Closing the Loop on Counseling

CSGnet Archive CSG1997
1

Tim,

This is just my take on therapy with PCT; the MOL is a starting and finishing
place. On a guess it is about 25-33% of the picture. After you introduce
yourself to a Ct, you will try to establish rapport, (in PCT terms you are
"Aligning Worlds", yours and the CT's perceptions) and find out "why" the Ct
is at your door. Because, people don't seek solutions for problems they are
NOT experiencing, you know the person is asking for help, even before they
open their mouth.

MOL is a great part of the process - It helps you and the Ct map out the
levels the person can experience and report on. The Why's are going up and
the How's are going down the levels.

One thing you may find is, not everyone has all the LEVELS developed. The
higher levels, as you know take longer to experience error than the lower
levels, also they take longer to develop. An observation I have noticed. I
am sure you are aware of the solution of resolving conflict at one level is by
changing the reference signal at a higher level. But, what if there is not a
higher level to appeal to; or there is a higher level, but the control
processes are not fully developed. I have seen only one paper on the stages
of development using PCT.

I can't begin to guess at what or how or why another level can develop - but I
know we are not born with all the levels in place, I know conflict, (error
signals) trial and "error" must play a part.

It is important to map out the levels, but what to do next after the MOL's

I don't have a name for this next part so let's just call it "Method of
Conflict" - MOC; because, you are trying to find the conflicts/problems in the
control systems.

Part 1) Is the problem an "intra-level?" Is the conflict between two or more
competing control process?
Part 2) Is the problem an "inter-level" breakdown? Is there a higher level to
appeal to?
Part 3) Is the problem an "break in the loop?"

At this point you're about 2/3- 3/4 of the way here.

The first two parts lead to a setup for "chasing the problem around the loop."
Is the problem an "break in the loop?"

Chasing the problem around the loop:

Mostly, I start with the Reference signal above the level of conflict
discovered by the Method of Levels. I help the person evaluate their goals,
wants, needs or desires. I start here, only because the Reference signals
(Intentions or Goals) are usually where the problems lay. For example, the Ct
may have the knowledge and abilities to obtain a goal, to be successful in an
area of life, but the Ct has no goals in that area, or if a goal was set it
would be in conflict with other goals already set in/on that level. This is
akin to knowing you "should" or "could" do "it" but you don't.

However the "Break in the Loop" is what I am looking for and it could be
anywhere. The person may have a very obtainable goal. But, the Ct doesn't
know what to do about it or what to do first.

These are the things I look for:
1) Reference Signals a.k.a. goals, wants, needs, desires and intentions.
2) Perceptions - how and what they consider important things to control for.
3) The comparisons they may make between the two. (e.g. are they making
reasonable comparisons?)
4) Output -- Do they have a plan(s) of action and are they capable of acting
on it - is the plan reasonable, are they likely to change, or control for the
perception they wish.

Depending on the person the problem could be in any one of these 4 areas. If
I am lucky it is just one area, but it is possible to have trouble in all 4
areas.

In a message dated 97-12-19 18:20:42 EST,

[I would think that a theory which says that human beings are living control
systems would have something to say about the ways in which such systems may
fail, and what is expected to happen behaviorally as a result.]

Some points on this perspective ---
1) "What is expected to happen behaviorally?"
This question points to the heart of the misperceptions of PCT; A control
System ONLY Controls Input not Output (behavior). Behavior is NEVER- EVER
-NOT EVEN A LITTLE BIT- correlated with a controlled Perception (e.g. the
desired state.) Behaviors (Actions) are NEVER predicted/expected by knowing
anything about a Reference Signal, perception, comparator, output function or
disturbance. To predict anything you MUST consider ALL these components
SIMULTANEOUSLY. PCT is BASED on Circular Causation; it is NOT a linear.
(Don't stick a FLAT peg in a ROUND hole).

2) Would the theory, which says that human beings are living control systems,
have something to say about the ways in which such systems may fail?

YES it would and does here it is, Keeping the "theory" in mind a control
systems has these basic components

1) Reference Signal
2) Perception
3) Comparator
4) Output

When I referred to "chasing the problem around the loop" 1 2 3 or all 4 of
these components could FAIL causing the whole system to fail -- if one of the
components fail the whole system gets screwed up.

After all this is called control SYSTEMS theory not control COMPONENT theory

EXAMPLE of reference signal failure

Your driving a car, all of a sudden a psychiatrist pops out of the back seat.
He has 2 steal paddles, he quickly places one on each of your ears 200 jewels
of electricity jolt your brain. Suddenly you feel different. This ECT
treatment has "knocked" out many of your higher order reference signals as

On a more real life problem -- what if you looked at Cancer as a control
system gone bad. What component(s) would you guess went bad?

I would propose the same technique, "chase the problem around the loop" for
what ever is causing the poor control -- is there a gene not sensing the
division, or quantity, "we don't need more T-cells, we have plenty"; or is it
the reference --- saying "make more, make more, My God we are running out of
white blood cells."

How a systems fails vary greatly, depending on what is being controlled and
what component(s) fail. A system could end up producing too much or not
enough depending on which direction and which component(s) fail.

1) MOL has helped you find out what level(s) you need to focus on.
2) MOC helps Identify inter-level, intra-level conflicts as well as breaks in
the control processes

This is the last part of the circle of counseling "Closing the Loop of
Counseling"

Now you are ready to come up with a plan to correct the problems of control
you have identified and localized using the MOL and MOC.

Once, you have come up with a PCT based plan, implement it, try it right wrong
or indifferent, you won't know until you put it into action, and try to
control for the desired perception. If the plan is making progress toward
your goal keep it up. If is taking you further from your goal stop what you
are doing, and go the opposite way. If you can do that or what you are doing
is having no effect on the controlled perception, reorganize using the MOL and
MOC to come up with a new plan for controlling for the desired perception.

Trying to keep talk'n the talk and walk'n the walk - in PCT

Mark Lazare

ยทยทยท

to: Who am I, Where am I going, how long have I been in this car.

2

[From Tim Carey (971221.0900)]

From: DTSDTO <DTSDTO@AOL.COM>

Hi Mark,

Thanks for your post, I was really interested to read your ideas on
counselling and the MOL in particular. Mine are a little different and I
hope I can adequately explain the differences I see. There will be hardly
an original idea in what I'm about to write, most of it has come from
discussions with Bill, so he may even chime in. I think I should warn you
that even though I've been working with kids who have behaviour problems in
all kinds of educational settings and also adults on a much more limited
basis, I regard my self as in the foetal stages of any sort of counselling
so I'm probably a bit bright eyed and bushy tailed ...

This is just my take on therapy with PCT; the MOL is a starting and

finishing

place. On a guess it is about 25-33% of the picture.

I'm slightly more fanatical than this ... I think MOL is the beginning,
middle and end. I think once MOL is taken up seriously by psychotherapists
and researched thoroughly (and I'm in no doubt that it will, it's just a
time thing) the whole face of psychological problems will change. Think
about psychological problems for a minute in terms of the rubber band
activity. Every label in the DSM-IV is based on how a person is currently
scribbling and how they have been scribbling for a specified period of
time. There is _nothing_ that even comes close to considering what
individuals might be controlling for. I've just done a bunch of reading
around the bullying literature and this is a shining example of the sorry
state of current psychological research. There is lots of data specifying
different types of bullies and different types of victims but is there
_any_ research being done on what these kids are controlling for? ... NO.
And wild assumptions are being made about what they might be controlling
for, for example, a "malign" bully is a bully that consciously seeks to do
harm to someone ....... How the hell would they know!! The most common form
of data collection in these studies is questionnaires, how can you
ascertain what an individual consciously intends by analysing scores of
questionnaire data. I've digressed I know but the point is to illustrate
that I personally think the MOL will blow the socks off modern
psychotherapy (I warned you I was only _slightly_ fanatical about this ;-))

MOL is a great part of the process - It helps you and the Ct map out the
levels the person can experience and report on. The Why's are going up

and

the How's are going down the levels.

Again, for me, if I was to do any mapping I wouldn't be able to do the MOL
the way I want to. And similarly, if the client was to map, they wouldn't
be talking about what they are currently experiencing, they would be kind
of apart from it. For me the MOL is just an exploration of a person's
internal organisation. The intent for me is not to direct or analyse or
advise or even change what I notice. It is just to notice. I've used the
process a few times with people and I've participated on the "receiving"
end as well and the only way I can describe it is like a Zen experience.
The idea, as I understand it from Bill, is just to start talking about
anything, with clients in a counselling practice, though, they'll probably
have a pretty good idea about what they want to talk about. The attitude of
the therapist is to play dumb (this may be why I take to MOL so eagerly ...
I'm a natural) and to ask the person all about what they are describing ...
when does it happen, where do you feel it, does it only happen here, what
do you mean by, etc., etc. Pretty soon the person is talking about the
experience from _within_ the experience, and after a while they generally
make a reflective kind of statement that gives you a clue that they've gone
up a level. They might say: I just don't know anymore...., I don't know
where else to turn..., I've tried everything I can think of ... Then you
start asking them about this, Does it bother you to not know, How does it
feel to not know, Have you ever been in other situations where you didn't
know, What do you think about not knowing, etc. The point is that _they_
have indicated where to go next ... not you. The times that I have used the
MOL, the process just finishes very naturally when there is nowhere else to
go, and the client and the therapist can usually both sense this. And when
it has finished people generally take a little while to "get it together".
My experience was a wonderful sensation like my head was a pinball machine
and little lights were just pinging off everywhere. Other people I've
worked with have described similar things. There is a wonderful pervasive
sense of calmness that lasts for sometime after the experience. And then
you get days where nothing goes right .....

I don't know that you can map with any certainty which level a person is on
and which level they are going to. If that was the case you would only have
to ask 10 "why" questions to go from the intensity level to the system
concepts level. I don't think the levels have been researched well enough
for that sort of analysis, and even if they were, I'm not sure that this
kind of analysis would be part of the MOL as I understand if. For me, it's
more important to notice times when the client is reflecting on what
they've just been talking about rather than trying to decide which level we
are at now and where we should go next. When the MOL works well (and this
doesn't happen often enough for my liking) there is almost a sense of "not
doing" on both the part of the client _and_ the therapist.

One thing you may find is, not everyone has all the LEVELS developed.

Some of the reseach around that I have read (most notably the Plooij's)
suggest that all the levels are in place by about 18 months of age. This
means that there are references at every level, some people may be
"reference-challenged" (is this new politically correct "PCT speak") in
that they may not have many references at a particular level, but I still
think all the levels are there. I've worked with 4 year olds who can tell
you what the rules are in a given context, this would suggest maybe
references at the principle level.

It is important to map out the levels, but what to do next after the

MOL's

What's it important to map out the levels for? I might do this if I was
trying to solve a problem or if I was encouraging the client to solve a
problem but as I've said above, I approach the MOL a little differently
(and I'm talking ideal here, this is far from how it goes quite often in
practice, I'm describing how it goes on good days, and how I'd like it to
go _all_ the time). I guess I just have a tremendous amount of faith in the
system sitting in front of me (the client) to sort out whatever it is they
need to sort out, if they need to sort out anything. They have everything
they need right there in their head, the MOL I guess, when it works well,
just provides an opportunity for things to happen if they're going to ... a
platform if you like.

I don't have a name for this next part so let's just call it "Method of
Conflict" - MOC; because, you are trying to find the conflicts/problems

in the

control systems.

I'm not trying to do anything except provide the person within an
opportunity to experience some of their own internal organisation.

Part 1) Is the problem an "intra-level?" Is the conflict between two or

more

competing control process?
Part 2) Is the problem an "inter-level" breakdown? Is there a higher

level to

appeal to?
Part 3) Is the problem an "break in the loop?"

I don't understand this part because I don't work this way.

1) Reference Signals a.k.a. goals, wants, needs, desires and intentions.
2) Perceptions - how and what they consider important things to control

for.

3) The comparisons they may make between the two. (e.g. are they making
reasonable comparisons?)
4) Output -- Do they have a plan(s) of action and are they capable of

acting

on it - is the plan reasonable, are they likely to change, or control for

the

perception they wish.

Again, this is way too sophisticated for me. I guess I would just need lots
of practice to be able to hold all these things in my head. When I'm
working with someone, if I think anything at all, I just keep thinking over
and over "It's all perception". Any problem I perceive I try to
conceptualise in terms of control processes. In one of Rick Marken's many
brilliant posts he said generally problems of control could happen in one
of three ways: lack of skill (maybe not enough references); conflict
(you've already mentioned that); and insuperable disturbances. If I think
of anything at all, I guess I try to think of things in terms of one or
more of these three things.

[I would think that a theory which says that human beings are living

control

systems would have something to say about the ways in which such systems

may

fail, and what is expected to happen behaviorally as a result.]

Again, I may need help from the theoreticians here, and since you've worked
with Tom you probably are speaking from a position of greater theoretical
knowledge ... I just don't ever think of a control system failing. The only
time a person has problems, I think of the problem in terms of the three
things I mentioned above. And when I'm using the MOL I try really hard to
not think of problems at all.

I just see everything as an attempt to control so I'm not sure what you
mean when you say the control system has failed. A person in a state of
psychosis is still controlling I think, maybe not very functionally, and
maybe not in the way we think he/she should, but I still see it as control.
I thought that failure of a control system meant death. Tom likes to say
that life _is_ control.

Your driving a car, all of a sudden a psychiatrist pops out of the back

seat.

He has 2 steal paddles, he quickly places one on each of your ears 200

jewels

of electricity jolt your brain. Suddenly you feel different. This ECT
treatment has "knocked" out many of your higher order reference signals

as

to: Who am I, Where am I going, how long have I been in this car.

You might think of this in terms of insuperable disturbances and you might
learn to lock your back doors, or take the bus ;-).

On a more real life problem -- what if you looked at Cancer as a control
system gone bad. What component(s) would you guess went bad?

I wouldn't look at cancer as a control system gone bad. Cancer is possibly
a case of cells controlling for different reference perceptions.

I would propose the same technique, "chase the problem around the loop"

for

what ever is causing the poor control

Again, I don't see it as poor control ... it is still controlling well,
it's just controlling variables that aren't helpful to the rest of the
system.

How a systems fails vary greatly, depending on what is being controlled

and

what component(s) fail. A system could end up producing too much or not
enough depending on which direction and which component(s) fail.

And how a system fails depends greatly on whether or not you think a system
_can_ fail ;-). I'm probably on shaky ground here and perhaps this might
spark another conversation and an opportunity for me to learn some more. I
know at the CSG conference this year, Susan Souter gave a presentation on
her work with people who had problems with addiction, and I remember some
talk there about maybe some part of the loop was malfunctioning ... I don't
know, maybe I've got the wrong idea about what you're talking about.

Once, you have come up with a PCT based plan, implement it, try it right

wrong

or indifferent, you won't know until you put it into action, and try to
control for the desired perception. If the plan is making progress

toward

your goal keep it up. If is taking you further from your goal stop what

you

are doing, and go the opposite way. If you can do that or what you are

doing

is having no effect on the controlled perception, reorganize using the

MOL and

MOC to come up with a new plan for controlling for the desired

perception.

My experience with MOL has been that often, after this experience, the
person just "knows" what to do. Very often they "see" the problem
differently than they did before.

I don't know how helpful this has been, I would love to see the MOL being
used more and discussed more. My only problem is a shortage of people to
work with (all my friends are scared to open their mouths for fear of being
asked "What do you think about....")

Thanks again for your post,

Cheers,

Tim

3

[From Tim Carey (971221.1925)]

From: DTSDTO <DTSDTO@AOL.COM>

David could you make this proposal sound any more indecent. As it reads

now,

it sounds like a gay porno filmed in a room full of voyeurs.

Thanks Mark, I was thinking about how to reply ... you've done it for both
of us.

Cheers,

Tim

4

[From Bill Powers (972021.0740 MST)]

Mark Lazarre (971221) --

David:

< Proposal: Mark and Tim could do it with each other and let the rest of

us silently observe until the end?
Then we could all enter the conversation about our observations >>

Mark:

David could you make this proposal sound any more indecent. As it reads
now, it sounds like a gay porno filmed in a room full of voyeurs.

Mark, if you'll pardon the expression, you blow my mind.

I'm obvously not opposed to doing Method-Of-Levels (MOL) demos in public,
among trusted friends. But without the immediacy of a real conversation, I
think the delays in internet communication work against it. I think of the
MOL as a way of following a thread though the organization of the mind to
see where it leads. When the time-scale slows down a lot, and people go on
with their lives as it's happening, I wonder whether it's possible to get a
coherent picture of a single thread without other threads getting in the way.

David G., you and I did this via the internet over a period of -- what was
it -- six months? We got about as far as a 20-minute person-to-person
session normally gets. I think we did get somewhere, but it wasn't easy,
certainly in comparison with what would have happened if we'd been sitting
together in the same room and just talking. One problem is that the
internet mode of communication encourages long monologues during which a
dozen different subjects can come up, with the other person unable to say,
for example, "Did you have some thought just then when you paused?" By the
time the conversation changes sides, fleeting thoughts are long gone. Also,
the guide (WTP in this case) is faced with an irresistible temptation to
talk too much.

I think a more workable suggestion might be for Mark and Tim to try this
out privately in chat mode (I've never used it and don't know how to work
it), and then get together and post an edited version of the dialog (maybe
one of our network gurus can tell us how to do this). If they want to.

Mark and David and Tim, you are all using the MOL in different contexts. To
David, it's only an adjunct to more conventional methods. To Mark, it's an
application of PCT in a pressure-cooker situation where there is a definite
goal to be reached in very limited amount of time. To Tim, it's something
to try under rather leisurely non-emergency conditions in which the purpose
is only to explore the properties of the method itself, and not
particularly to answer someone's call for help (no severely disturbed people).

Since all of you understand PCT, it seems to me that a joint effort to
thrash out a true PCT therapy would be of great value. I tend to side with
Tim in his statement that MOL is probably the most powerful central feature
of PCT therapy, but I am not a practitioner and really have little more to
contribute in this area. There are other considerations that both Mark and
David have raised -- what to do when the client is unable to participate in
the method being one important one (if it ever happens).

The three of you cover a wide spectrum of possible ways to apply PCT in
therapy. I hope that all three of you will see a collaboration as a way to
launch a new approach to this subject. From little acorns ...

Best,

Bill P.