Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 08:22:51 EDT
From:         "CHARLES W. TUCKER" <N050024@UNIVSCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      MANIPULATION AND FORCE

     CHUCK TUCKER [920992]

     RE: On the conversation about controlling another (manipulation)
     [A getting B to control B as a direct effect of A's behavior]
     WTP 920828.1800; 920829.2130; 920830.1545; 920901.1000 + MT 920902
     0030; 920902 11:15 + GW 920829; 920830; 920830-2; 920903-2; 920903-
     3 {last post}

     Let's return to to Bill's (my WTP) statement of the difference
     between his and Greg's (my GW) position in WTP 920829.2130):

     "Greg's thesis is that there are ways of controlling the behavior
     of other people against their will or without their awareness other
     than by the use of overwhelming physical force.

     My thesis (WTP) is that such apparent control (a) is an illusion,
     or (b) is of not importance to the "victim", or (c) is carried out
     only with the aid of the "victim", or (d) rests on a threat of
     force in the background.  I contend that a properly fuctioning
     control system cannot be controlled from the outside, so that any
     apparent success by a manipulator results from some defect of
     organization in the control system."

     Later, Greg (920830) stated the he was mainly concerned with (c)
     yet he had a few examples where some of the others may be involved
     but let us consider all (a-d) of these ways that another apparently
     is controlling a person (A is attempting to control B).

     ILLUSION

     If A asks B to do X and B is in the early phases of doing X and
     completes the act then it will appear that A's request is
     responsible for B's act; it will appear like A is "controlling" B.
     If A is driving down the street behind B and B's auto has its
     right-turn signal flashing and B slows down and turns right, A
     might claim responsibility for B's right turn and/or an observer
     might judge that A caused B's turning act.  There are many acts
     where one person will ask or figure out what another will be doing
     next and either do it with them or ask him/her to do some within
     that act.  Most "elementary collective forms" (i.e., queues, rings,
     arcs) appear as if A has "controlled" B (and even C, D,. . .) but
     that is not the case; this can be clearly illustrated with the
     simulation program "Gatherings" (formerly "CrowdV2").  In fact,
     driving on the highways and byways may be one of the best
     illustrations of persons controlling themselves while appearing to
     be "controlled" by another. [I recall an article written years ago
     in the Pacific Sociological Review with a title like "Taking the
     Role of the other in Driving" which made a similar point.]

     NO IMPORTANCE or AID OF OTHER ["Victim"]

     This apparent control technique does assume that B is controlling a
     perception but rather than being of "no importance" I see it as
     controlling for "cooperation," "participation," "involvement" or
     other names for "joint acts".  It could look like Bill suggests
     that B is controlling for a perception contrary to the request of A
     but it is so trivial as compared with A's request that is "a
     difference that makes no difference". [When someone tells me that it
     "makes no difference" I take them at their word; on some occasions
     I have found that they either did not "mean it that way" or
     "changed their mind later" but I had a heck of a time telling the
     difference] Thus, only the TEST would help determine whether B was
     controlling for "no importance" or for "cooperation" or the like.
     But in either case it seems to me that that B is controlling for a
     perception.

     All of the examples and illustration stated by Greg and those that
     I infer from statements cited by me and Greg from Skinner assume
     that B has a perception for an act similar to that of A's request
     or a perception at a higher level that would be accomplished by
     complying with A's request.  What Skinner does (which he does not
     recognize because he wants to be a SCIENTIST) is that he takes what
     is a purpose of B and puts it outside of B in either the natural or
     social environment as a stimulus or makes what was an external
     stimulus into the "history" of B.  This is, in part, what Bill
     pointed out in "Skinner's Mistake".

     The "Con man" (A in this example) can't get to "first base" without
     B (the "mark") having a purpose that A will use to exploit B.  My
     Father ran a "boiler room" back after WWII where he and his friends
     "sold" ads for a party for the Veterans and appealed to patriotism.
     They did have a party for the Veterans (everything donated) and
     printed enough booklets so each advertiser could see their ad and
     they pocketed the rest of the money (profit on the scam was about
     1000%).  Jerry Lewis just "conned" people out of 43 million dollars
     this last weekend based on the notion that they were helping
     "victims" of a disease.  We know about Jim and Tammy Bakker and
     those of their ilk who swindled people out of their life savings on
     the promise that they would get into Heaven.  In all cases of this
     type of "manipulation" (and all others) those people could not be
     conned if they did not have a purpose (one of the most widespead
     purposes used for a con today is "getting something for nothing"-
     send your letter to Ed McMann).  All "con jobs" are founded on a
     person having a purpose (some of my students believe that a degree
     will lead to the "good life") and "con man" (like myself) exploit
     that purpose [actually I tell my students that it is not true but
     few believe me].  I would limit "manipulation" to these instances
     where deception is involved (like 95% of the experiments in the so-
     called social and behavioral sciences, e.g., Milgram) rather than
     MAKE IT AS BROAD AS THOSE SUGGESTED BY GREG (I DON'T THINK PAT IS
     DECEIVING THEIR CHILDREN; DO YOU GREG?) [GOFFMAN HAS A WONDERFUL
     piece on this process called "Cooling the Mark Out".

     FORCE OR THREAT OF PHYSICAL (EVEN PSYCHOLOGICAL) FORCE

     Force or threat of physical force will not work unless a person has
     a concern for staying alive, healthy or avoiding physical harm.  A
     will have only limited success in getting B to do much of any
     importance by using direct force since such acts make it difficult
     for B to perform.  This is perhaps the reason that Southern
     plantations had so many slaves so some could be healing while
     others were working.  Forced labor and torture requires many people
     to work and it is not a very efficient system.  It is much more
     efficient to beat a few people as examples of what could happen if
     you don't obey while at the showing pity and concern while
     impressing upon the people how important staying alive is for them.
     If a person loses all hope of staying alive and that life is not
     worth living then the possibilities of using force or threat of
     force for compliance is severly reduced if not eliminated.

     All of the above can be stated for the notion of "psychological"
     health and well-being; this is why Watson could make more money in
     business than in academia.  Modern techniques of manipulation focus
     on "mind control".  But even here, it won't work if a person does
     not believe his/her psychological well-being is a perception worth
     controlling.

     CONCLUSION

     If a control system is functioning properly by controlling its own
     conduct with regard to maintaining low error between reference
     signals and perceptual signals thus being "self-governing" or
     "self-regulating" then no one can DIRECTLY determine any of its
     signals or the processes that are involved in such controlling.
     The human organism (which I call 'self' or 'selves') is self-
     programing, self-governing and autonomus.

     CODA: THE DARK SIDE OF PCT

     Since we can't directly determine through our action how another
     will control him/herself then we must use indirect means to get
     another to behave consistent with our intentions.  In so far as
     people use theories of human behavior based on the notions that
     "stimuli cause response or behavior" then they will be unsuccessful
     (or, at the best, randomly and unwittingly successful) at getting
     others to comply with their requests and do what they intend for
     them to do.  Their success will increase or improve to the extent
     that they understand PCT and how to use the TEST to determine with
     great precision "what and how a person is controlling him/herself".
     When one learns that and then finds out what might be the
     "occasions" for reorganization then he/she is prepared to devise
     ways to get another to better comply with requests and way to
     devise arrangements which serve the purpose of those requests.
     This, of course, could be used by those who want people to harm
     themselves or others; for purposes that we might consider
     "inhumane" or "destructive" to humankind.  We cannot directly
     determine that others won't use these ideas for other purposes.  We
     can only attempt to stress that when people do not treat each other
     as living control systems which are self-governing then conflict
     will arise and perhaps subvert the accomplishing of everyone
     purposes.  But, of course, we can only do this indirectly.

     QUESTION AND COMMENTS

     What are the references to the work(s) of Chapman and/or Agre?  I
     just missed it.

     There is an article that will be in a future issue of the AMERICAN
     PSYCHOLOGIST by James O. Prochaska, Carlo C. DiClemente and John C.
     Norcross "In Search of How People Change: Applications to Addictive
     Behaviors" which is quite relevant to PCT.  I would like someone's
     comment on it when it is published.

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