Thread View: bit.sci.purposive-behavior
2 messages
2 total messages
Started by Kenneth Kitzke Value Creation Sy...
Wed, 05 May 1999 00:00
Re: See how the fates their gifts alot
Author: Kenneth Kitzke Value Creation Sy...
Date: Wed, 05 May 1999 00:00
Date: Wed, 05 May 1999 00:00
47 lines
2852 bytes
2852 bytes
[From Kenny Kitzke (990505.2120EDT)] <Rick Marken (990504.1250)> <I would just feel that my sense of decency (to say nothing of my understanding of the nature of control) was violated if I had to say that there is no coercion if I give in and do what some bully (coercer) wants (so that my goals are now aligned with his).> Well, your sense of decency is just too precious to me to disturb you any longer. I finally grasp why you battle this issue so hard. And, as written I agree with you. If a person gives in (unwillingly) to the bully's demand, it would be coercion by both our definitions. But, while the wimp resists giving in, I would not call it coercion. Would you? NATO is not coercing Yugoslavia, yet. All NATO has done so far it to do what it wants. And Yugoslavia is still doing what it wants, despite what NATO is doing. While I believe NATO can coerce Yugoslavia, it has not yet applied overwhelming force. Agree? <You, yourself, seemed to realize that coercion can be occurring even when the coercer need take no action (force) to keep the coercee behaving as the coercer wants.> If the coercee is acting against his will because he fears what the coercer will do, I would agree with you again, even if the coercer is taking no forceful action. <The coercer is always coercing because he is always able to intervene with overwhelming force if the observable actions of the other person are not what the coercer wants.> I would be willing to say that the person with the ability and intent to apply overwhelming force perceives being able to coerce. But, until the intended coercee actually perceives that force and because of that perception behaves in the way the coercer wants against their will, there is no coercion in the relationship. I feel bogged down again but understand your view and why better than ever. I just prefer my view. So when you say coercion is taking place, it will just have to be different that when I say it is taking place some times. There certainly will be times that we as coercer, coercee and observer both agree that coercive behavior seems to be taking place and we wish a non-coercive behavior would get both interactive parties what they want. Kenny
Re: See how the fates their gifts allot
Author: Richard Marken
Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 00:00
Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 00:00
51 lines
2760 bytes
2760 bytes
[From Rick Marken (990505.0810)] Kenny Kitzke (990505.2120EDT) > If a person gives in (unwillingly) to the bully's demand, it > would be coercion by both our definitions. Not really. The person now wants what the bully wants. So I think that by your definition coercion has ceased. > But, while the wimp resists giving in, I would not call it > coercion. Would you? I would, because the bully is controlling the person's behavior, though he doesn't yet have the person's behavior at the reference. Not calling this coercion (control of behavior) would be like not calling it "control of car position" when the position of the car briefly deviates from it's intended course due to a strong gust of wind; resistance to the bully is like a gust of wind; a momentary increase in the size of the disturbance to the behavioral variable being controlled by the bully. > I just prefer my view. So when you say coercion is taking > place, it will just have to be different that when I say it is > taking place some times. Ok. I agree that when we talk about "coercion" we all seem to be talking about something different. I'm talking about something people _do_ to others: control of behavior. You seem to be talking about that _and_ what people feel. Maybe we can agree to use the term "control of behavior" to describe the behavior that I have been calling "coercion". I presume that you know what I'm talking about when I say "control of behavior"; I'm talking about control of a perception of what someone else is doing. Could we agree, then, that if you send someone from a room because you want that person out of the room, you are controlling that person's behavior, even if going to the other room is _exactly_ what that person wanted to do anyway? That is, in this case, is it not accurate to say that what _you_ are doing is "control of behavior"? Best Rick --- Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313 Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads