Thread View: bit.sci.purposive-behavior
2 messages
2 total messages
Started by Tim Carey
Fri, 07 May 1999 00:00
Re: Marketing Non-Coercion
Author: Tim Carey
Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 00:00
Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 00:00
29 lines
1690 bytes
1690 bytes
[From Tim Carey (990507.2150)] >[From Rick Marken (990506.1530)] >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. I don't have a problem with talking about one person as a person who may have intent to coerce. I just don't see that it makes any sense to categorise an _interaction_ as coercive when both participants in the interaction wanted the same thing. >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). Yep, I think this is an important point and I think I understand it. I don't think, however, that the point I make above negates this. Cheers, Tim
Re: Marketing Non-Coercion
Author: Richard Marken
Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 00:00
Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 00:00
40 lines
2409 bytes
2409 bytes
[From Rick Marken (990506.0830)] Tim Carey (990507.2150)- > I don't have a problem with talking about one person as a > person who may have intent to coerce. I just don't see that > it makes any sense to categorise an _interaction_ as coercive > when both participants in the interaction wanted the same thing. If you don't have a problem with talking about _one_ person as the coercer then you should have no problem seeing that that person is coercing _regardless of the intentions of the coercee_. And then we're definitely on track! This stuff about categorizing an _interaction_ as coercive or not has always been a red herring. The _interaction_ was brought up in order to claim that _one_ person can't be said to be coercing (controlling the behavior of) another person if the coercee wants to do what the coercer wants him to do anyway. If you now see that one person can be coercing another _regardless_ of the intentions of that other person, then you can see that this "non-coercive interaction" stuff is misleading. As I said, if you want to categorize _interactions_ so as to distinguish interactions where the coercee wants what the coercer wants from those where the coercee _doesn't_ want what the coercer wants, then it makes more sense to call them "accidental facilitation" vs "accidental interference" interactions, respectively, rather than "non-coercive" vs "coercive" interactions, since the coercer is coercing in these interactions all the time, regardless of the intentions of the coercee. 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