🚀 go-pugleaf

[Martin Taylor 990507 10:27]
>[From Rick Marken (990506.1500)]

I think your response leads in a fruitful direction toward clarifying
this question of which interactions should _technically_ deserve the
name "coercion."

>Me: [=Rick]
>
>>Coercion (to me) is control of the behavior of one person by
>>another. If you think that, by this definition, all interactions
>>between people are coercive then there we jolly well are, aren't
>>we;-)
>
>Martin Taylor (990506 13:35) --
>>
>> Here's the drift: If I interact with you in any way, it is
>> because I wish to see some aspect of your behaviour differ
>> from what it would have been had I not interacted with you.
>
>I don't agree with this drift.

In that case, why act so as to disturb _any_ perception of the person
with whom you attempt to interact. The central motto of PCT is "all
purposeful behaviour is the control of perception" isn't it? Why act
on another person if you are not controlling some perception of that
other person? What is it about "the drift" with which you disagree?

>> Can you think of an interaction that does not conform to
>> this paradigm
>
>Sure. In fact, it's more difficult to think of interactions
>where control of behavior is involved. Here are some non-
>controlling interactions I've had recently:
>
>I say "good morning" to people.
>I have lunch with people.
>I talk with people.
>I watch TV with my family.
>I work with people to produce some product.
>I hug my kids.

Non-controlling? Non-coercive, I would say, for sure. But are you actually
not controlling for any perception of the behaviour of those others?

Before I go further, I'd appreciate some introspective guesses about
what perceptions you might be controlling when you engage in these
actions.

I suspect that the point you are making is that you are not controlling
for specific sequences of muscle movements of the others in these
interactions. If it were me involved in actions with these same
descriptions I think I would be controlling for perceiving the others
to be well-disposed toward me. If their actions following my actions
expressed something like, say, disgust or aversion, I might then try
to ask why, or in some other way resist the disturbance. Since ordinarily
people do act according to my reference perception, I have no occasion to
apply "the Test" to myself to ensure that I am in fact controlling what I
think I am. But in imagination I see myself usually attempting to control
for perceiving the other person to be well-disposed toward me, regardless
of their _specific_ actions.

However, I don't think that this means I am coercive in those interactions.

>In all these cases I am interacting with people; in none do
>I do it in order to get a particular perception of some aspect
>of their behavior.
>
>If you suspect that I _am_ doing interacting with these people
>in order to control some aspect of their behavior you would have
>to demonstrate that I am using the test. But I am pretty sure
>that I am not controlling any aspect of people's behavior when
>I do these things.

It's hard to know, even of oneself, isn't it? But if it is true that
"all behaviour is the control of perception," then it seems to follow that
behaviour that acts purposefully on other people is to control some
perception of the other people. (Even if the top--or very high-level--
controlled perception is to perceive oneself as a good person, and you
believe good people must do those things).

> For example, if a colleague doesn't reply to
>my cheerful "good morning", I don't grab him by the collar and
>demand that he acknowledge my greeting.

But you might ask "Is everything OK this morning?" mightn't you?

Let's think of an analogous action but with an inanimate object. You are
walking along the beach, idly kicking pebbles, perhaps because you have
some reference perception for the accuracy of your kicking aim (or for
any of a multitude of possible purposes). You kick one and it doesn't
move. It's quite likely you would just say to yourself "that was bigger
than I thought" and move on, rather than digging it out and kicking
harder. I suspect much the same happens with many unacknowledged "good
morning"s. It doesn't mean you have no reference perception for getting
a friendly response, just that you weren't controlling for it at high
gain, and that you have few mechanisms for obtaining the desired result
other than the one you already used (as with the "pebble" that turns
out to be the tip of a big rock).

> In
>fact, the only coercive interactions I can remember having have
>involved controlling the behavior of my (or someone else's) kids
>(when they were much younger) on those few occasions when I
>thought they would get hurt or hurt others if the behavior
>went unchecked.

This approaches my point, that not all interactions are coercive, whereas
your definition seems to lead to the conclusion that they are. It is
the definition that concerns me, not wheterh specific interactions are
coercive. I suspect that we don't disagree too much in practice about
the degree of coercion in specific interactions, though of course that's
hard to be sure of.

I suspect you controlled your kids' behaviour a lot more than you
say, such as when you frowned at them or said "I don't think that's a
good idea," or otherwise expressed disapproval. Often that is enough,
isn't it? Here we again approach the notion of learning and
reorganization, which I think is closely tied to the coercion issue.

But please first try to answer about what perceptions you think you might
be controlling for when you perform those actions you listed above.

Martin