Of Blind Men, Elephants and the Economy

[Bob_Hintz]

hi, Boris

I think this discussion should be moved to a new topic area. I do not at this time know how to do that. If you know how, please pick a title and I will respond to your message there. Education as an institution is very different from education as an interpersonal interaction. Kent’s article is excellent and I have read it before and will look at it again. As long as kids are required to attend school, teachers are at a disadvantage if they want to facilitate learning.

bob

···

2011/4/29 Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net

On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 09:28:21 +0800, Bob Hintz bob.hintz@GMAIL.COM wrote:

[bob hintz 2011.04.27]

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

[Bob_Hintz]

[bob hintz 2011.04.]

I keep forgetting that as you use the term “control” it has nothing to do with success, i.e., the reduction of error between perceptual signal and reference signal. Output that makes no difference in the error signal is still controlling the perception of the other persons behavior.

Have I correctly expressed your use of the term “control”.

http://www.alternet.org/story/150781/wal-mart%27s_shocking_impact_on_the_lives_of_hundreds_of_millions_of_people?akid=6899.280980.MG_F6J&rd=1&t=2

It is my intention to finish reading the above article sometime today to help me think about “the economy” and/or economic systems in general. I would be interested in whether it contains any useful information from your current point of view. I will also use the coercion topic for any future thoughts on that process.

bob

···

On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:45 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2011.04.29.0845)]

bob hintz 2011.04.28

I think I am agreeing with what Bill said and have been all along. I think

I have a better understanding what Rick was saying and how I was disagreeing

with part of it.

Great, then you must have been disagreeing with me about the same

thing that Bill was disagreeing with me about: over-applying the term

“coercion” to describe control of behavior in situations (such as

getting change) where the coercee is not unwilling to produce the

behavior desired by the coercer. This was just a linguistic

distinction. So if you agree with Bill you also agree with me about

the fact that coercion is control of behavior; it’s just that the term

“coercion” is used to describe that subset of instances of control of

behavior where the person being controlled is not willing to do what

there controller wants.

I think a distinction between informative messages and coercive messages might be useful.

I don’t see how that could possibly be. Messages are not control

systems so they can’t be coercive or non-coercive (coercion being the

control of "unwilling " behavior). They just are events that can be

perceived as “messages” by organisms with brains that are capable of

perceiving those events in that way. I agree that messages can be

used coercively or non-coercively. A message is used coercively if

it is the output of a control system that is controlling for behavior

of another person that the other person is unwilling to perform (per

Powers). A message is used non-coercively if it is the output of a

control system that is not controlling the behavior of another person

or that is controlling for behavior of another person that the other

person is willing to perform.

I am also willing to think about economic systems

Great. Then I don’t have to coerce you;-)

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken PhD

rsmarken@gmail.com

www.mindreadings.com

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2011.04.29.1030)]

bob hintz (2011.04.)

I keep forgetting that as you use the term "control" it has nothing to do
with success, i.e., the reduction of error between perceptual signal and
reference signal. �Output that makes no difference in the error signal is
still controlling the perception of the other persons behavior.

I am using the term "control" to refer to the process of control,
which involves acting to bring a perceptual variable to a reference.
The "success" of this process, in terms of error reduction -- keeping
p = r, depends on the design of the control loop (such as the gain and
slowing factors in the negative feedback control loop) as well
characteristics of the environment (such as the magnitude of
disturbances to the controlled variable) that determine how well even
the best designed control system can control.

Have I correctly expressed your use of the term "control".

Sort of. I usually talk about control under the assumption that the
control system is well designed so that it is basically successful (in
the sense that it keeps the controlled variable under control). But
there are circumstances -- such as those involved in coercive
situations -- where even the best controllers will not be able to be
consistently "successful" due to the intensity of the disturbances
(resistance from a particularly obstreperous controllee, for example)
that make control nearly impossible.

http://www.alternet.org/story/150781/wal-mart's_shocking_impact_on_the_lives_of_hundreds_of_millions_of_people?akid=6899.280980.MG_F6J&rd=1&t=2

It is my intention to finish reading the above article sometime today to
help me think about "the economy" and/or economic systems in general. �I
would be interested in whether it contains any useful information from your
current point of view. �I will also use the coercion topic for any future
thoughts on that process.

I'll take a look.

Best

Rick

···

bob
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:45 PM, Richard Marken <rsmarken@gmail.com> wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2011.04.29.0845)]

> bob hintz 2011.04.28

> I think I am agreeing with what Bill said and have been all along.� I
> think
> I have a better understanding what Rick was saying and how I was
> disagreeing
> with part of it.

Great, then you must have been disagreeing with me about the same
thing that Bill was disagreeing with me about: over-applying �the term
"coercion" to describe control of behavior in situations (such as
getting change) �where the coercee is _not_ unwilling to produce the
behavior desired by the coercer. This was just a linguistic
distinction. So if you agree with Bill you also agree with me about
the fact that coercion is control of behavior; it's just that the term
"coercion" is used to describe that subset of instances of control of
behavior where the person being controlled is not willing to do what
there controller wants.

>�I think a distinction between informative messages and coercive messages
> might be useful.

I don't see how that could possibly be. Messages are not control
systems so they can't be coercive or non-coercive (coercion being the
control of "unwilling " behavior). They just are events that can be
perceived as "messages" by organisms with brains that are capable of
perceiving those events in that way. I agree that messages can be
_used_ coercively or non-coercively. A message is used coercively if
it is the output of a control system that is controlling for behavior
of another person that the other person is unwilling to perform (per
Powers). A message is used non-coercively if it is the output of a
control system that is not controlling the behavior of another person
or that is controlling for behavior of another person that the other
person is _willing_ to perform.

> I am also willing to think about economic systems

Great. Then I don't have to coerce you;-)

Best

Rick
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[Martin_Lewitt]

[Martin Lewitt 29 Apr 2011 1825 MDT]

I've been busy for a week and now that I can come up for air, this

is the first csgnet email I’ve read. It looks like coercion is being
obfuscated again. The expectation of change from the cashier, is
part of a unwritten customary contract. A violation by the cashier
would be fraud, theft, or breech of contract. The force that a
cashier might fear, would not be coercion because of the cashier’s
initiating violation. The reason both parties traditionally say
thank you is because they both prefer the change in their state
resulting from the voluntary exchange, although the cashier’s thank
you may not be heartfelt, but merely part of the cashier’s job on
behalf of the business.

Contractual obligations are not coercion, breeching those

obligations may well result in the use of force to compel
performance or compensation, but this force is not coercion.

I hope to catch up with these threads eventually.

regards,

   Martin L.

···

On 4/28/2011 10:43 AM, Bill Powers wrote:

[From Bill Powers (2011.04.28.1005 MDT)]

  Rick Marken (2011.04.28.0800) --

    Of course, this is

how
cooperation works. But cooperation does involve

    coercion, though there is  usually no need for the use of force.

For

    example, people are taught (informed) about how to give change

when
a

    product is purchase. When I  give a cashier $2.00 for something

that

    costs $1.50, I am controlling for the cashier giving me $.50 in

    return. The cashier virtually always does this so it looks like

there

    is no coercion involved in this interaction. But we would see

that

    there is coercion (I am controlling for getting the change) if

the

    teller doesn't give me change. In that case I would start trying

to

    get my change; if no change is still not forthcoming things

might
get

    violent. So it's clear that even this apparently "free"

and

    cooperative interaction, the basis of our economic

interactions,

  I think the word coercion is getting a bit stretched out of shape

when
you include ANY attempt to control another person’s behavior. When
you
ask me to pass the salt, I put down my fork, reach for the salt,
pass it
to you, pick up my fork, and go on eating. I have let you control
my
behavior. Was there any coercion? I think not. In my definition,
coercion
always implies getting a person to produce a particular behavior
against his will . Since most behavior of importance is
produced by
willing it, we have to understand that there is, in the
background, some
threat or promise that is sufficiently credible that the person
will
anticipate (and experience) a net loss as a result of refusing. I
would
rather not do what you want me to do, but if I refuse, I know I
will end
up worse off than if I gave in and did it.

  Coercers often use this definition to show that they didn't coerce

anybody. After all, the choice was up to the person; nobody else
made
that choice for him or her. While that is true, it skips over the
fact
that the coercer creates an artificial consequence of not
cooperating,
deliberately selecting it to be more onerous to the victim than
any
consequence of cooperating. Even promising a reward is a way of
saying
that not cooperating will cause loss of the reward.

  In the case of the cashier making change, most cashiers have the

intention of doing it correctly, so there is no unwillingness to
overcome. A cashier who makes change correctly with the main
purpose of
avoiding punishment clearly wants to short-change the customer –
otherwise the threat of punishment would be irrelevant. But for a
cashier
who does not have the intention of cheating the customer, the fact
that
punishment might arise is not the main reason for counting
carefully –
pride in doing the job right is a sufficient reason and there is
no fear
of punishment. However, laws against such cheating are calculated
to work
as coercion, on those who would try to cheat.

  "Overcoming unwillingness" is, to me, the hallmark of the

coercer, whether it’s done by cool reasoning, the threat of
punishment,
the promise of reward, or simply the application of overwhelming
physical
force. Coercion may sometimes be judged justifiable – but that’s
a
different subject.

  Best,



  Bill P.



  P.S. I'll get to the economics stuff one of these days.

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2011.04.29.1900)]

Martin Lewitt (29 Apr 2011 1825 MDT)--

I've been busy for a week and now that I can come up for air, this is the
first csgnet email I've read. It looks like coercion is being obfuscated
again.

I think we've decided that the term has been over applied. I was using
it to refer to all instances of control of behavior but Bill pointed
out that the term is really only used to apply to control of behavior
that the controllee is unwilling to produce. And I agree with that.

The expectation of change from the cashier, is part of a unwritten
customary contract.� A violation by the cashier would be fraud, theft, or
breech of contract.� The force that a cashier might fear, would not be
coercion because of the cashier's initiating violation.� The reason both
parties traditionally say thank you is because they both prefer the change
in their state resulting from the voluntary exchange, although the cashier's
thank you may not be heartfelt, but merely part of the cashier's job on
behalf of� the business.

Yes, there is an implicit agreement in that situation that the
customer will pay for the product and that the cashier will return any
change if there is an overpayment. Both parties are controlling the
behavior of the other; the cashier is controlling for getting paid for
the product and the customer is controlling for getting any change
that is due.

In most cases of mutual control like this both parties submit to this
control willingly; the customer willingly gives the payment that the
cashier wants and the cashier willingly gives the change that the
customer wants. The fact that control is going is evident only when
there is a disturbance to one of the controlled variables; the
customer doesn't pay the amount that the cashier wants or the cashier
doesn't give the change that the customer wants. When this happens,
action will be taken to resist the disturbance and bring the
controlled variable back to the reference state: the cashier might do
this by says something like "That costs $9.50 and you only gave me
$5.00" or the customer might do it by saying "I gave you $10.00 for
that $5.50 item and you gave me only $1.50 in change".

So there is clearly control going on. This control rarely turns into
coercion but it will if one of the parties is unwilling to be
controlled; the customer refuses to pay the $9.50 and walks off with
the product or the cashier refuses to gives the extra $3 in change. In
those cases, actions of increasing force will be used to correct the
error.

Contractual obligations are not coercion, breeching those obligations may
well result in the use of force to compel performance or compensation, but
this force is not coercion.

The force per se is not coercion but the reason for the force --
trying to control the behavior of the person who is unwilling to
perform the contract obligations -- most certainly is.

Best

Rick

···

I hope to catch up with these threads eventually.

regards,
�� Martin L.

On 4/28/2011 10:43 AM, Bill Powers wrote:

[From Bill Powers (2011.04.28.1005 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2011.04.28.0800) --

Of course, this is how cooperation works. But cooperation does involve
coercion, though there is� usually no need for the use of force. For
example, people are taught (informed) about how to give change when a
product is purchase. When I� give a cashier $2.00 for something that
costs $1.50, I am controlling for the cashier giving me $.50 in
return. The cashier virtually always does this so it looks like there
is no coercion involved in this interaction. But we would see that
there is coercion (I am controlling for getting the change) if the
teller doesn't give me change. In that case I would start trying to
get my change; if no change is still not forthcoming things might get
violent. So it's clear that even this apparently "free" and
cooperative interaction, the basis of our economic interactions,

I think the word coercion is getting a bit stretched out of shape when you
include ANY attempt to control another person's behavior. When you ask me to
pass the salt, I put down my fork, reach for the salt, pass it to you, pick
up my fork, and go on eating. I have let you control my behavior. Was there
any coercion? I think not. In my definition, coercion always implies getting
a person to produce a particular behavior against his will. Since most
behavior of importance is produced by willing it, we have to understand that
there is, in the background, some threat or promise that is sufficiently
credible that the person will anticipate (and experience) a net loss as a
result of refusing. I would rather not do what you want me to do, but if I
refuse, I know I will end up worse off than if I gave in and did it.

Coercers often use this definition to show that they didn't coerce anybody.
After all, the choice was up to the person; nobody else made that choice for
him or her. While that is true, it skips over the fact that the coercer
creates an artificial consequence of not cooperating, deliberately selecting
it to be more onerous to the victim than any consequence of cooperating.
Even promising a reward is a way of saying that not cooperating will cause
loss of the reward.

In the case of the cashier making change, most cashiers have the intention
of doing it correctly, so there is no unwillingness to overcome. A cashier
who makes change correctly with the main purpose of avoiding punishment
clearly wants to short-change the customer -- otherwise the threat of
punishment would be irrelevant. But for a cashier who does not have the
intention of cheating the customer, the fact that punishment might arise is
not the main reason for counting carefully -- pride in doing the job right
is a sufficient reason and there is no fear of punishment. However, laws
against such cheating are calculated to work as coercion, on those who would
try to cheat.

"Overcoming unwillingness" is, to me, the hallmark of the coercer, whether
it's done by cool reasoning, the threat of punishment, the promise of
reward, or simply the application of overwhelming physical force. Coercion
may sometimes be judged justifiable -- but that's a different subject.

Best,

Bill P.

P.S. I'll get to the economics stuff one of these days.

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[Martin_Lewitt]

[Martin Lewitt 30 Apr 2011 0655 MDT]

[From Rick Marken (2011.04.29.1900)]

Martin Lewitt (29 Apr 2011 1825 MDT)--

I've been busy for a week and now that I can come up for air, this is the
first csgnet email I've read. It looks like coercion is being obfuscated
again.

I think we've decided that the term has been over applied. I was using
it to refer to all instances of control of behavior but Bill pointed
out that the term is really only used to apply to control of behavior
that the controllee is unwilling to produce. And I agree with that.

  The expectation of change from the cashier, is part of a unwritten
customary contract. A violation by the cashier would be fraud, theft, or
breech of contract. The force that a cashier might fear, would not be
coercion because of the cashier's initiating violation. The reason both
parties traditionally say thank you is because they both prefer the change
in their state resulting from the voluntary exchange, although the cashier's
thank you may not be heartfelt, but merely part of the cashier's job on
behalf of the business.

Yes, there is an implicit agreement in that situation that the
customer will pay for the product and that the cashier will return any
change if there is an overpayment. Both parties are controlling the
behavior of the other; the cashier is controlling for getting paid for
the product and the customer is controlling for getting any change
that is due.

This is way too simplistic and full of assumptions. These are intelligent animals with more than just the basest levels in their control hierarchy. The customer may already have controlled for going to an establishment that has products he values and with a reputation for giving proper change. The cashier may be controlling for increasing the chances the customer will return and for maintaining a reputation for honesty.

In most cases of mutual control like this both parties submit to this
control willingly; the customer willingly gives the payment that the
cashier wants and the cashier willingly gives the change that the
customer wants. The fact that control is going is evident only when
there is a disturbance to one of the controlled variables; the
customer doesn't pay the amount that the cashier wants or the cashier
doesn't give the change that the customer wants. When this happens,
action will be taken to resist the disturbance and bring the
controlled variable back to the reference state: the cashier might do
this by says something like "That costs $9.50 and you only gave me
$5.00" or the customer might do it by saying "I gave you $10.00 for
that $5.50 item and you gave me only $1.50 in change".

Rather that worrying about the other party being opportunisitically and shortsightedly selfish, they may be correctly trusting that the other party selfishly has the long view in mind.

So there is clearly control going on. This control rarely turns into
coercion but it will if one of the parties is unwilling to be
controlled; the customer refuses to pay the $9.50 and walks off with
the product or the cashier refuses to gives the extra $3 in change. In
those cases, actions of increasing force will be used to correct the
error.

There is control going on, but it is subjective, we can only infer it, and while their own self reports may be helpful, they may also be deceptive, self-deceptive or uninsightful. The PCT theory of value will be a subset of the subjective theory of value, it isn't based upon any imposition of an objective standard, like the labor theory of value.

Contractual obligations are not coercion, breeching those obligations may
well result in the use of force to compel performance or compensation, but
this force is not coercion.

The force per se is not coercion but the reason for the force --
trying to control the behavior of the person who is unwilling to
perform the contract obligations -- most certainly is.

Presumably, the contract was entered into voluntarily, there was an expectation of fulfillment and recourse in case of breech. Perhaps attempts at enforcement in certain circumstances would be coercive if they insisted on the letter of the contract when there was a cultural expectation of understanding regarding circumstances beyond the other parties control. The contract law environment often has mitigation for circumstances.

regards,
     Martin L

···

On 4/29/2011 8:02 PM, Richard Marken wrote:

Best

Rick

I hope to catch up with these threads eventually.

regards,
    Martin L.

On 4/28/2011 10:43 AM, Bill Powers wrote:

[From Bill Powers (2011.04.28.1005 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2011.04.28.0800) --

Of course, this is how cooperation works. But cooperation does involve
coercion, though there is usually no need for the use of force. For
example, people are taught (informed) about how to give change when a
product is purchase. When I give a cashier $2.00 for something that
costs $1.50, I am controlling for the cashier giving me $.50 in
return. The cashier virtually always does this so it looks like there
is no coercion involved in this interaction. But we would see that
there is coercion (I am controlling for getting the change) if the
teller doesn't give me change. In that case I would start trying to
get my change; if no change is still not forthcoming things might get
violent. So it's clear that even this apparently "free" and
cooperative interaction, the basis of our economic interactions,

I think the word coercion is getting a bit stretched out of shape when you
include ANY attempt to control another person's behavior. When you ask me to
pass the salt, I put down my fork, reach for the salt, pass it to you, pick
up my fork, and go on eating. I have let you control my behavior. Was there
any coercion? I think not. In my definition, coercion always implies getting
a person to produce a particular behavior against his will. Since most
behavior of importance is produced by willing it, we have to understand that
there is, in the background, some threat or promise that is sufficiently
credible that the person will anticipate (and experience) a net loss as a
result of refusing. I would rather not do what you want me to do, but if I
refuse, I know I will end up worse off than if I gave in and did it.

Coercers often use this definition to show that they didn't coerce anybody.
After all, the choice was up to the person; nobody else made that choice for
him or her. While that is true, it skips over the fact that the coercer
creates an artificial consequence of not cooperating, deliberately selecting
it to be more onerous to the victim than any consequence of cooperating.
Even promising a reward is a way of saying that not cooperating will cause
loss of the reward.

In the case of the cashier making change, most cashiers have the intention
of doing it correctly, so there is no unwillingness to overcome. A cashier
who makes change correctly with the main purpose of avoiding punishment
clearly wants to short-change the customer -- otherwise the threat of
punishment would be irrelevant. But for a cashier who does not have the
intention of cheating the customer, the fact that punishment might arise is
not the main reason for counting carefully -- pride in doing the job right
is a sufficient reason and there is no fear of punishment. However, laws
against such cheating are calculated to work as coercion, on those who would
try to cheat.

"Overcoming unwillingness" is, to me, the hallmark of the coercer, whether
it's done by cool reasoning, the threat of punishment, the promise of
reward, or simply the application of overwhelming physical force. Coercion
may sometimes be judged justifiable -- but that's a different subject.

Best,

Bill P.

P.S. I'll get to the economics stuff one of these days.

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (2011.04.30.0730 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2011.04.29.1900) --

RM: The force per se is not coercion but the reason for the force --
trying to control the behavior of the person who is unwilling to
perform the contract obligations -- most certainly is.

BP: The only reason coercion has become a subject for debate -- what it is and isn't -- is that in the background there is a feeling that coercion is a Bad Thing To Do. So the definitions that have been offered in the past were distorted by rejection of the idea that one could be doing something Bad in a given case, such as snatching a child out of the path of traffic against the child's will. If you think it's OK to save the child, you might argue that that can't be coercion because saving the child is good, and coercion is bad. In the case of breach of contract, you might argue that enforcing laws against it is coercion because laws and law enforcement shouldn't exist in the first place (anarchist view). Since laws are bad and coercion is bad, enforcing laws must be coercion. That sort of reasoning is not good for a healthy brain.

If we just drop and good and bad labels, coercion can simply be defined as I suggested, controlling or trying to control someone's behavior against his will. The adult coerces the child rather than persuading or distracting or reasoning in order to save the child's life, so it's a good thing to do in that situation. Enforcing laws is coercion, but enforcing laws is not bad because it's coercion. If it's bad or good, that's or other reasons.

Best,

Bill P.

[Martin_Lewitt]

[Martin Lewitt 30 Apr 2011 0823 ]

[From Bill Powers (2011.04.30.0730 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2011.04.29.1900) --

RM: The force per se is not coercion but the reason for the force --
trying to control the behavior of the person who is unwilling to
perform the contract obligations -- most certainly is.

BP: The only reason coercion has become a subject for debate -- what it is and isn't -- is that in the background there is a feeling that coercion is a Bad Thing To Do. So the definitions that have been offered in the past were distorted by rejection of the idea that one could be doing something Bad in a given case, such as snatching a child out of the path of traffic against the child's will. If you think it's OK to save the child, you might argue that that can't be coercion because saving the child is good, and coercion is bad. In the case of breach of contract, you might argue that enforcing laws against it is coercion because laws and law enforcement shouldn't exist in the first place (anarchist view). Since laws are bad and coercion is bad, enforcing laws must be coercion. That sort of reasoning is not good for a healthy brain.

Sounds like a good reason to use "force" instead of trying to blur distinctions that can be made with the word. There are many bad laws, and maybe even some bad precedents in contract law, and enforcement those would be coercion, although presumbly the bad precedents are precedents is so that the law and what might happen when entering in a contract are predictible, more voluntary and less coercive.

If we just drop and good and bad labels, coercion can simply be defined as I suggested, controlling or trying to control someone's behavior against his will. The adult coerces the child rather than persuading or distracting or reasoning in order to save the child's life, so it's a good thing to do in that situation. Enforcing laws is coercion, but enforcing laws is not bad because it's coercion. If it's bad or good, that's or other reasons.

Just drop the words that have the label as a significant part of the definition. "Force" has a nice value neutral meaning from its association with physics. "Threat of force" is also value neutral, because it can be both coercive and non-coercive. Yes, children are sometimes coerced by authorities in their lives, and in some cases that is an exception to coercion being bad, but plenty of times it is coercive.

regards,
      Martin L

···

On 4/30/2011 7:56 AM, Bill Powers wrote:

Best,

Bill P.

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2011.04.30.0740)]

Bill Powers (2011.04.30.0730 MDT)--

BP: The only reason coercion has become a subject for debate -- what it is
and isn't -- is that in the background there is a feeling that coercion is a
Bad Thing To Do.

Exactly. And libertarians think coercion is particularly awful
(especially when it requires that they pay taxes or have licenses for
their guns) so it can't possibly be coercion when someone is forced to
fulfill the terms of a contract (such as a rental agreement; I
currently have a renter who is not paying rent and I am planning to
coerce the heck out of the sob) into which they entered voluntarily.
I think this is a good example of how controlling for an ideology
(libertarianism in this case) can keep one from understanding how to
apply control theory to real-life behavioral situations.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (2011.04.30.0805 MDT)]

Martin Lewitt 30 Apr 2011 0655 MDT --

[Rick Marken earlier: Yes, there is an implicit agreement in that situation that the customer will pay for the product and that the cashier will return any change if there is an overpayment. Both parties are controlling the
behavior of the other; the cashier is controlling for getting paid for
the product and the customer is controlling for getting any change
that is due.

ML: This is way too simplistic and full of assumptions. These are intelligent animals with more than just the basest levels in their control hierarchy. The customer may already have controlled for going to an establishment that has products he values and with a reputation for giving proper change. The cashier may be controlling for increasing the chances the customer will return and for maintaining a reputation for honesty.

You complain that Rick's simple explanation is too simplistic and full of assumptions, and then offer even more assumptions that in no way contradict what Rick proposed. You're guessing at higher-level reasons for which the customer might be willing to pay and the cashier might be willing to give correct change, opening the door to endless and unprovable speculations all of which would end up with the customer being willing to pay and the cashier to make correct change.

RM: So there is clearly control going on. This control rarely turns into
coercion but it will if one of the parties is unwilling to be
controlled; the customer refuses to pay the $9.50 and walks off with
the product or the cashier refuses to gives the extra $3 in change. In
those cases, actions of increasing force will be used to correct the
error.

LM: There is control going on, but it is subjective, we can only infer it, and while their own self reports may be helpful, they may also be deceptive, self-deceptive or uninsightful. The PCT theory of value will be a subset of the subjective theory of value, it isn't based upon any imposition of an objective standard, like the labor theory of value.

BP: You seem not to have heard of the PCT definition of control, which is far more objective than the labor theory of value or any other economic theory. It is quite possible to determine whether a person is controlling some variable, and if so, relative to what reference level. With a little extra work, more characteristics of the control process can be measured, such as loop gain delay, linearity, and bandwidth -- all without asking the controller for any opinions or introspective information.

You can't conceal what you are controlling as long as you keep controlling it. You can disguise it or hide it among irrelevant side effects, but if you keep controlling it, a systematic procedure will uncover it.

Furthermore, as long as you keep controlling it you are vulnerable to countercontrol when someone works out what the controlled variable is. By calculated disturbances of the controlled variable, the disturber can require you to perform any behavior by making that behavior necessary in order to maintain control. It's a priciple often used in chess. When you see what the opponent is trying to do, you can often set up a "fork," a situation in which the opponent has to give up a major piece like a rook in order to avoid losing
a queen, or even to avoid losing the game.

LM: Presumably, the contract was entered into voluntarily, there was an expectation of fulfillment and recourse in case of breech. Perhaps attempts at enforcement in certain circumstances would be coercive if they insisted on the letter of the contract when there was a cultural expectation of understanding regarding circumstances beyond the other parties control. The contract law environment often has mitigation for circumstances.

BP: I think you mean "breach." The term "breech" is "the lower rear part of the human trunk." Yes, if the contract was entered into voluntarily, and if it included statements about penalties for non-compliance, the implication is that the person is willing to perform the task and to suffer the consequences of a breach of contract. In that case, enforcing the contract is a "fork" in which the person must either perform as required, or without objection give up some penalty that may or may not be more onerous than performing. Of course if the person tries to escape the agreed-upon penalty (which is not unknown to happen), force may be required, in which case coercion is involved to prevent the escape and to get others to take such penalties seriously. From the standpoint of the social system, such coercion is a good thing. From the standpoint of the offender, it is not.

If the offender resists, the purpose is to prevent the officials bringing charges from achieving their goal of applying the penalty. So the offender is also coercing, this time in a socially ambiguous way. Is the offender's coercion good, or bad? This is how lawyers make a living.

Best,

Bill P.

[Martin_Lewitt]

[Martin Lewitt 30 Apr 2011 1304]

[From Bill Powers (2011.04.30.0805 MDT)]

Martin Lewitt 30 Apr 2011 0655 MDT --

[Rick Marken earlier: Yes, there is an implicit agreement in that situation that the customer will pay for the product and that the cashier will return any change if there is an overpayment. Both parties are controlling the
behavior of the other; the cashier is controlling for getting paid for
the product and the customer is controlling for getting any change
that is due.

ML: This is way too simplistic and full of assumptions. These are intelligent animals with more than just the basest levels in their control hierarchy. The customer may already have controlled for going to an establishment that has products he values and with a reputation for giving proper change. The cashier may be controlling for increasing the chances the customer will return and for maintaining a reputation for honesty.

You complain that Rick's simple explanation is too simplistic and full of assumptions, and then offer even more assumptions that in no way contradict what Rick proposed. You're guessing at higher-level reasons for which the customer might be willing to pay and the cashier might be willing to give correct change, opening the door to endless and unprovable speculations all of which would end up with the customer being willing to pay and the cashier to make correct change.

Absolutely, I was guessing, and my guesses didn't have constant thoughts of coercive consequences going through their heads. That had probably made the decisions not to cheat on change or to trust the everyday retail transaction process days or years before the transaction. When reliable standard practices have developed, the parties can be controlling for something entirely unrelated, just pausing to listen to the change being counted out.

RM: So there is clearly control going on. This control rarely turns into
coercion but it will if one of the parties is unwilling to be
controlled; the customer refuses to pay the $9.50 and walks off with
the product or the cashier refuses to gives the extra $3 in change. In
those cases, actions of increasing force will be used to correct the
error.

LM: There is control going on, but it is subjective, we can only infer it, and while their own self reports may be helpful, they may also be deceptive, self-deceptive or uninsightful. The PCT theory of value will be a subset of the subjective theory of value, it isn't based upon any imposition of an objective standard, like the labor theory of value.

BP: You seem not to have heard of the PCT definition of control, which is far more objective than the labor theory of value or any other economic theory. It is quite possible to determine whether a person is controlling some variable, and if so, relative to what reference level. With a little extra work, more characteristics of the control process can be measured, such as loop gain delay, linearity, and bandwidth -- all without asking the controller for any opinions or introspective information.

It would be expensive to gather such individual data for macro-economic models, and your tests for whether a variable is being controlled would involve producing the hypothesis of that variable. Presumably, higher level hierarchical variables might be beyond the researcher's ken, for due to cultural or intellectual limitations, or perhaps just due to the variable being one that is rather obscure and unlikely.

You can't conceal what you are controlling as long as you keep controlling it. You can disguise it or hide it among irrelevant side effects, but if you keep controlling it, a systematic procedure will uncover it.

You underestimate complexity.

Furthermore, as long as you keep controlling it you are vulnerable to countercontrol when someone works out what the controlled variable is. By calculated disturbances of the controlled variable, the disturber can require you to perform any behavior by making that behavior necessary in order to maintain control. It's a priciple often used in chess. When you see what the opponent is trying to do, you can often set up a "fork," a situation in which the opponent has to give up a major piece like a rook in order to avoid losing
a queen, or even to avoid losing the game.

Some controlled variables aren't subject to counter control, eastern religions tend to some, as do some Christian variables.

LM: Presumably, the contract was entered into voluntarily, there was an expectation of fulfillment and recourse in case of breech. Perhaps attempts at enforcement in certain circumstances would be coercive if they insisted on the letter of the contract when there was a cultural expectation of understanding regarding circumstances beyond the other parties control. The contract law environment often has mitigation for circumstances.

BP: I think you mean "breach." The term "breech" is "the lower rear part of the human trunk." Yes, if the contract was entered into voluntarily, and if it included statements about penalties for non-compliance, the implication is that the person is willing to perform the task and to suffer the consequences of a breach of contract. In that case, enforcing the contract is a "fork" in which the person must either perform as required, or without objection give up some penalty that may or may not be more onerous than performing. Of course if the person tries to escape the agreed-upon penalty (which is not unknown to happen), force may be required, in which case coercion is involved to prevent the escape and to get others to take such penalties seriously. From the standpoint of the social system, such coercion is a good thing. From the standpoint of the offender, it is not.

Force agreed to, is not coercion.

If the offender resists, the purpose is to prevent the officials bringing charges from achieving their goal of applying the penalty. So the offender is also coercing, this time in a socially ambiguous way. Is the offender's coercion good, or bad? This is how lawyers make a living.

Fortunately, much of everyday living is free of coercion.

      regards,
              Martin L

···

On 4/30/2011 8:42 AM, Bill Powers wrote:

Best,

Bill P.

[Martin_Lewitt]

[Martin Lewitt 30 Apr 2011 1407]

[From Rick Marken (2011.04.30.0740)]

Bill Powers (2011.04.30.0730 MDT)--

BP: The only reason coercion has become a subject for debate -- what it is
and isn't -- is that in the background there is a feeling that coercion is a
Bad Thing To Do.

Exactly. And libertarians think coercion is particularly awful
(especially when it requires that they pay taxes or have licenses for
their guns) so it can't possibly be coercion when someone is forced to
fulfill the terms of a contract (such as a rental agreement;

The license and tax situations are not particularly awful compared to other forms of coercion, they are just the ones that can be influenced by participating in civil society, and imposition of these coercions seems particularly hypocritical since the perpetrators are behaving in the anonymity of the voting booth in ways they usually wouldn't dare to do in full view of their armed victims.

  I
currently have a renter who is not paying rent and I am planning to
coerce the heck out of the sob) into which they entered voluntarily.
I think this is a good example of how controlling for an ideology
(libertarianism in this case) can keep one from understanding how to
apply control theory to real-life behavioral situations.

I doubt libertarians would need an explicit understanding of control theory to take measures to collect their rent or to exercise their right to evict, and they wouldn't consider the actions coercion, but more akin to self-defense against theft and exploitation.

regards,
     Martin L

···

On 4/30/2011 8:40 AM, Richard Marken wrote:

Best

Rick

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2011.05.01.1200)]

Martin Lewitt (30 Apr 2011 1407)--

RM: I coerce the heck out of the sob) into which they entered voluntarily.
I think this is a good example of how controlling for an ideology
(libertarianism in this case) can keep one from understanding how to
apply control theory to real-life behavioral situations.

ML: I doubt libertarians would need an explicit understanding of control theory
�to �take measures to collect their rent or to exercise their right to
evict, and they wouldn't consider the actions coercion, but more akin to
self-defense against theft and exploitation.

Of course they wouldn't consider it coercion. They only consider it
coercion when they are made to pay taxes or keep their semiautomatic
weapons out of the hands of maniacs. They have no problem with
forcing other people to do what they know is right.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[Martin_Lewitt]

[Martin Lewitt 01 May 2011 1343 MDT]

[From Rick Marken (2011.05.01.1200)]

Martin Lewitt (30 Apr 2011 1407)--

RM: I coerce the heck out of the sob) into which they entered voluntarily.
I think this is a good example of how controlling for an ideology
(libertarianism in this case) can keep one from understanding how to
apply control theory to real-life behavioral situations.

ML: I doubt libertarians would need an explicit understanding of control theory
  to take measures to collect their rent or to exercise their right to
evict, and they wouldn't consider the actions coercion, but more akin to
self-defense against theft and exploitation.

Of course they wouldn't consider it coercion. They only consider it
coercion when they are made to pay taxes or keep their semiautomatic
weapons out of the hands of maniacs. They have no problem with
forcing other people to do what they know is right.

Forcing other people to perform what they what the other people voluntarily agreed was right in exchange for compensation they were willing to contract for. That is force, not coercion.

You are more than willing to send people with guns who work for the government to collect the taxes. Why do you prefer people who identify with the government to people who identify with the rights of individuals?

regards,
       Martin L

···

On 5/1/2011 1:00 PM, Richard Marken wrote:

Best

Rick

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2011.05.01.1340)]

Martin Lewitt (01 May 2011 1343 MDT)--

You are more than willing to send people with guns who work for the
government to collect the taxes. �Why do you prefer people who identify with
the government to people who identify with the rights of individuals?

I don't send people out to collect taxes, guns or no guns. And I would
prefer that no one have guns (except for hunting). However, I do
understand that there are circumstances where lethal force may be
necessary so I typically prefer to see government officials rather
than people who identify with individual rights having the guns. But
this preference depends a lot on the circumstances. There is the rare
circumstance where it's the government official about whom I'd be
concerned (as in the Jim Crow south) and in that case if anyone has to
have guns I would probably feel more comfortable with the "individual
rights" people (such a the pro-integration blacks) having them rather
than the police. But in most cases it's the individual rights people
-- the people with the white hoods, tin foil hats and government
conspiracy theories -- who seem to be the most dangerous.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[Martin_Lewitt]

[ Martin Lewitt 01 May 2011 1400 MDT]

revisiting an earlier response.

[Martin Lewitt 29 Apr 2011 1825 MDT]

  I've been busy for a week and now that I can come up for air, this

is the first csgnet email I’ve read. It looks like coercion is
being obfuscated again. The expectation of change from the
cashier, is part of a unwritten customary contract. A violation
by the cashier would be fraud, theft, or breech of contract. The
force that a cashier might fear, would not be coercion because of
the cashier’s initiating violation. The reason both parties
traditionally say thank you is because they both prefer the change
in their state resulting from the voluntary exchange, although the
cashier’s thank you may not be heartfelt, but merely part of the
cashier’s job on behalf of the business.

  Contractual obligations are not coercion, breeching those

obligations may well result in the use of force to compel
performance or compensation, but this force is not coercion.

  I hope to catch up with these threads eventually.



  regards,

     Martin L.

[From Bill Powers (2011.04.28.1005 MDT)]

    Rick Marken (2011.04.28.0800) --

      Of course, this is

how cooperation works. But cooperation does involve

      coercion, though there is  usually no need for the use of

force. For

      example, people are taught (informed) about how to give change

when a

      product is purchase. When I  give a cashier $2.00 for

something that

      costs $1.50, I am controlling for the cashier giving me $.50

in

      return. The cashier virtually always does this so it looks

like there

      is no coercion involved in this interaction. But we would see

that

      there is coercion (I am controlling for getting the change) if

the

      teller doesn't give me change. In that case I would start

trying to

      get my change; if no change is still not forthcoming things

might get

      violent. So it's clear that even this apparently "free" and

      cooperative interaction, the basis of our economic

interactions,

When claims are made for PCT that go far beyond this, why do you

assume crude short sighted selfish levels of control? And if your
thinking is at that level, why would you have any willingness to
give government officials a monopoly on force? Wouldn’t any cop
pulling over a woman on an quiet highway be thinking about whether
he could rape her, or take her gun and keep it for himself, and
wouldn’t a woman who sped up rather than stopping be controlling for
not being raped? Or is this base level only relevant in material
transactions?

PCT should be informed with some of what we have learned about human

nature, that people do control for variables above this base level,
and usually don’t have to consciously control at the base level when
rare exceptional disturbances occur. If the only motivation you can
understand is selfishness, then at least realize that at times it is
more selfish to be unselfish.

I find that organized sports in this society illustrates many of the

characteristics and limitations of human nature. We see
identification with teams, the enjoyment and appreciation of
teamwork, the scale of the squads seem to illustrate a human
limitation. “Unselfishness” and “sacrifice” are used to
characterized certain kinds of play and players, but in
circumstances where it is the obvious selfish thing to do. It
furthers the teams goals, and there are many players who wouldn’t
have lucrative careers, if they didn’t do the unselfish things, the
things that don’t show up in the stat sheet, or don’t bring the
glory, that risk the body like a star would be criticised for doing,
because a star’s injury might hurt the team more. Are they really
unselfish? Teamwork was probably important at this scale in human
evolution, and it must have been unnecessary, or difficult for
evolution to genetically justify “unselfishness” at a larger
scale. Are larger, more anonymous scales, genes for deception and
cheating might become too successful and restore the balance.

Hierarchical organizations, allowed minds with limited social scope

to coordinate larger groups, cultural innovations and spontaneous
forms of order based upon reciprocal altruism enabled forms of mass
society. PCT perhaps should be recognizing that what other
disciplines have known for awhile, that humans control for
reputation, deception, identity, fairness, helpfulness in themselves
and others.

regards,

    Martin L

···

On 4/29/2011 6:40 PM, Martin Lewitt wrote:

  On 4/28/2011 10:43 AM, Bill Powers wrote:

    I think the word coercion is getting a bit stretched out of

shape when you include ANY attempt to control another person’s
behavior. When you ask me to pass the salt, I put down my fork,
reach for the salt, pass it to you, pick up my fork, and go on
eating. I have let you control my behavior. Was there any
coercion? I think not. In my definition, coercion always implies
getting a person to produce a particular behavior * against
his will* . Since most behavior of importance is produced by
willing it, we have to understand that there is, in the
background, some threat or promise that is sufficiently credible
that the person will anticipate (and experience) a net loss as a
result of refusing. I would rather not do what you want me to
do, but if I refuse, I know I will end up worse off than if I
gave in and did it.

    Coercers often use this definition to show that they didn't

coerce anybody. After all, the choice was up to the person;
nobody else made that choice for him or her. While that is true,
it skips over the fact that the coercer creates an artificial
consequence of not cooperating, deliberately selecting it to be
more onerous to the victim than any consequence of cooperating.
Even promising a reward is a way of saying that not cooperating
will cause loss of the reward.

    In the case of the cashier making change, most cashiers have the

intention of doing it correctly, so there is no unwillingness to
overcome. A cashier who makes change correctly with the main
purpose of avoiding punishment clearly wants to short-change the
customer – otherwise the threat of punishment would be
irrelevant. But for a cashier who does not have the intention of
cheating the customer, the fact that punishment might arise is
not the main reason for counting carefully – pride in doing the
job right is a sufficient reason and there is no fear of
punishment. However, laws against such cheating are calculated
to work as coercion, on those who would try to cheat.

    "Overcoming unwillingness" is, to me, the hallmark of the

coercer, whether it’s done by cool reasoning, the threat of
punishment, the promise of reward, or simply the application of
overwhelming physical force. Coercion may sometimes be judged
justifiable – but that’s a different subject.

    Best,



    Bill P.



    P.S. I'll get to the economics stuff one of these days.

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2011.05.01.1500)]

Martin Lewitt (01 May 2011 1400 MDT) --

RM: Of course, this is how cooperation works. But cooperation does involve
coercion, though there is� usually no need for the use of force.

MT: When claims are made for PCT that go far beyond this, why do you assume
crude short sighted selfish levels of control?

We're not. What makes you think we are? And that quote of mine was
made when I was going with the idea that all inter-personal control is
"coercion". Now I've agreed with Bill to limit to only those
situations where the coercee is unwilling to be controlled. This is
just a word definition thing. PCT explains all the phenomena,
regardless of what we call them.

MT:And if your thinking is at
that level, why would you have any willingness to give government officials
a monopoly on force?

Why, if your thinking is at that level, do you think the government
is always the enemy?

MT: Wouldn't any cop pulling over a woman on an quiet
highway be thinking about whether he could rape her, or take her gun and
keep it for himself, and wouldn't a woman who sped up rather than stopping
be controlling for not being raped?� Or is this base level only relevant in
material transactions?

I really have no idea what you are you talking about here?

MT: PCT should be informed with some of what we have learned about human nature,
that people do control for variables above this base level, and usually
don't have to consciously control at the base level when rare exceptional
disturbances occur.� If the only motivation you can understand is
selfishness, then at least realize that at times it is more selfish to be
unselfish.

Have you read B:CP? Did you get to the part about the hierarchy of
controlled perceptual variables, ranging from intensities to system
concepts. I understand people as controlling perceptions ranging from
the intensity of the sound one is hearing to the principles of social
interaction (like honesty) one is following. Selfishness is one
possible principle one might live by; the only people I know who seem
to be consistently controlling for that principal (or advocating for
consistent control of that principal) are Ayn Randians, libertarians
and Rethuglicans.

Hierarchical organizations, allowed minds with limited social scope to
coordinate larger groups, cultural innovations and spontaneous forms of
order based upon reciprocal altruism enabled forms of mass society.� PCT
perhaps should be recognizing that what other disciplines have known for
awhile, that humans control for reputation, deception, identity, fairness,
helpfulness in themselves and others.

Gee, how could we have missed that;-)

You really should study PCT someday. But trust me (I'm a doctor);
you'll never understand it or how it applies to real life until you
come to it sans preconceptions.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[Bob_Hintz]

bob hintz 2011.05.02

Below is a brief article that I believe Rick could have written. The first myth is documented the other 12 are asserted. I am wondering if this might help refocus the topic on economics.

bob

http://www.alternet.org/story/150799/13_conservative_myths_about_taxes_–_debunked?akid=6909.280980.dN6PC7&rd=1&t=18

···

On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 6:01 AM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2011.05.01.1500)]

Martin Lewitt (01 May 2011 1400 MDT) –

RM: Of course, this is how cooperation works. But cooperation does involve
coercion, though there is usually no need for the use of force.

MT: When claims are made for PCT that go far beyond this, why do you assume
crude short sighted selfish levels of control?

We’re not. What makes you think we are? And that quote of mine was

made when I was going with the idea that all inter-personal control is

“coercion”. Now I’ve agreed with Bill to limit to only those

situations where the coercee is unwilling to be controlled. This is

just a word definition thing. PCT explains all the phenomena,

regardless of what we call them.

MT:And if your thinking is at
that level, why would you have any willingness to give government officials

a monopoly on force?

Why, if your thinking is at that level, do you think the government

is always the enemy?

MT: Wouldn’t any cop pulling over a woman on an quiet
highway be thinking about whether he could rape her, or take her gun and

keep it for himself, and wouldn’t a woman who sped up rather than stopping

be controlling for not being raped? Or is this base level only relevant in

material transactions?

I really have no idea what you are you talking about here?

MT: PCT should be informed with some of what we have learned about human nature,
that people do control for variables above this base level, and usually

don’t have to consciously control at the base level when rare exceptional

disturbances occur. If the only motivation you can understand is

selfishness, then at least realize that at times it is more selfish to be

unselfish.

Have you read B:CP? Did you get to the part about the hierarchy of

controlled perceptual variables, ranging from intensities to system

concepts. I understand people as controlling perceptions ranging from

the intensity of the sound one is hearing to the principles of social

interaction (like honesty) one is following. Selfishness is one

possible principle one might live by; the only people I know who seem

to be consistently controlling for that principal (or advocating for

consistent control of that principal) are Ayn Randians, libertarians

and Rethuglicans.

Hierarchical organizations, allowed minds with limited social scope to

coordinate larger groups, cultural innovations and spontaneous forms of

order based upon reciprocal altruism enabled forms of mass society. PCT

perhaps should be recognizing that what other disciplines have known for

awhile, that humans control for reputation, deception, identity, fairness,

helpfulness in themselves and others.

Gee, how could we have missed that;-)

You really should study PCT someday. But trust me (I’m a doctor);

you’ll never understand it or how it applies to real life until you

come to it sans preconceptions.

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken PhD

rsmarken@gmail.com

www.mindreadings.com

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2011.05.03.0830)]

bob hintz (2011.05.02)--

Below is a brief article that I believe Rick could have written.� The first
myth is documented the other 12 are asserted.� I am wondering if this might
help refocus the topic on economics.

This article is terrific. It does describe facts about the economy
(facts that are inconsistent with the "conservative", which is
basically the conventional, view of the economy) that I have known for
some time. When I discovered the availability of macroeconomic data on
the internet -- data easily analyzed using a spreadsheet -- I saw that
virtually all the big generalities I had heard about basic "truths" of
economics were, well, false.

One of my first discoveries was that the Fed does not control
inflation, even though it thinks it does. I have a graph of the
relationship between the Fed's discount rate and inflation at the end
of my H. economicus paper (http://www.mindreadings.com/HMod.pdf). This
graph shows that the Fed discount rate (the higher it is, the more
money is taken out of circulation thus, presumably, reducing
inflationary pressure) tracks inflation, it doesn't control it. I
made this graph myself based on data available on the net (at the Fed
site, of all things) but the identical graph showed up a few years
later in an excellent book called "Wall Street Capitalism" by Ray
Canterberry. So I was "scooped" several years after exploding this
myth myself. But I was glad that Canterberry discovered this fact
completely independently of me.

Another myth is that Republicans are the best stewards of the economy.
So I looked at economic growth rates during Republican and Democratic
administrations since 1900 and found that economic growth was
consistently higher during Democratic administrations; this was true
even when the Hoover administration was eliminated from the analysis.
A couple years after I made this discovery, Michael Kinsley, then a
columnist for the LA Times, reported the same findings in one of his
columns. Scooped again. What no one has pointed out yet, though, is
that, since 1900, unemployment has always increased during Republican
administrations and decreased during Democratic ones. So much for the
benefits of reduced regulation and taxation.

I discovered all kinds of other economic myth exploding facts, some of
which are reported in the article you cite. So there are other people
who know what I know about the economy. The problem is that, in
economics, ideology trumps facts. So it doesn't really matter what the
facts say; it's what _should_ happen that matters in economics.
Another way of saying this is that, in economics, theory prevails over
data. What I am aiming at is a theory of economics that can be
_tested_ by comparing it's quantitative predictions to what is
actually observed.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[Martin_Lewitt]

[Martin Lewitt 3 May 2011 1307 MDT]

Sorry, even the first myth isn't "documented", New Jersey can raise 

its taxes, and still have lower tax rates than New York and
Pennsylvania, Maryland and Connecticut, the publicity of the raised
taxes might even have made people in these others states more aware
of such disparities. There are probably other variables that aren’t
controlled.

regards,

    Martin

···

On 5/2/2011 12:28 PM, Bob Hintz wrote:

bob hintz 2011.05.02

  Below is a brief article that I believe Rick could have written. 

The first myth is documented the other 12 are asserted. I am
wondering if this might help refocus the topic on economics.

  bob



  [http://www.alternet.org/story/150799/13_conservative_myths_about_taxes_--_debunked?akid=6909.280980.dN6PC7&rd=1&t=18](http://www.alternet.org/story/150799/13_conservative_myths_about_taxes_--_debunked?akid=6909.280980.dN6PC7&rd=1&t=18)


    On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 6:01 AM, Richard > Marken <rsmarken@gmail.com> >         wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2011.05.01.1500)]

      > Martin Lewitt (01 May 2011 1400 MDT) --



      > RM: Of course, this is how cooperation works. But

cooperation does involve
> coercion, though there is usually no
need for the use of force.

      > MT: When claims are made for PCT that go far beyond this,

why do you assume
> crude short sighted selfish levels of
control?

      We're not. What makes you think we are? And that quote of mine

was

      made when I was going with the idea that all inter-personal

control is

      "coercion". Now I've agreed with Bill to limit to only those

      situations where the coercee is unwilling to be controlled.

This is

      just a word definition thing. PCT explains all the phenomena,

      regardless of what we call them.



      > MT:And if your thinking is at
        > that level, why would you have any

willingness to give government officials

        > a monopoly on force?

      Why, if your thinking is at that level, do you think the

government

      is always the enemy?



      > MT: Wouldn't any cop pulling over a woman on an quiet
        > highway be thinking about whether he

could rape her, or take her gun and

        > keep it for himself, and wouldn't a woman who sped up

rather than stopping

        > be controlling for not being raped?  Or is this base

level only relevant in

        > material transactions?

I really have no idea what you are you talking about here?

      >MT: PCT should be informed with some of what we have

learned about human nature,
> that people do control for variables
above this base level, and usually

        > don't have to consciously control at the base level

when rare exceptional

        > disturbances occur.  If the only motivation you can

understand is

        > selfishness, then at least realize that at times it is

more selfish to be

        > unselfish.

      Have you read B:CP? Did you get to the part about the

hierarchy of

      controlled perceptual variables, ranging from intensities to

system

      concepts.  I understand people as controlling perceptions

ranging from

      the intensity of the sound one is hearing to the principles of

social

      interaction (like honesty) one is following. Selfishness is

one

      possible principle one might live by; the only people I know

who seem

      to be consistently controlling for that principal (or

advocating for

      consistent control of that principal) are Ayn Randians,

libertarians

      and Rethuglicans.


        > Hierarchical organizations, allowed minds with limited

social scope to

        > coordinate larger groups, cultural innovations and

spontaneous forms of

        > order based upon reciprocal altruism enabled forms of

mass society. PCT

        > perhaps should be recognizing that what other

disciplines have known for

        > awhile, that humans control for reputation, deception,

identity, fairness,

        > helpfulness in themselves and others.

Gee, how could we have missed that;-)

      You really should study PCT someday. But trust me (I'm a

doctor);

      you'll never understand it or how it applies to real life

until you

      come to it sans preconceptions.



      Best



      Rick

–

          Richard S. Marken PhD

          rsmarken@gmail.com

          [www.mindreadings.com](http://www.mindreadings.com)