🚀 go-pugleaf

[From Kenny Kitzke (990502.1630 EDT)]

<Bill Powers (990430.1208 MDT)>

<The onlooker sees no coercion because nobody is actually applying any
physical force at that time. But coercion will quickly become manifest if
_either_ child decides to do something besides reading Chaucer. >

You say coercion *will be* manifested if the child does something besides
reading Chaucer.  That shows to me that coercion depends on more than the
parent wanting to control the behavior of the child.  I would call the kids
decision to do something else as resistance, and only when overcome with
force, it is coercion.

By your own words, if a daughter decides to read Chaucer because they want to
after Rick says they should, she would not be coerced, right?  Rick would not
agree.  He claims if the girls do something he wants (which he believes he
has the authority and ability to enforce, if necessary) regardless of what
they want, it is *always* coercion.

You seem to agree that the behavior or intention of the daughter must be
factored in to determine coercion.  That is what most on CSGNet tried to say
last year but could not coerce Rick to agree with the multitude.  8-)

I contend that if the CSGNet cannot agree on the meaning of coercion in the
context of interactions among people as described by PCT, then we do better
for the new science of behavior to simply not use the term: coercion.

IOW, we could simply say that people are always using their behavior to
control their perceptions except when someone else uses overwhelming force to
restrict their behavior so they are not free to control their own perceptions.

If PCT has a contribution to make to the subject of whether to use coercion
to produce certain observable actions or non-actions in others, it would be
that what may appear to have produced what was wanted at the moment, it might
produce just the opposite result when the coercee can no longer be
overwhelmed.

So, the encouragement of PCT would be to never take that chance but take the
time to find a way where both parties can perceive what they want or
reorganize so that coercion is not even the last resort.  Would that be good
advice for President Clinton regarding Mr. Milosovich and vice versa?  Or is
there no other means to reach their desired results?  Is there no way for
them to reorganize to avoid war as an unacceptable last resort?

<To most parents, I would guess, this is simply the normal way to raise
children.>

I believe it is a parent's job to discipline a child concerning their
behavior.  That way the school, the police or the army would not have to be
concerned about their behavior or the punishment.

But, the discipline I have in mind does not have to be punishment by force.
A good Christian friend gave a sermon on why he would never spank his child.
As you will probably enjoy, the pastor told him that was a non-Biblical
approach.  The pastor's attempt at coercion failed with this man.

<Such parents do not perceive themselves as coercive; they
convince themselves that the child who is obedient because of a desire to
avoid having overwhelming physical force applied has "learned a lesson" and
has now been set on the right track.>

You have ignored a big possibility.  The child may be obedient to their
parent's desire (even if not what the child wants for themselves) out of
overwhelming love for their parents.

<Parents who consistently and firmly apply this kind of policy turn out the
most violent and hate-filled children in our society.>

I doubt if you can prove that.  Have you not heard of violent hate-filled
children whose parents always let them do whatever they want?

My guess is that both extremes (tight control of children or no control of
children) are most likely to produce tyrants.  A parent who disciplines
lovingly has the best chance of developing a child that will also walk with
love and respect for others.

Kenny