🚀 go-pugleaf

[From Tim Carey (990506.0550)]


>[From Rick Marken (990505.0750)]


Hi Rick,

Thanks for your reply. This is all way too hard for me. I consider myself to
be a neophite in understanding PCT so I have come to the conclusion that
coercion as it is explained in PCT is one of those elusive concepts I'll
have to leave alone until I'm better versed in the theory.

I'll try and summarise the difficulties I'm having but I'm so confused these
points probably won't make much sense.

1. You define coercion as:
>>Coercion is just control of behavior, where the controller
>>can and will use force to get the behavior he wants.


2. In the American Behavioural Scientist volume dedicated to PCT (34/1)
behaviour is defined as: "controlled perceptual experience. From an
observer's point of view, behavior corresponds to environmental variables
that are controlled by the system and the response outputs that are used to
control these variables. Lifting a cup involves producing a particular
perception of the cup; to an observer, the behavior is movement of the cup
and the arm movements that produce this result."

3. This definition doesn't clarify the situation much as I would consider
the first part "controlled perceptual experience" to be what I described
behavior as a few days ago when I said that I thought it referred to the
working of the entire loop ie perceiving, comparing, and acting. The next
sentence seems to refer to an observer's point of view and this seems to be
where qo and qi come in. The third sentence seems to be a combination of the
two different definitions: the first part of the sentence talks about
producing a particular perception (which I consider to involve perceiving,
comparing, and acting) and the second part refers to the observer's point of
view again.

4. From your definitions though (of both coercion and behavior) you seem to
be saying that coercion is controlling another person's qo and qi and you
and Bill said a couple of days ago that the term "behaviour" referred to qo
and qi. Thus, "controlled perceptual experience" seems to mean qo and qi. I
thought in a closed causal loop a broader term for "controlled perceptual
experience" would be needed then qo and qi.

5. Then you use this definition:

>have their common "dictionary" meaning. So when we talk about
>"coercion" we should assume that listeners will understand
>us to mean "restraining or dominating by nullifying individual
>will" (Webster's New Collegiate, 1980). This is exactly what
>Bill and I have meant by "coercion" all along.

which talks about the other person's _will_.

I had always considered "will" to refer to r in a control system not qo and
qi. I can see how the terms "restraining" and "dominating" might refer to qo
and qi but it would seem that to "nullify individual will" would imply some
knowledge of the other individual's r.

I say this because _under this definition_ if I send someone from a room
into another room and if this was what they wanted to have happen then it
wouldn't seem to me that I have "nullified their will".

To help clarify the situation I returned to the dictionary (since you
suggested  in your post to: "use
words  under the assumption that they will be understood to
have their common "dictionary" meaning.)

I discovered the following:
nullify: to neutralize or make invalid
invalid: not valid
valid: sound, well grounded
neutralize: render ineffective by opposite force or effect.

It seems that neutralize seems to be the best fit here so fitting it in to
the definition would seem to say: to render ineffective an individual's
will. This is my big stumbling block, I can't see how we can know that we
have rendered a person's will ineffective by controlling their actions.

I didnt' think actions were what people "did" according to PCT. My
understanding was that what people did was to control perceptions. In my
head therefore it seems that "will" would have to have something to do with
controlled perceptions. The PCT stance on coercion however seems to suggest
that you can render ineffective a person's will by controlling their
actions. Being a bear of very little brain, this all gets too much for me.

6. Finally, in the reading of PCT that I have done so far, I have seen the
environment aspect of the model discussed in either feedback function or
disturbance function terms. I've been trying to fit a coercer, therefore,
into either the d or f part of the model. The idea of "controlling qo or qi"
seems to suggest that they are neither part of f or part of d. Is there a
"coercer function" that I'm unaware of or some other aspect of the
environment that I've missed.

Cheers,

Tim