🚀 go-pugleaf

[From Bill Powers (990501.0325 MDT)]

>i.kurtzer (990430.1400)
>
> [From Rick Marken (990430.1400)]
> i.kurtzer (990430.1530)--
>
>> I can't tell based on just this. Remember, to me, coercion is
>> control of behavior by force or the credible threat thereof.
>> In this scenario I am certainly controlling behavior (making
>> the girl trace out "I'm a silly girl")
>
>I would contend you are not controlling her behavior within the PCT
>sense of behavior as written by yourself in many publications such as
>Behavior in the First Degree.

You are controlling v if you vary your actions so as to keep v in a
preselected  state. Of course you are not controlling the other person's
controlled quantity; only the action by which the other person is
maintaining control. As the other person (successfully) prevents you from
moving the knot away from the quarter, you simultaneously and independently
control the other person's behavior -- that is, the position of that
person's end of the rubber bands.

There is no need to apply overwhelming physical force to do this, so there
is no coercion. You can control the other person's _output quantity_ with
no resistance from the other person. Resistance will occur only if you try
to control the other person's _input quantity_. If you wanted to move the
knot off the quarter, you would have to apply your disturbance through a
piece of string, instead of a rubber band, as Gary Cziko demonstrated so
clearly at a CSG meeting.

If you stick with the key-word definitions of PCT, there is no need to
"contend" anything. You can work out the right answer. "Behavior" is not a
key word in PCT; it's an ambiguous term that can refer either to the
action, qo, or to the input quantity, qi. That's why it's useless in a
technical discussion.

Best,

Bill P.