[From Bill Powers (990503.1034 MDT)]
i.kurtzer (990501.1845)--
to bill, rick, and anyone else that contends that interactions can be
understood by reference to one actor, given that he/she mightly strong,
clever,
etc.
I think the position that "its takes all actors involved to understand a
social
interaction" is simply an extension of the oft mentioned postion that you
can't
tell what one person is doing by just looking. The latter refers to
intentions
by its objective counterpart control, to define what is that the person is
doing. This has been repeated so often that to back away and say "well it
depends what you mean by behavior" is an opportunistic red-herring that
works
always in the favor who wields it. When we mention behavior on the net this
has always been contrasted with actions. I am following your example.
So when
you see behavior written from me think "the input signal specified by a
reference". How you would expect otherwise?
Fine, but when non-PCTers, or PCTers who don't adopt your meaning, say
"behavior", they are likely to refer either to qo or qi. Let's think in
terms of a possible model of coercion. It involves, as you say, an
interaction (I never thought otherwise).
The best way to model coercion is simply to model two control systems and
explore what happens when they affect each other in various ways. The model
I would use is one in which A wants to perceive B's _action_ to be in a
specific state ("Bruce, sit up straight in your chair"). Here sitting up
straight is taken to be a means by which Bruce is achieving some
perception, such as appearing to others cool and bored, rather than being a
perceptual goal of Bruce's at the same level(it is, of course, a perceptual
goal at a lower level).
There are (at least) two ways in which this can be accomplished, which we
can illustrate using the rubber band demo. The easy way is for A to
manipulate a disturbance of a variable that B is controlling by means of
the action in question, if one can be found. But there's another way: A can
apply forces directly to B's means of acting. In the rubber-band example,
the first possibility involves A's moving A's end of the rubber bands
around, while the second involves A's reaching out and seizing B's end of
the rubber bands, or B's hand. A is not concerned about the knot, but
simply wants to control B's hand.
If B doesn't change organization, the result of the second approach will be
a conflict. For B to continue controlling, B will have to overcome A's
forces. So now we have an expressed interpersonal conflict, although not
yet any coercion as I think of it.
To get coercion, we must alter A's parameters relative to B's, so A's
output function can produce a force several times as large as B's limiting
output force. Now when A starts to apply a force to B's hand in order to
move it where A wants to see it, B will increase the opposing force, and at
first B's hand won't depart much from the motions B is using to control the
knot's position. But as A keeps increasing the force, eventually B will be
producing the maximum force possible. Then, as A continues increasing the
force, B's hand will move as A wants it to. Now A is coercing B, as I think
of coercion, and B has lost control of the knot (and anything else B might
use that hand to control).
Note that countercontrol is not possible when coercion is happening: the
means of acting is no longer B's to vary.
How do we get from this simple example of coercion by application of
superior force to coercion by _threat_ of force? There are several routes
that get us into complex scenarios (for instance, watching others get
coerced, which requires the ability to imagine experiencing what someone
else is experiencing), but let's keep it simple.
I think anyone who has tried to resist coercion and has been overcome by a
superior force will attest that this is a most unpleasant experience, not
one to be sought out. If Bruce is forced to sit up straight in his chair by
being seized and strapped rigidly into it, the experience is likely to be
both painful and humiliating. Bruce may be furious about this treatment and
may try to persist in slouching cooly in his chair, but eventually, in a
day or a month, his higher-level systems are going to look at the net error
and decide that it's very uncool to sit there strapped helplessly in a
chair; there's a net loss of cool from defying the command. So at a higher
level, Bruce decides to sit straight in his chair, while planning how to
slash the teacher's tires.
What we have now is Bruce sitting straight in his chair all by himself,
which is what the teacher wants to see. The teacher, therefore, is no
longer applying force to Bruce. Do we now have a non-coercive situation,
just as if Bruce had never slouched in his chair? The teacher knows we
don't, and Bruce knows we don't.
Why is Bruce sitting upright in his chair? Because that is his reference
level for how to sit, right now. But -- and this question hasn't been asked
during this long discussion of coercion -- WHY has Bruce set this reference
level for the way he sits? Is it because he has spontaneously chosen to
give up whatever perceived benefits slouching in his chair got him? No. It
is because he has experienced, and remembers, the consequences of pain and
humiliation that are brought about by trying to be cool through slouching
in his chair. And he knows the same teacher is still there, with the same
intentions, and with the same ability and willingness to overcome his
maximum efforts and force him to sit up straight if he doesn't do it
himself. So he sits straight to avoid what he knows will happen if he
doesn't. If he forgets for a moment what will happen and starts to slouch,
the teacher will remind him: "Are you choosing to be strapped in your chair
again?"
If this method never worked, or never seemed to work, it would not still be
used. But it does work, or seem to work. A child, once humiliated or caused
pain while being coerced, may decide to adopt the commanded reference
condition, and may then discover that life is better than it was with the
old one ("Bruce and Rick, tell each other you're sorry or I'll assume
you're choosing to go away from your friends again.") So Bruce and Rick
make up and live happily ever after.
But the memory of pain and humiliation will not disappear even if "the
lesson is learned." Bruce and Rick both hate that teacher.
Notice that when A is far more powerful than B, B's action is determined by
A, not by B. A can choose any position of B's hand, for example, or any
configuration of B's body, and make it happen, regardless of B's wishes in
the matter. If B wants to achieve something other than wasting effort and
getting tired, all B can do is try to guess where A wants his hand or how A
wants his body configured, and bring about that result before A can
generate the appropriate forces. A, perceving the desired position, action,
or configuration of B, will experience no error and will not act on B. B,
by figuring out what A wants and giving it to him, can prevent A from
applying superior force to B.
That's about what happens when most methods of teaching "responsible
behavior" are carried out. I exclude RTP.
Best,
Bill P.
