[From Bruce Gregory (980709.2110)]
Rick Marken (980709.1800)]
As I understand it, the Gregory/Kitzke/Kurtzer/Nevin/et al
position is that coercion stops as soon as the victim wants
what the coercer wants.
I never made such a claim. You must have me confused with someone else. I
only questioned whether coercion was the appropriate way to model and
understand RTP. I'm in the Bourbon camp.
Bruce Gregory
[From Rick Marken (980709.1800)]
Bruce Nevin (980709.1937)--
I suspect that Bill and Rick have stopped following this
[coercion] thread, so I don't expect any response from them.
I know when I'm licked and Bill knows when to get out of town;-)
I feel a little like Richard Feynman debating the Hassids (he
admitted that they beat him as "easy as pie") but I still do
have one more little question.
As I understand it, the Gregory/Kitzke/Kurtzer/Nevin/et al
position is that coercion stops as soon as the victim wants
what the coercer wants.
My question is this: Is a coercer respecting the will of the
victim when their wants are different or only when their wants
are the same (and there is no longer any coercion)? For example,
is the rapist who threaten's to kill his victim respecting the
will of the victim or is he only respecting her will when she
gives in?
Respectfully submitted
Richard
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/
[From Bruce Nevin (980709.2206)]
Rick Marken (980709.1800) --
As I understand it, the Gregory/Kitzke/Kurtzer/Nevin/et al
position is that coercion stops as soon as the victim wants
what the coercer wants.
Do you believe the spreadsheet simulates something more than or different
from what I described?
My question is this: Is a coercer respecting the will of the
victim when their wants are different or only when their wants
are the same (and there is no longer any coercion)? For example,
is the rapist who threaten's to kill his victim respecting the
will of the victim or is he only respecting her will when she
gives in?
I don't understand the question. Did someone suggest that, when a weak
control system is unable to control a variable because a strong control
system is controlling the same variable with a different value, the strong
one is respecting the will of the weaker one? Or do you mean something
different when you say "a coercer"? If so, what?
Bruce Nevin
[From Bruce Gregory (980710.1136 EDT)]
Rick Marken (980710.0820)
Bruce Gregory (980709.2110)]
> I only questioned whether coercion was the appropriate way to
> model and understand RTP. I'm in the Bourbon camp.That's fine. But could you answer my question please:
> Is a coercer respecting the will of the victim when their wants
> are different or only when their wants are the same (and there
> is no longer any coercion)?
The reason I do not feel that coercion is an appropriate way to model RTP is
that a coercer does _not_ respect the will of the "victim".
Bruce Gregory
[From Rick Marken (980710.0810)]
Me:
My question is this: Is a coercer respecting the will of the
victim when their wants are different or only when their wants
are the same (and there is no longer any coercion)? For example,
is the rapist who threaten's to kill his victim respecting the
will of the victim or is he only respecting her will when she
gives in?
Bruce Nevin (980709.2206) --
I don't understand the question.
A good way to avoid an answer. Let's see what the others try;-)
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/
[From Rick Marken (980710.0820)]
Bruce Gregory (980709.2110)]
I only questioned whether coercion was the appropriate way to
model and understand RTP. I'm in the Bourbon camp.
That's fine. But could you answer my question please:
Is a coercer respecting the will of the victim when their wants
are different or only when their wants are the same (and there
is no longer any coercion)?
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/
[From Bruce Nevin (980710.1516 EDT)]
Rick Marken (980710.0810)
Rick:
My question is this: Is a coercer respecting the will of the
victim when their wants are different or only when their wants
are the same (and there is no longer any coercion)? For example,
is the rapist who threaten's to kill his victim respecting the
will of the victim or is he only respecting her will when she
gives in?Bruce Nevin (980709.2206) --
I don't understand the question.
Rick:
A good way to avoid an answer. Let's see what the others try;-)
Rick, when you point your finger there are three other fingers of the same
hand pointing back at yourself. To try to clarify your question for myself,
I asked you several questions. Why are you ignoring them? Here they are again:
Did someone suggest that, when a weak
control system is unable to control a variable because a strong
control system is controlling the same variable with a different
value, the strong one is respecting the will of the weaker one?
Or do you mean something different when you say "a coercer"?
If so, what?
Your questions seem to refer back to something that somebody said about
being respectful. That's why I asked how it came up. Trying to answer the
first question for myself, I searched all CSGnet messages sent in June and
July for occurrances of "respect" (in this sense of the word as opposed to
e.g. "respectively" and "with respect to the other variable") and found
only these:
.............................................................
Kenny Kitzke (980618.1800 EDT) --
Talking about the award to the CEO: "I don't think he experienced coercion,
he experienced respect."
Tom Bourbon's "open letter" forwarded by Isaac 980626 15:33:06 EDT --
Saying of RTP teachers, "They have even convinced many victims that they
are treated with respect, often for the first times in their lives." And
then his appendix: "When a student disrupts, the teacher asks a few simple
questions, in a calm and respectful voice: [...]"
Bill Powers (980626.1903 MDT) replying to Tom -- "The methods used in RTP
are quite benign and they are used within a framework of offering maximum
respect for the will of the children (as well as the others involved)."
Bill Powers (980702.1116 MDT) -- "But by doing this in a non-punitive
manner, with respect and without recrimination afterward, you allow the
greatest possible (under the circumstances) freedom to the will of the
student."
Bill Powers (980702.1116 MDT) -- (Referring again to RTP teachers' respect
for students.)
Rick Marken (980707.0820) --
"I think our religious beliefs deserve no more respect
than my scientific beliefs"
.............................................................
Is it because the RTP teachers are described as respectful to the students?
And you believe respectfulness is the criterion by which RTP defenders
discriminate between coercion and what the RTP teachers are doing? So now
you're making an analogy between RTP teachers and rapists, and asking, if
the rapist is respectful does that convert the interaction from coercion to
something benign? Is that what you're asking?
If that's it, then I hope you agree that there is more than one way of
being disrespectful of the will of another. Coercion is one. Extortion is
another. Insult, ridicule, patronization, are others. If RTP teachers are
respectful, that description covers all these ways of being disrespectful,
and more. Here are the questions they are described as asking:
"What are you doing?"
"What is the rule?," or "Is that OK?"
"What happens if you break the rule?"
"Is that what you want to happen?"
"What will happen the next time you disrupt?"
It seems to me that what you want to do is to describe this as a shakedown,
analogous to when Billy Bulger and Sammy "the rifleman" Flemmi dropped in
on a liquor store owner and "invited" him to sell his store to them. They
were very nice about it. Billy let the guy's little four-year-old girl
climb up on his lap. He even let her play with his pistol, which he had
laid on the table, and he didn't stop her when she put it in her mouth.
(All this was described recently, years later, in testimony in an
investigation why the FBI never arrested these two leaders of the Green
Hill gang in South Boston, and whether the fact that they were being paid
as Mafia informants had anything to do with it.) They were respectful,
maybe. But they made it very clear that there would be consequences if the
guy didn't comply. Environmental contingencies that they were reminding him
about. Is that the comparison you want to make?
One important difference is that this was an ad hoc thing. They wanted the
store for a meeting place. It wasn't a set of established rules and
consequences for breaking them. So maybe you want to compare RTP to a mob
shakedown for failing to keep up regular payments for "protection" or in
the numbers racket. Is that the comparison that you want?
An important difference that remains is in the nature of the negative
consequences. Cross the mob, and people are crippled, people die. Those who
are threatened with these consequences clearly perceive them as negative
consequences that they want to avoid. But in the RTP setting we are told
that the consequences of breaking the rule are not seen as negative. They
are seen as perfectly reasonable choices that someone might want to make
under some circumstances. No stigma is attached to making those choices. If
that is true, then the the "respectful questions" quoted above do not
qualify as extortion. They cannot be made analogous to a mob shakedown.
So it seems to me that your next step has to be to deny that these claims
are true. And that denial seems to me to have been implicit in what you and
Bill have said about the RTP program. If you have followed me so far, and
if you agree that this line of reasoning is valid and complete, then your
questions about respectful rapists have no bearing whatsoever on RTP. Your
critique of the RTP program has to focus on the character of the
consequences that are brought to bear on children who break the rules. If
you can demonstrate that they are perceived as dire consequences by the
children, something to be avoided, then you can argue that the RTP teacher,
however respectful, is setting up a conflict situation, a choice between
undesired experiences -- behave as demanded or else experience those
consequences -- and that therefore the teacher is, very respectfully,
extorting the child. And if you want to call extortion a form of coercion,
I have no quarrel with that. (Except that we don't have a model of
extortion yet, that I know of.)
...........................................
In a later post (980710.0556 EDT) I gave a more extended response to what I
think you're driving at with your example of the rapist who threatens to
kill his victim. This is an example of extortion. The victim is not coerced
in the sense of the spreadsheet or the 5-year-old arm wrestler. The arm
wrestler has no choice. The action of the adult's arm is determining the
position of his arm. The rape victim is given a choice -- comply or suffer
this bad consequence. This puts her in a conflict between control of two
perceptions. They are different perceptions (not two states of the same
perception), but an environmental contingency, the rapist, makes them
interdependent so that she cannot control both of them at once. Or so he
says. To resolve the conflict she can give up control of one perception.
She can allow the rape. She can call his bluff and take the risk. (Maybe
she knows something that he doesn't. Maybe she follows a policy of never
giving in to terrorists.) This is the nature of extortion.
You can refer to extortion as a form of coercion. That seems to be what you
want to do. That's OK. Then let's model extortion. We can't pretend that
the model of simple coercion applies to extortion the way it applies to arm
wrestling.
In your questions about respectful rapists you seem to be appealing to our
sense of moral outrage about rape, just as you previously appealed to our
sense of moral outrage about the Nazi death camps. The moral outrage is
extraneous. A model of simple coercion applies equally well to arm
wrestling and to pushing someone's head under water to drown them. A model
of extortion applies equally well to a kidnapper or a prison guard, and to
a bluffer in poker or monopoly. And a model of extortion applies to
schoolteachers that you and I and Bill experienced in our childhoods.
I think that answers your questions. If you don't think it does, please
restate your questions so that I can understand what you mean.
Bruce Nevin
[From Rick Marken (980710.1900)]
Me:
Is a coercer respecting the will of the victim when their wants
are different or only when their wants are the same (and there
is no longer any coercion)?
Bruce Gregory (980710.1136 EDT) --
The reason I do not feel that coercion is an appropriate way to
model RTP is that a coercer does _not_ respect the will of the
"victim".
Again, my question has nothing to do with RTP. It's about your
view of what is going on when a coercer (with a reference for
the victim's behavior that doesn't match the victim's) turns into
a "helper" (when the victim aligns his reference for his behavior
with that of the one-time coercer).
Bruce Nevin (980710.1516 EDT)] --
I think that answers your questions.
No. Not really. I think you're trying to make this way to complex.
Maybe rape is too emotional of an example. Here's a better one: a
parent is seen dragging her child to school. The parent is
coercing the child because the parent's reference for the child's
behavior ("in school") differs from the child's ("not in school")
and the parent is forcing the child's behavior to match her reference.
About ten feet from the school the child changes his reference
to be "in school". Now the parent is no longer coercing the child
(by the definition of coercion that seems to have prevailed
overwhelmingly on the net); indeed, the forces the parent exerts
are now helping the child achieve his new goal -- being in school.
The child, by revising his reference signal, changed the parent
from coercer to helper.
My question is this: Would you say that the parent was respecting
the will of the child when their references are different (and the
parent was a coercer) or would you only say that the parent was
respecting the will of the child when the child aligned his
reference with the parent's? Or would you say that the parent was
not respecting the will of the child in either case?
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/
[From Bruce Nevin (980710.2303)]
Rick Marken (980710.1900)
a parent is seen dragging her child to school. The parent is
coercing the child because the parent's reference for the child's
behavior ("in school") differs from the child's ("not in school")
and the parent is forcing the child's behavior to match her reference.
About ten feet from the school the child changes his reference
to be "in school". Now the parent is no longer coercing the child
(by the definition of coercion that seems to have prevailed
overwhelmingly on the net); indeed, the forces the parent exerts
are now helping the child achieve his new goal -- being in school.
The child, by revising his reference signal, changed the parent
from coercer to helper.My question is this: Would you say that the parent was respecting
the will of the child when their references are different (and the
parent was a coercer) or would you only say that the parent was
respecting the will of the child when the child aligned his
reference with the parent's? Or would you say that the parent was
not respecting the will of the child in either case?
I don't know what you mean by "respecting the will" of someone. If I were
to ask my wife "Do you think I'm respecting your will?" she'd probably say
"Huh? Oh, yeah, we need to write a will. We were going to do that, weren't
we."
In the first instance, the parent is clearly in conflict with what the
child wants and is coercing the child. Seems disrespectful to me. I'm sure
it seems disrespectful to the child. Might even seem disrespectful to the
parent; it would to me as a parent.
In the second instance, you would have to go far to convince me that the
child genuinely and enthusiastically wants to be in school immediately
after all that resistance -- maybe the child wants to avoid the
embarassment of being coerced in sight of peers? But you say the parent is
still exerting forces to compel the child into the school. (The same sort
of forces? With the same grip on the child's arm or whatever?) The child
does not need help walking into the school and has not asked for help, so
this does not count as help in my book, nor I think in the child's, and
probably not even in the parent's. The parent is more likely poised to
resume coercing if the child's "will" changes again. So this seems
disrespectful to me as well. But Probably not for the reasons that you
want, because you clearly have an agenda behind this wierdly constructed
question, and you haven't told me what it is. So I'm probably not
respecting your will.
Bruce
[From Bruce Gregory (980711.0618 EDT)]
Rick Marken (980710.1900)
Me:
> Is a coercer respecting the will of the victim when their wants
> are different or only when their wants are the same (and there
> is no longer any coercion)?Bruce Gregory (980710.1136 EDT) --
> The reason I do not feel that coercion is an appropriate way to
> model RTP is that a coercer does _not_ respect the will of the
> "victim".Again, my question has nothing to do with RTP. It's about your
view of what is going on when a coercer (with a reference for
the victim's behavior that doesn't match the victim's) turns into
a "helper" (when the victim aligns his reference for his behavior
with that of the one-time coercer
At the risk of repeating myself, a coercer does _not_ respect the will of
the "victim" and cannot become a "helper".
Bruce Gregory
[From Rick Marken (980711.0730)]
Me:
Again, my question has nothing to do with RTP. It's about your
view of what is going on when a coercer (with a reference for
the victim's behavior that doesn't match the victim's) turns into
a "helper" (when the victim aligns his reference for his behavior
with that of the one-time coercer
Bruce Gregory (980711.0618 EDT)
At the risk of repeating myself, a coercer does _not_ respect
the will of the "victim" and cannot become a "helper".
I guess I'll have to work with what I can get.
OK. So I take it from your answer that when the parent in my
example changes from coercer to helper, by virtue of the change
in the child's reference for going to school, the parent changes
from a person who does _not_ respect the will of others to one
who _does_. Is that correct?
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/
[From Bruce Gregory (980711.1147 EDT)]
Rick Marken (980711.0730)
I guess I'll have to work with what I can get.
OK. So I take it from your answer that when the parent in my
example changes from coercer to helper, by virtue of the change
in the child's reference for going to school, the parent changes
from a person who does _not_ respect the will of others to one
who _does_. Is that correct?
Sigh... No, that is _not_ correct. The parent undergoes _no_ transformation
in your example. Is that clear enough?
Bruce Gregory
[From Bruce Gregory (980711.1310 EDT)]
Rick Marken (980711.0930)
Bruce Gregory (980711.1147 EDT)
> Sigh... No, that is _not_ correct. The parent undergoes _no_
> transformation in your example. Is that clear enough?Sigh...No. Do you mean the parent undergoes no transformation
_at all_ or just no transformation from "not respecting the
will of others" to "respecting the will of others".
No transformation at all.
I thought
the current position on coercion is that coercion stops as soon
as the references of coercer and victim (regarding the victim's
behavior) are equal.
I guess I'm not up on the current position. "Coercer" is a term used by an
observer to describe an interaction. After the child stops resisting, the
observer would no longer describe the situation as coercive because the
parent is no longer using force to compel the child. Nothing about the
parent has changed however, only the description used by the observer.
Bruce Gregory
[From Rick Marken (980711.0930)]
Me:
OK. So I take it from your answer that when the parent in my
example changes from coercer to helper, by virtue of the change
in the child's reference for going to school, the parent changes
from a person who does _not_ respect the will of others to one
who _does_. Is that correct?
Bruce Gregory (980711.1147 EDT)
Sigh... No, that is _not_ correct. The parent undergoes _no_
transformation in your example. Is that clear enough?
Sigh...No. Do you mean the parent undergoes no transformation
_at all_ or just no transformation from "not respecting the
will of others" to "respecting the will of others". I thought
the current position on coercion is that coercion stops as soon
as the references of coercer and victim (regarding the victim's
behavior) are equal. So in the example of the parent pulling the
child to school, coercion stops (and the parent stops being a
coercer) as soon as the child (for whatever reason) decides he
wants to go to school. So the parent does undergo a transformation
(as a result of the _interaction_ with the child) from coercer
into non-coercer, doesn't she? (Warning: I think you'd better say
"yes" or isaac will have a coniption fit).
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/
[From Bruce Gregory (980711.1337 EDT)]
Rick Marken (980711.1030)
OK. So your _description_ of the parent changes from "coercer"
to "non-coercer" when the parent no longer needs to use force
to compel the child. Would your _description_ of the parent as
"One who does not respect the will of others" change when the
parent no longer needed to use force to compel the child?
No.
Bruce Gregory
[From Rick Marken (980711.1030)]
Me:
Sigh...No. Do you mean the parent undergoes no transformation
_at all_ or just no transformation from "not respecting the
will of others" to "respecting the will of others".
Bruce Gregory (980711.1310 EDT)--
No transformation at all.
Hmmm. See below.
I guess I'm not up on the current position.
I think you're up on it just fine. I think you're just starting
to realize it's embarassing implications.
"Coercer" is a term used by an observer to describe an
interaction. After the child stops resisting, the observer
would no longer describe the situation as coercive because the
parent is no longer using force to compel the child. Nothing
about the parent has changed however, only the description used
by the observer.
Pretty slippery.
OK. So your _description_ of the parent changes from "coercer"
to "non-coercer" when the parent no longer needs to use force
to compel the child. Would your _description_ of the parent as
"One who does not respect the will of others" change when the
parent no longer needed to use force to compel the child?
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/
[From Bruce Gregory (980711.1606 EDT)]
Rick Marken (980711.1300)
So what you are saying (finally) is that, even though there is
no coercion (by your definition) involved (descriptively) in
the interaction between the parent and the child (in the example)
you would still say that the parent's behavior would be described
as "not respecting the will of the child". In other words, by
your definition of coercion, it is possible for there to be no
coercion when a stronger person deals with a weaker one (as
in the parent/child situation) but for the stronger one to be
dealing with the weaker one in a way that does not respect the
will of the weaker one.Correct?
Correct.
Bruce Gregory
[From Rick Marken (980711.1300)]
Me:
OK. So your _description_ of the parent changes from "coercer"
to "non-coercer" when the parent no longer needs to use force
to compel the child. Would your _description_ of the parent as
"One who does not respect the will of others" change when the
parent no longer needed to use force to compel the child?
Bruce Gregory (980711.1337 EDT) --
No.
I take that to mean "Yes, the parent would no longer be described
as a coercer when the parent no longer needs to use force to
compel the child but, no, the parent would still be described
as one who does not respect the will of others".
So what you are saying (finally) is that, even though there is
no coercion (by your definition) involved (descriptively) in
the interaction between the parent and the child (in the example)
you would still say that the parent's behavior would be described
as "not respecting the will of the child". In other words, by
your definition of coercion, it is possible for there to be no
coercion when a stronger person deals with a weaker one (as
in the parent/child situation) but for the stronger one to be
dealing with the weaker one in a way that does not respect the
will of the weaker one.
Correct?
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/
[From Kenny Kitzke (980711.1950 EDT)]
<Bruce Nevin (980711.1816 EDT)>
<There are a variety of ways to conflict with or "disrespect" the will of
another. Simple coercion is just one of them. Coercion by extortion
(threat, etc.) is another. There are others.
Your category "coercion" is not the only category to which "disrespecting
the will of another" is an input.>
I was watching a little Busch racing on TV from my hometown of Milwaukee
(home of Miller Brewing, chug). Dale Earnhart Jr. won easily. It reminded
me of another way to act against and disrespect the will (reference
perceptions) of other person. Dale's dad is known for it. INTIMIDATION!
Actually, intimidation seems to fit the meaning of coercion preferred by
Rick. If Dale intimidated the driver in the car in front of him enough,
the driver would make a mistake. Dale would pass and move into the lead.
At least to an observer, it would appear that Dale controlled the behavior
of the other driver. Dale was intending to intimidate. He was willing to
coerce. But, perhaps the other driver felt a tire going down and backed
off. Would anyone still call this coercion?
Now, if Dale puts a fender into the other driver and spins him out, well,
that is coercion! It seems clear that intimidation is not the same
interaction as coercion. The extortionist and the intimidator obviously
use the threat of force to try to control the behavior of others. But,
their victim is still free to behave (act) as they want to. No coercion
there.
Your most recent posts on coercion and extortion ring clear, at least to
me!
Best regards,
Kenny
[From Bruce Nevin (980711.1816 EDT)]
Rick Marken (980711.1300) --
There are a variety of ways to conflict with or "disrespect" the will of
another. Simple coercion is just one of them. Coercion by extortion
(threat, etc.) is another. There are others.
Your category "coercion" is not the only category to which "disrespecting
the will of another" is an input.
Bruce Nevin