Wills

CSGnet Archive CSG1998
1

[From Tim Carey (980501.0745)]

Hi Bill,

Just one more point I wanted to clarify (at least for now :-))

Early on I think you said something like: coercion is forcing someone to do
something against their will.

At the moment you seem to be saying that coercion has nothing to do with
the recipient and everything to do with the person using the force. In
fact, coercion involves ignoring the other control system.

If you ignore the other control system, how do you know you're doing
something against their will? The first statement seems to imply that you
would need to play close attention to the will (references) of the other
control system.

Cheers,

Tim

2

[From Bill Powers (980501.0357 MDT)]

Tim Carey (980501.0745) --

Early on I think you said something like: coercion is forcing someone to do
something against their will.

At the moment you seem to be saying that coercion has nothing to do with
the recipient and everything to do with the person using the force. In
fact, coercion involves ignoring the other control system.

If you ignore the other control system, how do you know you're doing
something against their will? The first statement seems to imply that you
would need to play close attention to the will (references) of the other
control system.

You're quite right. It's not doing something "against" the recipient's
will. It's doing it _regardless of_ the recipient's will, effectively
destroying the recipient's control.

Best,

Bill P.

3

[From Tim Carey (980501.1700)]

[From Bill Powers (980501.0357 MDT)]

You're quite right. It's not doing something "against" the recipient's
will. It's doing it _regardless of_ the recipient's will, effectively
destroying the recipient's control.

This is my point Bill. For me to think of it in terms of PCT I have to
think of it in terms of the model. Suppose we have control system A who is
"coercing" and control system B who is being "coerced". From control system
B's perspective, control system A can either be a disturbance (if it is
effecting B's cv independently of B's actions) or part of B's feedback
function (if B is using A to affect his cv).

To use the "bending your arm up behind your back example": if B is
controlling for walking along minding his own business and swinging his
arms freely and A jumps up and grabs B's arm and twists it up behind his
back this would constitute a disturbance.

If however, B wants to see how far up behind his back his arm can go before
it is dislocated, he might taunt A with: "You're so weak I bet you couldn't
make me put my arm behind my back ... is that the best you can do ... can't
you make it go any higher ... heck you're a real weakling .... etc." At
this point, isn't A part of B's feedback function?

Are both these acts, acts of coercion?

Cheers,

Tim

4

[From Bill Powers (980501.0858 MDT)]

Tim Carey (980501.1700)--

For me to think of it in terms of PCT I have to
think of it in terms of the model. Suppose we have control system A who is
"coercing" and control system B who is being "coerced". From control system
B's perspective, control system A can either be a disturbance (if it is
effecting B's cv independently of B's actions) or part of B's feedback
function (if B is using A to affect his cv).

B has no feedback function in relation to whatever the coercer is
controlling. B may try to act, but the action will have no effect on his
pereptions. A is too strong. B's control system no longer exists as a
control system. B may try to control some other variable, but the one A is
controlling is determined completely by A.

To use the "bending your arm up behind your back example": if B is
controlling for walking along minding his own business and swinging his
arms freely and A jumps up and grabs B's arm and twists it up behind his
back this would constitute a disturbance.

If however, B wants to see how far up behind his back his arm can go before
it is dislocated, he might taunt A with: "You're so weak I bet you couldn't
make me put my arm behind my back ... is that the best you can do ... can't
you make it go any higher ... heck you're a real weakling .... etc." At
this point, isn't A part of B's feedback function?

No. A doesn't care what B says. It has no effect on A. A will twist B's arm
exactly as far as A wants it twisted, and there it will stay. B can't make
A twist it farther or less far. A is just an object that B is manipulating,
the way a lab technician manipulates rats or mice. Pick 'em up buy the
tails, inject the stuff, drop 'em in the out box.

What you're not getting is that a coercer has -- must have -- far more
strength than the victim, and no interest at all in what the victim wants
or tries to do. The lab technician isn't interested in the wiggling and
squeaking of the rats. He just does what he does with them -- the idea that
they might object doesn't even cross his mind.

This sounds a lot different, of course, from what a real person would do to
another person in a real situation. Nobody in his right mind would treat
anyone else this way. Not, that is, knowingly. But people can do all sorts
of things if they just find a way to describe what they're doing so it
doesn't sound so bad. People are very good at that: it's called
rationalizing. If you ask the lab technician how he can stand to jab
needles into the bellies of those mice and listen to their screams every
time he does it, he will say something like "Oh, that's just a reflex. They
don't really feel anything." If he didn't tell himself that he probably
wouldn't be able to do his job.

Are both these acts, acts of coercion?

No. Only one of them is enough stronger than the other to force the other
to do what he wants. They can't both be stronger than each other. If
they're equally matched you end up with a conflict, not coercion. There is
no conflict with coercion -- no effective conflict. One side always wins.

Best,

Bill P.

5

[From Bruce Gregory (980501.1302 EDT)]

Bill Powers (980501.0858 MDT)]

No. Only one of them is enough stronger than the other to force the other
to do what he wants. They can't both be stronger than each other. If
they're equally matched you end up with a conflict, not coercion. There is
no conflict with coercion -- no effective conflict. One side always wins.

It may be that the idea of kids "testing the limits" applies here. Part of
growing up is discovering how far you can practice control before a superior
control system "clamps down" on you. How fast can I drive in a 65 mph zone
before the cop at the side of the road turns on his flashing lights and sets
off after me? Systems that we think of as coercive leave little room for
individuals to exercise control. Systems we think of as permissive allow a
far greater degree of individual control. But all social systems have limits
at which they act coercively. If this were not true, they would be long
gone.

Best Offer

6

[From Rick Marken (980501.0920)]

Tim Carey (980501.1707) --

This is perhaps the biggest issue I have with coercion Bill. You
_must_ consider the intentions of the coercee to know what's
resistance and what's not.

Not at all. All you have to do is find a common controlled
variable, like the position of the coercee's arm. You can
tell that there is coersion because the coercer is acting
(successfully) to keep this variable in one state (say, in a
hammer lock) while the coercee is acting (unsuccessfully) to
keep it in another (say, in the coercer's face).

If you don't know what my goals are, how do you know whether
you're hindering me or helping me?

It's pretty obvious. A "hinder" is a disturbance to a controlled
variable that is obviously resisted by the coercee; the coercee
fights back. If the disturbance is created by a control system
(the coercer) who is acting to get the _same_ variable into a
different state than that intended by the coercee, then the
coercer's disturbance will _increase_ as the coercee's efforts
to protect against it increases.

This is the hallmark of conflictive control; the mutual opposing
efforts to control the disputed controlled variable (arm position,
say) increase at an exponential rate until one system is unable (or
unwilling) to keep increasing its efforts. In coercion, the coercer
is typically _stronger_ (or more ruthless) than the coercee so
the coercer wins the conflict; the variable that is in dispute ends
up in the state desired by the coercer (the arm ends up in a hammer
lock).

Now if you say that my intentions don't matter then we have the
situation where both helping me and hindering me can be described
as coercion.

The intentions of the coercer and coercee "matter" becuase this
is what creates the conflict; I intend to place my fist between
your eyes; you intend to place my fist behind my back. While I
resist your efforts to put me in a hammer lock I am coercing
you; while you resist my efforts to place my fist in your face,
you are coercing me. The stronger system "wins" this conflict and
gets to be called the "coercer". But, in fact, because we are all
control systems, we are all coercers whenever we intend to get
variables others are controlling into the states we want them in --
no matter what. PCT helps us understand coercion; it doesn't make
it go away (if we want it to go away; I'd personally like to see
much less coercion in the world; but I'm still pulling my kid --
well, grandkid eventually -- out of the street whether it wants
out or 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

7

[From Tim Carey (980502.0524)]

[From Rick Marken (980501.0920)]

> This is perhaps the biggest issue I have with coercion Bill. You
> _must_ consider the intentions of the coercee to know what's
> resistance and what's not.

Not at all. All you have to do is find a common controlled
variable, like the position of the coercee's arm.

Now I know I'm missing something. First you say "not at all" and thene you
say find a common controlled variable. How do you find someone's controlled
variable if you don't consider what their intentions are?

You can

tell that there is coersion because the coercer is acting
(successfully) to keep this variable in one state (say, in a
hammer lock) while the coercee is acting (unsuccessfully) to
keep it in another (say, in the coercer's face).

How do you know the coercee wants it in another state without knowing what
the coercee's intention is?

> If you don't know what my goals are, how do you know whether
> you're hindering me or helping me?

It's pretty obvious. A "hinder" is a disturbance to a controlled
variable that is obviously resisted by the coercee; the coercee
fights back.

What's obvious Rick? This conversation at the moment reminds me of the Brer
Rabbit and Brer Fox story about the briar patch. Do you know it? There was
a situation where "someone" used his superior strength to coerce "someone"
else, with the only hitch being that what was done was exactly what the
coercee wanted done. This is the kind of situation I'm speaking of.

At the moment you and Bill are saying that the intentions of the coercee
are irrelevant. You must accept therefore that sometimes when someone
coerces another person what the coercer wants may coincide with what the
coercee wants and hence coercion in this instance is actually a helping
situation.

If the disturbance is created by a control system

(the coercer) who is acting to get the _same_ variable into a
different state than that intended by the coercee, then the
coercer's disturbance will _increase_ as the coercee's efforts
to protect against it increases.

Again, how do you know what variables and in what states the coercee wants
them unless you know something about their goals.

unwilling) to keep increasing its efforts. In coercion, the coercer
is typically _stronger_ (or more ruthless) than the coercee so
the coercer wins the conflict; the variable that is in dispute ends
up in the state desired by the coercer (the arm ends up in a hammer
lock).

So do you and Bill think that uncategorically someone with superior
physical strength is _always_ able to coerce someone who is weaker, and
someone who is weaker is _never_ able to coerce someone who is stronger?

The intentions of the coercer and coercee "matter" becuase this
is what creates the conflict; I intend to place my fist between
your eyes; you intend to place my fist behind my back.

But just above you said that the intentions of the coercee didn't matter.

no matter what. PCT helps us understand coercion; it doesn't make
it go away (if we want it to go away; I'd personally like to see
much less coercion in the world; but I'm still pulling my kid --
well, grandkid eventually -- out of the street whether it wants
out or not;-))

Actually Rick this is perhaps the biggest difference between you guys and
me and it's amazing to me that we can be so different. The thing I really
like about PCT is that it stresses the autonomy of every living thing. For
me this is a wonderfully liberating notion.

Sure someone who is stronger can control my actions but my actions aren't
what I do. What I do is control perceptions. In terms of the model, then,
all a coercer can ever control (if they control anything at all) is what
information is coming in to my system. But this is only _half_ the equation
and _I_ control the other half by the references I have. I'm reminded again
of the Viktor Frankl quote, as far as I'm concerned if someone can't
control my attitudes then they can coerce my actions until the cows come
home ... they can't coerce _me_.

Now that you all think I've gone completely potty ... it must be the great
Australian air ....

Cheers,

Tim

8

[From Tim Carey (980501.0552)]

[From Bill Powers (980501.0858 MDT)]

B has no feedback function in relation to whatever the coercer is
controlling.

How do you know that without knowing what B is controlling for? Without
knowing what B is controlling for how do you know that what you're
"coercing" him to do isn't what he wants to do anyway?

B may try to act, but the action will have no effect on his

pereptions. A is too strong. B's control system no longer exists as a
control system. B may try to control some other variable, but the one A

is

controlling is determined completely by A.

What if B is controlling for being controlled by A?

>If however, B wants to see how far up behind his back his arm can go

before

>it is dislocated, he might taunt A with: "You're so weak I bet you

couldn't

>make me put my arm behind my back ... is that the best you can do ...

can't

>you make it go any higher ... heck you're a real weakling .... etc." At
>this point, isn't A part of B's feedback function?

No. A doesn't care what B says.

Then this is getting further and further aways from classroom examples. If
the teacher is A and is coercing student B, they care very much about what
B says, in fact that's why they're coercing them in the first place
(usually).

A twist it farther or less far. A is just an object that B is

manipulating,

the way a lab technician manipulates rats or mice. Pick 'em up buy the
tails, inject the stuff, drop 'em in the out box.

Actually, I thought Skinner commented when he first started his studies
that he felt just as controlled by the rat as the rat was by him. The
moment that Skinner parted his forefinger and thumb and released the food
pellet was determined solely by what the rat did. Was the rat being
coercive?

What you're not getting is that a coercer has -- must have -- far more
strength than the victim, and no interest at all in what the victim wants
or tries to do.

So are you saying that this is all a strenght issue? People with superior
physical strength can _always_ coerce physically weaker people and
physically weaker people can _never_ coerce physically stronger people.

No. Only one of them is enough stronger than the other to force the other
to do what he wants. They can't both be stronger than each other. If
they're equally matched you end up with a conflict, not coercion. There

is

no conflict with coercion -- no effective conflict. One side always wins.

Sure someone with superior physical strength can make another person do
what they want them to do. My only point is that unless you pay attention
to what the other person also wants then you must accept that, at times,
what you're "making" them do might be just what they wanted to do anyway.

I don't have a problem with your definition of coercion if you're saying
that coercion is only in the mind of the coercer and has no regard for the
coercee intentions at all. If this is the case though, at times the
intentions of the coercee may serrendipitously coincide with the intentions
of the coercer.

Cheers,

Tim

9

[From Rick Marken (980501.1430)]

Tim Carey (980502.0524)--

How do you find someone's controlled variable if you don't
consider what their intentions are?

All I meant to say is that you can see coercion using a version
of the Test; you disturb a variable and watch for actions that
protect that variable from disturbance. When you remove a child
from the room you can see (from it's struggling) that it's trying
to stay in the room. The kid is controlling for being in one place
and (unsuccessfully) resisting you efforts (disturbances) to
move him to another place. Of course, we know (from PCT) that
the kid is resisting your disturbance because he has an
intention (reference) to be in a particular place.

How do you know the coercee wants it in another state without
knowing what the coercee's intention is?

You don't have to know the exact reference for the state of the
controlled perception (which corresponds to the kid's intention)
in order to see that the kid is resisting your disturbances
to that perception.

Tim:

If you don't know what my goals are, how do you know whether
you're hindering me or helping me?

Me:

It's pretty obvious.

Tim:

What's obvious Rick?

That the kid is being hindered. Kids put up pretty intense
resistance to disturbances (they scream, cry, flail -- you'll
see;-)) which seem like pretty clear evidence that _some_ perception
the kid cares about is being disturbed, even if you can't tell
exactly what perception that is.

At the moment you and Bill are saying that the intentions of the
coercee are irrelevant.

To the coercer, yes.

You must accept therefore that sometimes when someone coerces
another person what the coercer wants may coincide with what the
coercee wants and hence coercion in this instance is actually a
helping situation.

Yes, of course. My mother does this to me all the time;-)

So do you and Bill think that uncategorically someone with superior
physical strength is _always_ able to coerce someone who is weaker,
and someone who is weaker is _never_ able to coerce someone who is
stronger?

Of course not. "Strength" is not just physical strength. Superior
wit works well too, for example.

But just above you said that the intentions of the coercee didn't
matter.

I meant that they didn't have to be _considered_ in order for
an observer to _see_ that coercion is going on.

Sure someone who is stronger can control my actions but my
actions aren't what I do.

But your actions _influence_ what you do (how your controlled
perceptions behave). Remember p = o + d. In order to control
p you have to be able to _vary_ o. Coercion eliminates your ability
to vary o (or eliminates the effect of o on p), so p varies right
along with d, uncontrolled.

What I do is control perceptions.

Right. But you can't control your perceptions if you lack the
ability to vary your outputs, as necessary, to bring perceptions
to their reference states and remain there, protected from
disturbance. The lack of ability to vary output to control
perceptions comes from physical limitations (you can't walk a
straight line in a 150 mph wind), ignorance (you can't control
the attitude of an airplane if you haven't learned to fly) and
coercion (you can't leave the bank with all the cash from the
vault because someone will shoot you).

In terms of the model, then, all a coercer can ever control (if
they control anything at all) is what information is coming in
to my system.

No. What the coercer controls is qo (the environmental correlate
of p) and/or o (the coercee's output).

But this is only _half_ the equation and _I_ control the other
half by the references I have.

References are set as the means of controlling higher level
perceptions. So you can't really control your references (set
them to any arbitrary value). You might set your reference for
"side of the road" to the side of the road to which the wind is
blowing you. So by varying your reference you experience no error
in the "side of the road" control system when the wind blows you
into oncoming traffic. But one system that uses this reference --
the one controlling for not getting run over -- is going to
experience error big time.

I'm reminded again of the Viktor Frankl quote, as far as I'm
concerned if someone can't control my attitudes then they can
coerce my actions until the cows come home ... they can't
coerce _me_.

Perhaps they can't make Victor _feel_ like he's being coerced;
but he can sure be coerced. I suppose it's nice for Victor
(and anyone else) if he really doesn't feel like he is
being coerced when he is. But that doesn't change the fact
that he _is_ being coerced.

I think I see now why you don't like Bill's (and my) discussion
of coercion. You seem to think that PCT shows that there is no
such thing as coercion because people are autonomous perceptual
control systems. But I'm afraid PCT doesn't show that. Despite
PCT we still have coercion, death, the war on drugs, the OJ defense
team and Kenneth Starr;-)

Best

Rick

···

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

10

[From Tim Carey (980502.1100)]

[From Rick Marken (980501.1430)]

All I meant to say is that you can see coercion using a version
of the Test; you disturb a variable and watch for actions that
protect that variable from disturbance. When you remove a child
from the room you can see (from it's struggling) that it's trying
to stay in the room.

You can see struggling and you make an interpretation that it's because the
child wants you to stop what you're doing. This wouldn't bother you anyway
since the intentions of the child are unimportant but how do you know the
child hasn't discovered that by struggling he gets the adult to spend
_more_ time with him and pay him _more_ attention? Is the child now
coercing the adult?

The kid is controlling for being in one place

and (unsuccessfully) resisting you efforts (disturbances) to
move him to another place. Of course, we know (from PCT) that
the kid is resisting your disturbance because he has an
intention (reference) to be in a particular place.

Hang on, are the intentions of the coercee relevant or not?

That the kid is being hindered. Kids put up pretty intense
resistance to disturbances (they scream, cry, flail -- you'll
see;-)) which seem like pretty clear evidence that _some_ perception
the kid cares about is being disturbed, even if you can't tell
exactly what perception that is.

And without knowing what it is, you have absolutely no idea whether you
assisting them or blocking them from controlling a perception that is
important to them. Not that this matters anymore because the intention of
the coercee is irrelevant (see below)

> At the moment you and Bill are saying that the intentions of the
> coercee are irrelevant.

To the coercer, yes.

> You must accept therefore that sometimes when someone coerces
> another person what the coercer wants may coincide with what the
> coercee wants and hence coercion in this instance is actually a
> helping situation.

Yes, of course. My mother does this to me all the time;-)

So coercion is a process that can either hinder or help the recipient.

But your actions _influence_ what you do (how your controlled
perceptions behave). Remember p = o + d. In order to control
p you have to be able to _vary_ o. Coercion eliminates your ability
to vary o (or eliminates the effect of o on p), so p varies right
along with d, uncontrolled.

And also remember e = r - p. I only experience error if my p is different

Right. But you can't control your perceptions if you lack the
ability to vary your outputs, as necessary, to bring perceptions
to their reference states and remain there, protected from
disturbance.

But doesn't the reference state _define_ what p must be. So why do I need
to vary my outputs if I can change r?

> In terms of the model, then, all a coercer can ever control (if
> they control anything at all) is what information is coming in
> to my system.

No. What the coercer controls is qo (the environmental correlate
of p) and/or o (the coercee's output).

So does controlling qo affect p or not? Are we speaking of a situation now
where you control my actions but I don't perceive you doing that?

References are set as the means of controlling higher level
perceptions. So you can't really control your references (set
them to any arbitrary value).

But if I'm coerced for any length of time, wouldn't I experience error and
wouldn't reorganisation be more than likely. But again, we're talking about
the coercee and this person is irrelevant.

Perhaps they can't make Victor _feel_ like he's being coerced;
but he can sure be coerced. I suppose it's nice for Victor
(and anyone else) if he really doesn't feel like he is
being coerced when he is. But that doesn't change the fact
that he _is_ being coerced.

I think I see now why you don't like Bill's (and my) discussion
of coercion. You seem to think that PCT shows that there is no
such thing as coercion because people are autonomous perceptual
control systems.

Actually Rick I _love_ this discussion with you and Bill, I'm finding it
enthralling. From your paragraph above you are saying that it is irrelevant
whether or not someone perceives they are being coerced. If my intention is
to coerce you and I can use force to control your actions then it is
coercion whether you like it or not.

Of course the flip side of this is that it doesn't matter what the coercee
says or complains about. If I say you're coercing me and you say "No, sonny
I'm just helping you", then that's fine ... no coercion here.

Does this apply to other things like bullying? If the victim says they feel
bullied but the bully says "No, I was just having fun", then there's no
bullying right?

Similarly, with sexual harassment. If I feel sexually harassed (most people
would call me lucky ;-)) but the person doing the harassing says "No I was
just complimenting him" then there's no harassment right?

What about a handshake? If I use force to move a little kids hand up and
down along with mine, then this is coercion right because it doesn't matter
whether or not they want to shake my hand as well. If I say to my 3 year
old nephew "Lachlan, it's 7.00 o'clock, I'm going to carry you into bed
now"; then that's coercion _whether or not_ he replies with "That's great,
thanks uncle Tim", or "No, I want to stay up longer".

You're right about my interpretation of coercion. I see things _exactly_
opposite to you and Bill. I don't think it has anything to do with the
intention of the coercer. For me, coercion is defined by the coercee. If
you feel coerced, you're coerced. If you don't feel coerced you're not
coerced.

Cheers,

Tim

···

from my r and I control my r.

11

[From Tim Carey (980502.1635)]

[From Rick Marken (980501.2300)]

And it looks like that's the way it's going to remain for you. We
obviously are not able to coerce you into changing your mind;-)

Nope, you can't ... but then again you're probably coecing me right now and
I just don't realise it :wink:

But you might want to reconsider your understanding of control
system operation, as reflected in the following remark:

I was hoping you'd pick me up on this. I knew it was sloppy when I wrote it
but thought it would be a good opportunity to learn some more about the
theory.

> And also remember e = r - p. I only experience error if my
> p is different from my r and I control my r.

My understanding is that a control system controls its perceptual
signal (p), not its reference signal (r). I can show that
control systems control perceptual signals (when variations in
output or the effects of output on qo are not prevented); can you
show that control systems control reference signals as well?

No I can't Rick. I thought, however, that r was an independent variable
which at least implies that it varies. I've also had the experience of
working with tough secondary school kids who were having lots of trouble at
school. You could say they were having the heck coerced out of them. They
were on detentions, suspensions, and lots of other "deterrents". The last
stop before explusion was to send them to the team I worked on. We had a
withdrawal unit. The kids spent some time with us during the week and the
rest of the time back at school. We spent a lot of time with these kids
trying to find out what was important to them. For the great majority of
them, getting a job when they left school was important. We then spent time
talking to them about what they could learn from school that would help
them get a job and they would tell us that they thought if they learned not
to get hassled by teachers who picked on them then they might be able to
cope with a boss who they didn't like.

I know from yours and Bill's perspective, there are probably lots of
problems with this approach but at least in the context of what we're
talking about, it seems that they changed what they were controlling for.
Prior to coming to us, they wanted things like getting the teachers off
their back; after working with us some of them would seem to begin to
control for not letting things get to them. It seems in this instance that
what they changed was their r. I'm probably way off base but as I said I
threw that in becuase I wanted to explore some of the holes in my
understanding of the theory.

Incidentally, I'm still really interested to hear your thoughts on the
final section of my last post ... to do with bullying, sexual harassment,
handshakes and carrying my nephew to bed.

Cheers,

Tim

12

[From Rick Marken (980501.2300)]

Tim Carey (980502.1100) --

For me, coercion is defined by the coercee. If you feel coerced,
you're coerced. If you don't feel coerced you're not coerced.

And it looks like that's the way it's going to remain for you. We
obviously are not able to coerce you into changing your mind;-)
But you might want to reconsider your understanding of control
system operation, as reflected in the following remark:

And also remember e = r - p. I only experience error if my
p is different from my r and I control my r.

My understanding is that a control system controls its perceptual
signal (p), not its reference signal (r). I can show that
control systems control perceptual signals (when variations in
output or the effects of output on qo are not prevented); can you
show that control systems control reference signals as well?

Best

Rick

···

--

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

13

[From Bruce Gregory (980502.0614 EDT)]

Tim Carey (980502.1635)]

I know from yours and Bill's perspective, there are probably lots of
problems with this approach but at least in the context of what we're
talking about, it seems that they changed what they were controlling for.
Prior to coming to us, they wanted things like getting the teachers off
their back; after working with us some of them would seem to begin to
control for not letting things get to them. It seems in this instance that
what they changed was their r. I'm probably way off base but as I said I
threw that in because I wanted to explore some of the holes in my
understanding of the theory.

It sounds to me that they might have changed a program from, "When teacher
hassles you do this" to "When a teacher hassles you do that." The kids saw
that the first program was not allowing them reach a goal at the principle
or system level. In the imagination mode, they saw that the second might.
The higher level control switched to the second program on this basis.

Best Offer

14

[From Tim Carey (980502.2115)]

[From Bruce Gregory (980502.0614 EDT)]

It sounds to me that they might have changed a program from, "When

teacher

hassles you do this" to "When a teacher hassles you do that." The kids

saw

that the first program was not allowing them reach a goal at the

principle

or system level. In the imagination mode, they saw that the second might.
The higher level control switched to the second program on this basis.

I kind of thought something like what you described might have been going
on, but after my conversation with Rick I'm not so sure. Maybe I'm just
missing something.

Cheers,

Tim

15

[From Fred Nickols (980502.1000 EDT)] --

Tim Carey (980502.0524)]

Rick Marken (980501.0920)]

It's pretty obvious. A "hinder" is a disturbance to a controlled
variable that is obviously resisted by the coercee; the coercee
fights back.

What's obvious Rick? This conversation at the moment reminds me of the Brer
Rabbit and Brer Fox story about the briar patch. Do you know it? There was
a situation where "someone" used his superior strength to coerce "someone"
else, with the only hitch being that what was done was exactly what the
coercee wanted done. This is the kind of situation I'm speaking of.

I've been following this coercion/wills thread for some time but have
managed to stay out of because I'm intent on the exchange between Bill P and
Tim c.

However, Tim's remark above prompts a comment...

I assume, Tim, you refer to Br'er Rabbit's successful use of reverse
psychology; namely, begging Br'er Fox to do anything except throw Br'er
Rabbit into the briar patch (which, of course, is exactly where Br'er
Rabbit wanted to go). I think the best you can claim for this story is
that Br'er Fox might have intended to coerce Br'er Rabbit, however, the
tale doesn't get to the point Bill P is making, which is that coercion
occurs whenever superior force is used by Person A to make Person B do
Person A wants -- regardless of what Person B wants. It is not necessary
for Person A (or anyone else for that matter) to know what Person B wants.
All that is necessary is to observe that Person A is using coercion (i.e.,
force that Person B is unable or chooses not to resist). If I understand
Bill's argument, it is not even necessary to know what it is that Person A
is controlling for. (The physical position imposed on Person B, for
example, might be nothing more than a demonstration to B by A that A
possesses superior force and is willing to employ it -- an act calculated,
perhaps, to impress upon B that A's wishes are to be treated as commands.)

In any event, I think the discussion between Tim C and Bill P is taking
place on two different levels. Bill is discussing the visible aspects of
coercion and defining it in those terms. From that perspective, there is no
need to resort to PCT -- unless and until one starts speculating about the
coercer's controlled variables. Tim, on the other hand, is arguing from
coercion from the coercee's perspective, to wit, that coercion can't be
determined unless one knows that B is being forced against his or her will.

Bill, then, is describing a physical phenomenon that can be determined to
exist from some simple observations. No analysis is required. Tim is
arguing that understanding is necessary.

For what it's worth, I tend to agree with Bill and, as long as Tim
stipulates that the coercee's reference conditions must be known before the
presence of coercion can be determined, I see now way to develop a
consensual view on their part. As plain as I can put it, they seem to be
talking about two different things.

Regards,

Fred Nickols
The Distance Consulting Company
nickols@worldnet.att.net
http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm

        "The Internet offers the best graduate-level education
         to be found anywhere."

16

[From Bill Powers (980502.0747 MDT)]

Rick Marken (980501.0920)--

Tim:

If you don't know what my goals are, how do you know whether
you're hindering me or helping me?

Rick:

It's pretty obvious. A "hinder" is a disturbance to a controlled
variable that is obviously resisted by the coercee; the coercee
fights back. If the disturbance is created by a control system
(the coercer) who is acting to get the _same_ variable into a
different state than that intended by the coercee, then the
coercer's disturbance will _increase_ as the coercee's efforts
to protect against it increases.

I think you're both missing the point here. I think you're visualizing A
coercing B as if A is in a struggle with B and B is trying to resist. I see
your point, in that coercion does carry some connotation of resistance, as
if the resistance made at least a token difference. But I don't think
that's the end of the spectrum. As the strength of the parties to a
conflict becomes more and more different, the stronger party has less and
less difficulty in overcoming the weaker one, until the point is reached
where the stronger party doesn't even notice the resistance from the weaker
one. And before that point is reached, I think the weaker party tends to
give up the futile struggle, and seeks only to minimize the discomfort. So
we reach a state in which ONLY the coercer's intentions count, and the
coercee simply tries to make the best of it.

There was a scene on TV recently, about cops arresting protesters in China.
The initial scene was of protesters struggling in the grasp of multiple
cops, while the cops were beating on them. And the next scene was of the
protesters walking along with pairs of cops leading them toward the paddy
wagon. Clearly the cops had won, and the protesters had given up. Rather
than continuing to struggle so the cops had to drag them on the ground,
they gave in and walked, which was much less painful. They ended up in the
paddy wagon either way, but the second way hurt less.

Would anyone say that when the protesters were walking along while the cops
held their arms, the cops had ceased to coerce the protesters into the
paddy wagon? As it happened, when a few of the protesters got to the rear
of the wagon, they suddenly struggled to escape -- and the cops were
instantly all over them beating on them again and throwing them to the
ground. I would say that the cops were in coercion mode all the time. It
made little difference to them whether the protesters struggled or walked
along quietly; the protesters were going into the paddy wagon whether they
struggled or not.

I guess the reason that this seems important to me is that when the
coercers have completely subdued the coercees, everything looks peaceful
again, and it seems that the coercees are voluntarily doing what the
coercers want. The coercers can then say, "Look, I'm not laying a finger on
them, they've learned how to behave right all by themselves. See how happy
they are? (Smile, kiddies, thaaat's right)."

To me, this is the stuff of nightmares.

Best,

Bill P.

17

[From Bill Powers (980502.0846 MDT)]

Tim Carey (980502.0524)--

At the moment you and Bill are saying that the intentions of the coercee
are irrelevant. You must accept therefore that sometimes when someone
coerces another person what the coercer wants may coincide with what the
coercee wants and hence coercion in this instance is actually a helping
situation.

Yes, that's true, from the standpoint of the coercee. "Ah, good, I was
feeling very dirty from that long trip in the boxcar, and now they're going
to make us take a shower -- just what I wanted!"

My point, of course, is that the coercer is highly unlikely to "help" in
such a way as to correct the coercee's errors, especially since the coercer
neither knows nor cares what the coercee would prefer to be experiencing.

Best,

Bill P.

18

[From Bill Powers (980502.0853 MDT)]

Tim Carey (980501.0552)--

B has no feedback function in relation to whatever the coercer is
controlling.

How do you know that without knowing what B is controlling for? Without
knowing what B is controlling for how do you know that what you're
"coercing" him to do isn't what he wants to do anyway?

The variable that A, the coercer, is controlling is under such tight and
powerful control by A that B's output can't materially affect it. The only
way B can pretend to have control of the same variable is to say "Oh,
that's how I would have controlled it anyway."

What if B is controlling for being controlled by A?

A nice delusion, if B can figure out exactly when to start wanting to be
controlled, when to stop, and exactly what state to want the controlled
variable in at all times. Then A can say "See? I'm really in control here.
Oh, excuse me a moment, now I have to control for being hoisted up and
lowered into the boiling water."

No. A doesn't care what B says.

Then this is getting further and further aways from classroom examples. If
the teacher is A and is coercing student B, they care very much about what
B says, in fact that's why they're coercing them in the first place
(usually).

Usually, (maybe), but not when the child has disrupted the second time and
is supposed to go to the RTC. Now the child is coerced to going into the
RTC, no matter what he says. If he goes "voluntarily", fine. But if he
doesn't, he's going anyway.

Actually, I thought Skinner commented when he first started his studies
that he felt just as controlled by the rat as the rat was by him. The
moment that Skinner parted his forefinger and thumb and released the food
pellet was determined solely by what the rat did. Was the rat being
coercive?

No. Skinner was controlled by his desire for the rat to behave in a certain
way.

So are you saying that this is all a strenght issue? People with superior
physical strength can _always_ coerce physically weaker people and
physically weaker people can _never_ coerce physically stronger people.

Yes. Coercion, as I use the word, is a matter of superior physical
strength. Sometimes people with weak muscles can coerce people with strong
muscles by using artificial aids, like guns and bombs, or by allying
themselves with strong people, like hit-men or soldiers or school guards.

Sure someone with superior physical strength can make another person do
what they want them to do. My only point is that unless you pay attention
to what the other person also wants then you must accept that, at times,
what you're "making" them do might be just what they wanted to do anyway.

As I said, it is highly unlikely that you will "make" anyone act so he
perceives what he wanted anyway. Even if you deliberately set out to do
that, your model of the other person would have to be very accurate and
extensive for you even to guess what the other person wants to perceive,
and then to get it right within a couple of percent when you carry out the
required action.

And anyway, what's in it for the coercer is making the other behave as the
coercer wants. And that is what the other will do, regardless of what the
other wants.

Coercer: "Here, I'm making you eat a strawberry ice-cream cone."

Child: "WAAAH! I want chocolate!"

Pseudo-Coercer: "Now I'm making you eat a chocolate ice cream cone."

Child: "WAAAH! I wanted sprinkles."

Pseudo-Coercer: "Now you're getting a chocolate ice cream cone with
sprinkles."

Child: "WAAAH! You got it on my shirt!"

Back to being a real Coercer: "Shut up, sit down, and eat it."

Child: "WAA -- [MMPHffff]"

I don't have a problem with your definition of coercion if you're saying
that coercion is only in the mind of the coercer and has no regard for the
coercee intentions at all. If this is the case though, at times the
intentions of the coercee may serrendipitously coincide with the intentions
of the coercer.

The behavior of the coercee will at all times match the behavior that the
coercer wants to see, regardless of the intentions of the coercee. If the
intentions of the coercee happen to fall in line with the behavior that the
coercer is continuously enforcing, the coercee might think "He's making me
do just what I wanted to do," but since the coercee can't make him do
anything else, that's a very small comfort.

Best,

Bill P.

19

[From Rick Marken (980502.1000)]

Tim Carey (980502.1635)

I thought, however, that r was an independent variable which at
least implies that it varies.

Yes. It is an independent variable, not a _controlled variable_.
Actually, you were implying that r was an output variable, one
that could be varied in the equation e = r - p to make e = 0.
But this is not the way r functions in a control loop.

I've also had the experience of working with tough secondary school
kids who were having lots of trouble at school ...it seems that
they changed what they were controlling for.

They may have reorganized and actually changed the perception
they were controlling or changed the way they set the references
for an existing perception as the means of controlling a higher
level perception. Who knows? All I know is that, in the HPCT
model, control systems don't vary r to control e; they vary
output (which influences the value of lower level r's) to
control input (p).

Incidentally, I'm still really interested to hear your thoughts on
the final section of my last post ... to do with bullying, sexual
harassment, handshakes and carrying my nephew to bed.

I think you used these examples to illustrate your contention
that our position on coercion implies "that it doesn't matter what
the coercee says or complains about. If I say you're coercing
me and you say "No, sonny I'm just helping you", then that's
fine ... no coercion here." But our position on coercion has
nothing to do with what the coercer _says_; coercion refers to
what ther coercer _does_. In fact, Bill's point is _precisely_
that coercion _is_ used in the RTP program despite claims that
it is not.

This whole argument is based on what we (Bill and I) see as a
request for honesty; the honest thing for RTP practioners to do
is simply _admit_ that some coercion (in the form of the "forced
choice" between staying in class or going to the social skills
room) is part of the program.

You seem to be saying that coercion is _not_used in the RTP program
because coercion doesn't exist (unless someone feels coerced);
so RTP practioners are perfectly honest when they say that
coercion is _not_ part of the program. It's not part of _any_
program.

Convincing you of our position really doesn't matter to me;
The only problem with your position is that you might run across
people who can see through the "none coercion" claims of RTP.
If these people are potential "customers" then you might lose
them. If they are students then RTP might not "work" on them
too well. If they are teachers then they might not be able to
carry out the program as they are expected to.

Best

Rick

···

--

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

20

[From Tim Carey (980502.0520)]

[From Fred Nickols (980502.1000 EDT)] --

For what it's worth, I tend to agree with Bill and, as long as Tim
stipulates that the coercee's reference conditions must be known before

the

presence of coercion can be determined, I see now way to develop a
consensual view on their part. As plain as I can put it, they seem to be
talking about two different things.

I mustn't be communicating very well Fred. My understanding is that I have
said numerously I don't have a problem with the way Bill and Rick
conceptualise coercion, it's just that under this conceptualisation you
must accept the sometimes what you call coercion is actually helpful to the
recipient and I find this curious because I hadn't thought of coercion in
this way before.

I think part of the problem might be the use of the word force. At the
moment, two definitions of "force" come to mind. A physical definition
where someone applies force to something e.g., I can apply force to a wheel
chair to make it go forward. The second definition is more of a
psychological term where someone is made (forced) to do something against
their will. This second definition is _defined_ by the recipient because
you must know what their will is before you can go against it.

I can, therefore, apply _force_ to a wheelchair to either _force_ the
person in it to go where _I_ want them to go and they don't; or I can apply
_force_ to a wheelchair to take the person in a direction they want to go.

Bill and Rick seem to be saying that both these examples are coercion. I
think only the first one is.

Cheers,

Tim