Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 11:00:12 EDT
From:         "CHARLES W. TUCKER" <N050024@UNIVSCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      VARIETIES OF MANIPULATION

      						CHUCK TUCKER 920911

	RE: Some comments on "Varieties of manipulation"

	I have enjoyed and learned from the conversation between Bill,
	Greg, Rick, Ed and several others on the topic of "control
	and manipulation"; it will be useful for my paper: "The Myth
	of Social Control" but I was somewhat startled by Greg's post
	92090[8] in which he noted that he was concerned with several
	types of "manipulation".  I can see what he is concerned with
	but I have seen these as types of "social transactions" and
	have tried to reserve "manipulation " to action which is
	designed "to manage or control (sic) artfully or by a shrewd
	use of influence especially in an unfair and fradulent way"
	(my dictionary's definition).  What Greg proposes is that
	what may be considered manipulation from A's perspective is
	not so considered from B's perspective.  This would be
	possible if B's did not realize that A had done something
	"unfair or fradulent" even though A intended to defraud B.
	This can happen if B is unaware of the rules or laws, the
	value of an object or service, believes that there is nothing
	amiss (e.g., the people in Homestead, Florida all were told
	that their houses were built to "code" to withstand a hurricane
	but the winds of Andrew revealed that they were told an untruth
	so until Andrew they believed the builder and inspector),
	B is ignorant (e.g., adults deceive children [incest!!] and
	the child doesn't become aware of it until later).  I suppose
	there could be instances where A would transact with B and not
	realize that unfairness was involved but this may not fit
	my specification of "manipulation".  But, whatever type of
	social transaction, I hope there is agreement that each person
	involved CONTROLS his/her own conduct and what transpires between
	A and B is NOT control.

	I noticed today that Bill stated the issue of "control" and
	"influence" this way in 1974 ("The Illusion of Control" in
	LCS:II, pp. 55-66):

		We must first distinguish between two sets of
		terms that are ofter used interchangeably when
		the speaker intends to say "control".  Going
		with the word "control" are terms like "regulate,
		adjust, set, stablize, direct, guide".  All
		these terms apply directly to the behavior of a
		negative feedback control system.  Another set
		of verbs is often used loosely when "control" is
		intended: "affect, influence, change, alter,
		impinge upon, stimulate, initiate, drive, cause,
		force".

		The first set necessarily implies the second: to
		"regulate," for example, one must necessarily
		"affect".  BUT THE SECOND SET DOES NOT ENTAIL
		THE FIRST.  We would agree we could INFLUENCE
		the behavior of a watch with a hammer, but we
		would not accept a hammer as a means of REGULATING
		the watch.  . . .  When one REGULATES the flow
		of water from a facet, he does indeed CHANGE the
		the flow, but he does so relative to a PARTICULAR
		flow that he has in mind.  Regulation implies a
		DIRECTED change, a change toward some predeter-
		mined state. (59) [some emphases supplied]

	The above relates to what I noted last Spring (not found in the
	issue of CLOSED LOOP on "Social Control") that we ought to get
	our terms specified as best we can in the beginning of our
	conversations.  PCT (or HPCT) has special (technical ?!?)
	specifications for the terms: Hierarchy, Perception, Control
	and Theory, i.e., for every major term of the formulation
	we have a specification that varies dramatically from the
	ordinary use of the term and markedly from every other
	formulation.

	Much (but not all by any means) of the ambiguity in our
	conversations with others (and apparently ourselves) is
	that we falsely assume agreement on the specification of our
	terms.  Yes, words are ambiguious in their "meanings" but
	with all of the other words that each of us has available
	to use it seems that we might be able, for at least a
	moment or two, to try to be more precise and specific in
	what we say to each other.  Set those reference levels
	more precisely and narrow the gain thus increasing the
	error and reducing our range of allowable words; let's
	improve our control!

	Best regards,

	Chuck
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU