Hi Bob,
Nice you introduced.
Bob :
I am a social psychologist by training and left the academic environment in
1983. I am now retired and have time to think about things.
Boris :
As I'm concerned, I'm employed as teacher and social pedagogue. And I have
quite some years to retirement, specially considering the "mish-mash" in
reforms that EU is trying to enforce (coerce) momentarily.
Bob :
In the discussion with Rick I was trying to learn what he meant by coercion.
I now know that he believes that whenever a person (control system) is
controlling for the behavior of another person (control system) coercion is
occurring.
Boris :
I'm worried a little about terms "whenever" and "controlling for the
behavior of another person". That's a little too much for term coercion.
It's also possible that I don't understand American enough, so in my opinion
I will use some definitions from Kent McClelland.
My opinion is that here is not being introduced the whole story about
possibilities (strategies) of interpersonal control as you mentioned at
least one more : physical force. By my opinion "control" between people
(purposeful beings) should look more complex not just as coercion, which is
supposed to be the only form (with subforms) of whenever interpersonal
control happens.
But first I would advice you if you are retired and you have time, that you
read something more about PCT an sociology on url :
http://www.perceptualcontroltheory.org/articles/1993_McClelland_PerceptualControlAndSocialPower/index.html.
This is probably my attempt of manipulation with your reference, what will
not be so "cruel", if you are interested in such a material :)) So you see
that coercion (negative) is not the only strategy of controlling other people.
Bob :
The example of physically stopping a kid from running into the street is an
instance of positive coercion in that I have stopped a behavior from
occurring.
Boris :
Here you definitely used term "physical force" as another possibility of
interpersonal control. I imagine coercion as attempt of Person A to threaten
another shall we say Person B or kid to do what Person A want him to do or
not to do in some future time and person B or kid has a chance (freedom) to
choose.
Kent (1994) defined COERCION :
A coerces B by acting to produce a disturbance which A intends B to perceive
as initiating a sequence in which A's actions will force B to lose
perceptual control of one or more of B's currently operative goals.
PHYSICAL FORCE in PCT is defined (Kent McClelland, 1994) as :
"A uses force on B when A acts with the intent of creating a disturbance for
B which is serious enough to cause B to lose control of one or more of the
perceptual variables B is currently controlling."
And difference Kent exposed between coercion and physical force as
strategies of interpersonal control was :
"While force can interfere with perceptual control, thus preventing action,
and force taken to the extreme can kill a person. All of the other
strategies we have examined--coercion, incentives, and influence--rely on
the compliance of the person supposedly under control and are ineffective if
target person so chooses".
So I understand it as that "coercion inter-action" seems as Person B has
freedom to decide what he will do when Person A tries to control him in this
way. But when physical force is properly executed person B has a little
freedom or no freedom to choose, what he will do. He is "under control".
Bob :
I can attempt to threaten him, attempt to bribe him, or attempt to educate him.
Boris :
If you see real situation in the relationship between teachers and kids in
education process, you will understand that there's no big difference
between these strategies of interpersonal control you mentioned.
Teachers try to achieve goals as any other living control system and they
use various means to do that. And kids as another living control systems do
everything to avoid interpersonal control of teachers if not aligned with
their goals.
Education is by my opinion term that is describing the same attempt of
"one-way" controlling of children development in the manner "as adult want
children to be or to think". Avoidance and acceptance of "education" by kids
can be explained from case to case, as you have to account for many genetic
and other personality differences between teachers and kids and so their
different references if you want education to be more or less effective.
I've got an impression that you try to simplify education and to remove it
from the "menu" of possible forms of interpersonal control.
Bob :
Education takes the form - if you do X right now, you will have more control
over Z (which is some reference condition you are or could be controlling).
Boris :
Education takes also many other forms. I understand your example as attempt
of "rewarding" or "promise" of better control if control is accepted. But in
this case I don't see how educator can see what children "controls". It
seems to me that educator thinks that what he is offering to a child was
good for him, and he suppose it will be good for children. Well educators
who do education in this way are mostly wrong and most of the time in
conflict with children.
Another example of FORM OF EDUCATION CONTROL which is most often, follows
"pattern" : If you don't do X right now, I will disturb some of your
important controlled variables (X,Y,Z) to such an extent that you will
experience pain or horror, or you'll be afraid till you do, what I want you
to do.
That's why I think children don't want to go to class or they escape from
the class whenever there's a chance. That's the most frequently used pattern
in classical schooling. There are also schools that use different more
successful methods or strategies of interpersonal control. They don't use
coercion or any other violent strategy of interpersonal control.
Education as any other form of relation is inter-action between two living
control systems. EVERYTHING IS USED AND IS ALLOWED TO ACHIEVE GOALS, as in
normal inter-action between people (specially in economy): from influence,
manipulation of all kinds, coercion, punishment, reward, and even physical
force, murdors.
Teachers try to achieve their goals and usually they don't spare on means to
achieve them. And society usually allows them do that with Laws. Teacher
strategies of interpersonal control depend also from what kind of curriculum
is being officially used or what kind of "constrain" to teachers action
(coercion them) i offering.
So problem of inter-action or relationship between people (living control
systems) definitely can't be simplified.
Bob :
Education when successful helps you become more competent.
Boris :
I think you properly used term "when successful". Being "successful"
depends on many controlled variables as human are complex living control
system with thousands of variables trying to have "under" control at the
time. It's not so easy to make such a complex control system more competent.
If proper means of achieving goals are used, people could achieve positive
effect of education or they could be successful as you said and become more
competent. But as I pointed out before most I think depends from accounting
differences between PCT actors and their way of controlling or how they will
"accept" different strategies of interpersonal control. Some could respond
successfully on lecturing, coercion, punishment or rewards, but I think most
of them would respond only on kind words, "good example" and act of
cooperation.
I think that "trails and errors" and proper reorganization in closed
feed-back loop have to be used very smartly in education inter-actions.
Bob :
These distinctions become much more complicated when the variable you want
to control is my behavior. When I threaten or bribe, I am simultaneously
educating you in how to manipulate me. This is not typically what I hope to
accomplish, but is part of what makes on-going interpersonal relationships
so difficult. If we are doing things together we need to coordinate our
behaviors to control shared reference conditions (we cannot share reference
signals, but can share information about them).
Boris :
Well Bob, I think this is the way to treat problems of education. As complex
and difficult "on-going relationship" in which controlling of important
variables of both actors can continuously vary and so is inter-action, which
is dynamical in stability of both actors. Sometimes is incredible how much
"atmosphere" in classroom depends on mood of PCT actors or how they feel in
some life or education situations.
Bob :
Let me know what you think about this so far and what you might like to
focus on next.
Boris :
I must admit it's nice talking to you. So I would appreciate if you could
anyway answer my question about your description of "transmitting cultural
contingencies" to kids as you describe them in conversation with Gavin Ritz.
Or if you think that we can take them as irrelevant in the light of our new
discussion, we can forget about that.
And I'm also interested what you think about complexity of the brain and
possible ways in behavior (variations) which people use to solve the same
problem. Can we consider the number 7 milliard people and 100 billion cells
in nervous system ?
And we could talk also about traffic.
Bob :
The example of physically stopping a kid from running into the street is an
instance of positive coercion in that I have stopped a behavior from occurring.
Boris :
Well sorry Bob, but I don't see anything positive in standing beside street
and "catching" possible kids "running" on the street.
I think your concerns about child ignorance are too high. Children have also
inborn capacities for self-preserving behaviors and they are fast learners
when something is useful for their control. You can believe me on word. So
I'd advice you to turn your efforts of counseling about safety in traffic to
adults. They are who cause most accidents (drunk, driving to fast and with
no respect to other participants in traffic). Children are minor problem.
Ratio is far on adults side. And usually kids are killed when adults cause
accidents.
Best,
Boris
···
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 09:28:21 +0800, Bob Hintz <bob.hintz@GMAIL.COM> wrote:
[bob hintz 2011.04.27]
