[Bulk] Re: The role of the guide iin MOL Therapy

[Martin Taylor 2007.08.26.12.26]

[Kenny Kitzke (2007.08.26)]

I also perceive some confusion between resolving internal conflict and reducing internal error and how the RS and/or the HPCS functions for each. I understand that error can be reduced by changing what is perceived (by action) or by changing the reference (by the upper level). So, I see MOL as a relevant method for reducing error.

However, I understood internal conflict as arising when two references cannot be simultaneously perceived no matter what action is taken within the HPCS. I would include MOL in this futile attempt. Hence, the RS must come into action to alter the HPCS itself.

It's that "no matter what action is taken within the hierarchy" that's causing your dilemma. The conflict is at one particular level in the hierarchy. If at a higher level there is a way to control its perception by other means, then the conflict can vanish.

Imagine a trivial example. I have a leaky pen. I want to write a note, for which I would use the pen, but I also do not want to get my fingers inky. That's an irreconcilable conflict, as stated, since I either cannot write the note or I cannot keep my fingers from getting inky. But suppose that there is another pen at hand. I stop controlling for perceiving myself to be using the first pen, and start controlling for perceiving myself to be using the second. The conflict goes away. I write the note and keep my fingers clean.

That shift isn't reorganization, at least not if you have previously known about the possibility of using different implements for writing notes (it would be, if this was the first time you had ever encountered the question of writing a note without using that particular leaky pen). In many parts of teh hierarchy, there are different ways of controlling any given perception. If one route is blocked (your car won't start), you use another route (go to work by bus).

It's not really different if the blockage is caused by conflict. What is required is to see why you are wanting to control at least one of the conflicted perceptions. In otehr words, you identify a higher-level perception you are controlling, and find another action that affects the higher-level controlled perception.

If you don't know, or can't see, another way to control any of the higher-level perceptions (there may be several) that provide reference values for the conflicted perception, THEN reorganization may come into play.

Hope this helps.

Martin

Imagine a trivial example. I
have a leaky pen. I want to write a note, for which I would use the pen,
but I also do not want to get my fingers inky. That’s an irreconcilable
conflict, as stated, since I either cannot write the note or I cannot
keep my fingers from getting inky. But suppose that there is another pen
at hand. I stop controlling for perceiving myself to be using the first
pen, and start controlling for perceiving myself to be using the second.
The conflict goes away. I write the note and keep my fingers
clean.
[From Bill Powers (2007.08.26.1357 MDT)]

Martin Taylor 2007.08.26.12.26 –

Hey, very nice example, Martin! And your analysis is exactly what I would
have said if I had though of it. This conflict can be solved very quickly
without reorganization. It’s only when there is no learned organization
already present for resolving a conflict that errors get big enough or
last long enough to bring reorganization into play. Reorganization is
what creates systematic ways of correcting errors and resolving conflict
– in fact, what is learned is a way to change from searching blindly for
a way to correct an error to a more efficient systematic way. It’s the
sort of thing three-year-olds have to learn when they both want to play
with the same toy. They learn to take turns, which eliminates the need
for fighting and crying.

Kenny’s confusion about reorganization and the hierarchy and awareness is
quite understandable – the picture is not clear in my head, either. I’m
working with a mental model that leaves a lot of questions
unanswered.

One picture I use (because I’m a man) is the little man in the control
room. There’s this little man sitting in a room lined with small TV
screens and meters, with rows of buttons scattered around among the
screens and meters. Nothing is labeled and there is no instruction book.
All the little man knows is that when the screens and meters show some
things, he feels good, and when they show certain other things, he feels
bad. He has no idea what is making the meters show readings, or what the
patterns on the screen mean.

All the buttons have REORGANIZE written on them. Sometimes the bad
feelings seem to occur for no reason. The little man hits the REORGANIZE
button nearest to the screen or meter he was looking at when he feet bad.
After he reorganizes, different relationships among the displays appear.
And, of course, he doesn’t stop hitting the buttons until the bad feeling
has gone away, or at least is getting weaker.

The hierarchy is what lies behind the control panel. The little man can’t
see its machinery, or the world beyond the confines of the control room.
All the little man sees are the displays, and all he can do is press a
REORGANIZE button when something bothers him about the displays.

Well, this leaves the little man pretty simple and stupid, so this isn’t
quite right yet. Maybe those screens should be showing stories happening,
so the little man can become absorbed in one story or another from time
to time.

Or maybe we should look for something a little less imaginative.

Best,

Bill P.

Get a sneak peek of the all-new <http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982>AOL.com.

[Kenny Kitzke 2007.08.26.]

<Martin Taylor 2007.08.26.12.26>

<It’s that “no matter what action is taken within the hierarchy”
that’s causing your dilemma. The conflict is at one particular level
in the hierarchy. If at a higher level there is a way to control its
perception by other means, then the conflict can vanish.

Imagine a trivial example. I have a leaky pen. I want to write a
note, for which I would use the pen, but I also do not want to get my
fingers inky. That’s an irreconcilable conflict, as stated, since I
either cannot write the note or I cannot keep my fingers from getting
inky. But suppose that there is another pen at hand. I stop
controlling for perceiving myself to be using the first pen, and
start controlling for perceiving myself to be using the second. The
conflict goes away. I write the note and keep my fingers clean.

That shift isn’t reorganization, at least not if you have previously
known about the possibility of using different implements for writing
notes (it would be, if this was the first time you had ever
encountered the question of writing a note without using that
particular leaky pen).>

This example seems to me to be the normal operation of the HPCS. Surely, there does not seem to be any reorganization needed because the conflict was resolved. I guess what I wonder now is do you consider this to be an example of MOL? Certainly, like in Rick’s recent example, no therapist was needed.

Even David’s example of changing awareness to a higher level is somewhat confusing. Can I only be aware of variables at one level at a time? Aren’t I controlling variables at many if not all the levels all the time? Perhaps I just can’t think tonight (much less control for writing something sensible)? I am watching the Pittsburgh Steelers beat their cross state rival Philadelphia Eagles. I realize for you, Martin, to perceive my conflict in writing this post and watching the game, I should probably be using a hockey example. :sunglasses:

<In many parts of teh hierarchy, there are
different ways of controlling any given perception. If one route is
blocked (your car won’t start), you use another route (go to work by
bus).>

Absolutely, you use various means to achieve specific results. It is just controlling perceptions and I do not see a necessity or distinction of using MOL or the RS.

<It’s not really different if the blockage is caused by conflict. What
is required is to see why you are wanting to control at least one of
the conflicted perceptions. In otehr words, you identify a
higher-level perception you are controlling, and find another action
that affects the higher-level controlled perception.

If you don’t know, or can’t see, another way to control any of the
higher-level perceptions (there may be several) that provide
reference values for the conflicted perception, THEN reorganization
may come into play.

Hope this helps.>

It helps some. Thanks. But, it would help more for you to mention where self or therapy MOL comes into play. Is is part of the reorganization system as David said or is it something else you can use before the RS must come into play?

Kenny

···

Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.

[From Kenny Kitzke (2007.08.26)]

<Bill Powers (2007.08.26.1357 MDT)>

<Kenny’s confusion about reorganization and the hierarchy and awareness is quite understandable – the picture is not clear in my head, either. I’m working with a mental model that leaves a lot of questions unanswered.>

Darn, I feel conflicted. I am happy to know that Bill Power’s also has some confusion. (I don’t like feeling stupid). I am sad to know that too because when Bill does not know the answer, I feel the value of the theory is reduced. :sunglasses:

<All the little man sees are the displays, and all he can do is press a REORGANIZE button when something bothers him about the displays.

Well, this leaves the little man pretty simple and stupid, so this isn’t quite right yet. Maybe those screens should be showing stories happening, so the little man can become absorbed in one story or another from time to time.

Or maybe we should look for something a little less imaginative>

I guess I am a “little man” feeling pretty simple and stupid and wondering whether to press the REORGANIZE button or just go up a level or two? The Stillers (Pgh-eese for Steelers) are up 20-3 going into the 4th quarter.

By the way, if any of you can sort out some of the confusion, I won’t be able to respond for a few days. Hey, Dick, you reading me? I am going tomorrow with some of my USTA Super Seniors Team to the US Open tomorrow. I gotta see Federer play. I saw the Tiger at the US Golf Open at Oakmont this summer. Wow, think of my control systems. They are smokin from seeing three of the best this year, Roger, Tiger and Bill with no conflict at all!

···

Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.

Message
{Davod Goldstein (2007.08.25:1118 PM EDT)}

Re.: [Kenny Kitzke 2007.08.26.]

Dear Ken and listmates,

I never said that the self was part of the RS; if you can show me this, I would apprediate it.

In the published research study by Robertson, Goldstein, Mermel and Musgrave (1999) we hypothesize and provide evidence that the self-image

system is at the systems level of the hierrarchy.

In subsequent clinical research (Goldstein & Goldstein,2005) , one of which has been published so far, I hypothesis that the control system for self

is at the systems levels and is multiple in most cases. Based on discussions with Bill Powers, we hypothesize that there is an ‘observer self’’ in the RS. Perhaps,

Bill’s metaphor of the little man in the control room, gives a nice image which corresponds to this. My clinical friends who work with multiple-personlity

cases, believe that in most cases, there is only one ‘observer self’. Maybe this is the ‘true self’.

In Bill’s new book which is coming out, the arm control systems (14 in all) reorganize at the same time. It doesn’t have the property of reorganizinz the ones that

have the most error in it. At least I don’t believe it does. Maybe Bill can correct this impression if it wrong.

David

Goldstein & Goldstein 2005.pdf (109 KB)

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet) [mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU] On Behalf Of Kenneth Kitzke Value Creation Systems
Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 10:13 PM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: The role of the guide iin MOL Therapy

[Kenny Kitzke 2007.08.26.]

<Martin Taylor 2007.08.26.12.26>

<It’s that “no matter what action is taken within the hierarchy”
that’s causing your dilemma. The conflict is at one particular level
in the hierarchy. If at a higher level there is a way to control its
perception by other means, then the conflict can vanish.

Imagine a trivial example. I have a leaky pen. I want to write a
note, for which I would use the pen, but I also do not want to get my
fingers inky. That’s an irreconcilable conflict, as stated, since I
either cannot write the note or I cannot keep my fingers from getting
inky. But suppose that there is another pen at hand. I stop
controlling for perceiving myself to be using the first pen, and
start controlling for perceiving myself to be using the second. The
conflict goes away. I write the note and keep my fingers clean.

That shift isn’t reorganization, at least not if you have previously
known about the possibility of using different implements for writing
notes (it would be, if this was the first time you had ever
encountered the question of writing a note without using that
particular leaky pen).>

This example seems to me to be the normal operation of the HPCS. Surely, there does not seem to be any reorganization needed because the conflict was resolved. I guess what I wonder now is do you consider this to be an example of MOL? Certainly, like in Rick’s recent example, no therapist was needed.

Even David’s example of changing awareness to a higher level is somewhat confusing. Can I only be aware of variables at one level at a time? Aren’t I controlling variables at many if not all the levels all the time? Perhaps I just can’t think tonight (much less control for writing something sensible)? I am watching the Pittsburgh Steelers beat their cross state rival Philadelphia Eagles. I realize for you, Martin, to perceive my conflict in writing this post and watching the game, I should probably be using a hockey example. :sunglasses:

<In many parts of teh hierarchy, there are
different ways of controlling any given perception. If one route is
blocked (your car won’t start), you use another route (go to work by
bus).>

Absolutely, you use various means to achieve specific results. It is just controlling perceptions and I do not see a necessity or distinction of using MOL or the RS.

<It’s not really different if the blockage is caused by conflict. What
is required is to see why you are wanting to control at least one of
the conflicted perceptions. In otehr words, you identify a
higher-level perception you are controlling, and find another action
that affects the higher-level controlled perception.

If you don’t know, or can’t see, another way to control any of the
higher-level perceptions (there may be several) that provide
reference values for the conflicted perception, THEN reorganization
may come into play.

Hope this helps.>

It helps some. Thanks. But, it would help more for you to mention where self or therapy MOL comes into play. Is is part of the reorganization system as David said or is it something else you can use before the RS must come into play?

Kenny


Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.12.8/973 - Release Date: 8/25/2007 5:00 PM

No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.12.8/973 - Release Date: 8/25/2007 5:00 PM

In Bill’s new book which is
coming out, the arm control systems (14 in all) reorganize at the same
time. It doesn’t have the property of reorganizinz the ones that

have the most error in it. At least I don’t believe it does. Maybe Bill
can correct this impression if it wrong.
[From Bill Powers (2007.08.26.2159 MDT)]

David Goldstein (2007.08.25:1118 PM EDT)

True, they all reorganize at the same time. But they’re all at the same
level. Actually, the demo program lets you have as many reorganizing
systems as there are error signals in the arm control systems (14 in this
case since the fingers move together as in a mitten), or just one total
error added up over all the systems. It seems to work either way, though
it’s faster when the control systems are reorganizing
individually.

I haven’t tried reorganization at multiple levels at the same time. The
math gets too complicated for me – not the reorganization, but just
handling all the control systems in three dimensions with all those
joints. As I said in a footnote, rather than slogging through the math I
thought it prudent to get the model working at one level, considering the
age of the programmer.

Best,

Bill P.

Even David’s example of changing
awareness to a higher level is somewhat confusing. Can I only be
aware of variables at one level at a time? Aren’t I controlling
variables at many if not all the levels all the
time?
[From Bill Powers (2007.08.26.2210 MDT)]

Kenny Kitzke 2007.08.26.

···

Depends on what you mean by “I”. If you mean the brain inside
your skull, yes, it is controlling variables at all levels all of the
time. But you, the conscious observer, are not aware of all those control
processes that are going on. Only some of them at any given time. If you
completely relaxed right now, you’d probably slither out of your chair
onto the floor. But I doubt that you’re conscious of controlling for
sitting up, or breathing, or keeping your eyes open – at least not until
I mention those things. That’s the conscious you I’m referring to, which
is made up of awareness and something to be aware of. What you’re aware
OF is some set of perceptual signals in the hierarchy, mostly at one
level or a few adjacent levels, and only some of them at that
level.

But I think (because I can do it) that you can switch your awareness
around, paying attention to this set of perceptions or that set, and
often you can move up or down a level, especially if someone asks you
about a different level (exactly why are you reading this, right now?).
Those higher levels were working all the time, supplying reference
signals to the lower levels where your awareness is focused, but you’re
not normally aware of those higher systems. If they weren’t working,
however, the lower reference signals would all be zero. You’d probably be
asleep.

As I keep saying, this is just a sketch of how, right now, I think the
system works. I don’t know what this awareness thing is, but I know I
have it and that it can move around, and that many of my control systems
keep on working even when I’m only conscious of a few of them. If they’re
working they have to have perceptual signals in them, and be receiving
reference signals, and be acting by sending reference signals to lower
systems. Evidently they can do that without the benefit of my conscious
presence. In fact sometimes they do it better when I’m not conscious of
them – when I become conscious of them they seem to start reorganizing
and even getting disorganized.

I’m just describing how things seem to work in here where I am.
Presumably you work somewhat the same way, but I have no way to verify
that unless you examine what is going on where you are and tell me. Does
any of this check out in your own experience?

Best,

Bill P.

[Kenny Kitzke (2007.08.25)]

<Davod Goldstein (2007.08.25:1118 PM EDT)>

<I never said that the self was part of the RS; if you can show me this, I would apprediate it.>

David, I am sorry for the confusion I caused you apparantly by a statement I made I think to Martin which I can’t seem to find. I used the words, “self or therapy MOL” not being part of RS. I was meaning self-MOL not the perception of self.

The issue of self-perception is of great interest to me and was part of my conjecture that the references for self (our personal references for what we want to be; our right or wrong for us) are up a level from systems concepts (a 12th Level) and have much to do with specifying the other 11 Levels through which our autonomous behavior acts to try to achieve those references.

For example, I grew up in Milwaukee during the Lomabardi era. I know the thrill of being a “cheese head” Green Bay Packer fan. But, then I moved to Pittsburgh and watched the Steelers win 5 Super Bowls. I see both being a Packer fan and a Steeler fan as two systems level references that I could control for in my daily life. Which one does Kenny want to be (control for) when they play each other? I can’t really control for both to win. I reorganized and I don’t think it was by MOL. At the twelfth level, Kenny controls for his heart-felt, self-perception as a Steeler fan. I wave a “Terrible Towel” and would not be found dead wearing a cheese-head hat.

My original post tried to question your statement below that “the ability of a person to go up or down a level is part of the RS.” I have viewed the “RS” as an ability to change the hierarchal perceptual control system itself not to use it for control of perceptions. I see MOL as part of the HPCS not the RS.

Any more insight you have on that is welcome.

<The ability of a person to control his/her awarenss to go up or down a level is part of the Reorganization System.>

···

Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.

[From Dick Robertson,2007.08.27.1001CDT]

Original Message -----

···

From: Kenneth Kitzke Value Creation Systems <KJKitzke@AOL.COM>
Date: Sunday, August 26, 2007 9:34 pm
Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: The role of the guide iin MOL Therapy

<<&lt;<Kenny's confusion about reorganization and
the hierarchy and awareness is quite understandable -- the picture is not clear
in my head, either. I'm working with a mental model that leaves a lot of
questions unanswered.&gt;<<<
<<<<< <

The Stillers (Pgh-eese for Steelers) are up 20-3 going into

the 4th quarter.<<<
<<<<< <
<<<By the way, if any of you can sort out some of
the confusion, I won't be able to respond for a few days. Hey, Dick, you
reading me?

Yes, I am Kenny, and am I jealous. Have a great time and recount your adventures.

I am going tomorrow with some of my USTA Super Seniors Team to

the US Open tomorrow. I gotta see Federer play. I saw the Tiger at
the US Golf Open at Oakmont this summer. Wow, think of my control
systems. They are smokin from seeing three of the best this year, Roger,
Tiger and Bill with no conflict at all! <<

Dick

<
<<<

<<<Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.<<<<<

My original post tried to
question your [David G.'s] statement below that “the ability of a
person to go up or down a level is part of the RS.” I have
viewed the “RS” as an ability to change the hierarchal
perceptual control system itself not to use it for control of
perceptions. I see MOL as part of the HPCS not the
RS
[From Bill Powers (2007.08.27.1012 MDT)]
Kenny Kitzke (2007.08.25)

···

I think MOL straddles the two. On the one hand, MOL is done through
verbal communication, so it definitely involves the learned hierarchy
(for me, MOL works only in English). On the other hand, these
communications seem to bring up associated perceptions of which a person
can become aware, and becoming aware seems to bring reorganization along
with it, to the new systems now in awareness. I don’t know if
reorganization is “part of” awareness, or simply a separate
phenomenon that is set off by sufficient intrinsic error.
What does seem clear is that reorganization isn’t always directed where
it can do the most good. It seems as if redirecting attention also
redirects reorganization – I’m tempted to propose that systems that are
not in awareness do not reorganize, or reorganize at a much slower rate.
So I guess I’m saying that the rate of reorganization is
determined by intrinsic error independently of awareness, but that the
focus of reorganization is determined by where attention is
directed. Intrinsic error turns the flashlight on, but where the
flashlight is directed depends on where awareness is focused.
Reorganization works where the flashlight lights up parts of the dark
room. Of course it could be the other way around: that attention is
directed where reorganization is occurring. But then the model loses the
advantage of being able to move the place where reorganization is working
from one place in the hierarchy to another, and that is what I think
happens under the method of levels.

If it helps, I can remind you that reorganization is NOT a systematic,
thinking, reasoning kind of phenomenon. If you can resolve a conflict by
using some systematic, rational method you already know, reorganization
doesn’t ever need to start. Reorganization is what comes into play when
we haven’t learned any systematic methods yet, or when the problem at
hand can’t be solved by any systematic method we have available. That’s
why it’s random: there is no learned way of finding a solution, so all
that is left is random trial and error. An idea, an inspiration, pops up
and we try it out. Most of the time the result isn’t what we want so we
try again right away. When the changes seems to improve things, we go on
changing that way until things start to get worse, and then we
“tumble” again. So reorganization is both the first and the
last resort.

Best,

Bill P.