🚀 go-pugleaf

[From Rick Marken (990504.1445)]

Me:

>Isn't it impossible, then, to say, in advance (before it is
>actually used on a particular group of people) whether or not
>a particular program (approach to dealing with people) is coercive?

Tim Carey (990504.2130)--

> And the angels wept ....

I don't understand this. Was there something wrong with the
question?

> In my opinion it would be nonsensical to market a program as
> "particularly anything" if you said that you were basing it on
> PCT. Could you market a program or even a particular strategy
> as rewarding or punishing?

No. But I think it would be pretty easy to advertise the
program as one based on the use of rewards and punishments.
You just look and see if the program advises the use of
contingent rewards and punishments.

> Would you be prepared to predict before the event that everyone
> of the people you were going to use your favourite "rewarding
> strategy" on would be rewarded?

Of course not. But I wasn't taking about prediction of the
_results_ of the program. I was talking about a _description_
of the program itself. Given the definition of coercion as
control of behavior (without regard to the intentions of the
victim) I can easily say in advance whether or not a program
is coercive because I can see whether the program requires
its practitioners to control behavior. Given  the definition
of coercion as occurring only when force is required, I can't
say whether a programs is coercive or not until I see whether
or not force is required on any particular individual.

Coercion is just control of behavior, where the controller
can and will use force to get the behavior he wants. As Mary
notes, there are many degrees of coerciveness. Some coercion is
way over to Mary's "left"; the strict kind where you use whatever
force is necessary to get the desired behavior. Most real life coercion
is fairly moderate; the coercer uses some force if
necessary but doesn't pull out all the stops (probably because
doing so would disturb other perceptions the coercer is controlling).
The weakest kind of coercion (Mary's "right" side) is the kind
we see on CSGNet; people yell and scream in an effort to get
others to say the "right thing" but when this fails (as it
always does), that's it.

Coercion is just one end of the "control of behavior" spectrum.
PCT shows what control of behavior _is_ and what's wrong with
using it as an approach to dealing with other people. The fact
that many people on this list, who obviously understand PCT, are
so anxious to deny that people _are_ controlling behavior (using
force _if necessary), even when there is little or need for the
use of force, is really quite fascinating. It's like denying
that a driver is controlling the position of his car when he
doesn't have to turn the steering wheel. You certainly don't
need PCT to come to that mistaken conclusion; S-R theory will
get you there without all the pain in the ass science stuff.

Best

Rick
----
Richard S. Marken                 Phone or Fax:  310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates         e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken