Virtual Coercion

CSGnet Archive CSG1998
21

[From Bruce Gregory (980810.1615 EDT)]

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.

Was that flippant and hostile, or simply hostile?

Bruce Gregory

22

[From Bruce Gregory ((80810.1620 EDT)]

Rick Marken (980810.1250)

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.

There is no doubt a difference, but how this is modeled in PCT is not clear
to me. (After all, I've never modeled anything smaller than the entire
universe--and that was only a 1-d simulation.) Give me a hint, at what level
in the control hierarchy should I look for the difference?

Bruce Gregory

23

[From Tim Carey (980811.0630)]

[From 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"?

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?

Regards,

Tim

24

i.kurtzer (980810.1500)

[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.

perfect, a contingency is not sufficient for understanding what going on.
And since Rick now sees

"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."

he might be able to see that his eariler position where coersion is going on
because "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." contradicts the first. Thanks
Bruce.

i.

···
25

[From Rick Marken (980810.1400)]

i.kurtzer (980810.1500)--

And since Rick now sees

"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."

he might be able to see that his eariler position where coersion
is going on because "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." contradicts
the first. Thanks

Slow down Isaac, take a deep breath and explain to me how what
I said above about voluntary and intimidated love making
contradicts my earlier position that "Either way, the coercer
gets what he wants; the intentions of the coercee ... are
irrelevant".

Best

Rick

···

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

26

[From Rick Marken (980810.1425)]

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?

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?

Best

Rick

···

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

27

i.kurtzer (980810.1700)

[From Rick Marken (980810.1425)]

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?

It is irrelevant what we really think. It remains an empirical question.
Since that open emprical question can change how we consider "what is going
on"--such as whether it is coersion or counter adn counter-control--we had
best answer it case by case rather than invoking misleading generalizations
like "the coersive system".

i.

28

In a message dated 98-08-10 15:49:18 EDT, you write:

<<
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.

···
29

i.kurtzer (980810.1930)

[From Rick Marken (980810.1400)]

Slow down Isaac, take a deep breath and explain to me how what
I said above about voluntary and intimidated love making
contradicts my earlier position that "Either way, the coercer
gets what he wants; the intentions of the coercee ... are
irrelevant".

  "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."

this was said by you. In it you think there is a meaningful distinction in
terms of PCT. That distinction seems to be related to "why" she "makes love".
I agree. Now i also think the hypothetical scenario is a clear case of a
social interaction. I assume you do to. And i am also assumimg that the
"why" she "makes love" is a meaningful distinction in terms of understanding
social interactions in terms of PCT. So read i agree with everything you say
in that statement.

"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."

Here you are arguing that the "why" of the coercee is not a meaningful
distinction in terms of social interactions. Note that i am not denying the
superfluousness of the weaker agent's intention in predicting what will
happen--in the case, coitus--only that it is a meaningful distiction. And one
meaningful in terms of PCT.

so the question is:is the "why" meaningful or not in social interactions?
Since it is in PCT applied to single persons, the "why's" should be important
in understanding social interactions.

i.

30

[From Kenny Kitzke (980811.0900 EDT)]

<i.kurtzer (980810.1930)>

Rick Marken 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."

<Here you are arguing that the "why" of the coercee is not a meaningful
distinction in terms of social interactions. Note that i am not denying
the
superfluousness of the weaker agent's intention in predicting what will
happen--in the case, coitus--only that it is a meaningful distiction. And
one meaningful in terms of PCT.

so the question is:is the "why" meaningful or not in social interactions?
Since it is in PCT applied to single persons, the "why's" should be
important
in understanding social interactions.>

I think you have captured the nub of the disagreement concerning the
definition of coercion as it relates to PCT science. These are good
questions that deserve careful answers from the theorists.

Rick (for the 4 billionth and one time), the stronger person is controlling
his perceptions of the actions of another by force if necessary. Such self
controlling can not be unilaterally defined as a social interaction.

When this type of control is producing behavior in another person against
their will, we call such control coercion. When a stronger person is
perceived as having the capability to use overwhelming force but does not
use it, I would call such control, intimidation instead of virtual
coercion.

It may be a matter of language, but the improper use of language has caused
much confusion in all sciences. I wish we could find an agreement.

I have to wonder, does it make sense to claim that coercion is occurring
when there is no determination of conflict between the parties to the
interaction? If the coercee's intentions do not matter for coercion; how
could you consider the interaction as conflict? If coercion is not
dependent upon conflict, then why don't we just describe all behavior of
all people possessing overwhelming force ability as coercers all the time?

Kenny

31

[From Tim Carey (980812.0540)]

[From Rick Marken (980810.1425)]

> 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?

Do you really see those two situations as equivalent? Do you

So how about a situation that might be more equivalent (yeah right). If I
say to you "If you do that again you'll go to the RTC" and you subsequently
do that again, would it be fair to conclude that you had chosen to go to
the RTC?

Regards,

Tim

32

[From Rick Marken (980811.1430)]

Tim Carey (980812.0540) --

If I say to you "If you do that again you'll go to the RTC" and
you subsequently do that again, would it be fair to conclude
that you had chosen to go to the RTC?

Of course not. Do you believe that people commit crimes because
they have chosen to got to jail? The only way to conclude that
someone has chosen (intends) to produce a particular result is
to Test this conclusion. If you think a kid has chosen to go
to the RTC room, then prevent him from going and see if he
acts to counter this disturbance in order to get to the RTC.
I'm sure some kids will counter this disturbance and go to
the RTC. But I bet many, especially "first time offenders",
will not.

Best

Rick

···

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

33

i.kurtzer (980812.0000)

From Rick Marken (980811.1430)]

Tim Carey (980812.0540) --

> If I say to you "If you do that again you'll go to the RTC" and
> you subsequently do that again, would it be fair to conclude
> that you had chosen to go to the RTC?

Of course not. Do you believe that people commit crimes because
they have chosen to got to jail?

I can readily imagine some might. If i was homeless i might shout sedetious
comments knowing i could get a bed and food.

The only way to conclude that
someone has chosen (intends) to produce a particular result is
to Test this conclusion. If you think a kid has chosen to go
to the RTC room, then prevent him from going and see if he
acts to counter this disturbance in order to get to the RTC.
I'm sure some kids will counter this disturbance and go to
the RTC. But I bet many, especially "first time offenders",
will not.

I agree.

i.

34

[From Bruce Nevin (980812.0706)]

Rick Marken (980811.1430) --

Do you believe that people commit crimes because
they have chosen to got to jail?

This often does happen. Sometimes it's a place to get a bed and food, as
Isaac said, and a place to get warm in the winter. Recidivism is often
attributed to inability to cope on the outside, and prisoners have said
this is why they got themselves arrested again. Don't take my word for it.
Ask a cop, or a judge, or a jailer, or a prisoner or ex-prisoner, and
you'll get confirmation of this. I once knew an ex-con who talked about
this. He sounded in this respect very similar to another guy I knew who
kept going back to a monastery up by Corning, California, because the world
outside the monastery was just too complicated for him.

No, this is not always the reason people commit crimes, nor even most of
the time. But neither is there the immediately prior context of the "what
are you doing?" etc. conversation, and *that* is why "I see you have chosen
to go to jail" would not have a meaning comparable to Ed's "I see you have
chosen to go to the RTC."

Understand, I agree with you that the statement is problematic, and I agree
with you that it would be better to say something different. I disagree
about the intended and perceived meaning of it in context.

  Bruce Nevin