Virtual Coercion, Data, Questions

CSGnet Archive CSG1998
1

[From Rick Marken (980810.2220)]

Me:

When someone breaks the law in your state does the officer
say "I see you've chosen to go to jail"?

Tim Carey (980811.0630) --

If I say to you "If you clean my shoes you can have $50.00" and you
subsequently clean my shoes, would it be fair to conclude that
you had chosen to acquire $50.00?

Me:

Do you really see those two situations as equivalent? Do you
really think that the lawbreaker (like the person who shines
the shoes) "chose" (intended to produce) the consequence?

i.kurtzer (980810.1700)

It is irrelevant what we really think. It remains an empirical
question.

This is just a way of stopping discussion. If we had to rush to
the lab to test every sentence we wrote then there would be no
particular advantage to having the PCT model at all.

When I break the law (by speeding say) I'm never doing it in
order to get a ticket. So, if a policeman pulls me over and
says "I see you've chosen to get a ticket" I know (and I'm
sure he knows, too) that he is just being condescending; I
didn't chose to get the ticket. People sometimes may speed
to get tickets but I think most people will agree that this
is _very_ rare (I've never met a person who intentionally
sped in order to get a ticket).

I have, however, met many people who have chosen to do various
labors (like cleaning shoes) for pay; they intend to get paid
and they do what they have contracted to do in order to get
their money. If an employer said to the person doing the
labor "I see you've chosen to get paid" the person would surely
agree with him and say something like "yes, you bet I've
chosen to get paid; and if you don't pay me I'll be pissed".
I don't think many people getting a ticket would answer the
question "I see you've chosen to get a ticket" by saying
"yes, you bet I've chosen to get that ticket; and if you don't
give it to me I'll be pissed".

So I think most people (who do not have an ax to grind) would
see the difference between the policeman saying "I see you've
chosen to a ticket" and the employer saying "I see you've chosen
to get paid". It's really rather obvious, don't you agree?

Me:

"a difference between a women who makes love because she likes
a guy and one who makes love because the guy has a knife at
her throat? That distinction means something in (and is
understandable in terms of) PCT."

i.kurtzer (980810.1930) --

That distinction seems to be related to "why" she "makes love".
I agree...So read i agree with everything you say in that
statement.

OK. Now to the other statement. I also said:

"Either way, the coercer gets what he wants; the intentions of
the coercee (for the 4 billionth time) are irrelevant to whether
or not coercion is going on."

isaac says:

Here you are arguing that the "why" of the coercee is not a
meaningful distinction in terms of social interactions.

I have no idea what this means. I am arguing that the intentions
of the coercee are irrelevant to the fact that the coercer is
controlling the coercee's behavior. The only relevance I can
see to my statement above is that a guy who is raping a woman is
coercing her _whether she wants to make love with him or not_. If
the guy doesn't check the woman's intentions first, then it's
rape (coercion).

Me:

I came up with the model to explain what we mean by "coercion"
in PCT (coercion is simply control of the behavior of a weaker
by a stronger control system).

Tim Carey (980811.0700) --

Who are the "we in PCT" you refer to?

Bill and me.

···

---------------
OK. I can see that many of you (Isaac, Tim, Bruce G, Bruce N.
and apparently many others) are committed to objecting to
whatever Bill and I have to say about coercion. So I have a
suggestion. In an effort to stop this continual process of
going around in circles, could some (all?) of you answer a
couple of questions so I can at least understand what you want
from Bill and me?

1. What is it that Bill and I are saying that is so horribly
wrong about coercion?

2. More important, what is it that you _want_ to hear us say
about coercion?

I'll be looking for some nice, happy, friendly, informative
answers in the morning.

Best

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

2

i.kurtzer (980811.0245)

[From Rick Marken (980810.2220)]

Rick:

> When someone breaks the law in your state does the officer
> say "I see you've chosen to go to jail"?

Tim Carey (980811.0630) --

> If I say to you "If you clean my shoes you can have $50.00" and you
> subsequently clean my shoes, would it be fair to conclude that
> you had chosen to acquire $50.00?

Rick:

> Do you really see those two situations as equivalent? Do you
> really think that the lawbreaker (like the person who shines
> the shoes) "chose" (intended to produce) the consequence?

i.kurtzer (980810.1700)

> It is irrelevant what we really think. It remains an empirical
> question.

This is just a way of stopping discussion. If we had to rush to
the lab to test every sentence we wrote then there would be no
particular advantage to having the PCT model at all.

i don't think you are hearing what i intend. Instead, i see this as the
particular advantage of PCT. As we cannot take on face value what someone is
doing, but must discriminate the intended from the unintended consequences, so
this carries over to understanding social interactions.

When I break the law (by speeding say) I'm never doing it in
order to get a ticket. So, if a policeman pulls me over and
says "I see you've chosen to get a ticket" I know (and I'm
sure he knows, too) that he is just being condescending; I
didn't chose to get the ticket.

I would also probably interpret his comment as being rude. And i also have
not intentionally chosen to get a ticket.

People sometimes may speed
to get tickets but I think most people will agree that this
is _very_ rare (I've never met a person who intentionally
sped in order to get a ticket).

I agree it may be rare. But plotting relative frequencies in not at issue.
And as we know such frequencies can fall differently with respect to further
fine-slicing. For example, protestors have intentionally gotten arrested
knowing that their numbers would clog the jails. I'm sure you knew people
that were quite willing to do that. In that situation their intentions make a
meaningful difference in our understanding the interaction.
..............................................................................
.....................................
Rick:

  "a difference between a women who makes love because she likes
  a guy and one who makes love because the guy has a knife at
  her throat? That distinction means something in (and is
  understandable in terms of) PCT."

i.kurtzer (980810.1930) --

>> That distinction seems to be related to "why" she "makes love".
>> I agree...So read i agree with everything you say in that
>> statement.

>OK. Now to the other statement. I also said:

  "Either way, the coercer gets what he wants; the intentions of
  the coercee (for the 4 billionth time) are irrelevant to whether
  or not coercion is going on."

isaac says:

> Here you are arguing that the "why" of the coercee is not a
> meaningful distinction in terms of social interactions.

rick:

I am arguing that the intentions
of the coercee are irrelevant to the fact that the coercer is
controlling the coercee's behavior.

I am not disagreeing that some aspect of the coercce's behavior is predictable
from the intention of the coercer. So with ticketing the cop will give you a
ticket whether or not you want one. i am saying that to understand the
interaction the intentions of the other person are relevant. Seeing two
persons struggling and flopping about might be rough sex, or it might be rape.
I know rape happens, but so does rough sex. And they are as different as
night and day. And this applies to help as well. Sometimes persons intend to
be helping but they are not. Just their intention is not enough to understand
what going on. We need to know all the parties intentions. One last example,
even an rapist's intention to rape is not suffficient for there to be rape.
(Again i believe rape happens and it is sickening. If that happened to my
sister i would intend to kill the rapist. So we are all equally disgusted
with it.) I think it was The Last Seduction with Linda Fiornatino, also in
Jade and After Hours, where her accomplice in murder intended to rape her and
did in fact achieve coitus while unknowingly being recorded on 911 called in
by her. He intended to rape her, but it wasn't. That is the richness of our
life. Its nuances and turns allow for many different, non-intuitive
possibilities. To deny the relevance of them is something I am sure you are
adversve to.

···

---------------

OK. I can see that many of you (Isaac, Tim, Bruce G, Bruce N.
and apparently many others) are committed to objecting to
whatever Bill and I have to say about coercion. So I have a
suggestion. In an effort to stop this continual process of
going around in circles, could some (all?) of you answer a
couple of questions so I can at least understand what you want
from Bill and me?
1. What is it that Bill and I are saying that is so horribly
wrong about coercion?
2. More important, what is it that you _want_ to hear us say
about coercion?

>I'll be looking for some nice, happy, friendly, informative

answers in the morning.

i hope i was clear and friendly.

i.

3

[From Tim Carey (980812.0540)]

[From Rick Marken (980810.2220)]

Good questions ... I'll have a go at answering them (just to try and set a
question-answering trend ;-))

1. What is it that Bill and I are saying that is so horribly
wrong about coercion?

For me, one of the big areas that I think we disagree on is the idea that
you can ascribe properties like coercion to a system or a procedure. You
seem to think that a procedure like sending a kid to a room is _inherently_
coercive or that schools are part of a coercive _system. You also seem to
think that someone can be coerced whether they think they are or not. I
disagree on both these points. I also disagree that you can tell what
someone is doing just by watching their actions. I don't think that someone
just going along with another person necessarily means they are NOT being
coerced.

My main premise is that to establish whether or not coecion is going on in
an interaction between two people you need to check with _both_ parties. It
is not good enough to say that because they followed a particular coercive
procedure then coercion is _necessarily_ going on for _every_ person that
ever follows that procedure.

2. More important, what is it that you _want_ to hear us say
about coercion?

I don't want to hear anything from you and Bill. You can think whatever you
like. I initially started posting on this because I felt an obligation to
present a different side to RTP than what was being presented on CSGnet. I
will say though, that just because you say something is PCT doesn't
necessarily mean it IS PCT, this is not the way to do science. And people
don't understand or misunderstand PCT on your say so. This "Rick and Bill
Show" idea is very unscientific and I would think detrimental to having PCT
accepted more widely.

But then again, who cares what I think ....

Regards,

Tim