Models, Meanings, Coercion

[Bruce_Gregory]

[From Bruce Gregory (980807.1017 EDT)]
Bruce Nevin (980807.0808 EDT)

If I push against my house intending to move it three feet south the
resistance that I meet does not determine my behavior. If I push against
that guy who won the sumo championship, intending to move him three feet
south, and he doesn't even deign to look at me much less move, the
resistance that I meet does determine my behavior. What makes the
difference?

I don't think there is a difference. But then I don't think you are being
coerced by sumo wrestler. If he decided to move _you_ three feet east _and_
you objected, he would be a coercer.

Bruce Gregory

[Bruce_Gregory]

[From Bruce Gregory (980807.1030 EDT)]

Bill Powers (980807.0538 MDT)

Bruce Gregory (980806.1450 EDT)--

>I am not sure what it means "to follow the rules voluntarily". I
am not even
>sure that I follow the rules voluntarily. How is voluntary compliance
>modeled in PCT?

Here is an attempt to define it:

Following a rule voluntarily means adopting the rule as your own reference
condition, and correcting any difference between the rule you perceive
yourself actually following and the rule you have adopted. To adopt the
rule as your own means to select it from a higher level (principles or
system concepts) to serve control at that level.

Following a rule involuntarily means doing so not to support your own
principles or system concepts, but to avoid pain or the loss of something
you need or want. You say "Good morning, teacher," not because
you are glad
to see her again, but because if you don't she will yell at you for not
being polite. You keep your hands to yourself not out of respect for
another student's rights, but to avoid being sent to the RTC (if you want
to avoid that). This is "involuntary" because someone else is imposing the
conditions on you that make it necessary (in your opinion) to follow the
rule. Of course the ultimate case is one where someone else seizes you and
makes you go through the motions of following the rule. In that case, it's
really the other person who is following the rule.

I put on my seat belt to avoid being thrown out of my car in a crash. I sit
quietly in class to avoid Rick's wrath. Is there really a difference? I'm
not so sure.

Bruce Gregory

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (980807.0612 MDT)

From Tim Carey (980807.0610)--

And since we need evidence to decide whether coercion IS or IS NOT
involved, what pieces of evidence are there that would suggest coercion?

...

Since we have now decided that we need to do more than just observe overt
compliance to decide whether the coercion IS or IS NOT involved; and since
you guys were the ones claiming that coercion IS involved in RTP (since
it's part of a coercive school system) wasn't the onus on you guys to
produce the evidence?

This is progress. It's been a long time, but you may remember how all this
started. I raised an objection to saying to the child, "I see you have
chosen to go to the RTC." I said that since the system is set up so the
child goes to the RTC whether the child chooses to or not, this statement
is an untruth. The only way you could conclude that the child is going
voluntarily to the RTC would be for the child to initiate a request to go
there. As several people have pointed out, this does happen occasionally,
so you can say that children do sometimes choose to go to the RTC. Sometimes.

However, when it is the _teacher_ who initiates the idea of going to the
RTC, it would be pure chance if the student had chosen that exact moment to
decide to go to the RTC instead of whatever he was doing at that time
(disrupting). So the initial choice is most likely the teacher's, not the
student's. The student might then agree, and make the teacher's choice his
own, or the student might go to the RTC only because he knows that if he
doesn't go, he will be dragged (at least according to the way the system is
formally described). The potential for either outcome is built into the
system.

You have referred to all kinds of anecdotal evidence to show that the
children under the RTP program like the school, the teachers, the RTC, and
everything else about the program. That's fine. But you don't have any
evidence that a scientist would be forced to accept: an airtight argument.
I'm sure you could get such evidence, but you won't get it as long as your
purpose is to support, praise, and justify the program on the basis of what
teachers, students, and observers say about it. No scientist would accept
an evaluation of the program from an enthusiastic supporter who will not
brook any criticisms, or from anyone whose statements could reach people on
whom the person's livelihood depends. Are people who find flaws in the
program just as likely to make comments to its managers as people who love
it? There are all kinds of unanswered questions about your evaluations of
the program, and some day they must be answered.

I'm not trying to blow these matters out of proportion. A scientifically
convincing evaluation of the program is not essential to its functioning,
and as long as the program appears to work as well as it does, the science
is of secondary importance. There are other valid criteria than those of
science. But since it is possible to come up with scientifically acceptable
conclusions, I think it would be very, very nice to do so.

Best,

Bill P.

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (980807.0849 MDT)]

i.kurtzer (980807.1003)

This seems a generous distortion of "control"; The person is controlling
because they are organized as a control system no matter if they have an
effect so minute as to considered by a single wavelength?? Notice that i do
not disagree that they are organized as a control system, only that they are
controlling. And also notice that if you say they are controlling then there
can be no such thing as coersion as you have consistantly stated that in
coersion only one person--the coercer--control's qi.

The concept of levels of control might help here. At the level of moving
the house to a new position, control is impossible. But the output of that
control system is setting a reference level for an applied force, and that
force is being applied successfully.

Best,

Bill P.

[Bruce_Gregory]

[From Bruce Gregory (980807.1220 EDT)]

Bruce Nevin (980807.1200 EDT)

I'm trying to get through the doorway and he's blocking the way, and
intends to do so against my will. I am unable to move him out of the way.
He's coercing me. According to Rick, he's determining my behavior.

Strange. I would not say that he is coercing you or determining your
behavior. I guess I am as puzzled as you are.

Bruce Gregory

[bnhpct]

[From Bruce Nevin (980807.0808 EDT)]

Rick Marken (980806.2050)

Does this (unsuccessful) control by the mover constitute the
behavior of the mover?

Yes.

Is the physical resistance of the house determining the mover's
behavior?

No.

Does the (unsuccessful) control by the victim of coercion
constitute the behavior of the victim?

Yes.

Is the control of the contested variable by the coercer also
controlling the victim's behavior?

[...] yes.

In each case the mover or the victim is unable to control successfully
because of an overpowering disturbance.

1. Mover: the source of disturbance is physical attributes of the house
(mass of house and of earth in which its foundations are laid) in a
relationship to the mover expressed by laws of physics. This disturbance
DOES NOT determine the mover's behavior of making fruitless efforts to
control.

2. Victim: the source of disturbance is physical attributes of the
controller (mass of coercer, organized to control a different value than
the victim wants to control, with output capacity much stronger than that
of the victim) in a relationship to the victim expressed by through laws of
physics. This disturbance DOES determine the victim's behavior of making
fruitless efforts to control.

Is the above a fair paraphrase of your answers?

Is there a contradiction between (1) and (2)?

If not, why not?

If I push against my house intending to move it three feet south the
resistance that I meet does not determine my behavior. If I push against
that guy who won the sumo championship, intending to move him three feet
south, and he doesn't even deign to look at me much less move, the
resistance that I meet does determine my behavior. What makes the difference?

A clarification:

Is the control of the contested variable by the coercer also
controlling the victim's behavior?

Remove the "also" (since I don't know what it refers to) and
it's "yes".

"Also" means that the coercer's control simultaneously determines the state
of the variable and the behavior of the victim. This follows if you hold
that the state of the variable is an aspect of the victim's behavior.

Hope we passed the awedition;-)

You tell me.

  Bruce Nevin

[bnhpct]

[From Bruce Nevin (980807.1200 EDT)]

Bruce Gregory (980807.1017 EDT)--

I don't think you are being
coerced by sumo wrestler. If he decided to move _you_ three feet east _and_
you objected, he would be a coercer.

I'm trying to get through the doorway and he's blocking the way, and
intends to do so against my will. I am unable to move him out of the way.
He's coercing me. According to Rick, he's determining my behavior.

I'm trying to widen my garden. My house is blocking the way. I am unable to
move it out of the way. It is not coercing me. According to Rick, it is not
determining my behavior.

In both cases, from my point of view, I meet a resistance that I cannot
overcome.

The only difference that I can see is that the sumo wrestler, from his
point of view, could control differently, making himself physically
different as I perceive him and removing the disturbance. It is a willful
disturbance to my control. The house does not have a point of view that I
know of. It cannot make itself physically different so far as I know.
(Action of weather etc. is not its action.) I do not see that this has any
bearing on whether or not my behavior is determined by the source of
disturbance. Rick does. I want to know how.

  Bruce Nevin

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (980807.1501 MDT)]

Bruce Nevin (980806.1715 EDT)--

Since no force was being applied at the time of the recantation, some
people here would claim that no coercion was taking place.

I'm trying to stay out of things for reasons stated, but you're going to
get me pissed off with this kind of waffley bullhooey. (See, I can talk
like Isaac too.)

Which is bullhooey? The statement that some people claim that no coercion
takes place unless force is actually used? Take it up with them, not me (I
trust that being pissed off is transferrable, like a good warrantee).
Actually, it's OK with me if you get pissed off. Feel free.

Bill, as you told me in Vancouver, coercion, for you, is the coercer's hand
on the victim's arm forcing it over the salt shaker, or twisting it behind
the back.

I said that would be coercion, yes. But I also include the credible threat
of the use of force under the same term. After all, the only defense
against being overpowered and hurt by someone else who is much stronger is
to say "OK, OK, I'll do it, you don't need to twist my arm again." Once you
believe a person will actually cause you pain, humiliation, etc., the
threat is merely a promise to commit the deed. You countercontrol by trying
to remove your persecutor's error before he translates it into action.

My dictionary says that to extort is to wrest or force (money,
information,etc.) from a person by violence, intimidation, or abuse of
authority. From the roots, twisting something away from someone.

Note the equivalence of violence and intimidation (the threat of violence,
which makes the victim timid).

By this definition, there is no coercion in the above situation.
There is extortion: recant or else we will twist your arm behind your back
(again).

Not by my usage of the term extortion. Coercion is forcing or threatening
to force a person to DO something, to produce some action. I use extortion
to mean obtaining something of value from a person by force or the threat
of force.

···

---------------------------------------------

[From Bruce Nevin (980806.0534 EDT)]

i.kurtzer (980806.0230) re "controlling for" and two senses of "control"

Bravo Isaac!

I remember Wayne Hershberger suggesting this convention. I would rather
appeal to the intention rather than an empirical counterfactual. For

example,

"the agent intends"--which is true whether or not control is

achieved--rather

than "the agent is controlling for"--which is true by control _not_ being
acheived. Its best to avoid counterfactuals and their ilk in definitions.

Of course, i would mainly want to distinguish these terms.

I think "controlling for," as it has been used, conveys nuances that your
alternatives fail to convey. For example, in a situation where disturbances
are causing considerable fluctuations around the reference point, an
onlooker may have a hard time figuring out what the reference level of the
controlled variable is. If you explain "I'm controlling for keeping the
left front wheel on the yellow line," the onlooker can better judge which
of your actions is related to controlling that variable in that state, and
which are accidental overshoots, mistakes, etc. Defining what you are
controlling for -- that is, the state of your perceptions that you're
trying to obtain from any combination of actions and disturbances -- tells
the onlooker first that you ARE attempting to control something, and second
that your control is less than perfect. This is very different from saying
"I'm controlling the relationship of the left front wheel to the yellow
line," which implies that your control is perfect. "Controlling for" is a
nice bit of shorthand (invented by students of mine in 1972) which has a
precise meaning, once you are informed of what it is.

Control is never, in fact, "achieved." It is characterized by some amount
of error that is sufficient to account for the action that is keeping the
perception as close to the reference condition as it is. I think we must
actively discourage speaking as if there is either control or no control.

Saying "the agent intends" describes only the reference signal; it does not
specify that any action is occurring, nor does it say how successful the
agent is in achieving the intention.

If this is science then the terms are fixed.

Yes, and it's up to us to fix them. Since we can't do this by force, our
only recourse is to use terms consistently and see who else starts using
them that way.

I have never liked the phrase "control for" and do not use it.

I like it and use it.

Is it a
loose synonym for the value of the reference signal?

No, an exact one. When you say what you are controlling for, you're
indicating which state of the perceptual variable you intend to produce, as
opposed to the states you're actually producing.

For a process of
getting a variable under control or of searching for means of control?

No, it's used only when there is a specific reference signal and a control
system in action, controlling as well as possible given the disturbances.
If there are three targets close together, and the cursor is wobbling
around in that region, it's helpful if you explain "I'm controlling for the
cursor to be just to the right of the right-hand target." In short, that is
the reference condition, and my actions are not randomly related to what
the cursor is doing, although my error bars are not zero.

It
may be useful in informal philosophical ramblings relating to PCT (I could
live without it), but it has no basis in the theory or in the practice of
modelling and testing.

Bullhooey.

Best,

Bill P.

[Marc_Abrams5]

From [Marc Abrams (980807.1745) ]

[From Bruce Nevin (980807.1707 EDT)]

Only on your break?

Rick said:

2. The control of the contested variable by the coercer IS control of

the

victim's behavior (which is unsuccessful control).

Control of the victims "actions" I think are more accurate.

To me (980807.0808 EDT) this sounded like you are saying

1'. The disturbance to the mover's control DOES NOT determine the

mover's behavior.

Only partially. If the next higher level does not change the reference
level for _that_ CV reorganization might take place. There might even
be more then one CV involved, and if one is unsuccessful the gain in
the secondary or tertiary CV might come into play. Subsumming the
first. Lotsa stuff can happen.

2'. The disturbance to the victim's control DOES determine the

victim's

behavior.

No, The coercer _tries_ to determine the victims _actions_. As a
Coercer I could care less what you ( the victim ) want to do. I am
_only_ interested in your _output_ ( i.e. actions )

In other words: when a control system cannot overcome a disturbance,
the disturbance does not determine the value of the variable that the
overwhelmed control system is unsuccessfully controlling.

When a control system cannot "overcome a disturbance" it reorganizes.
The reference levels could also change, or a "new" cv could "move to
the fore" :-). The disturbance _never_ accounts for the value of the
variable alone. The systems output ( actions) with regard to that
disturbance also contribute. But you know that :-).

What does determine the value of the controlled variable, then, if

not the

disturbance that the victim/mover is unable to overcome?

See above. Am I mistaken?

The wrestler could choose to change reference values for body
configuration etc. but he is not going to do so. He intends to be

fixed and >immovable, just like the house,

I think you have to be _very_ careful here. First he doesn't
conciously "choose" his reference level. That is determined by a
_series_ of interactions between levels that currently is Not very
well understood. As was stated by Bill in the choice/decision thread,
You "choose" your outcomes, which very well might be in imagination
mode. Your "actions" are used in "real" time to correct for
disturbances. What someone _intends_ ( imagines ) and what someone
will ultimately _do_ ( act ) are two different horsies

and neither you nor I nor the victim is going to change that. And he
doesn't tire easily, certainly not in the time frame we are concerned

with

(an episode of coercion). So how is the fact that he is a control

system

relevant?

If in fact he is being coerced, it isn't. If he is _doing_ the
coercing then _all_ that matters are the actions of the victim.
Nothing else.

How does the coercer control the victim's behavior without

determining >the value of the variable that (a) the coercer is
successfully controlling >and (b) the victim is unsuccessfully
controlling?

because as a coercer I am _only_ interested in the actions (output )
of the victim decreasing _my_ error for _my_ reference level for what
_I_ am controlling for _NOTHING ELSE_ Haven't we been here
before

Marc

[bnhpct]

[From Bruce Nevin (980807.1707 EDT)]

Rick Marken (980807.0930)--

First, a paraphrase summary to make sure of clear understanding.

In your (980806.2050) yes/no answers, you said

1. The physical resistance of the house does NOT determine the mover's
behavior (which is unsuccessful control).

2. The control of the contested variable by the coercer IS control of the
victim's behavior (which is unsuccessful control).

To me (980807.0808 EDT) this sounded like you are saying

1'. The disturbance to the mover's control DOES NOT determine the mover's
behavior.

2'. The disturbance to the victim's control DOES determine the victim's
behavior.

I asked if this was a fair paraphrase of your answers. You say no
(980807.0930). Your reasons:

* The house is not a control system, and the coercer is.

How is this relevant? (BTW, that's why I said "determine" rather than
"control.")

* The disturbance does not _determine_ the behavior of the
  controlled variable in either case.

In other words: when a control system cannot overcome a disturbance, the
disturbance does not determine the value of the variable that the
overwhelmed control system is unsuccessfully controlling.

What does determine the value of the controlled variable, then, if not the
disturbance that the victim/mover is unable to overcome?

Don't bring in additional sources of disturbance. In these scenarios I
postulated only two effects on the variable, the outputs of the ineffective
control system and the rigidity, mass, etc. of the object. No other sources
of disturbance are relevant since (as stipulated) the identified source of
disturbance is what prevents control.

In the coercion case, the reference values and nervous system of the
wrestler are making his muscles hold his body rigid, in the house case some
carpenters made the house rigid quite a while ago. The wrestler could
choose to change reference values for body configuration etc. but he is not
going to do so. He intends to be fixed and immovable, just like the house,
and neither you nor I nor the victim is going to change that. And he
doesn't tire easily, certainly not in the time frame we are concerned with
(an episode of coercion). So how is the fact that he is a control system
relevant?

Given this statement of yours, that "the disturbance does not _determine_
the behavior of the controlled variable," how is it that

2. The control of the contested variable by the coercer IS control
of the victim's behavior (which is unsuccessful control).

How does the coercer control the victim's behavior without determining the
value of the variable that (a) the coercer is successfully controlling and
(b) the victim is unsuccessfully controlling?

Bear in mind that this is simple coercion, overwhelming force, no
extortion. Compliant rape victims etc. are not relevant.

I asked some other questions (980807.0808 EDT) that you did not answer.

Is there a contradiction between (1) and (2)?

If not, why not?

In sum, the only difference (as you pointed out) is that the wrestler is a
control system and the house is not. How is this relevant?

The above statements marked * are my paraphrases. Here is what I am
paraphrasing, so you can judge whether I understood you correctly.

the disturbance to the variable controlled by
the mover is _not_ the output of another control system. The
disturbance to the variable controlled by the victim _is_. In both
cases, the disturbance does not _determine_ the behavior of the
controlled variable. But in the case of the mover, only the
mover is controlling (unsuccessfully) the behavior of the
controlled variable; in the case of the victim, the behavior
of the controlled variable is controlled by both the victim
(unsuccessfully) and the coercer (very successfully).

  Bruce Nevin

[Tim_Carey1]

[From Tim Carey (980808.1020)]

[From Bruce Gregory (980807.1030 EDT)]

I put on my seat belt to avoid being thrown out of my car in a crash. I

sit

quietly in class to avoid Rick's wrath. Is there really a difference? I'm
not so sure.

What would you need to do if you wanted to find out?

Regards,

Tim

[Tim_Carey1]

[From Tim Carey (980808.1105)]

[From Bill Powers (980807.0612 MDT)

This is progress. It's been a long time, but you may remember how all

this

started. I raised an objection to saying to the child, "I see you have
chosen to go to the RTC." I said that since the system is set up so the
child goes to the RTC whether the child chooses to or not, this statement
is an untruth.

Actually, I remember the start a little differently. I initially raised an
objection to your claim that RTP was taking place in a coercive school
system. My initial (and current) claim is that it is a misnomer to refer to
a system as coercive (or any other term you use to characterise
interactions).

I have never disagreed with your claim that saying "I see you've chosen to
go the the RTC" is inaccurate. In fact, I remember a post where Dag brought
to your attention that I had had this discussion with Ed and Tom.

However, when it is the _teacher_ who initiates the idea of going to the
RTC, it would be pure chance if the student had chosen that exact moment

to

decide to go to the RTC instead of whatever he was doing at that time
(disrupting).

What's "pure chance"? Is it possible that some children "disrupt" as a way
of controlling for "going to the RTC"?

So the initial choice is most likely the teacher's, not the

student's.

How do you know this? Exactly what "choice" are you speaking of?

You have referred to all kinds of anecdotal evidence to show that the
children under the RTP program like the school, the teachers, the RTC,

and

everything else about the program. That's fine. But you don't have any
evidence that a scientist would be forced to accept: an airtight

argument.

What evidence would it take to make an airtight argument? What exactly do I
need evidence for? Where, by the way, is your evidence?

I'm sure you could get such evidence, but you won't get it as long as

your

purpose is to support, praise, and justify the program on the basis of

what

teachers, students, and observers say about it.

How do you know what my purposes are?

No scientist would accept

an evaluation of the program from an enthusiastic supporter who will not
brook any criticisms, or from anyone whose statements could reach people

on

whom the person's livelihood depends.

How would the scientist determine they were receiving an evaluation from an
enthusiastic supporter? What difference would the psychological state of
the supporter make to the scientist's interpretation of the evaluative
data?

Are people who find flaws in the

program just as likely to make comments to its managers as people who

love

it?

How could you answer this question in an airtight way if you were sincerely
interested in finding out?

There are all kinds of unanswered questions about your evaluations of

the program, and some day they must be answered.

How do you know what my evaluation's of the program are?

I'm not trying to blow these matters out of proportion. A scientifically
convincing evaluation of the program is not essential to its functioning,
and as long as the program appears to work as well as it does, the

science

is of secondary importance.

What do you regard as a scientifically convincing evaluation?

There are other valid criteria than those of

science.

What are these?

But since it is possible to come up with scientifically acceptable

conclusions

What might these conclusions look like?

Regards,

Tim

[Cyvchoate]

i.kurtzer (980808.0235)
[From Bill Powers (980807.0849 MDT)]

i.kurtzer (980807.1003)
>>This seems a generous distortion of "control"; The person is controlling
>>because they are organized as a control system no matter if they have an
>>effect so minute as to considered by a single wavelength?? Notice that i
do
>>not disagree that they are organized as a control system, only that they
are
>>controlling. And also notice that if you say they are controlling then
there
>>can be no such thing as coersion as you have consistantly stated that in
>>coersion only one person--the coercer--control's qi.

The concept of levels of control might help here. At the level of moving
the house to a new position, control is impossible. But the output of that
control system is setting a reference level for an applied force, and that
force is being applied successfully.

My point is directed to the level of the house--there are situations where
control is not realized. Pointing to another putative levels does not detract
from the argument.

i.

[Cyvchoate]

i.kurtzer (980808.0245)

[From Bill Powers (9800807.0558 MDT)]

i.kurtzer (980806.1515)

>> You guys both need to talk about a control system that is trying to

control

>> but failing, as opposed to the case in which there is no control system

in

>> the first place.

>The person that wants to move the house fits the bill as a "control system
>that is trying to control but failing [to control]".

Yes, I'd agree that correcting one ten millionth of the error is "failing
to control."

good.

So that is one kind of "no control." How do you contrast it with the other
kind, where the person doesn't even try to control?

i'm not sure what you mean by the contrast; if you mean how as an outside
observer, we can hypothetically insert effects to the perceptual signal, at
which point the output drops off we have defined the reference signal. With a
reference signal we have a person intending some state..

i.

[Bruce_Gregory]

[From Bruce Gregory (980808.1040 EDT)]

Tim Carey (980808.1020)

> [From Bruce Gregory (980807.1030 EDT)]

> I put on my seat belt to avoid being thrown out of my car in a crash. I
sit
> quietly in class to avoid Rick's wrath. Is there really a
difference? I'm
> not so sure.

What would you need to do if you wanted to find out?

That's exactly the question I asked myself. I couldn't come up with a
procedure. That is what led me to conclude that there really is no
difference. Perhaps Rick or Bill can think of a test.

Bruce Gregory

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (980808.1001 MDT)]

Tim Carey (980808.1105)--

I'm taking you at your (our) word: no comment.

Best,

Bill P.

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (980808.1051 MDT)]

i.kurtzer (980808.0245)--

So that is one kind of "no control." How do you contrast it with the other
kind, where the person doesn't even try to control?

i'm not sure what you mean by the contrast; if you mean how as an outside
observer, we can hypothetically insert effects to the perceptual signal, at
which point the output drops off we have defined the reference signal.

With >a reference signal we have a person intending some state..

That's what I had in mind. Even when the weaker person is unable to
control, you can deduce the reference condition by observing the output and
the input quantities. When the stronger person happens to manipulate the
output so the weaker person's input matches his reference condition, the
weaker person's output force will drop to zero. Otherwise, the weaker
person's output force will be aligned against the stronger person's output
force, although it will not be large enough to significantly affect the net
force.

A weak person who is not trying to control anything affected by the
variable that the strong person is controlling will produce output forces
(if any) that are unrelated, on the average, to the output forces of the
stronger person.

As Rick has been trying to communicate, a strong person interacting with a
weak one may want to avoid conflict with the weak one. To do this, it is
sufficient for the strong person to sense the output forces of the weak
one. If those forces are resisting the forces being applied by the stronger
person, the stronger person is in fact making the weaker one experience
something different from the weaker one's intentions. It's not necessary to
know what perception of the weaker system is involved, or what its
reference level is. The resistance shows that there is an error of some
sort for the weaker system.

The stronger person can then adjust the alignment of his output forces, and
adjust their magnitude, so as not to experience opposing forces from the
weaker person. When this state comes to a final equilibrium condition, the
weaker person's perception will be close to the weaker person's reference
level for it, and the loop gain (as Kent McClelland has shown in his
studies of conflict models) will be the sum of the loop gains of the two
people. Since the stronger person will probably have a much higher loop
gain than the weaker one, the result will be that the weaker one's error
signal will be much smaller than it would be if the weaker one alone were
acting. This is true "helping." Note that the stronger system can help the
weaker one without knowing what the weaker one is controlling.

Demo. With my eyes closed, I can help you push a chair toward the position
in the room where you want it, and stop pushing when it is where you want
it, just by feeling for opposition from your pushing.

Rick is saying that if the stronger person does not take care to avoid
conflict with the weaker one, the result will be to make the weaker one
experience something unintended. The strong person will (except by chance)
exert forces that are in conflict with the magnitude of the weaker one's
forces (making the net force too large or too small) and having directions
different from the weaker one's direction of action (changing the weaker
one's perceptions in the wrong direction). In this case, the stronger
person is making the net or virtual action of the pair of systems change as
necessary to achieve the stronger person's intentions, while the weaker
one's intentions are not achieved if controlling them requires actions
other than those that the stronger person wants to see.

So there we have a technical analyis of an interaction between control
systems that doesn't use any nontechnical words where a technical one is
called for.

Best,

Bill P.

[Tim_Carey1]

[From Tim Carey (980809.0655)]

I'm taking you at your (our) word: no comment.

Thanks, if you don't I won't ... so I'm glad you took the lead ...
there are much better things to talk about.

Cheers,

Tim

[Bruce_Gregory]

[From Bruce Gregory (980808.1722 EDT)]

Bill Powers (980808.1051 MDT)

So there we have a technical analysis of an interaction between control
systems that doesn't use any nontechnical words where a technical one is
called for.

Indeed we do, and nicely stated. What I cannot apply this analysis to,
however, is the virtual coercer. The virtual coercer is obeyed because of
past coercion. There seems to be no way that the virtual coercer can do
anything but coerce despite his intentions.

Bruce Gregory

[R_Marken]

[Rick Marken (980808.1730)]

Bruce Gregory (980808.1722 EDT)--

The virtual coercer is obeyed because of past coercion. There
seems to be no way that the virtual coercer can do anything but
coerce despite his intentions.

By "virtual coercer" I presume you mean someone like Rupert's
Mom teaching class in Nigeria with a guy with a machine gun in
the back. I think it's possible to determine whether or not
the "virtual coercer" is a coercer. One way is to ask a kid to
disrupt the class (it may be hard to get volunteers until you've
convinced the guy with the machine gun to leave) and see what
the "virtual coercer" does. If the "virtual coercer" does nothing
then she is not a coercer (at least she not controlling for "no
disruptions"); if she acts in some way to stop the disruption
(including calling the guy with the machine gun back into the
room) then she is a coercer, controlling for "no disruption".

Best

Rick

···

--

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