A Newbie Wades In

CSGnet Archive CSG2008
1

Having in a previous state of employment, been a designer and
administrator/manager of online communities, message boards, etc... I'm
keenly aware of the flame potential newbies can cause by wading in to an
existing discussion with a long-history. I'm assuming that I am not the
first to ask some of the following questions about PCT, so my disclaimer. If
the subject has already been thoroughly discussed elsewhere, I won't mind at
all...if I'm told to read this or that thread...etc... Otherwise, if my
questions or comments show a minimal understanding of PCT, that's because
it's true and hopefully, my understanding will increase with time and effort.

1.) Just finished reading David Goldstein's presentation for the 2008 CSG
conference. Having recently read Ecker and Hulley's "Depth Oriented Brief
Psychotherapy" I couldn't help but see some similarity in the basic change
mechanism and would love a comment. Internal Conflict in PCT appears when
someone both wants and doesn't want something at the same time and MOL
Therapy assists the client in seeing both sides of the conflict at the same
time. Change happens when the client sees the conflict from a higher level
and reorganizes. (Sorry for the minimal grasp). Coherence Therapy posits
that conflict results from having both a Pro-Symptom and Anti-Symptom that
are in opposition to each other. And change happens when a client becomes
aware of this and can accept it, change it, etc. (Re-organizing how they
think about it?) Coherence Therapy is probably more directive, but it seems
like at first glance the change mechanism in both is somewhat similar.

2.) I definitely get the "environment doesn't cause behavior" aspect of PCT,
which I take to mean that it is a totally incorrect view to say something
like "you made me so mad." I also get that PCT turns a lot of traditional
psychology on its head. I'm wondering how much of the psychology baby needs
to be thrown out with the bath water.

Here's the question I'm leading up to. What is the cause or genesis of
someone's reference conditions? Are they genetic, instinctual (don't think
PCT goes much for instincts), hereditary, learned, etc? If Attachment
Theory says that if an infant doesn't get adequate "mirroring" from their
parents, especially their mother, they may develop poor relationship skills
as adults, does poor attachment instill a faulty reference condition? Do
you reorganize your reference conditions or your behavior?

I don't want to go into assessment or the DSM-IV etc... as I think most
mental "illnesses" are simply behaviors unacceptable to the rest of us, but
I wonder what PCT says about or would explain what traditional psychologies
now call mental illnesses or disorders?

Looking forward to your responses.

L. Keith

2

[From Bill Powers (2008.04.08.1508 MDT)]

L. Keith Daniels[03:15 PM 4/8/2008 -0500]

1.) Just finished reading David Goldstein's presentation for the 2008 CSG
conference. Having recently read Ecker and Hulley's "Depth Oriented Brief
Psychotherapy" I couldn't help but see some similarity in the basic change
mechanism and would love a comment.

I should hope so. I claim that the method of levels is essentially what every psychotherapist does when therapy is working, and what is not done when therapy fails. When you get Tim Carey's book you'll see what I mean. The implication is that a lot of what different schools of therapy do is unnecessary or counterproductive, but that they all, if they succeed, manage to accomplish the main things that define MOL. They don't know that, of course. They think it's talking to the chair, or doing homework, or hearing insightful interpretations of behavior, that is causing the good results. It's not.

2.) I definitely get the "environment doesn't cause behavior" aspect of PCT,
which I take to mean that it is a totally incorrect view to say something
like "you made me so mad." I also get that PCT turns a lot of traditional
psychology on its head. I'm wondering how much of the psychology baby needs
to be thrown out with the bath water.

Only the part that is wrong and doesn't work. I leave it as an exercise for the student to figure out what part that is.

Here's the question I'm leading up to. What is the cause or genesis of
someone's reference conditions? Are they genetic, instinctual (don't think
PCT goes much for instincts), hereditary, learned, etc?

Reference conditions are not static things you acquire once and for all. They are variables, and they are adjusted by higher-order systems as their way of controlling the variable important to them. The only exceptions are the highest level of reference signals. We have thought of a lot of ways they could be established, including by reorganization. But nobody actually knows.

Remember, though, that in the PCT model, we have one control system for each different kind of perception that is controlled (many are not controlled). This means that varying a reference signal sent to a particular control system always adjusts the reference level for the same kind of perception. Changing it changes only the amount of that perception that the particular control system seeks. It doesn't change the kind of perception it is. Changing the kind of perception is a much slower process and probably requires reorganization, and maturation too.

We do gradually acquire a more or less fixed set of kinds of perceptions that we control at all levels (and are born with some of them), so a great deal of the reorganizing that happens is simply learning how to coordinate all the goals and subgoals implied by all those control systems acting at the same time. But some reorganization changes the kinds of perception we have, and control.

  If Attachment
Theory says that if an infant doesn't get adequate "mirroring" from their
parents, especially their mother, they may develop poor relationship skills
as adults, does poor attachment instill a faulty reference condition? Do
you reorganize your reference conditions or your behavior?

Everything. Why assume less?

I don't want to go into assessment or the DSM-IV etc... as I think most
mental "illnesses" are simply behaviors unacceptable to the rest of us, but
I wonder what PCT says about or would explain what traditional psychologies
now call mental illnesses or disorders?

PCT says exactly what you say. DMS-IV is mostly about what bothers other people about someone's behavior. Not all of it: depression is not something most people like to experience. But the whole analyze, diagnose, treat concept is pretty much nonsense. It looks good on paper, but in practice the treatments are simply varied until something seems to work, and then the therapist figures out what must have been wrong on the basis of which treatment was followed by improvement: a blatant invitation to superstition.

Looking forward to your responses.

Thanks, I enjoyed the stimuli.

Best,

Bill P.

3

I should hope so. I claim that the method of levels is essentially

what every psychotherapist does when therapy is working, and what is
not done when therapy fails. When you get Tim Carey's book you'll see
what I mean. The implication is that a lot of what different schools
of therapy do is unnecessary or counterproductive, but that they all,
if they succeed, manage to accomplish the main things that define
MOL. They don't know that, of course.

So, in a sense, it's more about understanding why rather than how. Though,
with a clearly defined "how" it's much clearer.

Only the part that is wrong and doesn't work. I leave it as an
exercise for the student to figure out what part that is.

I'll look forward to learning to discriminate those parts.

Reference conditions are not static things you acquire once and for
all. They are variables, and they are adjusted by higher-order
systems as their way of controlling the variable important to them.
The only exceptions are the highest level of reference signals. We
have thought of a lot of ways they could be established, including by
reorganization. But nobody actually knows.

I don't know my "levels" yet, so I'll also look forward to finding out what
those exceptional "highest levels of reference signals" are all about. :slight_smile:

One thing that concerns me re where reference signals/conditions come from
is in cases where the conflict isn't necessarily internal. For example, in
the case of what's now diagnosed as anti-social personality or sociopath.
If someone gets pleasure from or desires to kill or rob someone and doesn't
either fear arrest or empathize with victims....where is the conflict that
would be worked on with such a person (not that someone like this would seek
therapy out on their own). Or less dramatically, someone who has a
"problem" as defined by others (can't get along at work, poor social
behavior, etc) but doesn't see themselves as having a problem.... (Everyone
else has the problem, not me.... kind of thinking...) Where does PCT go
with cases like this?

I find the source of reference signals to be of great interest even though
they may generally be irrelevant in terms of treatment in most cases. I can
see an argument from a process theologist's point of view that the
panentheistic God who nudges us may provide a reference signal. Or some
quantum physics related energy (qi, chi, etc.)... Or maybe those could be
environmental inputs, not sources of reference signals... (sorry, just
typing out loud)

PCT says exactly what you say. DMS-IV is mostly about what bothers
other people about someone's behavior. Not all of it: depression is
not something most people like to experience. But the whole analyze,
diagnose, treat concept is pretty much nonsense. It looks good on
paper, but in practice the treatments are simply varied until
something seems to work, and then the therapist figures out what must
have been wrong on the basis of which treatment was followed by
improvement: a blatant invitation to superstition.

Psychology, psychiatry's move to the medical model was a big mistake and
probably a contributing factor in PCT having trouble being more widely accepted.

L. Keith

···

On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 15:38:52 -0600, Bill Powers <powers_w@FRONTIER.NET> wrote:

4

[From Bill Powers (2008.04.08.2318 MDT)]

One thing that concerns me re where reference signals/conditions come from
is in cases where the conflict isn't necessarily internal. For example, in
the case of what's now diagnosed as anti-social personality or sociopath.
If someone gets pleasure from or desires to kill or rob someone and doesn't
either fear arrest or empathize with victims....where is the conflict that
would be worked on with such a person (not that someone like this would seek
therapy out on their own). Or less dramatically, someone who has a
"problem" as defined by others (can't get along at work, poor social
behavior, etc) but doesn't see themselves as having a problem.... (Everyone
else has the problem, not me.... kind of thinking...) Where does PCT go
with cases like this?

First we find out if MOL is adequate for unraveling such cases. We don't know yet that it isn't. If it is sufficient, we're done. If it isn't, we have to look further. PCT does not have all the answers pre-cooked and ready to serve.

I find the source of reference signals to be of great interest even though
they may generally be irrelevant in terms of treatment in most cases.

But it's not irrelevant to treatment. We try to find out what higher-order reference conditions are responsible for what it going on at lower levels, or rather we try to arrange the therapeutic situation so that the client manages to discover such things.

However, "treatment" is irrelevant. We don't treat, we explore and try to redirect reorganization to areas where it might be more useful.

  I can
see an argument from a process theologist's point of view that the
panentheistic God who nudges us may provide a reference signal. Or some
quantum physics related energy (qi, chi, etc.)... Or maybe those could be
environmental inputs, not sources of reference signals... (sorry, just
typing out loud)

Well, yeah, maybe, humph. That's what my old friend Kirk used to say, looking acutely uncomfortable and puffing on his pipe.

Best,

Bill P.

···

At 07:25 PM 4/8/2008 -0500, L. Keith Daniels wrote:

5

Hi Bill,
Because someone doesnt see themselves as having a problem. The sort of thinking you talk about. Would we go back to early socialisation/attachment theory the deniel wall can be huge/distorted perceptions,change our perceptions, the internal conflict is at work and progressing. Am i on the right track?

regards

susan
Quoting Bill Powers <powers_w@FRON TIER.NET>:

···

[From Bill Powers (2008.04.08.2318 MDT)]

At 07:25 PM 4/8/2008 -0500, L. Keith Daniels wrote:

One thing that concerns me re where reference signals/conditions come from
is in cases where the conflict isn't necessarily internal. For example, in
the case of what's now diagnosed as anti-social personality or sociopath.
If someone gets pleasure from or desires to kill or rob someone and doesn't
either fear arrest or empathize with victims....where is the conflict that
would be worked on with such a person (not that someone like this would seek
therapy out on their own). Or less dramatically, someone who has a
"problem" as defined by others (can't get along at work, poor social
behavior, etc) but doesn't see themselves as having a problem.... (Everyone
else has the problem, not me.... kind of thinking...) Where does PCT go
with cases like this?

First we find out if MOL is adequate for unraveling such cases. We
don't know yet that it isn't. If it is sufficient, we're done. If it
isn't, we have to look further. PCT does not have all the answers
pre-cooked and ready to serve.

I find the source of reference signals to be of great interest even though
they may generally be irrelevant in terms of treatment in most cases.

But it's not irrelevant to treatment. We try to find out what
higher-order reference conditions are responsible for what it going on
at lower levels, or rather we try to arrange the therapeutic situation
so that the client manages to discover such things.

However, "treatment" is irrelevant. We don't treat, we explore and try
to redirect reorganization to areas where it might be more useful.

I can
see an argument from a process theologist's point of view that the
panentheistic God who nudges us may provide a reference signal. Or some
quantum physics related energy (qi, chi, etc.)... Or maybe those could be
environmental inputs, not sources of reference signals... (sorry, just
typing out loud)

Well, yeah, maybe, humph. That's what my old friend Kirk used to say,
looking acutely uncomfortable and puffing on his pipe.

Best,

Bill P.

6

[From Bill Powers (2008.04.09.0819 MDT)]

Hi Bill,
Because someone doesnt see themselves as having a problem. The sort
of thinking you talk about. Would we go back to early
socialisation/attachment theory the deniel wall can be huge/distorted
perceptions,change our perceptions, the internal conflict is at work
and progressing. Am i on the right track?

That's a little confused but I get the point, I think. Tim Carey defines a psychological problem as one that the person who has it wants to change. If someone lies, cheats, and steals and is perfectly happy doing so, that's not a psychological problem but a social problem. Those who suffer from this problem will try to do something about it. The quickest and most effective remedy (but not the least expensive) is to physically prevent the person from doing those things any more. If the object is to "cure" the person, so he or she doesn't need to be isolated any more, then you look for ways of doing that. Therapy is probably not the way, since the person sees nothing to be cured of and is happy without changing. Of course the person is probably unhappy about the loss of freedom, so that may be something to work with. It might also be that the person is lacking something important and is using this behavior in an attempt to get it. If another, easier, way to get what is wanted can be learned, without all the repercusions of the criminal behavior, the person may feel better off reorganizing that way. So it might be an educational problem, or a skill problem. We need to learn how to find out what kind of problem it is, and whose it is, so the appropriate remedy can be devised.

Jane Langton wrote a mystery in which one character was Mrs. Bewley, who stole things that caught her eye. Her community dealt with this by always carrying some small thing she could steal when they went to visit her. They could always get it back later by admiring it and saying they wished they had one like it. Mrs. Bewley would immediately persuade them to take it as a gift.

There are many social problems we could cure if we could just break out of our narrow habits and beliefs and do what is effective and appropriate, instead of always wanting to control other people, punish them, get even with them, or show them how terrible they are. Why shouldn't prisoners be given comfortable quarters, good food, interesting entertainment, and satisfying things to do? Maybe they would become addicted to that kind of life and learn the things they need to know to achieve it for themselves. Or maybe they could just form a small permanent community away from the others who fear or hate them, and contribute to society at arm's length, as it were. Who knows what could be accomplished with a little creativity? Wouldn't that make more sense than carefully training them to become better criminals and then turning them loose?

Best,

Bill P.

7

[From Keith Daniels (2008.04.11.1711 PDT)]

[From Bill Powers (2008.04.08.2318 MDT)]

First we find out if MOL is adequate for unraveling such cases. We
don't know yet that it isn't. If it is sufficient, we're done. If it
isn't, we have to look further. PCT does not have all the answers
pre-cooked and ready to serve.

Shucks, and I was looking for a Grand Unified Theory... :slight_smile:

I find the source of reference signals to be of great interest even though
they may generally be irrelevant in terms of treatment in most cases.

But it's not irrelevant to treatment. We try to find out what
higher-order reference conditions are responsible for what it going
on at lower levels, or rather we try to arrange the therapeutic
situation so that the client manages to discover such things.

However, "treatment" is irrelevant. We don't treat, we explore and
try to redirect reorganization to areas where it might be more useful.

I get that "treatment" is irrelevant and my use of the term is from habit
and not adequate for PCT usage. We may be talking past each other though in
my statement that the source of reference conditions is irrelevant. You
mention that PCT tries to find out what higher-order reference conditions
are responsible (I assume that means what level there at)... what I meant
was that the genesis or aetiology of how the reference condition got there
in the first place is irrelevant to PCT. Yes, no? Meaning, the reference
condition is there for whatever reason, attachment theory, etc. blah blah..
  Why and how it got there is irrelevant to exploring and redirecting
reorganization?

Well, yeah, maybe, humph. That's what my old friend Kirk used to say,
looking acutely uncomfortable and puffing on his pipe.

LOL... that's my transpersonal, non-dual self speaking... Just kidding.

By the way... just got Method of Levels in the mail today. Look forward to
absorbing it...

Best wishes,

L. Keith