🚀 go-pugleaf

i.kurtzer (990502.2300)



> [From Rick Marken (990502.1730)]
>
> i.kurtzer (990501.1845)
>
> > to bill, rick, and anyone else that contends that interactions
> > can be understood by reference to one actor
>
>

1.

> I (and I'm pretty sure this is true for Bill too) don't contend
> that interactions between control systems can be understood by
> reference to one actor.

2.

> A better characterization of my position
> is that the controlling done by one actor can be understood with
> reference to a model of that one actor.

Well, i agree so far.

> In coercion, one actor (the
> coercer) controls a perception of some perceptual aspect of the
> behavior of what happens to be that of another control system.

But here you have already contracticted your first sentence.  Here you
define coercion by reference to ONE personThe second sentence is about one
person but when you start talking about a two-person interaction how to
you then decide that it can be understood by reference to one actor?

Your post does not answer that question. Also, I DON"T think coercion
would be instantiated simply because someone felt it was.  You misread
me.   I was talking about the other side of the coercion coin.  That if
someone felt they were coerced, then that one person intentions wouldn't
be sufficient to say whether or not coercion was really in place. By my
criteria.The criteria goes both ways.  It takes two to tango.


Lastly, I never said your A and B were coerced or not coerced.  You had
not given sufficient information.  I need to know what they are doing, not
that you told me so, but how you know, and what is the relative power in
the family.

i.