🚀 go-pugleaf

[From Bill Powers (990506.1145 MDT)]

Tim Carey (990506.0550)--

>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.

It's really not complicated at all. But when anyone explains it, it's easy
to get confused about _whose_ behavior is being talked about. When Rick
says it's just control of behavior, he really ought to make it crystal
clear about who's doing the controlling and whose behavior (that is whose
actions or what consequence of whose actions) is being referred to.

If A is controlling B's behavior, then A is (as usual) really controlling
A's perceptions, and those perceptions are of B's behavior or some direct
consequence of B's behavior. In order to control his own perceptions of B's
behavior, A normally has to influence B in such a way that B's actions
change. The most direct way to do this is to take hold of B's arms or legs,
or whatever is necessary, and to manipulate them so as to produce the
behavior A wants to see. This is like the penmanship teacher taking hold of
the child's hand and moving it so the pencil draws the letter the teacher
wants the child to draw. This is not a great way to teach penmanship, but
some people use it.

If the child doesn't want to draw the letter that way, the child will
resist. However, the letter will still be drawn as the teacher wants to see
it drawn, because the child is too weak to overcome the teacher's forces.
This is what I mean when I say that one person coerces another: the teacher
coerces the child by applying an overwhelming (relative to the child)
physical force. An observer who can't measure the forces might believe that
the child is drawing the letter, but it's really the teacher who is drawing
it by using the child's hand. The child may be exerting resistive forces,
but since the teacher completely cancels their effects, they can't be seen
by the onlooker.

In other cases, B's behavior is influenced by A less directly. A makes an
offer that B can't refuse (or is highly unlikely to refuse), like "Draw the
letter (or hold the pencil) the way I want you to or I'll destroy this toy
of yours" (after Martin Taylor's example of the Ming vase). From there you
can go on to " ... or I'll spank you", and "or I'll cut off your little
finger" and "or I'll shoot you and find someone who can draw the way I
like."  If A is truly intent on controlling his perception of B's behavior,
he will simply keep upping the ante until B complies, or dies. Of course in
most cases, there are other ways to influence B, such as simply turning B
over to someone else's authority.

I don't really care what you call this way of A's using B to make B act the
way A wants to perceive. I call it coercion, but if you say it's not
coercion because I left out something (paprika, maybe), I'll be content
just to describe whatever-it-is as I did above. A acts on B to force B's
actions (or their immediate effects) to be what A wants to percieve. To
assure that this will work, A needs to have effects on B that B can't, or
most likely won't, resist. And because A generally knows little about how B
is organized, A simply has to be strong enough, and ruthless enough, to
apply as much force as it takes.

Is that closer to making sense?

Best,

Bill P.