded to in my post on "Psychology, Sociology and PCT")
whether the interacting control systems are in one organism
(as they were in my studies of the interaction between control
systems in individuals) or two (as they were in Tom's studies
of the interaction between control systems in dyads). But that
doesn't change the fact that when a strong control system is
controlling the behavior of a weak one it is doing this
regardless of the intentions of the weak one; controlling
doesn't stop simply because there is no need for action.

Best

Rick

···

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

19

[From Tim Carey (990509.1100)]

[From Rick Marken (990507.1510)]

Good. Then you can see that a teacher, say, is being
coercive when she gives a student the "choice" of doing
either A or B even if the student really only wants to do
A or B. The reason the teacher is being coercive is
because we know that she _would_ force the child to do
A or B if the child actually chose C.

If all those conditions are satisfied then I agree that that would mean that
the teacher had an intent to coerce. I also know of many situations where,
if the child persists for long enough, the teacher (or parent) says
something like "Well do what you like"

I also think if the child discovers what it is that the teacher has in mind
then this gives the child the ability to countercontrol the teacher. Unless
the teacher has the means to physically act on the child to see the actions
she/he wants then this is a very real possibility.

I explained it in my post. What one _calls_ an interaction
has nothing to with what a particular party to the interaction
is doing.

I think when you consider an interaction you need to think about what _both_
people are doing. It's possible that one of the people is just being treated
by a rock but it's also possible that the person is controlling variables
like proximity or direction of attention. I don't think you can tell by just
passive observation.

diverted attention from the fact that one control system in
the interaction is _demonstrably_ controlling a perceptual
aspect of the behavior of another control system (irrespective
of _what_ the other control system intends) to the fact that
you have to consider the intentions of both control systems
when modeling interactions between them. The fact that the
latter is true doesn't change the fact that the former is
true as well.

I think this only applies in situations where the person has the means and
is prepared to use them to achieve what it is they want to achieve. I'm
aware that there are many of these situations. There are also many others
where the person is not prepared to go "all the way". I think this
reluctance significantly interferes with their ability to coerce.

of the interaction between control systems in dyads). But that
doesn't change the fact that when a strong control system is
controlling the behavior of a weak one it is doing this
regardless of the intentions of the weak one; controlling
doesn't stop simply because there is no need for action.

Strength is only relevant if the person is prepared to use their strength.

Cheers,

Tim

20

[From Rick Marken (990508.1850)]

Tim Carey (990509.1100) --

I agree with everything here. In particular:

Strength is only relevant if the person is prepared to use
their strength.

No question. This is what Bill caught me on. I had been
assuming that it was understood that, since we were talking
about coercion, the stronger person was able _and_ willing to
to use his strength to control. But it's good to keep in mind
that being stronger doesn't not necessarily mean that one is a
coercer. Indeed, this is why the following is one of my favorite
Shakespeare quotes:

'Tis excellent to have a giant's strength
But 'tis tyrannous to use it as a giant.
                (What play is that from?)

Best

Rick

···

--

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