Virtual Coercion

[From Bruce Gregory (980809.2100 EDT)]

Rick Marken (980809.1720)

So the teacher has acted as a "virtual" coercer; she is not
an actual coercer because she doesn't have the goal of
controlling the behavior of the student. If the soldier were
not there and the student failed to adopt the goal suggested
by the teacher the non-coercive teacher might try to negotiate
with the student ("well, maybe you could do it at another time,
perhaps?") or simply give up asking the student to adopt the
goal.

I think a lot of people who work in the school system are
really "virtual" (not actual) coercers.

Thanks. You will not be happy to learn that I see your response as
supporting my comment that what Bill doesn't like is society. In your
example, society is the coercive system that allows the teacher to be a
virtual coercer.

Bruce Gregory

[From Rick Marken (980809.1720)]

Bruce Gregory (980809.1752 EDT) --

I, for one, would very much appreciate a model of "virtual
coercion" of the kind you described.

I don't know if I can take credit for having described "virtual
coercion"; I just remember your asking about it so I assumed
that _you_ came up with the notion of "virtual coercion". As
soon as I heard the term I thought is was a _great_ description
of what might be going on in a situation like the one Rupert
Young described. A nice, non-coercive teacher (like Rupert's Mom)
walks into a classroom to find that all her students are perfectly
behaved and happy to comply with her every suggestion. To an
outside observer (who sees the fellow with the machine gun) the
teacher is part of a coercive process; she is suggesting goals
that the kids enthusiastically adopt because they know that
they'll be shot if they don't adopt them.

But the teacher herself may know nothing about the fellow with
the machine gun; and even if she did she may not be inclined to
force the kids to adopt the goals she suggests; that is, she may
not be coercive. But she is operating in the context of a coercive
system (the kids know what will happen if they _don't_ follow her
suggestions) so the teacher, who would not coerce a student herself,
could be called "virtually coercive".

The model of this would be very similar to the spreadsheet
coercion model; there is still a coercer and a coercee. In
this case, the coercer is the soldier with the machine gun;
the coercee is the student who is asked to adopt a particular
goal by the teacher. The teacher (the "virtual coercer")
specifies (by talking) the reference signal setting for
_both_ the coercer and coercee. How talk is translated into
reference signals is too hard to model at the moment but
we know it can happen; when I say "Go jump in a lake" you
can turn those words into a reference for a perception and
control for that perception, if you want; if it's as hot out
there as it is here you might want to adopt that reference.

Of course, both the coercer and coercee are free to select or
not select the goal specified (in words) by the teacher. But
we'll assume that both do adopt these goals, the coercer in
order to satisfy the higher level goal of "being a good soldier"
and the coercee in order to satisfy his higher level goal of "not
getting shot".

So the teacher has acted as a "virtual" coercer; she is not
an actual coercer because she doesn't have the goal of
controlling the behavior of the student. If the soldier were
not there and the student failed to adopt the goal suggested
by the teacher the non-coercive teacher might try to negotiate
with the student ("well, maybe you could do it at another time,
perhaps?") or simply give up asking the student to adopt the
goal.

I think a lot of people who work in the school system are
really "virtual" (not actual) coercers.

Best

Rick

···

--

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

From [ Marc Abrams (980809.1720) ]

[From Rick Marken (980809.1720)]

...when I say "Go jump in a lake" you
can turn those words into a reference for a perception and
control for that perception, if you want; if it's as hot out
there as it is here you might want to adopt that reference.

I am confused. ( not unusual :slight_smile: ) How do you "turn" those words into
a reference _without_ reorganizing? Are you saying that our
imaginations can generate reference levels that _replace_ existing
ones and don't depend on the level above and don't effect the level
below?

Marc

[From Rick Marken (980809.2050)]

Bruce Gregory (980809.2100 EDT) --

Thanks. You will not be happy to learn that I see your response
as supporting my comment that what Bill doesn't like is society.
In your example, society is the coercive system that allows the
teacher to be a virtual coercer.

Yes, in this case it is a member of society (the soldier) who
turns a person into a virtual coercer. But I think it's
kind of silly to say that your glib "society" makes any sense
as a name for the behavior Bill Powers (980809.1303MD) described:

Just for the record, I do object to placing people in a position
where they are arbitrarily limited to only a few choices of
actions (picked by someone else), forced (physically, if
necessary) to select one of them (chosen by someone else),
and are then told that the choice was made by their own free
will. I don't know what your word for that is, but whatever it
is, I don't like it.

Calling this "society" is like calling electrolysis "chemistry".
Bill was describing something a person (a member of some society)
can do. Most people would call what this person is doing "coercion"
and/or "lying". Certainly, some members of society do this; but
people in a society do a lot of other things, too.

Me:

...when I say "Go jump in a lake" you
can turn those words into a reference for a perception and
control for that perception, if you want; if it's as hot out
there as it is here you might want to adopt that reference.

Marc Abrams (980809.1720) --

I am confused. ( not unusual :slight_smile: ) How do you "turn" those
words into a reference _without_ reorganizing?

I don't think reorganization is involved when you, say, follow
the instructions for building a model airplane, something I
became relatively skilled at as a child. Turning words into
references is a control skill in itself; you have to learn
how to change the words and pictures into references for
perceptions you want to have. For example, the instructions
say "insert tab A into slot B". In order to follow these
instructions you have to 1) _want_ to follow them (that's
the highest order goal) 2) determine what the desired perceptual
result of following these instructions is (producing a particular
state of a relationship (into) between configurations (tab A,
slot B)) and 3) turn these instruction words into a hierarchy of
perceptual references (for perceptual variables that you can
already perceive) that will achieve the desired perceptual
result in 2).

In practice, I've found that following instructions is not a
smooth process and there was quite a bit of reorganizing going
on when I was building model planes ("oh, they mean _that thing_
by 'tab'"). But the basic phenomenon of turning words into
references for control processes is really easy to demonstrate;
if I say the words "put your open hand about 5 inches in front
of your face" I bet you do it. You have controlled the perception
of your hand, bringing it to the reference I specified. I bet
you enev did it with the palm toward your face, though that was
not specified in the instructions. Someone else might have put
the hand up with the back toward the face. Words can't tell you
"exactly" what another person wants you to control; but they are
pretty darn good for giving instructions with. And when crucial
things are left out of instructions (like "punch the slot open
before trying to insert the tab") things can get rough (and require
considerable reorganization -- which can include throwing the
model into the wall -- something I did a few times in my life;-))

Does this help? I think this is a potentially great area for
research, now that I think of it. Maybe I'll work on something
related to "following instructions".

Best

Rick

···

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

[From Rick Marken (980809.2140)]

Bruce Nevin (980809.2243)

The spreadsheet simulation of coercion does not describe the
threat of force, whether by the teacher or by a guy in the
back with a machine gun, to get people to adopt desired
references.

Actually, I think it does _describe_ the threat of force in
coercion rather well; when the coercee's reference (for qi')
matches the coercer's (for qi) there is a very credible threat
(in fact, it's a sure thing) that force will be used if the
coercee changes his reference.

What the spreadsheet does not show is the higher level system
in the coercee that adjusts the reference for qi' to match the
coercer's reference for qi. But this higher level system is
really irrelevant; if that system (for whatever reason; to avoid
pain; to avoid death; to avoid a struggle, etc) aligns the
coercee's reference with the coercer's then the coercee won't
experience any efforts by the coercer to force the coercee's
behavior into a match with the coercer's. If that higher level
system doesn't align the coercee's reference with the coercer's,
then the coercee _will_ experience the coercer efforts to force
the coercee's behavior into a match with the coercer's. In either
case, the coercer get's the behavior he wants from the coercee; he
either gets it the easy way (as when the rapee gives in to the
knife threat) or the hard way (as when the rapee resists and is
raped anyway). 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.

So the spreadsheet model of coercion shows all that's important
about the phenomenon of 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/

[From Bruce Nevin (980809.2243)]

Rick Marken (980809.1720) --

The spreadsheet simulation of coercion does not describe the threat of
force, whether by the teacher or by a guy in the back with a machine gun,
to get people to adopt desired references. It describes only the actual use
of force to prevent control of qi=qi' or to constrain qi=o' to particular
values. I have posted rudimentary diagrams of what I think it would take to
model threat of force. Am I wrong? Do you think something more similar to
the spreadsheet simulation would do? Can you explain how?

  Bruce Nevin

i.kurtzer (980810.0115)

Bill, rick says you agree with him on coersion. What is your opinion of the
following?
In particular, could you tell me what you think of his conclusion.
..............................................................................
......................................
[From Rick Marken (980809.2140)]

Bruce Nevin (980809.2243)

> The spreadsheet simulation of coercion does not describe the
> threat of force, whether by the teacher or by a guy in the
> back with a machine gun, to get people to adopt desired
> references.

Actually, I think it does _describe_ the threat of force in
coercion rather well; when the coercee's reference (for qi')
matches the coercer's (for qi) there is a very credible threat
(in fact, it's a sure thing) that force will be used if the
coercee changes his reference.

What the spreadsheet does not show is the higher level system
in the coercee that adjusts the reference for qi' to match the
coercer's reference for qi. But this higher level system is
really irrelevant; if that system (for whatever reason; to avoid
pain; to avoid death; to avoid a struggle, etc) aligns the
coercee's reference with the coercer's then the coercee won't
experience any efforts by the coercer to force the coercee's
behavior into a match with the coercer's. If that higher level
system doesn't align the coercee's reference with the coercer's,
then the coercee _will_ experience the coercer efforts to force
the coercee's behavior into a match with the coercer's. In either
case, the coercer get's the behavior he wants from the coercee; he
either gets it the easy way (as when the rapee gives in to the
knife threat) or the hard way (as when the rapee resists and is
raped anyway). 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.

So the spreadsheet model of coercion shows all that's important
about the phenomenon of coercion.
.............................................................................
.........................

[From Bruce Gregory (980810.0640 EDT)]

Rick Marken (980809.2050)]

Yes, in this case it is a member of society (the soldier) who
turns a person into a virtual coercer. But I think it's
kind of silly to say that your glib "society" makes any sense
as a name for the behavior Bill Powers (980809.1303MD) described:

> Just for the record, I do object to placing people in a position
> where they are arbitrarily limited to only a few choices of
> actions (picked by someone else), forced (physically, if
> necessary) to select one of them (chosen by someone else),
> and are then told that the choice was made by their own free
> will. I don't know what your word for that is, but whatever it
> is, I don't like it.

I was simply quoting Bill who noted that all social systems are coercive.
Perhaps none of the things Bill describes happen every day in California, I
wouldn't know. I thought you had a strong "welfare reform" program. Not to
mention, "three strikes and your out". And I've said nothing about mandatory
school attendance laws, or childhood inoculations.

Bruce Gregory

[From Rick Marken (980810.0720)]

i.kurtzer (980810.0115) --

Bill, rick says you agree with him on coersion. What is your
opinion of the following? In particular, could you tell me what
you think of his conclusion.

You'd probably better send this to Bill's personal address; I think
he signed off of CSGNet. Also, he may be pissed at me for setting
him up like this. But if he does respond to you I'm sure he'll
agree with my comments, if not with my attitude.

Best

Rick

···

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

[From Bruce Gregory ((80910.1047 EDT)]

Rick Marken (980809.2140)

What the spreadsheet does not show is the higher level system
in the coercee that adjusts the reference for qi' to match the
coercer's reference for qi. But this higher level system is
really irrelevant

If the higher level system is irrelevant can I assume that you agree with me
that there is no difference as far as PCT models are concerned between
voluntary and intimidated actions?

Bruce Gregory

[From Bruce Gregory (980810.1056 EDT)]

Rick Marken (980809.2050)

In practice, I've found that following instructions is not a
smooth process and there was quite a bit of reorganizing going
on when I was building model planes ("oh, they mean _that thing_
by 'tab'").

Is it safe to assume then that any form of learning involves reorganization?

Bruce Gregory

[From Rick Marken (980910.0846)]

Me:

What the spreadsheet does not show is the higher level system
in the coercee that adjusts the reference for qi' to match the
coercer's reference for qi. But this higher level system is
really irrelevant

Bruce Gregory ((80910.1047 EDT)

If the higher level system is irrelevant can I assume that you
agree with me that there is no difference as far as PCT models
are concerned between voluntary and intimidated actions?

No.

The higher levels are irrelevant to the question of whether
A is coercing B; the higher levels _are_ relevant to the
question of whether or not B's compliance with A (if B does
comply with A) is voluntary or intimidated.

Best

Rick

···

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

[From Rick Marken (980810.0850)]

Me:

I think it's kind of silly to say that your glib "society" makes
any sense as a name for the behavior Bill Powers (980809.1303MD)
described:

>...placing people in a position where they are arbitrarily
> limited to only a few choices of actions (picked by someone
> else), forced (physically, if necessary) to select one of them
> (chosen by someone else), and are then told that the choice
> was made by their own free will.

Bruce Gregory (980810.0640 EDT) --

I was simply quoting Bill who noted that all social systems are
coercive. Perhaps none of the things Bill describes happen every
day in California, I wouldn't know.

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

Best

Rick

···

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

[From Bruce Gregory (980810.1153 EDT)]

Rick Marken (980910.0846)

The higher levels are irrelevant to the question of whether
A is coercing B; the higher levels _are_ relevant to the
question of whether or not B's compliance with A (if B does
comply with A) is voluntary or intimidated.

But in ways we cannot yet model?

I'm not trying to be difficult. I simply doubt that the distinction
"voluntary" means anything in PCT. All actions are voluntary, in the sense
that they follow from control exercised at higher levels. I am not going to
lunch in my birthday suit. Is this a voluntary decision on my part? I won't
stuff my food into my mouth. Is this a voluntary decision? I won't insult my
host. Is this.... You get the idea. There is hardly anything I do that
might not be linked to fear of social reprisal--intimidation.

Bruce Gregory

[From Bruce Gregory (980810.1205 EDT)]

Rick Marken (980810.0850)

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

Is this _really_ what this is all about? No wonder Bill signed off.

Bruce Gregory

From [ Marc Abrams (980810.1319) ]

[From Bruce Gregory (980810.1056 EDT)]

Is it safe to assume then that any form of learning involves

reorganization?

A correlated question is how much reorganization takes place for any
particular type or kind of "learning".

Is all learning alike? ( from a PCT perspective )

How about a "working" definition for "learning"? Bruce Nevin, Rick,
Llyod, how about it folks. I am going to give this some thought.

Bruce, _this_ ( i.e. "learning" ) is a very interesting and important
topic.

Marc

[From Rick Marken (980810.1250)]

Me:

The higher levels are irrelevant to the question of whether
A is coercing B; the higher levels _are_ relevant to the
question of whether or not B's compliance with A (if B does
comply with A) is voluntary or intimidated.

Bruce Gregory (980810.1153 EDT)

But in ways we cannot yet model?

What do you mean "we"? I don't believe I've seen you model
anything yet.

I'm not trying to be difficult. I simply doubt that the
distinction "voluntary" means anything in PCT.

Do you see 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.

Best

Rick

···

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

[From Bruce Gregory (980810.1550 EDT)]

Rick Marken (980810.0850)

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

No, they've all been trained thoroughly in PCT. They know that choice is not
a technical term. Instead they say, "Were you controlling for a speed 15 mph
above the legal limit, or was this behavior an unintended consequence of
your controlling another perceptual variable?" I often speed just so I can
hear them ask me this question.

Bruce Gregory

[From Rick Marken (980810.1300)]

Me:

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

Bruce Gregory (980810.1205 EDT) --

Is this _really_ what this is all about?

Yes, to a large extent. It was about people in power being honest
in their dealings with people who have far less power.

No wonder Bill signed off.

I think he signed off because you and others have delt with
his concerns about the use of coercion in the name of PCT
in the flippant and hostile manner we see in this reply of yours.

Best

Rick

···

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

[From Bruce Gregory (980810.16120]

Rick Marken (980810.1300)

Me:

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

Bruce Gregory (980810.1205 EDT) --

> Is this _really_ what this is all about?

Yes, to a large extent. It was about people in power being honest
in their dealings with people who have far less power.

> No wonder Bill signed off.

I think he signed off because you and others have dealt with
his concerns about the use of coercion in the name of PCT
in the flippant and hostile manner we see in this reply of yours.

Flippant and hostile? My mind boggles...

Bruce Gregory