🚀 go-pugleaf

i.kurtzer (990501.1845)

to bill, rick, and anyone else that contends that interactions can be
understood by reference to one actor, given that he/she mightly strong, clever,
etc.

I think the position tha "its takes all actors involved to understand a social
interaction" is simply an extension of the oft mentioned postion that you can't
tell what one person is doing by just looking.  The latter refers to intentions
by its objective counterpart control, to define what is that the person is
doing.  This has been repeated so often that to back away and say "well it
depends what you mean by behavior" is an opportunistic red-herring that works
always in the favor who wields it.  When we mention behavior on the net this
has always been contrasted with actions.  I am following your example.  So when
you see behavior written from me think "the input signal specified by a
reference".  How you would expect otherwise?
Now for interactions why would not extend this criteria?  What overwhelming
reason either logical or empirical would give to say that intention ceases to
inform, classify, predict, understand, etc..  Its seems clear to me that
intention does make a hell of a difference in an interaction.  Why is it that
one person makes it so and not the other, if it has to be one.  Why is not
coercion if i just feel it is?  I have some opinions on this, and would like to
talk this over without accusations of "linguistic mistake".

i.



> [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.