🚀 go-pugleaf

[From Rick Marken (990506.1530)]

Tim Carey (990507.0616)

> I also know of instances however where kids have told the
> person in the room that they disrupted twice _intentionally_
> so that they could get to the room.

> I just can't understand that it makes any sense to label both
> these events as coercive because overtly they are following
> the same procedure.

Coercion (control of the behavior of another person; I hope
that clears it up, Bill) refers to what only _one_ person is
doing; the person controlling the behavior. The person
controlling the behavior of the other person (like the driver
controlling the position of a car) is _controlling_ whether
there are disturbances to the controlled variable (resistance
to going to the other room from the coerced kid, frictional
forces pulling the car off course) or not. You can agree
to that, right?

If you want different words for an interaction where the
coercee wants what the coercer wants and another for an
interaction where the coercee _doesn't_ want what the coercer
wants (the situation you are willing to call "coercion") how about
calling the first interaction "accidental interference" and
the second "accidental facilitation"? The "accidental" captures
the fact that the coercer doesn't know or care about the
coercee's intention; so any interference with or facilitation
of the coercee's ability to achieve his goals is completely
accidental (the coercer doesn't intend to hurt or help the
coercee; he just wants to control the coercee's behavior).
"Interference" captures the fact that the coercer's actions
_may_ interfere with the coercee's ability to achieve his goal;
"facilitation" means that the coercer's actions _may_ help the
coercee achieve his goal.

So we have words for the _interaction_ between a coercer and
a coercee (accidental interference and facilitation) and we
have words for what the coercer is doing (coercion) and for
what the coercee is doing (controlling successfully or
unsuccessfully).

The important thing to understand -- VERY IMPORTANT -- is that
a controller (like a coercer who is controlling the behavior
of another person) has _not_ stopped controlling just because
the disturbance to the controlled variable (the perceived aspect
of the coercee's behavior that is under control) has gone to zero
(the kid stops -- or never does -- struggle).

Best

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