[From Chris Bory, 2009.03.22.1630 EST]
Thanks for the warm welcome - I appreciate it (I was a bit apprehensive of interjecting and introducing myself).
[From Dick Robertson, 2009.03.22.1450CDT]
Chris,
Welcome. What a fine introduction. I would be interested to know how you came to hear about, and read up on, PCT in the first place.
For one of my graduate courses, we were to present to the seminar class (about 10 people) a case conceptualization from a new theoretical orientation - an approach that we were unfamiliar with and had no previous knowledge about (a way of expanding our theoretical repertoire and applying it to our clients). I found this to be a great opportunity to explore what fit with me and my understanding of the world. Previously, I often discussed with my supervisors in my clinical setting and professors in class about pattern development and recognition (seeing clients develop and maintaing a specific pattern - these concepts originated from my reading of Second Order Change in Psychotherapy: The Golden Thread that Unifies Effective Treatment). Although, I continued to feel like something was lacking after reading this book - a rigorous theoretical model that can withstand testing. I started to explore systems theory and cybernetics, which lead me to PCT. The presentation went great - my colleagues were receptive and patient with me while I tried to explain the theory and therapy. The professor was extremely enthusiastic and found it to be extremely stimulating (she was slightly familiar with the topic - in her previous life, she worked at Wright Air Force Base working on human-machine interface/human factors research).
What did you read first?
The CSG website provided a great launching point and I explored from there (suggested readings). I purchased the recent edition of Behavior: The Control of Perception and The Method of Levels: How to do psychotherapy without getting in the way.**I have also been retrieving articles from PsycInfo that are related to PCT/MOL.
I found myself thinking more and more about PCT/MOL in my daily
life - ranging anywhere from the cruise control system on my car to
my > clients hierarchical conflict. As each day passes and I learn
more about the theory and practice of PCT (may I run the risk of
using the following PCT language inappropriately?), I find there to be
a decrease in distance between the reference signal and my
perceptional world - it makes sense to me.
You got that right, all right. For the fun of it, how would you phrase the target your reference signal aims at in this case?
My first thought would be to say that the target of my reference signal specifies what a theoretical orientation to understanding behavior should look like (in other words, cause-effect or stimulus response models lack some fundamental quality and appear to oversimplify - I wasn’t sure what it lacked until I learned more about PCT) - the perceptual inputs or my experience is not matching my reference signal (learning about other theoretical orientations). Suggestions? Revisions?
Welcome on board.
Thanks again for the warm welcome. I’m looking forward to more discussion.
Cheers,
Chris
···
On Mar 22, 2009, at 3:57 PM, Robertson Richard wrote: