Control becomes coercion when it prevents the control efforts of
another from having effect in the environment. When those control
efforts cease, it ceases to be coercion.
Bill Powers (980623.1954 MDT) --
So according to you, Al is controlling only when he is NOT
acting -- that is, only when the environment matches his reference
level. By this definition, drivers are controlling cars only when
there are no disturbances that require action
Another interesting aspect of this approach to coercion is that
it turns coercion into an S-R phenomenon. Coercion only occurs
when the victim's control efforts (the "stimulus") cause the coercer
to act ("response") to prevent those efforts; when the victim's
control efforts cease (the stimulus is removed) the coercer turns
back into a controller. As you note, the same model would apparently
also apply to driving; disturbances (stimuli) cause the driver to
act (steer) but when there are no disturbances the driver turns
back into a controller.
I wonder why this hybrid S-R/control model of behavior suddenly
seems necessary to those who are advocating the Nevin/Kurtzer
view of coercion?
> Control becomes coercion when it prevents the control efforts of
> another from having effect in the environment. When those control
> efforts cease, it ceases to be coercion.
Bill Powers (980623.1954 MDT) --
> So according to you, Al is controlling only when he is NOT
> acting -- that is, only when the environment matches his reference
> level. By this definition, drivers are controlling cars only when
> there are no disturbances that require action
which is a MISinterpretation of what b. nevin meant, as he most recently
posted.
and now for more MISinterpretation
Rick:
Another interesting aspect of this approach to coercion is that
it turns coercion into an S-R phenomenon. Coercion only occurs
when the victim's control efforts (the "stimulus") cause the coercer
to act ("response") to prevent those efforts; when the victim's
control efforts cease (the stimulus is removed) the coercer turns
back into a controller. As you note, the same model would apparently
also apply to driving; disturbances (stimuli) cause the driver to
act (steer) but when there are no disturbances the driver turns
back into a controller.
I wonder why this hybrid S-R/control model of behavior suddenly
seems necessary to those who are advocating the Nevin/Kurtzer
view of coercion? >>
What?!
You brought it up by your own misinterpretation, therefore it seems to be a
necessity on your part--by what, I will not even consider. But how you have
made a "coersion" ----which requires no qualification, neither gain, nor
intentions of either party, coupled with fear and punishment, and universal
error curves reminiscient of extinction---sound as if it is as clear as day is
beyond me. I plan on kicking you thrice in the nutsack when i see you and
then demand that you start drinking again to clear your head of these filthy
ideas.
Another interesting aspect of this approach to coercion is that
it turns coercion into an S-R phenomenon. Coercion only occurs
when the victim's control efforts (the "stimulus") cause the
coercer to act ("response") to prevent those efforts; when the
victim's control efforts cease (the stimulus is removed) the
coercer turns back into a controller.
i.kurtzer (980624.0000)
What?! You brought it up by your own misinterpretation
What was the misinterpretation?
But how you have made a "coersion" ----which requires no
qualification, neither gain, nor intentions of either party,
coupled with fear and punishment, and universal error curves
reminiscient of extinction---sound as if it is as clear as day
is beyond me.
According to Bill and me, coercion is control of behavior; therefore
it has gain and intention; fear of punishment and the universal
error curve have nothing to do with our model of a coercer (these
may have to be part of a model of the coercee). I'm trying to
understand your (and Bruce's) model of coercion, which seems
impossible; however Bill and I understand it, we seem to be wrong.
Our model, on the other hand, is rather straightforward; if you
understand the basic PCT model then you understand our model of
coercion.
I plan on kicking you thrice in the nutsack when i see you and
then demand that you start drinking again to clear your head of
these filthy ideas.
Why is this such a disturbance? What's the filthy idea? Does
Bill have to go to the stake too? My model of coercion is Bill's;
so I think it's only fair that if you punish me for what I think
you punish Bill too; but don't be surprised if you meet with
resistance; I think both Bill and I are organized as coercers
with respect to living control systems who produce disturbances
to our nutsacks;-)
Best
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken