See how the fates their gifts alot

rahintz · May 4, 1999, 1:27am

from [Bob Hintz (990503.2005)]

From [ Marc Abrams (990503.1251) ]

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.

The challenge for me has been learning to perceive the behavior of others as
controlling their perceptions of social variables, ie., phenomena that
exists only between two or more persons. Distance between two is the most
concrete and basic variable of this type that I have come up with. It is
essential for all life forms to survive, either because they must eat others
or avoid being eaten by others. When sexual reproduction evolved,
establishing physical contact became equally important on some occasions. I
will be very interested in your response to the paper

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

points

of interaction".

That is all I meant by "full" as well. I assumed that minimally each could
perceive the other at a definable maximum distance and that each could move
in space in variable directions at variable speeds. This interaction could
be complicated by changing the environment (placing objects in the space
that would block the perception of each and/or the movement of each, ie.,
the couldn't see through or move through it), by complicating the actors by
adding sensory organs (smell and hearing are simply different ways to
perceive others at a distance) etc.

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

If you send me your email address I think I can simply attach it. Its in
Word 97 if that works for you.

bob

Isaac_Kurtzer1 · May 4, 1999, 2:09am

i.kurtzer (990503.2200)

[From Rick Marken (990503.1100)]

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?

You could be unwilling to force others to do what you want them to do. I
don't think that that would be resigning to saying one person can
determine what the interaction is, but simply restates that each person
makes a difference. By being unwilling to use force there are fewer
possibilities that the interaction could be. Determining the rest takes
the other actor(s).

i.

R_Marken · May 4, 1999, 3:57am

[From Rick Marken (990503.2000)]

Me:

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?

i.kurtzer (990503.2200)

You could be unwilling to force others to do what you want them
to do.

Attaboy!

I don't think that that would be resigning to saying one person
can determine what the interaction is

Of course not. But even if it were, I wouldn't tell anybody;-)

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 4, 1999, 5:04am

i.kurtzer (990503.2000)

[From Rick Marken (990503.2000)]

Me:

> 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?

i.kurtzer (990503.2200)

> You could be unwilling to force others to do what you want them
> to do.

Attaboy!

Atta what? I haven't changed positions. It still takes two to tango.
Coercion is a type of interaction that requires certain intentions from
all the actors involved. If this isn't satisfied then that reduces the
number of interactions that could be taking place.

> I don't think that that would be resigning to saying one person
> can determine what the interaction is

Of course not. But even if it were, I wouldn't tell anybody;-)

Its nice to know you agree with me. But this does not sound like your
earlier position, at all.The conclusion I arive at it is that one person
can NEVER have a reference that makes an interaction NECESSARILY
coercive, or helpful, or whatever, EVEN IF THEY WANT TO COERCE THE
OTHER, there are masochists after all. Call me suspicious but I have
been arguing this case for quite awhile and this is first I have heard
you agree with the above.
Just checking.

i.

Marc_Abrams5 · May 4, 1999, 1:52pm

from [ Marc Abrams (990503.0912) ]

>From [Bob Hintz (990503.2005)]

>From [ Marc Abrams (990503.1251) ]

The challenge for me has been learning to perceive the behavior of others

as

controlling their perceptions of social variables, ie., phenomena that
exists only between two or more persons.

I think I know what you mean by this but might be a PCT mis-statement.
First you don't have to "learn" to perceive. Thats what we do. At least our
sensory organs and memory. We also don't "controL' "social variables" any
differently then any other kind of CV's. Control is control. What happens
between two or more people and within ousrselves are _multiple_ processes
that are going on _simultaneously_. To say the someone is just doing or
contro;;ing for _any_ one thing is inaccirate. An _interaction_ between two
or more people might _include_ controlling for distance but it certainly is
not Limited to that. How do you know what else to include in a model? How do
we know how other CV's affect the "distance" one. I can go on on with some
real interesting questions. Whay I find interesting about the coercion
prosess is not so much the actual act of coercion, I think Bill and Rick
have it down pat, as much as what kind(s) of effects it has on the _other_
control processes going on at the same time.

Distance between two is the most
concrete and basic variable of this type that I have come up with.

Bob, this is really no different then coercion. It is _one_ of many things
that may be controlled at the same time. This does not mean you can't model
the "distance" CV. You just can't say it "represents" the entire sum and
substance of what someone _may_ be controlling for. It shows the phenomenon
of control and how control might affect that CV _if_ that were a CV. We
would need to determine _if_ "keeping a certain distance" was a CV for the
specific individual.s

It is essential for all life forms to survive, either because they must

eat others

or avoid being eaten by others. When sexual reproduction evolved,
establishing physical contact became equally important on some occasions.

These are important questions. They are also currently out of the realm of
_scientific_ ( i.e. testsable ) PCT research. Someday, hopefully, that will
not be the case.

I will be very interested in your response to the paper

I would be very interested in seeing it

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

That is all I meant by "full" as well. I assumed that minimally each

could

perceive the other at a definable maximum distance and that each could

move

in space in variable directions at variable speeds. This interaction

could

be complicated by changing the environment (placing objects in the space
that would block the perception of each and/or the movement of each, ie.,
the couldn't see through or move through it), by complicating the actors

by

adding sensory organs (smell and hearing are simply different ways to
perceive others at a distance) etc.

The problem with this "interaction" is that you are basing your thrust, and
effort, to explain what you "see". If you have done the rubber band
experiment and used a marker to chart your movements, whike trying to keep
the knot over the dot, you would appreciate the folly in this.
This is something Rick keeps pointing out as being a _major_ problem with
convential research. From what I can see ( I am not a researcher ) he is
right on. You can use convential research as a _starting_ point ( i.e. a
description of the phenomenon ). But the _second_ question must always be.
"Ok, given this behavoir, what might this person be controlling for?" To add
to this it will never be just one thing. So you need to find out ( by doing
the test ) What behavioral "module" _you_ are interested in, and test for
it.

If you send me your email address I think I can simply attach it. Its in
Word 97 if that works for you.

msa@panix.com

Thanks again Bob.

Marc

R_Marken · May 4, 1999, 4:06pm

[From Rick Marken (990504.0900)]

Me:

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?

i.kurtzer (990503.2200)

You could be unwilling to force others to do what you want them
to do.

Me:

Attaboy!

i.kurtzer (990503.2000)

Atta what?

Attaman?

I haven't changed positions. It still takes two to tango.

Yes. But now you're not leading -- by force.

Isaac:

I don't think that that would be resigning to saying one
person can determine what the interaction is

Me:

Of course not.

Isaac:

Its nice to know you agree with me...Call me suspicious
but I have been arguing this case for quite awhile and this
is first I have heard you agree with the above

I agree that you don't think you are saying that "one person
can determine what the interaction is". But, of course, you
_are_ saying that one person (a coercer) _can_ , unilaterally,
change the nature of an interaction from coercive to non-coercive
by simply being "unwilling to force others to do what you [the
coercer] want them to do". And that is absolutely correct. A
coercer can stop a coercive interaction by becoming (by
changing goals) unwilling to coerce (control behavior by force
if necessary).

Now, I think, all we disagree about is whether another
individual -- the coercee -- can unilaterally change an
interaction from coercive to non-coercive by aligning his
references with those of the coercer. If you want to say
that, according to PCT, a coercee can stop coercion by simply
adopting the goals of the coercer, then you will be making PCT
very popular with people who want to control other people's
behavior (coercers). These coercers will put you on the talk
show circuit explaining why the new science of human behavior
-- PCT -- says that all this coercion wouldn't be happening if
all these coercees would just go along with the program -- and
pay no attention to those coercers behind the screen.

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 4, 1999, 5:01pm

[From Kenny Kitzke (990504.1230EDT)]

PMFJI

Come on Rick, can't you just give in to a different definition of coercion?
Or, can't you see coercion from the side of two people instead of one? On
the other side of the coin, if a person already has the same reference as one
in authority, there is no need for coercion or the use of destructive force
by the one in authority. Isn't that a valuable lesson?

Finding ways for authority figures to align references without using
coercion, will benefit both parties. That is what the talk shows would
really want to hear.

When a person senses that someone wants to coerce them concerning actions
they control at high gain, they first usually try to withdraw from the
situation. That thwarts the coercer when possible. Soon, those who want to
be coercive have no one left to coerce. Too bad for them.

A person who will not accept coercion in a relationship will resist until
they are dead. This is called martyrdom (it may be another silly idea to you
which others find quite commendable). The world often gives more respect to
coercers as heroes than to martyrs as heroes. That encourages coercers too.

Being a martyr looks foolish to some. Losing or giving in looks foolish.
Supporting Bill Clinton, my president, the top coercer in the whole world,
that is what is smart. What will it take for the voices of the oppressed to
rise together against the coercers and say "Tread on me no more!" or we will
take your authority away and give it to someone else?

Kenny

R_Marken · May 4, 1999, 7:44pm

[From Rick Marken (990504.1250)]

Me:

If you want to say that, according to PCT, a coercee can stop
coercion by simply adopting the goals of the coercer, then you
will be making PCT very popular with people who want to control
other people's behavior (coercers).>

Kenny Kitzke (990504.1230EDT) --

Come on Rick, can't you just give in to a different definition
of coercion?

Sure I could. I would just feel that my sense of decency (to
say nothing of my understanding of the nature of control) was
violated if I had to say that there is no coercion if I give
in and do what some bully (coercer) wants (so that my goals
are now aligned with his). This violates my sense of decency
because I don't like to think that I have improved the bully's
image by being defeated by him. This also violates my
understanding of control because I know that the bully is
_still_ controlling my behavior (coercing me) even though he
doesn't have to do anything about it at the moment (just as
a driver is still controlling the position of the car even
though he doesn't have to turn the wheel to get the car on
course at the moment).

You, yourself, seemed to realize that coercion can be occurring
even when the coercer need take no action (force) to keep
the coercee behaving as the coercer wants. You said:

The coercer must be able and intend to intervene with
overwhelming force if the observable action(s) of the other
person is/are not what the coercer wants

This is precisely right. The coercer is always coercing
because he is always able to intervene with overwhelming
force if the observable actions of the other person are not
what the coercer wants. If the coercee is doing what the
coercer wants and then shifts to not doing what the coercer
wants, you will see the coercer act to restore the coercee's
behavior to what the coercer wants. If the coerer does _not_
act in this way then he is not a coercer, In this case the
coercee's behavior is not under control and the coercee can
do whatever he wants around this non- coercer.

Best

Rick

···

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

rahintz · May 5, 1999, 12:43am

from [Bob Hintz (990504.1940)]

[ Marc Abrams (990503.0912) ]

If there are two dots on the paper that do not overlap and each person wants
to keep the knot over a different dot, I will observe conflict in their
interaction. If the rubber band is sufficiently strong, such that their
efforts don't break it, I may observe victory in that one of them might be
able to keep the knot over his dot. I don't know if this would be coercion
as keeping a knot over the dot does not require that anyone attempt to
control anyone else's behavior.

If A's goal is to get B to put his hand in a particular place and A and B
are connected by an unbreakable rubber band, it will work like a rope when
it is stretched to
its maximum. Then if A is strong enough A can physically pull B's hand and
might be able to get it where A wants it. This would continue to be
conflict
until B gave up and left his hand where A put it. At which point I might
believe that A has coerced B into leaving his hand there.

If I am able to enlarge the dots (or even just move two large dots) so that
each over laps enough that both A & B could keep the knot inside the
boundary of their own dot even though it wouldn't be centered, I might see
them discover a place where they could each relax a little without
experiencing an error signal. This would be a different end to the conflict
as there would be no "loser". I have used this idea in mediation training.

Obviously, if the rubber band breaks, I will observe the termination of any
relationship between their behaviors based on manipulating the rubber band,
as they will no longer be attempting to control a shared variable through
that means. This may be the most frequent end to conflict, ie., divorce,
firing/quitting, murder, etc.

This is how I have tried to use the rubber bands from a social point of view
rather than an individual point of view.

This use of the rubber band method seems different from the traditional
psychological use as I want both participants to be active control units
attempting to achieve a goal in their interaction with each other. I want
to understand what they do together, not simply what either might be doing
alone, but then that's why I'm a sociologist rather than a psychologist.

I will send the paper shortly.

bob

Marc_Abrams5 · May 5, 1999, 1:58pm

from [ Marc Abrams (990505.0919) ]

Hi Bob,

Got the paper, Thank you. I will get back to you on it.

>From [Bob Hintz (990504.1940)]

If there are two dots on the paper that do not overlap and each person

wants

to keep the knot over a different dot, I will observe conflict in their
interaction. If the rubber band is sufficiently strong, such that their
efforts don't break it, I may observe victory in that one of them might be
able to keep the knot over his dot. I don't know if this would be

coercion

as keeping a knot over the dot does not require that anyone attempt to
control anyone else's behavior.

Part of the problem of extrapolating from something basic into something
more complex is the lack of understanding we have about _all_ the
ramifications that _may_ take place when additional ( read that as unknown )
factors become part of the equation. Coercion is really a very simple
process. The problem that some on the net have is that this ( ie. coercion )
model does not cover the _entire_ interaction between two or more people.
That is true. But _that_ does not change the definition of the basic
definition of coercion.

You bring up an interesting point and If I recall, last year, Bruce Nevin
brought up some equally interesting point.s But kets not lose sight of the
purpose of the rubber band experiment. The only purpose was to show that
_control_ in fact was responsible for our behavior. It was not intended to
show _why_ someone might take on someone elses reference level, Or what
might happen if someone choose to ignore it. or any number of other things
that could take pkace during any interaction. In fact it was not intended to
show _how_ two prople interact. It was intended to show _control_.

If A's goal is to get B to put his hand in a particular place and A and B
are connected by an unbreakable rubber band, it will work like a rope when
it is stretched to
its maximum. Then if A is strong enough A can physically pull B's hand

and

might be able to get it where A wants it. This would continue to be
conflict
until B gave up and left his hand where A put it. At which point I might
believe that A has coerced B into leaving his hand there.

You are trying to do to much with to little. Don't forget that coercion can
come and go intermintently. As a process and "behavioral modeule" I will
start and stop coercing when _I_ see fit, and coercing will never be the
_only_ behavioral modeule that is going on. So we need a model. We need
_some_ representation of the situation that _resembles what is _actually_
raking place. No small task, but I believe doable. I will try to address
this issue in another post.

If I am able to enlarge the dots (or even just move two large dots) so

that

each over laps enough that both A & B could keep the knot inside the
boundary of their own dot even though it wouldn't be centered, I might see
them discover a place where they could each relax a little without
experiencing an error signal. This would be a different end to the

conflict

as there would be no "loser". I have used this idea in mediation

training.

What you are talking about involves other CV's besides "keeping the dot ...
". You may be rught on target, or you may not be. Can you think of a way of
testing this hypothesis? Remember, in testing we need to be able to falsify
your hypothesis. Only showing that it _can_ happen is not sufficent.

Obviously, if the rubber band breaks, I will observe the termination of

any

relationship between their behaviors based on manipulating the rubber

band,

as they will no longer be attempting to control a shared variable through
that means. This may be the most frequent end to conflict, ie., divorce,
firing/quitting, murder, etc.

This is how I have tried to use the rubber bands from a social point of

view

rather than an individual point of view.

Again Bob, Some very interesting conjectures ( at least for me ). How do
we test them?

This use of the rubber band method seems different from the traditional
psychological use as I want both participants to be active control units
attempting to achieve a goal in their interaction with each other. I want
to understand what they do together, not simply what either might be doing
alone, but then that's why I'm a sociologist rather than a psychologist.

According to your definition I guess I would consider myself intereted in
"Social Psychology" That is, how individuals create and maintain social
organizations.

Not to harp :-). but the rubber band experiment is intended to show the
existence of control, not how or why two people may interact. It is highly
"artificial" in that you are asking for and getting someone to _maintain_
_your_ reference_ ( dot over .... ) for the duration of the experiment.

Marc

Kenneth_Kitzke_Value · May 6, 1999, 1:45am

[From Kenny Kitzke (990505.2120EDT)]

Well, your sense of decency is just too precious to me to disturb you any
longer. I finally grasp why you battle this issue so hard. And, as written
I agree with you.

If a person gives in (unwillingly) to the bully's demand, it would be
coercion by both our definitions. But, while the wimp resists giving in, I
would not call it coercion. Would you? NATO is not coercing Yugoslavia,
yet. All NATO has done so far it to do what it wants. And Yugoslavia is
still doing what it wants, despite what NATO is doing. While I believe NATO
can coerce Yugoslavia, it has not yet applied overwhelming force. Agree?

<You, yourself, seemed to realize that coercion can be occurring
even when the coercer need take no action (force) to keep
the coercee behaving as the coercer wants.>

If the coercee is acting against his will because he fears what the coercer
will do, I would agree with you again, even if the coercer is taking no
forceful action.

I would be willing to say that the person with the ability and intent to
apply overwhelming force perceives being able to coerce. But, until the
intended coercee actually perceives that force and because of that perception
behaves in the way the coercer wants against their will, there is no coercion
in the relationship.

I feel bogged down again but understand your view and why better than ever.
I just prefer my view. So when you say coercion is taking place, it will
just have to be different that when I say it is taking place some times.
There certainly will be times that we as coercer, coercee and observer both
agree that coercive behavior seems to be taking place and we wish a
non-coercive behavior would get both interactive parties what they want.

Kenny