See how the fates their gifts alot

Bill_Powers1 · May 1, 1999, 9:57am

[From Bill Powers (990501.0347 MDT)]

i.kurtzer (990430.2200)--

You are controlling her output. The difference between one's actions
and what someone is doing is the difference that is the central point of
PCT. To call her output, behavior, is to blur the line you have have
actively drawn. It is in my opinion a very good line.The rest of your
argument derives from this conflation.

We have two perfectly good technical terms to use when the word "behavior"
is too ambiguous to use. They are qi, or input quantity, and qo, or output
quantity. You are, in effect, proposing that we use "behavior" to mean only
the input quantity. I predict that you will have about as much luck
redefining the word behavior as I have had trying to redefine the word
control. The problem with the word behavior is that it is commonly used to
mean the action that produces a repeatable result, and just as commonly
used to define the result of the action. "Maze-running behavior" doesn't
refer to any particular action, but to the result accomplished by the
action (your proposed meaning). Maze-running behavior is accomplished by
turning left and right, which at the same level of description refers to
the output action, but is still called behavior.

Best,

Bill P.

Marc_Abrams5 · May 1, 1999, 2:51pm

from [ Marc Abrams (990501.1044) ]

[From Bill Powers (990501.0347 MDT)]

We have two perfectly good technical terms to use when the word "behavior"
is too ambiguous to use. They are qi, or input quantity, and qo, or output
quantity. You are, in effect, proposing that we use "behavior" to mean

only

the input quantity. I predict that you will have about as much luck
redefining the word behavior as I have had trying to redefine the word
control. The problem with the word behavior is that it is commonly used to
mean the action that produces a repeatable result, and just as commonly
used to define the result of the action. "Maze-running behavior" doesn't
refer to any particular action, but to the result accomplished by the
action (your proposed meaning). Maze-running behavior is accomplished by
turning left and right, which at the same level of description refers to
the output action, but is still called behavior.

Bill, would a correct use ot the term behavior relative to PCT be:
The state of the organism at either a specific point in time or over a
specific time interval?

Marc

rahintz · May 1, 1999, 3:05pm

Bob Hintz (990501 - 9:40)

[i.kurtzer (990430.2200]

"The other side of the coin is interesting as well. Like when someone
becomes privy to this fact and decides to play the game right back and
make the "controller's" hand follow an equally arbitrary path...at least
for a while. Then all bets are off. Skinner called it
counter-control. And such an analysis with human subjects was written
about in "Control or to be controlled" by Tom Bourbon. If anyone is
interested I could find a copy."

I would be very interested in seeing this if you can find it without too
much trouble.

I am, of course, cheering you on in my own silent way. You might consider
how a person makes a "creditable threat" and/or communicates what reference
(ie., perception) the coercer would like the coercee to produce. Clearly,
if I cannot read, you will not be able to coerce me into "reading Chaucer"
or anything else, no matter how much overwhelming force you apply. You
could put me in a room, you could even stick a book in front of my face and
possibly even prop up my eye lids, but could you make me focus on something
called a "word" and understand it.

I think when we want to talk about coercing behavior rather than simply body
position, we have to talk about communication which means that some of the
behavior of A is observed by B to provide information about A's internal
operations. This is quite different from merely being observed as a
"disturbance" to variables which B is controlling. From the other side, if
A wants to produce behavior that provides information for B, A must have
some knowledge of how B derives information from perceptions of other
being's behavior.

If you hold a gun to my head and give me orders in Spanish, no matter how
much I might wish to comply, I am likely to fail because I do not know what
you want me to do. You might try pointing and such like, but you would have
to be patient (more like an experimenter working with rats) or just shoot
me. In the which case, I am even less likely to be able to comply.

I would really be interested in pursuing the question of how control systems
perceive and/or produce behavior as "message" rather than "disturbance".

take care, bob

Bill_Powers1 · May 1, 1999, 4:38pm

[From Bill Powers (990501.1033 MDT)]

Marc Abrams (990501.1044)--

Bill, would a correct use ot the term behavior relative to PCT be:
The state of the organism at either a specific point in time or over a
specific time interval?

I don't think so. That's much too broad; for example one aspect of the
state of the organism at a given time is how tall it is. Would you call
tallness a behavior?

I csn accept the use of the term behavior when you're not trying to make
any precise statements. It's just sort of what the organism is "doing". But
when any controversy or question arises, the thing to do is go back to the
technical terms, the key words of PCT. Most of the time, you can then
figure out what you're trying to talk about.

Best,

Bill P.

R_Marken · May 1, 1999, 5:50pm

[From Rick Marken (990501.0950)]

Me:

I'm afraid I am controlling her behavior [in the rubber band demo]

i.kurtzer (990430.2200)

You are controlling her output... To call her output, behavior, is
to blur the line you have have actively drawn.

As Bill noted, the word "behavior" is ambiguous because it refers
to two variables, action (qo) and controlled input (qi). Since
we were talking about whether "behavior" could be controlled in
the rubber band demo, I assumed we were talking about qo. It's
certainly true that you can't control "behavior" in the rubber band
demo if you are talking about control of another person's qi. But
that doesn't mean that you can't control "behavior" in the rubber
band demo. You _can_ control behavior (qo) but you _can't_ control
behavior (qi). Linguistic ambiguity doesn't trump the phenomenon.

The rest of your argument derives from this conflation.

Not really. If you read the word "behavior" to mean "action" (qo)
as I meant it to be read in the context of the discussion of
"control of behavior" in the rubber band demo) then it all makes
sense. I agree that the distinction between "behavior" as action (qo)
and behavior as controlled input (qi) is important in technical
discussions of control. Indeed, that's the very point I was trying
to make in my posts about Simon's ants; it's reasonable to talk about
"behavior" reflecting the complexity of the environment when the
behavior you are talking about is qo; but when the behavior you are
talking about is qi then it's manifestly incorrect to say that
behavior reflects the complexity of the environment; in this case,
behavior (qi) has no relationship at all to the complexity of the
environment. It's behavior as controlled input (qi) that
psychologists have failed to notice.

But when we talk about coercion I think the distinction between
behavior as action (qo) and behavior as controlled input (qi)
is a _little_ less important (though it should _always_ be kept
in mind) because to the coercer it makes no difference; what a
coercer wants is some behavioral variable (such as the location
of a child) in a particular state: the reference state selected
by the coercer. The coercer doesn't care whether this variable
is an action (qo) the kid uses to control some other variable
or whether it is a controlled variable (qo) itself. In fact,
it's probably both. But that is of no interest to the coercer;
if the coerer wants the kid to go to her room then the kid
will end up in her room, by her own power or by being dragged.
And whether the kid wants to go to her room or not.

Me:

Also, could you tell me whether the following is a satisfactory
description of what you think coercion is:

"Coercion occurs when one person (coercer) makes another person
(coercee) do what s/he (coercee) doesn't want to do"

i.kurtzer (990430.2300)

Since it appeals to both a difference in reference and loop gain
it is tenatively satisfactory.

Ok. So in my little story about A and B, where I force both
A and B to go to their rooms and read Chaucer, you would say
that I am _not_ coercing A (who, unbeknownst to me, wants to
go to her room and read Chaucer anyway; A is my daughter Lise,
of course) and I _am_ coercing B (who, unbeknownst to me, wants
to go out and party but is afraid to protest my order because I
have violently forced her to follow my orders in the past and
she wants to avoid the pain).

Is this a correct interpretation of your view of what is and
is not 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/

Marc_Abrams5 · May 1, 1999, 6:42pm

from [ Marc Abrams (990501.1424) ]

Bob Hintz (990501 - 9:40)

I am, of course, cheering you on in my own silent way. You might consider
how a person makes a "creditable threat" and/or communicates what

reference

(ie., perception) the coercer would like the coercee to produce.

Not quite accurate. A coercer has _no_ concern about anyone elses
"perception" or "reference levels". The coercer is only intereted in the
"actions" that are produced by the coercee.

The rest of your point follows this misconception

Clearly, if I cannot read, you will not be able to coerce me into "reading

Chaucer"

or anything else, no matter how much overwhelming force you apply. You
could put me in a room, you could even stick a book in front of my face

and

possibly even prop up my eye lids, but could you make me focus on

something

called a "word" and understand it.

I think when we want to talk about coercing behavior rather than simply

body

position, we have to talk about communication which means that some of the
behavior of A is observed by B to provide information about A's internal
operations. This is quite different from merely being observed as a
"disturbance" to variables which B is controlling. From the other side,

if

A wants to produce behavior that provides information for B, A must have
some knowledge of how B derives information from perceptions of other
being's behavior.

This was the counter argument to Bill and Rick last year on the coercion
thread. You are talking about something that entails _more_ then coercion.
You are talking about a ( for a better word ) "full" interaction between two
or more people that might include coercion as _ONE_ of the behaviors going
on.

If you hold a gun to my head and give me orders in Spanish, no matter how
much I might wish to comply, I am likely to fail because I do not know

what

you want me to do. You might try pointing and such like, but you would

have

to be patient (more like an experimenter working with rats) or just shoot
me. In the which case, I am even less likely to be able to comply.

Whether you do or don't does not alter the fact that you are being coerced..

I would really be interested in pursuing the question of how control

systems

perceive and/or produce behavior as "message" rather than "disturbance".

I don't understand this. Can you try to expand on this and what it means?

Marc

rahintz · May 2, 1999, 12:30am

from [Bob Hintz (990501 - 9:40)]

[ Marc Abrams (990501.1424) ]

If I am a control system and I have a reference signal which defines how I
want to perceive your behavior and I have a perception of your behavior that
doesn't match, I have an error signal, which I would like to reduce. What
are my options?

1. I can direct my attention else where and no longer perceive what you are
doing. Hence, my error signal ceases to occur. This is especially useful
when
I don't believe I can affect your behavior anyway and it doesn't directly
disturb any other important controlled variables.

2. I can go up a level and adjust my reference signal so that I am OK with
what you are doing. (This might involve my making an effort to understand
your
behavior from your point of view, as best I can, so that I might appreciate
it in a
different way. This attitude is essential for what I tentatively consider
communication to
occur.)

3. I can approach you and physically manipulate your body so that you seem
to be doing what I want you to do.

The third option would be my opportunity to find out if I did indeed have
"overwhelming force" on my side. Does the fact that I attempt to lay my
hands on you, make me a coercer, regardless of whether or not I am strong
enough to make your body do what I want it to do? What are you, if you let
me lay my hands on you and allow me to manipulate your body even if you are
"really" strong enough to keep me from doing this? (I am imagining an adult
and a child "play" wrestling and the adult being pinned.)

It seems to me that if I am coercing regardless of the outcome, than I am
also teaching even when no learns anything, and helping even when no one
receives any assistance.

bob

rahintz · May 2, 1999, 4:39pm

from [Bob Hintz (990502.11:35)]

[ Marc Abrams (990501.1424) ]

My apologies. I was attempting to get to that message to keep working on it
and this program sent it.

I am in the process of learning how to actually participate and am likely to
screw things up for awhile yet.

I will get back to this later.

bob

rahintz · May 2, 1999, 6:43pm

from [Bob Hintz, 990502,1255)]

I am trying again.

I would like to posit "overt behavior" as the output of an organism (control
system?) which controls in some fashion variables which are perceived by the
organism to exist beyond the boundaries of its physical self, ie. objects,
events, etc., that are perceived as being outside its "skin" or external
physical surface. The energy for these behaviors come from the organism's
metabolism, muscle structure, etc. They are in some sense experienced as
"voluntary???".

Some of these behaviors are perceivable by other organisms and may disturb
variables which these others are controlling.

If A changes position and approaches B and B notices this change and has a
reference signal which defines "personal space", it may be that at some
point A will be "too close" and B will move away from A. At this point in
time we might say that A has disturbed a variable that B is controlling and
B has taken action to counteract that disturbance.

···

_____________________________
Has A controlled B's behavior?

Has A coerced B into moving?

Has conflict occurred?

What else needs to happen or what else would we need to know in order to
answer these questions?
______________________

If A alters direction in order to continue reducing distance between A and
B, it would seem likely that B's behavior is a disturbance to some variable
that A is controlling.

Has B controlled A's behavior?

Has B coerced A into changing directions?

Is conflict occurring?

What do we know now that we didn't know before?

I would assume that we might be willing to consider that each is controlling
the distance between them and that each has a different reference value for
that distance. I would also be willing to say that conflict is occurring
and that they are now an interdependent unit moving through space. One of
them will eventually succeed achieving her reference value and then this
phase of the interaction will be completed. If A achieves physical contact,
they may continue to interact. That interaction might be nice or nasty
depending upon other reference values which each may control in the
situation.

As neither of these organisms is imagined to be concerned about the other's
preferences in this case, is each coercing the other until such time as one
of them achieves her reference? It may be that one of them has overwhelming
speed and can impose her will upon the other. It may be that one or both
are "playing" and just want to keep the game going as long as possible.

These are the kinds of questions that I am concerned about in this
discussion.

I would apply the same questions to Bill's example of arm wrestling. Here
each is obviously coercing the other's hand to a particular position. Would
we call this mutual coercion or reciprocal coercion or just plain old
conflict?

My concern with communication is that I can use force to stop you from doing
something and I can make your body change positions if I am stronger and in
physical contact with it, but I can't force you to use your energy to do
anything without being able to tell you what I want and what I will do if
you choose not to do it.

This is no small task. I can try to train you by inflicting pain when you
do something I don't like and inflicting pleasure when you do something I do
like, but that takes us right back to BFSkinner, no one on this list really
seems to want to go there.

bob

R_Marken · May 2, 1999, 7:42pm

[From Rick Marken (990502.1140)]

Bob Hintz (990501 - 9:40)

You might consider how a person makes a "creditable threat" and/or
communicates what reference (ie., perception) the coercer would
like the coercee to produce.

Marc Abrams (990501.1424)

Not quite accurate. A coercer has _no_ concern about anyone elses
"perception" or "reference levels". The coercer is only intereted
in the "actions" that are produced by the coercee.

This is a good point, Marc. A coercer controls the behavior he
_perceives_. So what is controlled (coerced) may not correspond
exactly to any of the coercee's actions (qo) or (I might
add) controlled variables (qi). So when I control for a kid
reading Chaucer what I am controlling for is _my_ perception of
a kid in her room with a book titled "Cantebury Tales" in front
of her eyes. These perceptions of _mine_ (the coercer) will probably
overlap with some of the kid's actions (qo's like her hand holding
the book up to her eyes) and with some of the kid's controlled
perceptions (qi's like what she sees in front of her -- the comic
book tucked inside the book covers).

Because a coercer only controls behavior (qo, qi or irrelevant
side effects) as seen from the coercer's perspective, the coercee
(as Bill Powers noted) can learn to control his own perceptions
in a way that gives the coercer the perceptions he wants. This
is what many Jews did during the Spanish Inquisition; they just
gave the Inquisitors what the Inquisitors seemed to want (the
behavior they wanted to see) while controlling as they wanted
in private.

The point, of course, is that a coercer cannot really control
the _controlling_ done by the coercee; he cannot force a child
to _read_ Chaucer in the sense of forcing the child to control
for understanding the text; he cannot force a Jew to worship
Jesus in the sense of forcing the Jew to control for believing
he can be "saved" only by "accepting Jesus as his savior). All the
coercer can control is _his_ perceptions of the coercee's behavior
(perceptions that involve some mix of the coercee's qos, qis and/or
irrelevant side effects); and the coercer can only do this if he
(and the coercee) are somehow physcially _capable_ of producing
this perception (the coercer can't, for example, force a person
to float, unassisted, in midair for long periods of time because
people don't float in air).

Fred Nickols (990502.0635) --

For me the sticking point here is what it's always been, the
use of "behavior." Were you to say coercion is the control of
another person's "actions" by force or the credible threat
thereof I'd have no problem with the definition or with seeing
how the coercee is caught up in the coercer's control loop

See my points above. When we control a person's behavior we are
controlling our _own_ perceptions of their behavior; these perceptions
are likely to correspond to some of the coercee's actions (qo),
controlled inputs (qi) and accidental side effects. For example,
when I control my perception of how my kid makes a chord on the
guitar I am controlling some of her actions (hand position),
controlled perceptions (the strings she feels at her fingertips)
and irrelevant side effect (the sqeeking sound made when I move
her fingers where _I_ want them).

Fred Nickols (990502.0625 EDT) --

Coercion is in the eye of the coercee, not the coercer.

If you go with this definition of coercion then I don't see
how you can claim that some approaches to dealing with people
are coercive and others are not. First of all, you can't say
anything about the coerciveness of an approach until you have
implemented it and then asked everyone if they found it coercive.
You have to trust that people are being honest and accurate
about the coerciveness they report. And, finally, you end
up with a statistical measure of coerciveness in the end that
doesn't apply to individuals. You might find, for example, that
90% of the people subjected to a program report that they didn't
find it coercive. So now you advertise it as a non-coercive proram.
But the program is coercive to 10% of the people to whom it
was applied (which is probably about the percentage of people
in 15th century Spain who would have said that the Inquisition
was coercive).

If, however, you define coercion as "control of perceptual
aspects of behavior by the use of force or the threat thereof"
then you can say that programs like the Inquisition _are_
coercive -- not because everyone feels coerced but because
people (the Inquisitors) are acting coercively: they are
controlling behavior by force or the credible threat thereof
(burning people in public makes the threat credible). And now you
can tell the pcercers that if they _want_ to stop coercing here's
all they have to do: "Just stop trying to control other people's
behavior through the use of force of the threat thereof".

I think my (and Bill's) definition of coercion is nice because
it shows that responsibility for whether or not coercion is
being done belongs to the coercer, not the coercee.

Best

Rick

···

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

Kenneth_Kitzke_Value · May 2, 1999, 8:39pm

[From Kenny Kitzke (990502.1630 EDT)]

You say coercion *will be* manifested if the child does something besides
reading Chaucer. That shows to me that coercion depends on more than the
parent wanting to control the behavior of the child. I would call the kids
decision to do something else as resistance, and only when overcome with
force, it is coercion.

By your own words, if a daughter decides to read Chaucer because they want to
after Rick says they should, she would not be coerced, right? Rick would not
agree. He claims if the girls do something he wants (which he believes he
has the authority and ability to enforce, if necessary) regardless of what
they want, it is *always* coercion.

You seem to agree that the behavior or intention of the daughter must be
factored in to determine coercion. That is what most on CSGNet tried to say
last year but could not coerce Rick to agree with the multitude.

I contend that if the CSGNet cannot agree on the meaning of coercion in the
context of interactions among people as described by PCT, then we do better
for the new science of behavior to simply not use the term: coercion.

IOW, we could simply say that people are always using their behavior to
control their perceptions except when someone else uses overwhelming force to
restrict their behavior so they are not free to control their own perceptions.

If PCT has a contribution to make to the subject of whether to use coercion
to produce certain observable actions or non-actions in others, it would be
that what may appear to have produced what was wanted at the moment, it might
produce just the opposite result when the coercee can no longer be
overwhelmed.

So, the encouragement of PCT would be to never take that chance but take the
time to find a way where both parties can perceive what they want or
reorganize so that coercion is not even the last resort. Would that be good
advice for President Clinton regarding Mr. Milosovich and vice versa? Or is
there no other means to reach their desired results? Is there no way for
them to reorganize to avoid war as an unacceptable last resort?

I believe it is a parent's job to discipline a child concerning their
behavior. That way the school, the police or the army would not have to be
concerned about their behavior or the punishment.

But, the discipline I have in mind does not have to be punishment by force.
A good Christian friend gave a sermon on why he would never spank his child.
As you will probably enjoy, the pastor told him that was a non-Biblical
approach. The pastor's attempt at coercion failed with this man.

You have ignored a big possibility. The child may be obedient to their
parent's desire (even if not what the child wants for themselves) out of
overwhelming love for their parents.

I doubt if you can prove that. Have you not heard of violent hate-filled
children whose parents always let them do whatever they want?

My guess is that both extremes (tight control of children or no control of
children) are most likely to produce tyrants. A parent who disciplines
lovingly has the best chance of developing a child that will also walk with
love and respect for others.

Kenny

Isaac_Kurtzer1 · May 2, 1999, 10:39pm

i.kurtzer (990501.1830)

Bob Hintz (990501 - 9:40)

I literally bellowed out laughter at the accuracy of your post. For all
situation except the physical overpowering of a physical variable the coercer's
effects have to pass through the input function of the coercee. That makes the
room very broad. We currently have no models of communication, its valuation
via imagination, and the whatever happens next. It a very big "and then a
miracle happens"..We know some descriptives that seem to be instatiated
throughout..like openings..but for modelling sake we cannot capture anything
beyond the physical overpowering. I do not feel that that captures the
important variety of interactions that have been called "coercive". We have do
models of "threats" because we have no models of the basic acts of communication
and until we do I think I will drop the can of worms.

i.

Marc_Abrams5 · May 2, 1999, 10:48pm

from [ Marc Abrams (990502.1843) ]

>From [Bob Hintz (990501 - 9:40)]

[ Marc Abrams (990501.1424) ]

If I am a control system and I have a reference signal which defines how I
want to perceive your behavior and I have a perception of your behavior

that

doesn't match, I have an error signal, which I would like to reduce. What
are my options?

1. I can direct my attention else where and no longer perceive what you

are

doing. Hence, my error signal ceases to occur. This is especially useful
when I don't believe I can affect your behavior anyway and it doesn't

directly

disturb any other important controlled variables.

2. I can go up a level and adjust my reference signal so that I am OK

with

what you are doing. (This might involve my making an effort to understand
your behavior from your point of view, as best I can, so that I might

appreciate

it in a different way. This attitude is essential for what I tentatively

consider

communication to occur.)

3. I can approach you and physically manipulate your body so that you

seem

to be doing what I want you to do.

The third option would be my opportunity to find out if I did indeed have
"overwhelming force" on my side. Does the fact that I attempt to lay my
hands on you, make me a coercer, regardless of whether or not I am strong
enough to make your body do what I want it to do? What are you, if you

let

me lay my hands on you and allow me to manipulate your body even if you

are

"really" strong enough to keep me from doing this? (I am imagining an

adult

and a child "play" wrestling and the adult being pinned.)

It seems to me that if I am coercing regardless of the outcome, than I am
also teaching even when no learns anything, and helping even when no one
receives any assistance.

Bob, I have no disagreement with anything you have said. I would only add,
and I think this has been missing from the coercion thread, is that _other_
behaviors are going on simultaneously _wirh_ the coercion behavior.

Marc

R_Marken · May 2, 1999, 11:06pm

[From Rick Marken (990502.1505)]

Bob Hintz (990502,1255)--

If A changes position and approaches B and B notices this change
and has a reference signal which defines "personal space", it
may be that at some point A will be "too close" and B will move
away from A. At this point in time we might say that A has
disturbed a variable that B is controlling and B has taken
action to counteract that disturbance.

______________________

Has A controlled B's behavior?

I can't tell. Did A want B to move away? If so, A controlled
an action (moving away) B uses to control "personal space".

Has A coerced B into moving?

No.

Has conflict occurred?

Doesn't seem so. If there were conflict (over the value of
"percsonal space" for instance) we would see some evidence
of it; oscillation, efforts by each party to push the value
of the conflicted variable to the state they want.

What else needs to happen or what else would we need to know
in order to answer these questions?

You have to do the Test to determine whether A is controlling
B's actions and whether A and B are controlling the same variable
relative to differnet references.

______________________

If A alters direction in order to continue reducing distance
between A and B, it would seem likely that B's behavior is a
disturbance to some variable that A is controlling.

Has B controlled A's behavior?

Again, there is not enough evidence to tell. B might be trying
to control A's behavior; this would have to be tested.

Has B coerced A into changing directions?

No.

Is conflict occurring?

Again, it's still not possible to tell based on your description.
It's starting to sound more like it; it seems like A may have
a reference value for a smaller value of "personal speace" than B.

What do we know now that we didn't know before?

That A _may_ be controlling personal space too.

I would assume that we might be willing to consider that each
is controlling the distance between them and that each has a
different reference value for that distance.

We might even be willing to _test_ this hypothesis.

I would also be willing to say that conflict is occurring
and that they are now an interdependent unit moving through
space.

Would you be willing to _test_ this; either they are in conflict
or they are not. This (like your other proposals) doesn't seem like
a theoretical suggestion; it seem like an empirical question.

As neither of these organisms is imagined to be concerned
about the other's preferences in this case, is each coercing
the other until such time as one of them achieves her reference?

I don't see any sign of coercion in your description of the
interaction between A and B. Here is what I think coercion is:
A pulls out a gun, points it at B and says "back up 5 feet".

I would apply the same questions to Bill's example of arm
wrestling. Here each is obviously coercing the other's hand
to a particular position.

No. The arm wrestlers are simply in a conflict over the desired
position of their clasped hands. If one wrestler is a 5 year old
and the other is me then I am coercing the 5 year old when I place
our clasped hands down easily on his side of the table.

Would we call this mutual coercion or reciprocal coercion or
just plain old conflict?

With two approximately equal strength players it's conflict; with
one player much weaker than the other it's coercion.

My concern with communication is that I can use force to stop
you from doing something and I can make your body change positions
if I am stronger and in physical contact with it, but I can't force
you to use your energy to do anything without being able to tell
you what I want and what I will do if you choose not to do it.

In this case your coercion will fail. If you point a gun at
my head and tell me, in Portugeuse, to give you the keys to my
car, you ain't going to get them (unless I'm lucky and I guess
what you want).

Best

Rick

···

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

Marc_Abrams5 · May 2, 1999, 11:30pm

from { Marc Abrams (990502.1850) ]

>From [Bob Hintz, 990502,1255)]

I am trying again.

I would like to posit "overt behavior" as the output of an organism

(control

system?) which controls in some fashion variables which are perceived by

the

organism to exist beyond the boundaries of its physical self, ie. objects,
events, etc., that are perceived as being outside its "skin" or external
physical surface. The energy for these behaviors come from the organism's
metabolism, muscle structure, etc. They are in some sense experienced as
"voluntary???".

Whoa Bob you bit off quite a chunk here.

In a private post a few days ago Bill, made me aware of something I think is
_extremely_ important. We need to think of what we do in terms of _multiple_
( or moduled ) behaviors. That is we are controlling for many things at the
same time, and because of that are performing many "actions" at the same
time. We do not have _one_ supra high level goal that manages all the other
ones. Yes, we are capable of contradicting ourselves with actions that can
cause internal conflicts and errors.

This is significant for a number of reasons. A lot of mis-communication on
this net occurs because of this, with the coercion thread being a great
example :-).

Modeling _aspects_ of control phenomenon ( like coercion ) is _not_ the same
as modeling two interacting individuals. Rick never said that is was. He
only said modeling two interacting individuals was irrelevant to the
_coercion_ argument. I agree with Rick. I also agree that the questions
posed by others about coercion are interesting and important.

Some of these behaviors are perceivable by other organisms and may

disturb

variables which these others are controlling.

Absolutely

If A changes position and approaches B and B notices this change and has a
reference signal which defines "personal space", it may be that at some
point A will be "too close" and B will move away from A. At this point in
time we might say that A has disturbed a variable that B is controlling

and

B has taken action to counteract that disturbance.
_____________________________
Has A controlled B's behavior?

Has A coerced B into moving?

Has conflict occurred?

What else needs to happen or what else would we need to know in order to
answer these questions?

Great questions Bob. Now all you need to do is build a model of it :-). No
small task unfortuneately.

______________________

If A alters direction in order to continue reducing distance between A and
B, it would seem likely that B's behavior is a disturbance to some

variable

that A is controlling.

Has B controlled A's behavior?

Has B coerced A into changing directions?

Is conflict occurring?

What do we know now that we didn't know before?

What does the model show?

I would assume that we might be willing to consider that each is

controlling

the distance between them and that each has a different reference value

for

that distance. I would also be willing to say that conflict is occurring
and that they are now an interdependent unit moving through space. One of
them will eventually succeed achieving her reference value and then this
phase of the interaction will be completed. If A achieves physical

contact,

they may continue to interact. That interaction might be nice or nasty
depending upon other reference values which each may control in the
situation.

As neither of these organisms is imagined to be concerned about the

other's

preferences in this case, is each coercing the other until such time as

one

of them achieves her reference? It may be that one of them has

overwhelming

speed and can impose her will upon the other. It may be that one or both
are "playing" and just want to keep the game going as long as possible.

These are the kinds of questions that I am concerned about in this
discussion.

Are you concerned enough to model it, or attempt to? Do you feel you know
PCT well enough to try and model these issues or parts of them?

I would apply the same questions to Bill's example of arm wrestling. Here
each is obviously coercing the other's hand to a particular position.

Would

we call this mutual coercion or reciprocal coercion or just plain old
conflict?

How about, maybe all the above :-).

My concern with communication is that I can use force to stop you from

doing

something and I can make your body change positions if I am stronger and

in

physical contact with it, but I can't force you to use your energy to do
anything without being able to tell you what I want and what I will do if
you choose not to do it.

This is no small task. I can try to train you by inflicting pain when you
do something I don't like and inflicting pleasure when you do something I

do

like, but that takes us right back to BFSkinner, no one on this list

really

seems to want to go there.

Interesting post Bob. I hope you are interested enough to try and model some
of these questions. Are you familiar with Sd or any other modeling tools?

Marc

rahintz · May 3, 1999, 4:41am

from Bob Hintz (990502.2300)]

[From Rick Marken (990502.1505)]

I don't see any sign of coercion in your description of the
interaction between A and B. Here is what I think coercion is:
A pulls out a gun, points it at B and says "back up 5 feet".

What will A do, if B simply stands there looking at him with a puzzled
expression? What if B does not know what a gun is and/or what a gun can do
and thus, simply doesn't understand the significance of your behavior for
his own well being? Will shooting him help you control your perception of
his location?

···

_________

My concern with communication is that I can use force to stop
you from doing something and I can make your body change positions
if I am stronger and in physical contact with it, but I can't force
you to use your energy to do anything without being able to tell
you what I want and what I will do if you choose not to do it.

In this case your coercion will fail. If you point a gun at
my head and tell me, in Portuguese, to give you the keys to my
car, you ain't going to get them (unless I'm lucky and I guess
what you want).

Is trying to coerce someone different from succeeding at coercing them? If
success doesn't matter, why wouldn't the 5 year old be coercing just as much
as you are coercing in the arm wrestling contest? He would simply be
failing to succeed the same way I would be failing if you didn't understand
Portuguese.

Will I have succeeded if I simply stick my hand in your pocket and take the
keys, or must I take your hand and stick it in your pocket and grasp the
keys with your fingers touching the keys rather than my own and then force
your hand to drop the keys into my other hand. In the first case I get the
keys with no attempt to control your body. In the second case I do attempt,
and possibly succeed, in controlling your body.

If I cannot provide you with verbal or gestural information/commands (???)
that you are able to understand, how can I get you to "give" me the keys.
This is the "miracle" that Isaac referred to in his post yesterday.

I am also very interested in how you would go about testing whether two
organisms (human or otherwise) were indeed engaged in conflict when you are
not one of them. My only immediate solution is to continue to observe the
fit between their on-going behaviors in an effort to discover what variables
each is disturbing by virtue of their own efforts to control that variable
or related variables. I suppose I could try to join one of them and see
whether or not my efforts were considered helpful/hindering, but then they
might both decide to attack me as an outsider.

Marc Abrams - I don't have the knowledge, skill or time to construct
computer models that simulate anything. I did download the venism program,
but was unable to really do anything with it and unable to see how I could
get to interaction between two independent systems anyway. I have talked
with Chuck Tucker about the crowd simulation program and attempted to
explain what would be necessary if that was to simulate what you refer to as
"full" interaction involving a "chase" with nothing more complicated than
each controlling the distance between themselves and one other, but it
seemed to be too complicated at that time. I have a paper I can send you on
Elementary Forms and the Process of Opening. I have been working on some of
these problems for a considerable number of years.

take care, bob

Marc_Abrams5 · May 3, 1999, 5:06pm

from [ Marc Abrams (990503.1251) ]

>From Bob Hintz (990502.2300)]

Marc Abrams - I don't have the knowledge, skill or time to construct
computer models that simulate anything.

Ok, That is a problem for most of us. Any possible solutions? Do you see the
problems with the theological arguments that often take place on this net?
How do we advance our understanding of PCT without an anchor ( a model )?
How do we know that what you and I are talking about is the _same_
phenomenon.

Again Bob, I am not against theological arguments. Some of my best friends
are involved with them :-). But to what conclusion can we ever come to?

I did download the venism program,
but was unable to really do anything with it and unable to see how I could
get to interaction between two independent systems anyway.

They say ( the they, being old line SD modelers ) it takes about the same
amount of time to learn how to model as to _learn how to play a musical
instrument. About 18 months. Modeling is not easy, no question. and modeling
2 independent, _interacting_ systems is a real daunting challenge. But is't
the only way these arguments will ever be settled.

I have talked with Chuck Tucker about the crowd simulation program and

attempted to

explain what would be necessary if that was to simulate what you refer to

as

"full" interaction involving a "chase" with nothing more complicated than
each controlling the distance between themselves and one other, but it
seemed to be too complicated at that time.

Let me amend my prior statement. From "full" interaction to "multiple points
of interaction".

I have a paper I can send you on
Elementary Forms and the Process of Opening. I have been working on some

of

these problems for a considerable number of years.

I'd love to see it. Please send it. If you need my snail mail address I
would send that privately. Let me know. Thanks

Marc

R_Marken · May 3, 1999, 7:07pm

[From Rick Marken (990503.1100)]

Bob Hintz (990502.2300)--

What will A do, if B simply stands there looking at him

I don't know.

Is trying to coerce someone different from succeeding at
coercing them?

Yes.

Will I have succeeded if I simply stick my hand in your pocket
and take the keys

Yes.

If I cannot provide you with verbal or gestural information/commands
(???) that you are able to understand, how can I get you to
"give" me the keys.

You'll have to think of some other way to do it or give up on that
line of coercion.

I am also very interested in how you would go about testing
whether two organisms (human or otherwise) were indeed engaged
in conflict when you are not one of them.

Kent McClellend has done some nice conflict modeling; I think
he would be the right person to ask. I can imagine cases where
conflict might be hard to detect but it's usually pretty
obvious. I once made the mistake of throwing a bone between two
dogs who clearly wanted it; the conflict became obvious (and,
I'm afraid, quite bloody) when the bone fell between them.

Now let me ask you (and issac and anyone else who thinks there
is no coercion when "references are aligned") a question or two:

1. Was the Spanish Inquisition an example of coercion? Why or why
not?

2. Inquisitors were willing to (and did) burn people who didn't
behave as the Inquisitors wanted. If everyone had behaved as the
Inquisitors wanted, so none were burned, would you then say that
the Inquisition was not coercive? If all but a few behaved as
the Inquisitors wanted, would you say that the Inquisition was
coercive?

3. Is there any way for me to be non-coercive in my interaction
with people other than by being willing and able to force them
to do only what thay (unbekonwnst to me) want to do anyway?

Best

Rick

···

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

Isaac_Kurtzer1 · May 3, 1999, 10:01pm

i.kurtzer (990503.1800)

[From Rick Marken (990503.1100)]

Bob Hintz (990502.2300)--

> What will A do, if B simply stands there looking at him

I don't know.

we agree.

> Is trying to coerce someone different from succeeding at
> coercing them?

Yes.

we agree again.

> Will I have succeeded if I simply stick my hand in your pocket
> and take the keys

Yes.

again.

> If I cannot provide you with verbal or gestural information/commands
> (???) that you are able to understand, how can I get you to
> "give" me the keys.

You'll have to think of some other way to do it or give up on that
line of coercion.

again.

Now let me ask you (and issac and anyone else who thinks there
is no coercion when "references are aligned") a question or two:

O.K. here you making gestures to threats. Since in many cases there were
people who would have adopted references otherwise their imagination that
something nasty might happen. This is not the coercion where someone
arbitrarily overrides another by physical force. And I would rather not
equate them, particularly as we have nothing in the even primitive form of
models for threats and their ilk. So with that caveat.

1. Was the Spanish Inquisition an example of coercion? Why or why
not?

Depends on who you're refering to.

2. Inquisitors were willing to (and did) burn people who didn't
behave as the Inquisitors wanted. If everyone had behaved as the
Inquisitors wanted, so none were burned, would you then say that
the Inquisition was not coercive?

It depends on what the non-inquisitors were controlling. It would not be
coercive if, for example, a person wished to be a martyr. Being a martyr
has been and still is important for some people. So there it would fail
since the references are not conflicting, but maybe instead a perverse
form of cooperation.
I'm sure we could think of other scenarios.
Again, yes, coercion does occur. However, when it occurs is not because
of one person, but by all the parties involved. From my position.
So we sem to agree on a fair amount. But the last one is the stinker.
Maybe we should now lay out our _reasons_ for this separation.

i.

Isaac_Kurtzer1 · May 3, 1999, 10:56pm

i.kurtzer (990503.1530)

[From Rick Marken (990503.1530)]
Me:

Was the Spanish Inquisition an example of coercion? Why or why

not?

i.kurtzer (990503.1800)

Depends on who you’re refering to.

The inquisitors. Who else?

The inquisitees. You know the routine.

Me:

Inquisitors were willing to (and did) burn people who didn’t

behave as the Inquisitors wanted. If everyone had behaved as the

Inquisitors wanted, so none were burned, would you then say that

the Inquisition was not coercive?

isaac:

It depends on what the non-inquisitors were controlling.

They were all controlling for different things. Let’s say

10% of the non-inquisitors didn’t want to do what the

inquisitors wanted them to do. Was the inquisition, then,

10% coercive?

I would think that 10% coercive is a pretty silly way to describe it.
I would say that coercion did take place depending on what were the intentions
of all the parties involved. That it happens, yes or no, in particular
circumstances but not by a nomothetic %.

So we sem to agree on a fair amount.

Glad to hear it.

By the way, you didn’t answer my most important question:

Is there any way for me to be non-coercive in my interaction

with people other than by being willing and able to force them

to do only what thay (unbekonwnst to me) want to do anyway?

Could you answer it now?

Not until we resolve 1 and 2.
i.

···