🚀 go-pugleaf

[Martin Taylor 990506 13:35]
>[From Rick Marken (990506.0930)]

>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;-)

Think about it a bit deeper than as a slogan, please.

It's not "by this definition." It is that this definition leaves little
or no room for interactions that are _not_ coercive. If there are almost
(perhaps exactly) no interactions that do not involve the control of the
behaviour of one person by another, then all (or almost all) interactions
must be coercive, mustn't they? At least by this definition they are.

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. If "I wish to see" something, in PCT that
means I have a reference for obtaining a particular value of a perception.
If I act on that wish, I am controlling that perception. In the case of
my interaction with you, the perception I am controlling is of some aspect
of your behaviour.

Can you think of an interaction that does not conform to this paradigm,
which, according to your definition, is coercive?

Martin