scientific fact regarding coercion

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (991115.1115 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (991115.1713 EST)--

Bill:

Presenting a child
with two options, neither of which the child wants, is coercive because if
the child refuses both options, the application of force is the only next
alternative in the design of the system. And to say that the child is
responsible for what the teacher is about to do is dishonest.

Bruce:

As I recall, this is pretty much what happens. The student is asked what the
rule is about disrupting. I have no idea where the "I see you have chosen"
variant comes. It's not part of the process Ed and Tim describe as far as I
can tell.

Examples are found in the revised and expanded edition of Ford's
_Discipline for home and school_. See, for example, the card image on page
204 which is designed for bus drivers. The choice offered is "DO YOU WANT
TO STAY WHERE YOU ARE OR MOVE TO THE FRONT OF THE BUS?" If the child
continues to disrupt, Ford advises the driver,

"Then say I SEE YOU HAVE CHOSEN THE FRONT SEAT."

On page 31, the author (Ed) says "If children refuse to obey the rules of
the classroom or the rules at the dinner table, then they must always be
given alternative choices . ... Therefore children who are disruptive in a
classroom or a home should be _asked_ whether they want to stay in the
classroom or wherever they are in the home and obey the rules, or leave."

Notice that the children are not asked what they want to do; they are given
two choices and asked which one they choose (one is to leave home,
according to the above). "Neither one" is not an allowed choice.

On page 32, in italics:"Whenever children violate the rules and standards
of wherever they are, they should be given the choice of being allowed to
stay and obey the rules and standards, or leave where they are, reducing
their social involvement until they are willing to commit to following the
rules and standards and to make a plan to resolve similar problems in the
future."

On page 34: "At home, when children are upset, they should be given the
choice of calming down and obeying the rules, or removing themselves from
the social environment of the family."

Ed sees a key aspect of the process as consisting of taking away important
privileges like being with friends or family and then restoring them when
the child makes a committment to follow the rules. After the above quote,
for example, Ed says "For those children who are in the first or second
grade or are younger, depending on the strength of the child/parent
relationships, the alternative choice should be to sit in a chair, within
view of the family or a parent but still far enough removed to allow them
to sense the loss of the privilege of being with the family. ... The closer
the relationship that children perceive they have with their parents, the
more willing they will be to make or accept the choice necessitated by
their refusal to obey rules and to get along with the rest of the family."

In chapter 8 and chapter 9, it is clear that Ed takes a strictly S-R view
toward making children behave: deprive them of something they value, then
give it back when they agree to obey the rules. From this and many other
examples, I concluded long ago that if Ed's program works well (and I
believe it does), it works in spite of the reasons he gives and the methods
he proposes.

Ed considers children subordinate to adults. He never mentions the
possibility that "the rules" are arbitrary and that some might be resisted
for good reasons. It is not the child's place to question the rules; the
child is to be obedient, and will not be allowed to continue disobeying the
rules, and that is that.

It is also clear that Ed doesn't want to appear coercive or to see himself
that way. There are elaborate circumlocutions, such as the above "choice
necessitated by their refusal to obey rules and to get along with the rest
of the family." Note how the adult does not take responsibility for forcing
this choice; the choice is "necessitated" by what the child does. This
denial of responsibility recurs throughout Ed's writings.

I don't want to rub this in. Ed's program is a marvel; I simply don't
believe it works for the reasons he gives. When actually interacting with
people, Ed doesn't try to control them; even in his own family, he is the
only vegetarian, and puts no pressure on anyone else to adopt that way of
life. He does not push his religion onto people, or think less of anyone
who prefers different beliefs. He is humble and willing to learn, and he
does his best to grasp and live the concepts that are basic to PCT. The
_example_ Ed sets for how to interact with others is far more attractive
than the processes he describes in words.

Tom Bourbon is ever-present in Ed's presentations, and supplements his
talks with his own teaching of PCT principles. Tim Carey, when he is
present, does the same. People who learn Ed's methods learn much more than
he teaches in words; they learn from watching how he operates, and they
learn PCT at the same time from the best teachers in the business. So what
they learn is not necessarily what Ed writes down in his books and
demonstrates in presentations.
The actual program, as it is carried out in practice, is not necessarily
the same program that Ed describes in his books.

If it were not for Ed Ford, the RTP program would not exist at all, and the
many schools that have benefited from it would still be following the old
ways. Ed has shown great wisdom and humility in enlisting the aid of people
who can help him master PCT and apply it in his program. And he supplied
the essential ingredient, which is a way of structuring the school society
to make it possible for teachers to abandon the futile effort to control
the children. Even if there are still coercive aspects in his program, I
believe that their deleterious effects are greatly outweighed by the
successful application of PCT principles to social interactions. As time
goes by, I think the RTP program will continue to evolve, shedding aspects
that are not actually helpful and improving everyone's skills in dealing
with school problems effectively.

I think my view of the RTP program is balanced, realistic, and fair. I'm
not a PR flack promoting the program, and I think that my attempt to see it
as it really is makes my support of it more, not less, credible. I would
tell any school system to put the RTP program into effect immediately. Even
if it isn't perfect, it is far and away the best school discipline program
anywhere.

Best,

Bill P.

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (991115.1244 MDT)]

Bill Powers (991115.0301 MDT)--

Haven't you expressed doubt that the threat
of force counts as a means of coercion?

Never.

I'm surprised. This doesn't seen consistent with the following:

Especially, Rick's claims that control processes internal to the victim are
irrelevant (because they are overpowered) may be arguable for the
situations to which this specific model does apply, but are patently false
for all other forms of coercion. That means most forms of coercion, and it
means almost all of the examples that are cited in discussions here, such
as RTP teachers saying "I see you have chosen," police giving tickets,
rapists, and concentration camp guards.

You have consistently misunderstood the way Rick and I have used the term
"irrelevant." If I say that the victim's desires are irrelevant in
determining what the outcome of the interaction will be, that does not mean
they are irrelevant in every possible way. It means only that you can
predict the outcome without even knowing the victim's preferences; for
purposes of predicting what will happen, the victim's intentions,
unfortunately, are irrelevant. That, of course, is why most of us don't
like to have our behavior controlled by others.

Even when only the threat of force is involved, if we know that the victim
has an overriding aversion to whatever violent action is threatened, we can
still predict the outcome without knowing the victim's (other) preferences.
If a robber says to someone, "Your money or your life," I can be pretty
confident that the person will choose to live, and this choice will force
the choice to hand over the money. The person may be perfectly willing to
hand over the money as a charitable act, but we don't need to know that to
predict that the money will be handed over. It will most probably be handed
over even if the person doesn't want to hand it over. This is a simple
matter of creating a conflict in which one side can ber counted on to have
a far higher gain than the other.

The responsibility is still that of the person offering the pseudo-choice.
In the same way, if you know that a little old lady has a strong distaste
for bad language, and you go ahead and curse at her anyway, you are
responsible for her distress because she has no practical way to avoid
being distressed (not without reorganizing her whole life, which as you are
perfectly aware is not going to happen).

What we don't know how to model is the way words get turned into
perceptions and reference signals. But if we postulate that this is what
happens, the rest of the problem of modeling threatened use of force is not
too difficult.

Best,

Bill P.

[R_Marken]

[From Rick Marken (991115.1520)]

Bruce Gregory (991115.1420 EST)--

I don't know where you get your obsession with "giving a kid a
choice" from but it is not a view I share. I don't favor "giving
the kid a choice". Like Ed, and Tom I favor the program as
described in Ed's written material.

But "giving a choice" is part of the program as described in Ed's
written material. Have you read any of the RTP literature?

The fact that you have chosen to hang your entire view of RTP on
one statement by Tom suggests to me that this issue has deeper
roots than your understanding or lack of understanding of RTP.

My entire view of RTP is based on a bit more than Tom's one
statement. And Tom is certainly not the only one who uses the
word "choice" to give the impression of non-coercion. Here's a
comment from Ed himself that I just found at his site:

children are never sent to the responsible thinking classroom
(RTC). They make their choice to leave the classroom by
creating a second disruption.

I would rather the situation were described honestly: the kids
are told that if they disrupt a second time they will have to
go to the RTC; when kids disrupt a second time they must go to
the RTC.

It may be that every kid sent to the RTC room goes there
without protest but that, of course, is not proof that any
kid is going willingly (as the phrase "make their choice to
leave the classroom" implies).

Let me make it clear that I am not objecting to the RTP
practice of having disruptive kids leave the classroom, if
only because I have no alternative to suggest. All I object
to is the dissembling about coercion. Saying that a kid "has
a choice between A and B" diverts attention from the fact
that the kid has _no choice_ other than A or B (C through Z
are out).

The topic should be dropped simply because you have much too
great an emotional investment in righting what I suspect is some
wrong done to you in childhood

I think the topic should be dropped, too, but not for the reasons
you suggest. I think it should be dropped because you seem to
consider RTP perfect as is. So any suggestion that there might
be room for improvement is treated as blasphemy. But I think
you should so the dropping; the best way for someone in your
position to drop a topic that is offensive is to just trash
the offensive posts.

I guess I'm willing to put a warning label in the title of
posts that contain material that might be offensive to
RTPers. How about RTP--PG.

Best

Rick

···

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

[R_Marken]

[From Rick Marken (991115.1530)]

Bruce Nevin (991115) to Bill Powers (991115.0301 MDT)--

Rick's claims that control processes internal to the victim are
irrelevant (because they are overpowered) may be arguable for the
situations to which this specific model does apply, but are patently
false for all other forms of coercion. That means most forms of
coercion, and it means almost all of the examples that are cited
in discussions here, such as RTP teachers saying "I see you have
chosen," police giving tickets, rapists, and concentration camp
guards.

I can't make heads or tails of this. Can you, Bill?

Best

Rick

···

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

[Abbott_Bruce]

[From Bruce Abbott (991115.1755 EST)]

Bruce Abbott (991114.1500 EST)

Bill Powers (991115.0214 MDT) --

Geez, Bill, that's a little harsh. As I read Kenny's paragraph, it doesn't
say anything about what non-Christians are incapable of. "If A, then B"
does not logically imply "If NOT A then NOT B."

The implication I read into the message was that love and submission to
others' will are special achievements of Christians -- otherwise, why
mention them in the same sentence?

That's the problem -- YOU read that implication INTO the message. It isn't
in the message itself. To assert that these ARE characteristics of
Christians (the reason for mentioning them in the same sentence is to make
that assertion) is not at all the same thing as claiming that it is UNIQUE
to them, or a "special achievement" of them . If I said that, for Bill
Powers, a daily walk is important, I would not thereby be asserting a claim
that belief in the importance of a daily walk is a "special achievement" of
Bill Powers.

Sorry, but I read it differently.

I know how your read it, but how you read it doesn't agree with what was
actually written.

P.S. Anyone interested in things astronomical might want to take a look at
the sky late tonight or before dawn tomorrow, if the weather in your area is
clear. That's when this year's Leonid meteor shower is supposed to be the
most active. Last year I got to see four impressively bright meteor trails
in the five minutes that a hole in the overcast opened up over my location,
here in Hoosierland.

Regards,

Bruce A.

[Bruce_Gregory]

[From Bruce Gregory (991115.2136 EST)]

Rick Marken (991115.1520)

My entire view of RTP is based on a bit more than Tom's one
statement. And Tom is certainly not the only one who uses the
word "choice" to give the impression of non-coercion. Here's a
comment from Ed himself that I just found at his site:

> children are never sent to the responsible thinking classroom
> (RTC). They make their choice to leave the classroom by
> creating a second disruption.

I would rather the situation were described honestly: the kids
are told that if they disrupt a second time they will have to
go to the RTC; when kids disrupt a second time they must go to
the RTC.

I appreciate that these two formulations seem radically different to you. To
me they are equivalent. Telling the child he has chosen to go to the RTC is
a way to remind him or her that what they chose to do entailed that
consequence. If I step out of the window of my office, I can say that I
didn't choose to fall two stories, but that is the consequence of my choice.

It may be that every kid sent to the RTC room goes there
without protest but that, of course, is not proof that any
kid is going willingly (as the phrase "make their choice to
leave the classroom" implies).

You seem to ignore the possibility that we sometimes do not like the
consequences of our choices. Perhaps this never happens to you. Take my word
for it, it happens to others.

Let me make it clear that I am not objecting to the RTP
practice of having disruptive kids leave the classroom, if
only because I have no alternative to suggest. All I object
to is the dissembling about coercion. Saying that a kid "has
a choice between A and B" diverts attention from the fact
that the kid has _no choice_ other than A or B (C through Z
are out).

The government imposes that constraint, not the school.

I think the topic should be dropped, too, but not for the reasons
you suggest. I think it should be dropped because you seem to
consider RTP perfect as is.

Amazing. Any evidence to support this conjecture?

So any suggestion that there might
be room for improvement is treated as blasphemy. But I think
you should so the dropping; the best way for someone in your
position to drop a topic that is offensive is to just trash
the offensive posts.

Trash this one if you like, I won't be offended in the least.

Bruce Gregory

[Bruce_Gregory]

[From Bruce Gregory (991115.0937 EST)]

Rick Marken (991115.1530)]

Bruce Nevin (991115) to Bill Powers (991115.0301 MDT)--

> Rick's claims that control processes internal to the victim are
> irrelevant (because they are overpowered) may be arguable for the
> situations to which this specific model does apply, but are patently
> false for all other forms of coercion. That means most forms of
> coercion, and it means almost all of the examples that are cited
> in discussions here, such as RTP teachers saying "I see you have
> chosen," police giving tickets, rapists, and concentration camp
> guards.

I can't make heads or tails of this. Can you, Bill?

Why is no one surprised? Your previous posts have made your lack of
comprehension quite clear. Now that recognize it, what do you propose to do?
Wait for Bill to explain it to you?

Bruce Gregory

[R_Marken]

[From Rick Marken (991115.2040)]

Me:

Here's a comment from Ed himself that I just found at his site:

> children are never sent to the responsible thinking classroom
> (RTC). They make their choice to leave the classroom by
> creating a second disruption.

I would rather the situation were described honestly: the kids
are told that if they disrupt a second time they will have to
go to the RTC; when kids disrupt a second time they must go to
the RTC.

Bruce Gregory (991115.2136 EST) --

I appreciate that these two formulations seem radically
different to you. To me they are equivalent.

That was my point, Bruce. They are equivalent! They both are
instructions for coercion. The only difference is that Ed's
description ("formulation") blames the coercion on the kid.
My description blames coercion on the person who is being
asked to carry it out: the teacher.

Me:

I think the topic [of RTP] should be dropped, too, but not
for the reasons you suggest. I think it should be dropped
because you seem to consider RTP perfect as is.

Bruce:

Amazing. Any evidence to support this conjecture?

Every one of your posts on the topic of RTP. I have never
heard you criticize any aspect of RTP. But I may be wrong.
Maybe we've just never touched on those aspects of RTP with
which you have a problem. Is there anything about the RTP
program that you think could be improved? How about the way
it is described [see Bill Powers (991115.1115 MDT)]?

Best

Rick

···

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

[Abbott_Bruce]

[From Bruce Abbott, too damned early (2:25 a.m.) on 16 Nov 99]

From Phil Runkel on 14 Nov 99

writing about punishment and submission:

I remember a professor at my graduate school who was an expert in learning
theory (S-R), and who every now and then would tell a story about an
experiment that went wrong. He told about a dog that had been trained to
avoid a shock. The cage had half its floor electrified so that the dog's
feet could be given a shock. The E sounded a bell and very soon afterward
(1 sec? 1/2 sec?) shocked the dog. In very litle time, the dog found the
safe part of the floor. Upon repetitions, the dog soon formed the
practice, when he heard the bell, of jumping to the safe part of the cage.
Then the E wanted to extinguish the response. So he raised a barrier
between the two parts of the cage. Rang the bell. Tha dog threw himself
this way and that, trying to get out of that part of the cage. Gradually
quieted down, but made nervous-seeming motions and twitches. Rang the
bell again, and so on. As the "trials" went on, the dog became less and
less perturbed. At last, the dog would just lie there, giving no muscular
evidence that the bell was any longer a disturbance. So E gave one final
test of the extinction. He lowered the barrier between the parts of the
cage and rang the bell again. Whereupon the dog instantly leaped to the
safe part of the cage.

I'm curious about this experiment, Phil. Who supposedly conducted it?
About when would it have been done? What was it about the experiment that
was supposed to have gone wrong?

The experiment is described as one-way shuttlebox avoidance. That would
require placing the dog back on the shock side of the box to begin each
trial. I don't know why, after experiencing the shock there (and not on the
"safe" side), the dog wouldn't jump to the safe side as soon as it was
released on the shock side. There would seem to be no reason for the dog to
wait for the "bell" to ring.
Also, the use of the term "bell" does not ring true (no pun intended). It
has become common to use the term "bell" as a concrete example of the CS
used in Pavlovian conditioning, even though Pavlov almost never used an
actual bell. To my knowledge, bells were never used in avoidance
conditioning experiments of this type; the introduction of the term in this
context sounds to me like an intrusion of sombody's memory of a textbook
description of classical conditioning into the story about avoidance
conditioning.

The description of the "extinction" procedure is odd. What is the dog
supposed to be learning when the barrier has been raised to prevent jumping
to the safe compartment? That the "bell" is no longer followed by shock? I
don't see how this would be expected to break down the association between
the compartment and shock, and between the safe compartment and no shock.
If I were the dog, I'd still prefer a compartment where shock had never been
experienced over one where shocks had been received. All in all, this
sounds to me something like an "urban myth" -- a story that has been
repeated a number of times, but which if based on any reality, has become so
garbled with the retelling as to bear little resemblance to what actually
happened.

Some of the early studies of avoidance conditioning were done by Richard
Soloman and colleagues in the early 1950s, I believe using dogs as subjects.
I'll have to check, but I believe these investigators studied TWO-way
shuttlebox avoidance, which would have involved placing the dog in a
compartment and, after a short time, sounding a tone. If the dog failed to
jump the hurdle to the other compartment during the first 20 seconds of the
tone, the shock to the grid floor was turned on. This usually induced the
dog to run and soon it would jump to the other compartment, which act
terminated both the tone and shock. After about 40 seconds, the tone would
come on again, and the whole sequence would repeat, this time with the dog
in the second compartment, and jumping back into the first. After learning
to escape from the shocks in this way, and with further experience,
eventually the dog would jump the hurdle prior to the shock. This
terminated the tone and the shock was never delivered; thus, this
constituted the first shock avoidance response. After that the dog would
routinely jump the hurdle during the tone and rarely received any further
shocks.

If at this point the shocker were turned off, the dog would simply continue
to jump over the hurdle each time the tone came on, and it took a long time
for this behavior to cease even though shocks failed to occur on the rare
occasions when the dog failed to jump during the first 20 seconds of the
tone. Also, even with the shocker still connected the dogs displayed little
signs of fear to the tone once they had learned to avoid the shocks. One
question that came up is, once the shocker has been turned off, how do you
teach the dog to stop jumping during the tone? One way that seemed
promising was to prevent the dog from jumping over the hurdle (by raising it
too high to be jumped). Raising the hurdle was immediately followed by a
return of obvious signs of fear in the dog when the tone came on, and
abortive attempts to get over the hurdle. After repeated exposure to the
tones -- which were NOT followed by the shocks -- the attempts to jump the
hurdle and the signs of fear to the tone abated.

It is difficult to predict what the effect of lowering the hurdle once again
would have had on the dog's behavior. This represents a return to
perceptual conditions that existed earlier, when the tones were reliably
followed by the shocks if the dog failed to jump the hurdle; to the extent
that the dog associates these perceptions with shock-delivery for failure to
jump, the dog would be expected to jump. On the other hand, if the more
important change is the extinction of fear to the tone during the
high-hurdle trials, then the dog would fail to experience fear when the tone
came on and would not be expected to jump. It would take a bit of
experimental work to determine which of these inputs would be the most
salient ones affecting the dog's tendency to jump. My understanding is that
experiencing the high-barrier condition and no shock following tones
resulted in extinction of hurdle-jumping, which would be contrary to the
discription provided in the apocryphal story. I'll see if I can dig up the
original study, but it would help if you were able to state just what study
your professor was talking about.

Regards,

Bruce A.

[Bruce_Gregory]

[From Bruce Gregory (991116.0451 EST)]

Rick Marken (991115.2040)]

That was my point, Bruce. They are equivalent! They both are
instructions for coercion. The only difference is that Ed's
description ("formulation") blames the coercion on the kid.
My description blames coercion on the person who is being
asked to carry it out: the teacher.

You are not to be blamed for speeding. The trooper is to be blamed for
giving you a ticket. All you want to do is to drive at any speed you like.
Since you live in a coercive system, no one asks you what you want. They
simply give you "choices" where neither alternative takes into account
_your_ goals. See, I _do_ understand, Rick.

Every one of your posts on the topic of RTP. I have never
heard you criticize any aspect of RTP. But I may be wrong.
Maybe we've just never touched on those aspects of RTP with
which you have a problem. Is there anything about the RTP
program that you think could be improved? How about the way
it is described [see Bill Powers (991115.1115 MDT)]?

I completely agree with his appraisal:

I think my view of the RTP program is balanced, realistic, and fair. I'm
not a PR flack promoting the program, and I think that my attempt to see

it

as it really is makes my support of it more, not less, credible. I would
tell any school system to put the RTP program into effect immediately.

Even

if it isn't perfect, it is far and away the best school discipline program
anywhere.

Bruce Gregory

[Bruce_Gregory]

[From Bruce Gregory (991116.0510 EST)]

Rick Marken (991115.2040)

Is there anything about the RTP
program that you think could be improved? How about the way
it is described [see Bill Powers (991115.1115 MDT)]?

I think Ed's biggest mistake was associating his program with PCT. All he
really needs from PCT is the concept that children and teachers are
intentional agents. Phrasing this in terms of "controlling perceptions"
boarders on jargon. Controlling perceptions represents a ver good model of
_how_ intentional systems work, but this model represents a second order
concern as far as I can tell in RTP. I would avoid all mention of
controlling perceptions in describing RTP. Its most likely effect is to
confuse rather than to clarify. We have plenty of evidence that HPCT takes
quite a long time for even committed learners to begin to understand. I
would spare teachers and administrators who are not committed to
understanding so fundamental a model of behavior from having to use, and
abuse, the terminology.

Bruce Gregory

[Bruce_Gregory]

[From Bruce Gregory (991116.0642 EST)]

Bruce Abbott, too damned early (2:25 a.m.) on 16 Nov 99

If I were the dog, I'd still prefer a compartment where shock had
never been
experienced over one where shocks had been received.

You just might be an intentional agent, too!

Bruce Gregory

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (991116.0529 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (991115.1420 EST)--
[writing to Rick]

I don't know where you get your obsession with "giving a kid a choice"
from but it is not a view I share. I don't favor "giving the kid a
choice". Like Ed, and Tom I favor the program as described in Ed's
written material.

But Ed says you must _always_ give the kid a choice; I think your memories
of what is in his book are a little stale. Better give it another read.

I'm not sure what your statement means. Do you mean that you realize that
nobody can actually "give" another person a choice, or do you mean you're
not in favor of leaving a child any alternatives to choose among? Obviosly,
there is a great deal of difference between these views.

Best,

Bill P.

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (991116.0537 MDT)]

Rick Marken (991115.1530)

Bruce Nevin (991115) to Bill Powers (991115.0301 MDT)--

Rick's claims that control processes internal to the victim are
irrelevant (because they are overpowered) may be arguable for the
situations to which this specific model does apply, but are patently
false for all other forms of coercion. ...

Rick:

I can't make heads or tails of this. Can you, Bill?

I'm trying. The point seems to be that we haven't actually modeled
threatened use of force the way we have modeled actual use of force, so we
don't really know what would happen.

Best,

Bill P.

[Marc_Abrams3]

from [ Marc Abrams (991116.0837) ]

[From Bruce Gregory (991116.0510 EST)]

Rick Marken (991115.2040)

> Is there anything about the RTP
> program that you think could be improved? How about the way
> it is described [see Bill Powers (991115.1115 MDT)]?

I think Ed's biggest mistake was associating his program with PCT. All he
really needs from PCT is the concept that children and teachers are
intentional agents. Phrasing this in terms of "controlling perceptions"
boarders on jargon. ...

Bravo Bruce. A terrific and pointedly accurate post.

Marc

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (991116.0541 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (991115.2136 EST)--
[writing to Rick Marken]

Telling the child he has chosen to go to the RTC is
a way to remind him or her that what they chose to do entailed that
consequence. If I step out of the window of my office, I can say that I
didn't choose to fall two stories, but that is the consequence of my choice.

The difference between these two examples is that in the second example,
there is no person responsible for the fact that if you step out the window
you will fall. That's a result of natural law and is non-negotiable.

In the first case, the only reason that a disruption is (metaphorically)
equivalent to choosing to go to the RTC is that some person has decided to
create this equivalence by making (or enforcing) a rule to that effect.

I could state a rule that if you disagree with me on this matter, you flunk
out of PCT and must leave the net. So if, knowing the rule, you still
disagree with me, I could say "I see you have chosen to leave the net" and
cut you off (not that I can actually do that). But wouldn't that outcome
still be my responsibility? It was I who made the rule, and I who decided
what your action meant, and I who carried out the consequence. I can try to
make it seem that it was all your doing, but that ignores the question of
who made the rule or insists on applying it. Your only sin was in doing the
thing I didn't want you to do. But I can make it seem that not only was
this sin all your fault, but its consequences, created by me, were also
your fault since (I am trying to claim) they follow from the act just as
inevitably and impersonally as the law of gravity makes you fall if you
step out the window.

You seem to ignore the possibility that we sometimes do not like the
consequences of our choices. Perhaps this never happens to you. Take my
word for it, it happens to others.

If I do not like the consequences of my choices, I must first find out why
the consequences were bad before I can do something rational about them. In
the case of your disagreeing with me, with the consequence of being
expelled from CSGnet, would you accept that consequence the way you would
accept the consequences of failing to fill the gas tank and thereby running
out of gas? I think not; I think you might turn to other people on the net
and complain that I'm being arbitrary and assuming a control over you that
I don't have. You might suggest that I leave the net instead. You would
quite possibly tell me to take my rule and stuff it.

I'm not sure we're talking about the right subject here. I would assume
that you would not go along with my arbitrary rule-making, and would simply
refuse to take the blame for the consequences I made up for you, because we
are both adults and presumably equals. I have no right to make rules for
you, or to impose consequences on you when you break them. If I were to
demand that you behave in a certain way, and state what I would do if you
didn't comply, you would at least expect me to take responsibility for
making the demand and for doing whatever I described as the consequence. If
I told you I'd smash your windshield for breaking my rule, and then (after
you broke the rule and your windshield suffered) I told you that you caused
the windshield to be smashed, I think you would still hold me and my
insurance company responsible, and have plenty of legal and moral backing.

I think we probably agree about how we should treat other adults. So I
think the real subject under discussion here is what rights children should
be given to be treated as we treat other adults. Must we negotiate with
children, or can we simply tell them what to do and enforce our rules as we
see fit? Can we deprive children of what they want or need, and then
restore it on condition that they obey us? If we're trying to raise
children to become competent and happy adults, is the way to do this to
treat them -- well, I'll delete my characterization and just say "As Ed
Ford says in his books that we should treat them?"

We're really talking about how adults should treat children, aren't we?

Best,

Bill P.

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (991116.0649 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (991116.0510 EST)--

I think Ed's biggest mistake was associating his program with PCT. All he
really needs from PCT is the concept that children and teachers are
intentional agents.

Odd that you should say that. Ed Ford, Tom Bourbon, and Tim Carey seem to
have come to exactly the opposite conclusion. They say that teachers and
administrators who really get into RTP always want to learn more about PCT,
recognizing that it is the real justification for the program. They say
that the schools where the people fail to catch on to PCT are the ones most
likely to misapply RTP. They are more heavily into teaching PCT than ever
before. Tom Bourbon told me all this in a recent friendly phone call (in
case Marc Abrams was wondering whatever came of his suggestion).

Best,

Bill P.

[Abbott_Bruce]

[From Bruce Abbott (991116.0905 EST)]

Bruce Gregory (991116.0642 EST)]

Bruce Abbott, too damned early (2:25 a.m.) on 16 Nov 99

If I were the dog, I'd still prefer a compartment where shock had
never been
experienced over one where shocks had been received.

You just might be an intentional agent, too!

By golly, I think you're right! So are dogs!

Ya see, no problem at all. It only took the right stimulus to elicit that
response from me! (;->

Regards,

Bruce A.

[Bruce_Gregory]

[From Bruce Gregory (991116.0946 EST)]

Bill Powers (991116.0537 MDT)

I'm trying. The point seems to be that we haven't actually modeled
threatened use of force the way we have modeled actual use of
force, so we
don't really know what would happen.

Very good. We have not modeled "implied" threats, either. Lots of
opportunities for modelers.

Bruce Gregory

[Bruce_Gregory]

[From Bruce Gregory (991116.0944 EST)]

Bruce Abbott (991116.0905 EST)

Ya see, no problem at all. It only took the right stimulus
to elicit that
response from me! (;->

Some of my best friends are S-R machines. It's the intentional agents
that give me all the trouble.

Bruce Gregory