Where Do We Go From Here?

CSGnet Archive CSG1999
81

[From Bruce Gregory (991208.1130 EST)]

Bill Powers (991207.2204 MDT)

My reason for insisting that the nature of the situation be
recognized is
very simple: I hope that a teacher who realizes that the situation is
coercive will be bothered by that and try to invent new ways
of achieving
the desired final result that do not rely on the threat of
physical force
in the background.

"The threat of physical force in the background" has not, to my
knowledge, ever been modeled using CT. As far as I can tell, it applies
to almost anything we do, since I believe we agree that this threat is
implicitly present in any social system. Nor is it clear to me that
keeping it in mind is useful. Should I keep in mind the fact that the
speed limits are backed by the threat of physical force and try to
invent new ways of achieving the desired final result that do not rely
on that threat? Doesn't seem to me to be a useful way to spend my time.
Or one that is likely to be productive. Perhaps I simply lack
imagination.

Bruce Gregory

82

[From Bruce Nevin (991208.1311 EST)]

I do control for understanding others and for being understood. I'm having
a bit of trouble with both here.

Rick Marken (991208.0800)--

After reading
Bruce Nevin's (991207.1858 EST) post I was inclined to "set
the record straight" regarding the following:

I view this [the teacher saying "I see you have chosen to
go to the RTC room" after the second disruption] as a
situation of teaching children (plural) how to make and
keep a commitment not to interfere with one another when
they are learning

The text you inserted between square braces is mistaken. When I said "I
view this as a situation of teaching children how to make and keep a
commitment" I was referring to the entire RTP process about distracting
other students, not just the one statement after a second distraction. Note
the immediately prior context--this is a reply to Bill's misunderstanding
that I was "thinking of the situation as a legal contract between adults".

Ignoring for the moment the question of how a statement like
"I see you have chosen..." can teach a child how to make
and keep a commitment,

I have suggested how the unfortunately phrased "I see you have chosen" can
be part of that teaching process. So you are ignoring not only the
question, but also this answer, and the repeated plea for better ways to
achieve the same purpose.

I think we know enough about how
hierarchical control systems work to see that "making and
keeping a commitment" requires that the child give up
control of perceptions that are controlled by varying
the perception to which the child has committed. I think you
understand what I'm talking about so I won't explain this
in any detail.

Could you unpack that a bit? "Giving up control of perceptions that are
controlled by varying the perception to which one has committed" is rather
convoluted and difficult to understand. Are you saying that the control
that we label "keeping the commitment" is likely to conflict with control
of other perceptions that we would label "not keeping the commitment"?

I'm just bringing it up to ask if you think
this is an example of a subject "_nobody_ knows anything
about, and therefore about which _everybody_ has an opinion"?

What data there is has not been brought forward. Bill has suggested a
metric that might be tested, an increase in resentment on the part of
children, with no decrease in resentment they might already feel for other
reasons. Bill has suggested another variable, whether children in RTP
schools are "softened up" by the process in the sense of being more
accepting than other children when motives are attributed to them. I
haven't seen any evidence of either of these in RTP writings, but we
haven't explicitly enquired.

  Bruce Nevin

···

At 12:04 AM 12/08/1999 -0800, Richard Marken wrote:

83

[From Rick Marken (991208.2130)]

Bruce Nevin (991208.1311 EST)

Could you unpack that a bit? "Giving up control of perceptions
that are controlled by varying the perception to which one has
committed" is rather convoluted and difficult to understand.
Are you saying that the control that we label "keeping the
commitment" is likely to conflict with control of other
perceptions that we would label "not keeping the commitment"?

Not quite. I am saying that getting a child to keep a commitment
is likely to result in loss of control of _some_ perception that
was being controlled by varying the reference for the perception
to which the child is commited. The words may be convoluted but
you can understand it, I think, using my spreadsheet hierarchy
model.

I understand "keeping a commitment" to mean keeping a perceptual
variable in some agreed to state. A child who is keeping a
commitment to be quiet in class, say, is maintaining a perception
of his own noise level in an agreed to state of "quiet". A child
who keeps such a commitment is doing the equivalent of setting
the reference value for one of the intermediate level perceptual
variables in my spreadsheet hierarchy to a constant.

For example, change the reference value in cell F7 to a constant,
like 50. This control system, at level two of the hierarchy model,
is now _commited_ to keeping the perception it is controlling
at 50; and you will see that the system will be able to do
this successfully; the perceptual variable (in cell F8) is
brought to and maintained at 50, protected from disturbance.
The system keeps its commitment.

But you will also find that some of the level three systems
(the ones in rows 3 through 5) can no longer keep the perceptual
variables they control (the values in row 4) matching the
references for these perceptions (the values in row 5). So the
commitment to a particular reference for a perceptual variable
in a system at level two in the hierarchy destroys the ability
of some level three systems (the ones that control their
perceptions by varying the reference for the now committed
level two system) to control.

A concrete example would work like this: Say that a child
really commits to keeping his reference for the perception of
his own noise level in class at 0. Say also that he is
controlling for keeping people from getting hurt. Now suppose
that he sees another kid across the room who is about to hit
the teacher. In this situation, he used control for keeping the
teacher from getting hurt by calling out and warning the teacher.
To do this now, however, he would have to break his commitment
and change his reference for the perception of his own noise
level in class. So if he keeps his commitment, his perception
of other people getting hurt goes uncontrolled. If he breaks
his commitment, he has failed to learn what he was being
taught -- how to keep a commitment.

My conclusion is that it may not be such a great idea to
teach people to keep a commitment. I think it's better
to teach people why they might want to control for perceptions
like keeping quiet in class. Then then would learn that there
is a time to be quiet and a time to yell...

Best

Rick

···

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

84

[From Rick Marken (991209.0750)]

Me:

So here you are _insisting_ that the RTP situation be
recognized as coercive.

Bill Powers (991209.0517 MDT) --

Yes. And look what it got me. I'm satisfied that my
arguments are technically correct, but nobody else
(to speak of) is. So what good does it to to keep
arguing? It does just the opposite of good.

I agree that prolonging the argument is no good. But
I think it was useful to get the idea out there. And
now it's at least possible that _someone_ besides
myself (someone to speak of;-)) will see the wisdom
of the argument and run with it.

To this day, I don't "believe in" PCT. It's an idea
that seems to work, but obviously needs a lot of
refinement. The refinements will never happen if I
decide that it's "right."

I feel exactly the same way. That's why I love to do
the research.

Me:

Is it inappropriate to discuss the implications of "teaching
a child to make and keep a commitment" in the context of
the PCT model?

Bill:

Yes, if the only result is to strengthen the defenses.

I agree. Maybe the trick (if I feel compelled to discuss
things like this) is to just make the point I want and
get out. If people want to defend their position they
can do it on their own.

What's "legitimate?" Who is this Third Party to whom you
are presenting your case?

You;-)

I think the antidote is not arguing against the older
theories, but ignoring them and working to develop PCT.

I'm for that.

What if we remove ourselves from the real life discussions
because we don't know what we're talking about, either?

I think that's a good idea. But I think we often know what
we are talking about when it comes to understanding how to
map HPCT to real life situations. What's the good of the
theory (other than intellectual satisfaction, which is
certainly good enough for me) if we can't discuss it's
interesting and revolutionary "real life" implications.

Enough.

Almost;-)

Love

Rick

···

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

85

[From Rick Marken (991209.0820)]

Bill Powers (991209.0559 MDT) to Bruce Nevin (991208.1311 EST)--

I think it is reasonable to ask children if they had any good
reason for not keeping a committment; but to teach them that all
comittments must be kept no matter what is to teach them something
that no adult believes.

My guess is that nearly all adults believe this (for example,
note the prevalence of the belief in an absolute moral code)
but, of course, none practice it because they _can't_ and
still maintain control of their perceptions.

Best

Rick

···

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

86

[From Bruce Gregory (991209.0627 EST)]

Rick Marken (991208.2130)

My conclusion is that it may not be such a great idea to
teach people to keep a commitment. I think it's better
to teach people why they might want to control for perceptions
like keeping quiet in class. Then they would learn that there
is a time to be quiet and a time to yell...

The idea that we can "teach" people _anything_ needs to be examined
carefully in the framework of CT. It is not obvious to me that the concept
will survive such an examination.

Bruce Gregory

87

[From Rick Marken (991209.1150)]

Me:

My guess is that nearly all adults believe this (for example,
note the prevalence of the belief in an absolute moral code)
but, of course, none practice it because they _can't_ and
still maintain control of their perceptions.>

Kenny Kitzke (991209.1300EST) --

You are hopeless Rick. Your sarcasm is thinly veiled and,
as usual, your promises to refrain from the like on CSGNet
are short lived.

I was not being sarcastic. Sorry if my statement offended
you.

Norman Hovda (991209.1200 MST) --

Which "spreadsheet hierarchy model" and where?

It's an Excel model of a three level hierarchy
of control systems. It is available in Mac or
PC format at:

http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/demos.html

Scroll down to the bottom of the page to "Spreadsheet
Model of a Hierarchy of Control Systems". The model is
documented in one of the papers in _Mind Readings_.

Best

Rick

···

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

88

[From Bill Powers (991209.0517 MDT)]

Rick Marken (991208.0800)--

My reason for insisting that the nature of the situation
be recognized is very simple: I hope that a teacher who
realizes that the situation is coercive will be bothered
by that and try to invent new ways of achieving the desired
final result that do not rely on the threat of physical
force in the background.

So here you are _insisting_ that the RTP situation be
recognized as coercive.

Yes. And look what it got me. I'm satisfied that my arguments are
technically correct, but nobody else (to speak of) is. So what good does it
to to keep arguing? It does just the opposite of good.

It's not talking about things nobody knows about that is
the problem (in my opinion); it's saying things that people
don't want to hear that is the problem.

They don't want to hear them because they already have ideas to the
contrary, for reasons that have no technical basis. If a person is trying
to defend ideas he has had for a long time, he will find defenses. That's
the nature of controlling for such abstractions as being right. If you want
to know the truth, you have to be skeptical about what you believe, not
defensive. I'm used to doing this (to some extent anyway), which is why,
after I got my image sharpener to work, I kept looking for prior art until
I found it. I was a little disappointed, but not a lot. I was pleased at
the underlyiing vindication of my original proposition, which made up for
not being first.

To this day, I don't "believe in" PCT. It's an idea that seems to work, but
obviously needs a lot of refinement. The refinements will never happen if I
decide that it's "right."

Let me run a test case by you (and the net) and see if you
think discussions like this should be avoided. After reading
Bruce Nevin's (991207.1858 EST) post I was inclined to "set
the record straight" regarding the following:

I view this [the teacher saying "I see you have chosen to
go to the RTC room" after the second disruption as a
situation of teaching children (plural) how to make and
keep a commitment not to interfere with one another when
they are learning

Ignoring for the moment the question of how a statement like
"I see you have chosen..." can teach a child how to make
and keep a commitment, I think we know enough about how
hierarchical control systems work to see that "making and
keeping a commitment" requires that the child give up
control of perceptions that are controlled by varying
the perception to which the child has committed. I think you
understand what I'm talking about so I won't explain this
in any detail.

Yes, I understand exactly what you mean. If something is a means of
achieving a higher goal, it has to be free to vary as circumstances change,
to keep satisfying the higher goal. Like you, I would rather see children
learn to make the higher goal explicit. There are very good reasons for
keeping a committment, which makes them more important than keeping a
comittment. A nice koan.

I'm just bringing it up to ask if you think

this is an example of a subject "_nobody_ knows anything
about, and therefore about which _everybody_ has an opinion"?

The less people know about what was just mentioned, the more firmly they
will hold to their previous opinions about it. We often try to persuade
others to accept ideas as a way of reassuring ourselves that we are right
about them. If we have to reassure ourselves, then maybe we aren't as sure
as we think we are.

Is it inappropriate to discuss the implications of "teaching
a child to make and keep a commitment" in the context of
the PCT model?

Yes, if the only result is to strengthen the defenses.

Don't you think it's legitimate to discuss
alternative teaching goals (such as teaching _reasons_ for
controlling perceptions at certain levels versus teaching
_commitment_ to controlling perceptions at those levels)
in the context of the PCT model?

What's "legitimate?" Who is this Third Party to whom you are presenting
your case? This is how people end up inventing God.

I know we need more PCT science. But the people who are doing
the science are going to do it with or without CSGNet. Most
of what gets discussed on CSGNet is the implications of the
model for real life.

That's basically what's wrong. Most of what is said about those
implications relies on older theories which have influenced the common
sense of all of us. These old theories permeate everything. They are what
make it seem reasonable that we could or should instill in children the
idea of keeping to a committment that someone else forces on them, rather
than learning the great advantages and special disadvantages of doing so
(for example, not telling who set fire to the school because of a
committment to not ratting on friends).

I think the antidote is not arguing against the older theories, but
ignoring them and working to develop PCT.

If we PCT scientists remove ourselves
from the real life discussions because we don't want to
offend anyone or because "nobody knows anything about it anyway"
then I think PCT will become (for those who are using it in
the "real world", which is about 99% of the people who call
themselves PCTers) just a bunch of "humanistic" words to
justify the same old ways of doing things.

What if we remove ourselves from the real life discussions because we don't
know what we're talking about, either? The Bruces are perfectly right in
pointing out that we have no working models for most of these situations.
Neither do they, of course, which makes it a bit peculiar for them to be
drawing conclusions about them, but ces la vie.

Enough.

Best,

Bill P.

89

[From Bill Powers (991209.0550 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (991208.1130 EST)--

"The threat of physical force in the background" has not, to my
knowledge, ever been modeled using CT. As far as I can tell, it applies
to almost anything we do, since I believe we agree that this threat is
implicitly present in any social system.

Yes. Most social systems so far devised, anyway. An interesting thought, if
you pause to think about it. Is this the kind of social system you want to
promote?

Nor is it clear to me that
keeping it in mind is useful. Should I keep in mind the fact that the
speed limits are backed by the threat of physical force and try to
invent new ways of achieving the desired final result that do not rely
on that threat? Doesn't seem to me to be a useful way to spend my time.

Then I doubt that you will spend your time that way. Are you trying to get
across your approval of this way of interacting with others?

Best,

Bill P.

90

[From Bill Powers (991209.0559 MDT)]

Bruce Nevin (991208.1311 EST)--

When I said "I
view this as a situation of teaching children how to make and keep a
commitment" I was referring to the entire RTP process about distracting
other students, not just the one statement after a second distraction. Note
the immediately prior context--this is a reply to Bill's misunderstanding
that I was "thinking of the situation as a legal contract between adults".

....

I have suggested how the unfortunately phrased "I see you have chosen" can
be part of that teaching process. So you are ignoring not only the
question, but also this answer, and the repeated plea for better ways to
achieve the same purpose.

Describing how "it can be part of the teaching process" does not explain
how it teaches anything, and your assertion that it teaches children to
keep committments does not make that what it actually teaches. You're
simply describing the conventional opinions about these things, which have
no basis in fact. I think that if we knew what it is about the whole RTP
process that makes life in schools better, we could make it work even
better than the current 50% success rate (by Tom Bourbon's count).

Each of your (and my) assertions about these matters requires experimental
testing. As long as we keep arguing about what the results of such testing
would be, the testing will not get done.

"Giving up control of perceptions that are
controlled by varying the perception to which one has committed" is rather
convoluted and difficult to understand. Are you saying that the control
that we label "keeping the commitment" is likely to conflict with control
of other perceptions that we would label "not keeping the commitment"?

No. Rick was saying that there are higher-level goals that are achieved by
keeping a committment. But keeping a committment is not _invariably_ the
way to achieve these highrer-level goals, and sometimes works against doing
so. Keeping a comittment is not an end in itself, but a means toward
maintaining some higher perception of social interactions. As a means, its
use must depend on other circumstances if the higher goal is to be
maintained. I think it is reasonable to ask children if they had any good
reason for not keeping a committment; but to teach them that all
comittments must be kept no matter what is to teach them something that no
adult believes.

Best,

Bill P.

91

[From Bill Powers (991209.0622 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (991209.0627 EST)--

The idea that we can "teach" people _anything_ needs to be examined
carefully in the framework of CT. It is not obvious to me that the concept
will survive such an examination.

Perhaps rephrasing the process might help. It's clear that most children
learn to read, which is a total human invention. They "are taught" to read,
meaning that at one time they don't know how, and after interacting with
other people for a while they do know how. There's no question of
"maturation" being involved because the human race has not been reading
long enough for an evolutionary explanation to hold water. If other people
had not wanted the child to learn to read, the child would not have learned
to read -- in fact there would be nothing TO read, as in pre-Colombian
America.

As long as children learn new things through interacting with other people,
including learning what the other people know how to do, people will wonder
if they could (or as our Brit friends would say, if they couldn't) make the
process quicker and easier, or even bend it in "desirable" directions. A
"desirable" direction is a direction I desire. That, I think, is what is
called "teaching." That's an alternative to the "empty bucket" theory, anyhow.

Best,

Bill P.

92

[From Rick Marken (991209.1450)]

Marc Abrams (991209.1725) --

Rick, Could you please respond to Bruce Nevin's post
(991209.1024 EST)] and the points he raises about your
spreadsheet model and the complexity of what is trying
to be described.and discussed?

What would be the point? Bruce didn't think much of
my point and I didn't think much of his. C'est la vie.

Best

Rick

···

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

93

[From Bruce Nevin (991209.1024 EST)]

Rick Marken (991208.2130)

I understand "keeping a commitment" to mean keeping a perceptual
variable in some agreed to state. A child who is keeping a
commitment to be quiet in class, say, is maintaining a perception
of his own noise level in an agreed to state of "quiet". A child
who keeps such a commitment is doing the equivalent of setting
the reference value for one of the intermediate level perceptual
variables in my spreadsheet hierarchy to a constant.

First, a minor nit: the commitment in the RTC situation is not to a fixed
value of the variable "keeping quiet", it is to a low value of the variable
"distracting others while they are learning". This doesn't affect your
example much, but it's probably best to keep as descriptively accurate as
we can. Otherwise, we might reach a conclusion, and discover that it
doesn't apply to RTC.

In your spreadsheet, the level-2 reference is a constant that you set to 50
from the outside. In the kid, the reference is a variable that is output by
another control loop. That control loop in turn may come in conflict with
another, or it may vary its output (the reference for the commitment) in
order to control its input.

There can be a conflict between "no distraction while learning" and some
principle that can be controlled in your example by shouting a warning.
(There could also be conflict with a principle of not snitching, or with
imagined retaliation from the violent kid about to hit the teacher, or with
an actual alliance with that kid, and so on.)

But we don't have to go so far afield. Control actions resisting
disturbance to the controlled variable may themselves disturb that
variable. A kid grabbing a glass jar to keep it from falling from the desk
to the floor makes an abrupt movement and some noise. In your example, the
violent kid is about to disrupt the class and distract other kids from
learning--not to mention distracting the teacher. Warning the teacher does
disturb the variable "distracting kids from learning" but could be a means
of resisting even greater disturbance to that variable. So the kid does
something that disturbs the variable "no distraction" in order to counter
an even greater disturbance to that variable.

Often when a person breaks an agreement they ask pardon, giving as an
excuse control of some other variable that conflicted or (as above)
resistance to even greater disturbance to the agreement. In some cases the
reason is manifest and no apology is made or expected; no one would
complain about a person who cried "stop thief!" in a library when someone
was making off with their laptop. That is why, after the business with the
violent kid was resolved, the teacher would surely not turn to the one who
called the warning and say "Now Johnnie, what were you doing?" But the
justification must be manifest, or given, or else it is very likely to be
demanded. This is one of the ramifications of shared
references--agreements, commitments, and the like. So the teacher might say
to the jar catcher "What are you doing?" and the kid could say "Sorry, I
was catching this jar cause I could see that Sally was accidentally pushing
it off the edge of her desk", and that would be the end of it. But it very
likely would not get even that far, the justification for the minor
disruption to prevent a greater one is manifest to all.

Keeping a commitment is continuing to control a variable with acceptable
gain. Breaking a commitment is ceasing to control the variable with
sufficient gain, or ceasing to control it at all. Failure to resist some
disturbance completely does not mean that control has ceased. The "What are
you doing?" dialog enables everyone to find out if the kid was still
controlling with "extenuating circumstances," or if gain in that control
loop was too low to resist disturbances, whether due to conflict or due to
side effects of other control.

One nice thing is that it directs the kid's attention to "distracting
others." Framing it as a power confrontation direct's the kid's attention
to "attracting the teacher's attention" i.e. getting away with it. (The
"don't let me catch you doing that again" bit.) I'm sure that doesn't
change overnight, but it's moving in the right direction, toward
responsibility.

I think it's better
to teach people why they might want to control for perceptions
like keeping quiet in class. Then then would learn that there
is a time to be quiet and a time to yell...

Is there some question that kids in RTC schools (or any schools)
distinguish between times to be quiet and times to yell? And that they are
learning to make that distinction in ways that are more mutually agreeable?

  Bruce Nevin

···

At 09:34 PM 12/08/1999 -0800, Rick Marken wrote:

94

[From Rick Marken (991209.1530)]

Marc:

Rick, Could you please respond to Bruce Nevin's post
(991209.1024 EST)

Me:

What would be the point?

Marc Abrams (991209.1809)--

Because in my mind ihe invalidates your argument.

So, again, I ask "what would be the point"? He's invalidated
my argument for you. Do you really want me to invalidate
Bruce's invalidation for you?

Best

Rick

···

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

95

[From Bruce Gregory (991209.1035 EST)]

Bill Powers (991209.0550 MDT)

Bruce Gregory (991208.1130 EST)--

>"The threat of physical force in the background" has not, to my
>knowledge, ever been modeled using CT. As far as I can tell,
it applies
>to almost anything we do, since I believe we agree that this
threat is
>implicitly present in any social system.

Yes. Most social systems so far devised, anyway. An
interesting thought, if
you pause to think about it. Is this the kind of social
system you want to
promote?

You may be surprised to learn that I have no interest in promoting
social systems.

Then I doubt that you will spend your time that way. Are you
trying to get
across your approval of this way of interacting with others?

I'm trying to get across my views of the virtue of tilting with
windmills.

Bruce Gregory

96

[From Bruce Gregory (991209.1040 EST)]

Bill Powers (991209.0622 MDT)

As long as children learn new things through interacting with
other people,
including learning what the other people know how to do,
people will wonder
if they could (or as our Brit friends would say, if they
couldn't) make the
process quicker and easier, or even bend it in "desirable"
directions. A
"desirable" direction is a direction I desire. That, I think,
is what is
called "teaching." That's an alternative to the "empty
bucket" theory, anyhow.

The analysis you provide seems to me at least to be a statement of the
"common sense" view. The common sense view does not distinguish clearly
between teaching and telling. I can only reiterate that we need a CT
analysis of teaching.

Bruce Gregory

97

[From Bruce Gregory (991209.1042 EST)]

Bill Powers (991209.0517 MDT)

They don't want to hear them because they already have ideas to the
contrary, for reasons that have no technical basis.

I believe this is called an _ad hominem_ argument. Even on CSGnet it is
not the most effective way to make a point.

Bruce Gregory

98

[From Bruce Nevin (991209.1046 EST)]

Bill Powers (991209.0559 MDT)

your assertion that it teaches children to
keep commitments does not make that what it actually teaches.

This is my perception of what the RTP process is intended to do. I have
nothing to say about how successful it may be.

The reason for saying it was because I understood you to say that the
intention of the RTP process is to impose the teacher's will on the
students, backed up by the threat of physical force. I believe this
misrepresents the intention of the program.

About the actual effects, neither of us has evidence that warrants us to
say anything.

The rest of this post I agreed with in a reply to Rick earlier today
(991209.1024 EST).

  Bruce Nevin

···

At 06:15 AM 12/09/1999 -0700, Bill Powers wrote:

99

[From Bruce Nevin (991209.1212 EST)]

Bill Powers (991209.0517 MDT)

Rick Marken (991208.0800)--

My reason for insisting that the nature of the situation
be recognized is very simple: I hope that a teacher who
realizes that the situation is coercive will be bothered
by that and try to invent new ways of achieving the desired
final result that do not rely on the threat of physical
force in the background.

So here you are _insisting_ that the RTP situation be
recognized as coercive.

Yes. And look what it got me. I'm satisfied that my arguments are
technically correct, but nobody else (to speak of) is.

I believe you are too easily satisfied. There is no model of coercion by
threat of physical force in the background. No data have been presented to
be modelled. And there is an unexamined contradiction between your
perception that the teacher's interactions with students are backed up by
the threat of physical force and your hope that the teacher will be
bothered by that and try to invent new ways of teaching.

The threat of force, required by law, is called compulsory education. The
law says "Your child must be in school or in an alternative to school that
we agree is adequate." There is no other threat of force lurking in the
background unless it is brought to a situation by an individual. (Sanctions
against e.g. shooting people are everywhere, not just in school.)

Suppose it is true that every interaction and relationship between adults
and children in a school is backed by this coercion known as compulsory
education. Suppose, in other words, that coercion is transitive, the
coercion behind an institution takes effect in every relationship and
interaction within the institution. If this is true, then anything the
teacher does is coercive. There is nothing that a teacher can do to achieve
"the desired final result" without that effort being backed up by the
threat of force in the background. The situation is hopeless. It does not
make sense then for you to hope that the teacher would be bothered by this
and try to invent new ways of teaching within the school system, because
you would know that such efforts are doomed from the start so long as
education is compulsory.

Your hope suggests that you believe, on the contrary, that it is possible
for a teacher-student interaction to be non-coercive, not backed up by the
enforcement of compulsory education. I believe that is possible too.

The question then is whether an individual teacher is coercing a student on
a given occasion. It doesn't matter what words the teacher substitutes in
place of "I see you have chosen to go to the RTC", the teacher could still
be coercing the child. Even with a pleasant smile on her face. So changing
the words will make no difference. And if the teacher is not coercing the
child, it doesn't matter if the teacher uses that phrase. The intention
(Gee, your control of "not distracting" slipped again didn't it. Time to go
get some help with that, like you said.) can be clear even if those words
are used. Words are only a small part of communication. (The reason for
difficulties with email: we imagine most of the communication. Perhaps you
imagine that I am defending a position and trying to change your views. My
intention is to expose a contradiction. What you do with the contradiction
is up to you, but I think it's a friendly thing to bring it to your
attention.)

Maybe there are better words to use. I proposed that your suggestion does
not work because it turns it into a coercive confrontation. This is the
opposite of what is intended in RTP, as I read it. So what words would be
consistent with the intentions in RTP, while not violating the PCT
principle "attribute motives only after testing for controlled variables"?
It has to be feasible. This is not a laboratory experiment, it is a classroom.

You may object to my statement that "It's my rule, and I'm enforcing it
now." turns it into a coercive confrontation because (as you have said) it
already is a coercive confrontation, so it is best to be honest and say so.
You have said that this is because of the threat of force that is required
by law. If you believe this, then you have no basis that I can see for your
hope that teachers can find ways to be non-coercive. Just like the lady
talking to William James about the turtles, it's coercion all the way down.

If that is our disagreement, then we can get down to empirical test.

  Bruce Nevin

100

[From Kenny Kitzke (991209.1300EST)]

<Rick Marken (991209.0820)>

Bill Powers (991209.0559 MDT) to Bruce Nevin (991208.1311 EST)--

I think it is reasonable to ask children if they had any good
reason for not keeping a committment; but to teach them that all
comittments must be kept no matter what is to teach them something
that no adult believes.

<My guess is that nearly all adults believe this (for example,
note the prevalence of the belief in an absolute moral code)
but, of course, none practice it because they _can't_ and
still maintain control of their perceptions.>

You are hopeless Rick. Your sarcasm is thinly veiled and, as usual, your
promises to refrain from the like on CSGNet are short lived. Why not stick
to modeling and science? Who cares what you think about absolute moral
codes? Who asked you?

As someone who believes in an absolute moral code, I can assure you that I
know I can't keep it. Because I can't keep it does not mean there is none.
The problem is not in the absolute moral code, it's in me. That knowledge
has led me to a different higher level reference perception for what to do
about my perception of me. You would call it a reorganization I suppose. I
would call it growing my hierarchy. Isn't it fun talkin' PCT?

Here's more. I moved up. You moved down. To soothe your system belief, you
establish the principle that no absolute moral code exists for you and
ridicule anyone with a different view. Nice PCT. Nice control. Life is
good your way?

Kenny