scientific fact regarding coercion

CSGnet Archive CSG1999
101

[From Rick Marken (991119.0740)]

Bruce Abbott (991118.1940 EST)

The environment is the neglected side of PCT

What? I think it's far more accurate to say that the
environment is the neglected side of conventional
psychology. Conventional psychology looks _only_ at
the effect of the environment on the organism (b = f(e);
behavior is a function of the environment) PCT looks
at the _simultaneous_ effect of the environment on
the organism and of the organism on the environment.
(b = f(e) while e = g(b))

(Thus the only importance of the environment is that
the feedback loop passes through it.)

The environment shows up in PCT as feedback functions,
disturbances and controlled variables. It shows up in
behavioral psychology only as stimuli (or, synonymously,
as "cues", "information" or "constraints"). In conventional
psychology the environment (regardless of what it's called)
is only a cause (or would be cause) of behavior. In PCT,
the environment is a cause (disturbance), effect (controlled
variable) and constraint (feedback function).

Best

Rick

···

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

102

[From Rick Marken (991119.0900)]

Marc Abrams (991118,2237) --

Rick, You have a difficult time convincing me you think RTP
is a good program.

Thanks for warning me. I think I'll stop trying. Well, OK, I'll
just try one more time. An acquaintance of mine here in LA
teaches at a private grammar school. They are having discipline
problems and my friend knows these result from the authoritarian
approach imposed by the administration. A new administrator was
going to be hired and my friend thought this person might be
open to a new approach. I recommended the RTP program to her
and gave her Ed's address. I don't know if she has been able
to convince the new administrator to use the program yet; but I
told her RTP was an excellent program, just what she was
looking for and would definitely solve the problems she was
having at the school.

Again, I think the program, as practiced, is great; the program,
as described in the written literature, is behavior modification
using PCT jargon.

My point is that 4 friendships of over 20 years have gone
into the toilet because of a lack of tolerance on
_everybodies_ part.

Tell me about it. You could have knocked me over with a feather
when Tom posted his "Open Letter" to Bill and me last year. I
was sure Tom was sitting on the sidelines, nodding with approval.
I guess I was actually choosing to make Tom mad;-) Go figure.

I _DO NOT_ believe ED Ford or anyone associated with him is
looking to mis-lead or purposefully mis-represent their program.
You seem to think otherswise. If not, why the vendetta.

I don't think anyone wants to misrepresent the program; I think
it is misrepresented by accident. As I said, it is currently
described (in writing and with the best of intentions) as a
behavior modification program. I think it would be better
publicity for the program and a better guide for would be
participants if the program were described more accurately,
emphasizing the aspects of the program that make it work.

I don't think you have any idea of why it works or why it doesn't.

Actually, I do. Over a year ago Bill and I independently gave the
same explanation of why it works. I think it works because the
teachers are able to remove disruptive kids with minimal conflict,
the teacher doesn't have to waste his/her time trying to control
the disruptive kids; the other kids don't have to be disrupted.
It also works when there is a skilled and caring person in the
RTC who can help a kid deal with the aspects of the school
experience that are creating difficulties for him/her.

But I think your assault on Ed and the RTP program has been
one huge negative.

My "assault" has been on Ed's description of the RTP program.
Also, a lot of my "assault" has been tangential to RTP; it's
my reaction to people who (for whatever reason) deny that
sometimes people (especially children) might be "choosing" what
you want them to choose because the they fear the consequences
of not choosing it. To not recognize the _possibility_ that a
person (especially a weak child) might be "choosing" to do
something as an alternative to a feared consequence strikes
me as being incredibly naive or just plain mean.

if you were looking to alienate you _did_ accomplish that.

Again, I was not looking to alienate anyone. I'm afraid
I cannot take responsibility for my incredible success at
alienating Tom et al. It was a complete (and surprising)
side effect of trying to control for getting PCT right.

Best

Rick

···

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

103

[From Bruce Gregory (991119.1234 EST)]

Rick Marken (991119.0900)

My "assault" has been on Ed's description of the RTP program.
Also, a lot of my "assault" has been tangential to RTP; it's
my reaction to people who (for whatever reason) deny that
sometimes people (especially children) might be "choosing" what
you want them to choose because the they fear the consequences
of not choosing it. To not recognize the _possibility_ that a
person (especially a weak child) might be "choosing" to do
something as an alternative to a feared consequence strikes
me as being incredibly naive or just plain mean.

My understanding is that choice is always based on the perception (if
only in imagination) that the outcome of the choice will minimize
intrinsic error. Is this your understanding as well? If so there is a
very large domain of "reasons" that _might_ lead to a particular choice.
Among these is certainly an alternative to a feared consequence. In most
situations in schools and public libraries, I would not expect this to
be the major "reason" for choosing one alternative over another. If it
is, the school, public library, or home is in dire need of extensive
reform.

> if you were looking to alienate you _did_ accomplish that.

Again, I was not looking to alienate anyone. I'm afraid
I cannot take responsibility for my incredible success at
alienating Tom et al. It was a complete (and surprising)
side effect of trying to control for getting PCT right.

Ah, yes. The "I was just trying to get to the meeting on time. You can't
hold me responsible for speeding. That is a unintended side effect of my
laudable and legal objective" defense. I must admit, I'd like to be
there when you tell that to the judge.

Bruce Gregory

104

[From Rick Marken (991119.1240)]

Bruce Gregory (991119.1234 EST)]

My understanding is that choice is always based on
the perception (if only in imagination) that the outcome of
the choice will minimize intrinsic error. Is this your
understanding as well?

Yes. I'm sure that the choice is offered with the best
of intentions. When I gave my kids a choice (between
eating their vegetables and not eating dessert, say) I
always thought the outcome of the choice would minimize
their intrinsic error. Coercers always think that what
they are forcing their victims to do is good for the
victim. That's why they react so violently when what
they are doing is called "coercion"; they think it
should be called "shepherding" or "good parenting".

Me:

Again, I was not looking to alienate anyone. I'm afraid
I cannot take responsibility for my incredible success at
alienating Tom et al. It was a complete (and surprising)
side effect of trying to control for getting PCT right.

Bruce Gregory (991119.1234 EST)

Ah, yes. The "I was just trying to get to the meeting
on time. You can't hold me responsible for speeding.
That is a unintended side effect of my laudable and
legal objective" defense. I must admit, I'd like to be
there when you tell that to the judge.

You can (and apparently will) hold me responsible for
anything you like. But I was only responsible for
(controlling for) getting PCT right. I was not
responsible for (controlling for) Tom's anger.

Your speeding example is, again, a non-sequiter. If
my speed is an uncontrolled side effect of controlling
for something else, then I am, indeed, not responsible
for speeding. But I would never say to a person "you
can't hold me responsible for speeding" because they
can; if a person wants to "hold me responsible" for
something there's nothing I can do about it.

In the case of the judge, I doubt that the judge cares
whether I was responsible for (controlling for) my
speed or not. Both he and I know that going over 35 mph
in a 35 mph zone is against the law. I accept the
legitimacy of this law and I'm prepared to pay the
fine, even if my speeding was an unintended side
effect of controlling for some other variable (like
getting my sick child to the hospital before her
appendix bursts).

Best

Rick

···

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

105

[From Norman Hovda (991119.1416 MST)]

[From Rick Marken (991119.1240)]

Bruce Gregory (991119.1234 EST)]

> My understanding is that choice is always based on
> the perception (if only in imagination) that the outcome of
> the choice will minimize intrinsic error. Is this your
> understanding as well?

Yes. I'm sure that the choice is offered with the best
of intentions. When I gave my kids a choice (between
eating their vegetables and not eating dessert, say) I
always thought the outcome of the choice would minimize
their intrinsic error. Coercers always think that what
they are forcing their victims to do is good for the
victim. That's why they react so violently when what
they are doing is called "coercion"; they think it
should be called "shepherding" or "good parenting".

Ever read Alice Miller's

_For Your Own Good_

"Hidden cruelty in child-rearing and the roots of violence"?

Part One of the book is entitled "Poisonous Pedagogy".

Compelling IMO,

nth

106

[From Rick Marken (991119.1420)]

Bruce Gregory (991119.1625 EST)--

What happens, if anything, when we realize that an unintended
side-effect has had negative effects on someone?

You can start controlling (become responsible) for what had
been the unintended side effect, if you want to do so.

Best

Rick

···

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

107

[From Bruce Gregory (991119.1625 EST)]

Rick Marken (991119.1240)]

You can (and apparently will) hold me responsible for
anything you like. But I was only responsible for
(controlling for) getting PCT right. I was not
responsible for (controlling for) Tom's anger.

What happens, if anything, when we realize that an unintended
side-effect has had negative effects on someone? If we decline to do
anything about it, is responsibility no longer an issue? In other words,
if you let me know that I am standing on your foot, is it sufficient for
me to simply say, "It's not my intention to cause you pain, my intention
is to get a better view"? Can we say that ethnic cleansing is not the
responsibility of the Yugoslav's if their intention was simply to
restore the countryside to civil order. The fact that people were killed
is incidental. The army would have been just as happy had the Albanian's
left of their own volition. The identification between "responsibility"
and "controlling for a perceptual variable" apparently leaves much to be
desired. Perhaps we should adopt the term PCT-responsibility to make
clear its singular nature.

Bruce Gregory

108

from [ Marc Abrams (991119.2101) ]

[From Bruce Gregory (991119.1625 EST)]

Rick Marken (991119.1240)]

> You can (and apparently will) hold me responsible for
> anything you like. But I was only responsible for
> (controlling for) getting PCT right. I was not
> responsible for (controlling for) Tom's anger.

Rick, your not the only one who can drop names :slight_smile: Bill and I had a
discussion about this very thing a couple of months ago. Bruce G. is right
on target, you may initially deny any culpability due to your lack of
awareness but after you know, all bets are off. Bill was kind of vehement
in a Bill sorta way :slight_smile: ) about this.

Marc