🚀 go-pugleaf

[From Rick Marken (990505.1415)]

Martin Taylor (990504 23:30) --

> I cannot see as coercion the application of direct force to,
> say, grab a child out of the street, and I don't understand
> why you have been calling it coercion.

We've been calling it that because that's what the dictionary
calls it.

> It [coercion] requires the coercer to discover a variable whose
> perception is controlled by the coercee, but over which
> the coercer has the greater influence.

I don't think this is true. A coercer just wants to control
some perceptual aspects of the victim's behavior; the coercer
doesn't care whether what he controls is an action (qo), a
controlled variable (qi) or an irrelevant side effect. For
example, I might want to control the direction of an imaginary
line (l) that emanates from the tip of your nose; I want that
line to point at some arbitrary point (x) on the wall.

You are _not_ controlling l yourself nor is l an action you
use to control another variable; l is just an aspect of your
behavior that I can perceive and control; in fact, it's a side
effect of your control of the attitude (a) -- roll, pitch and
yaw -- of your head.

When I force l to point at x I am controlling an aspect of
your behavior. When I do this I may or may not be interfering
with your ability to control a variable you are controlling
(such as the attitude of your head). If, for some reason, you
happen to have your head turned so that your nose is pointed
at x then I will not have to exert any force to get l where
I want it. (Note that this is not because you have aligned
your goals with mine; the state of l is not one of your goals;
it's because a side effect of your controlling -- for head
attitude, a, in this case -- happens to result in the value
of l that I want). But chances are that you will not have
your head attitude at exactly the value that gives me the
perception of l I want; so as I do what I can to get l where
I want it (which may or may not involve controlling the
attitude of you head by force; I could also achieve it by
putting you into the Hannibal Lechter head restraints and then
rotating your body so that l pointed to x.)

The point (which I tried to make in an earlier post) is that
a coercer is unlikely to try to control as aspect of a victim's
behavior that corresponds to one of the victim's actions (qo)
or controlled variables (qi). Coercers control _their_
perceptions of the victim's behavior, without regard to
what the victim wants (qi) or might have to do to get it (qo).

> I think it not a good idea to use the term "coercion" to
> apply to all interactions between people

I agree! I think it should only be applied to the coercive
ones.

Best

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