🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

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
#68
Author: Kenneth Kitzke Value Creation Sy...
Date: Wed, 05 May 1999 00:00
47 lines
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
#74
Author: Richard Marken
Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 00:00
51 lines
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