[From Bruce Nevin (2002.08.02.1533)]
A few more highlights from memory.
Fairly early on, we had a discussion of what constitutes "PCT science". This helped to sharpen subsequent explorations into how helping professionals could make use of PCT-the-science, be consistent with PCT-the-theory, and contribute data for scientific investigation. I saw this as a pretty central thread throughout the conference.
Several approaches to therapeutic engagement with clients or patients were demonstrated. In relating these to the hypothesis that the "active ingredient" in any therapy is MOL (in other words, when what the therapist and client are doing is working, they're doing MOL), we recognized that in many clinical situations some preliminary work is required before the client is able to participate in MOL. Accordingly, we proposed a modification to that hypothesis for clinicians to test: that any practice that is not MOL should serve only to move the interaction "up a level" to a readiness to engage in MOL, and can and should be set aside in favor of MOL at that point. Shelley Brierley's demonstration of a framework for conceptualizing and guiding exactly this -- helping the client move up from the "cycle of blame" to their "circle of strength" -- was especially impressive.
Also in these demonstrations there repeatedly emerged what seemed to me to be a process of helping the client to identify and establish high-level reference perceptions, and the claim, supported by clinical observation, that doing so has therapeutic benefit. The process seems to be controlling a state of being, perhaps System-level perceptions of personal identity, in imagination. Doing so with attendant emotional intensity seems to be important. (Generally, the client comes in with some emotional intensity associated with such perceptions.) By imagining in detail, closing the imagination loop at lower levels of physiological/kinesthetic, visual, auditory, tactile perception, I surmise that they build the interior portions of control loops so that they become more capable of closing those loops through the environment as opportunities to do so arise in the environment -- indeed, more capable of recognizing those opportunities. Here, Shelley Brierley found it important to emphasize perceptions associated with positive affect rather than dwelling on e.g. what is depressing. However, Jeff (? No I think I have his name wrong -- the dentist) used a gestalt technique to establish references for avoidance as well. The hypothesis above might favor Shelley's view, that is, if the point is to move up a level so as to be able to proceed with MOL.
There was some discussion of learning and reorganization. Some wanted a better understanding of reorganization. We had to tell them that we don't understand it very well. Some forms of learning do not involve reorganization. They may just involve establishing references in memory, or recognizing means of controlling a variable that already exist but simply had not been applied.
In this connection, I briefly presented a first specification of a model of reorganization that differs from the "random walk" (e. choli chemotaxis) model. I've described it in email before. There is evidence that neurons are constantly making and breaking connections. The hypothesis is that in a neural control loop that is working well (low error) the cells do something that inhibits their normally "gregarious" behavior. They limit the new connections that they make (except perhaps those that strengthen the control loop itself), and they limit the attachment points that they make available to other neurons that might be branching toward them. When the error signal goes up and is not reduced, the inhibiting factors stop, and reorganization starts locally. These factors could be intracellular, or they could include e.g. neuropeptides in the intercellular environment, and such factors could be progressively more effective in a kind of escalation of reorganization as error persists. The problem with implementing a model according to this spec is, where are the data? The behavioral and developmental data that the Plooij's have been reporting for so many years would be relevant. If we sharpen the model sufficiently to make specific predictions, there might be things that teachers and therapists could look for. And there may be neurophysiological data.
One observation that was made by several people was that PCT is spreading the most to populations who are learning it from teachers and therapists. The account of PCT in jails was especially striking. We had some discussion of a possible conflict within at least some of us, between wanting PCT to grow and be successful on the one hand, and liking our meetings and communication group to be about the size that they are, maybe just a little bigger. Bill said he really didn't want to be Somebody Famous (imagine bodyguards and press secretaries). Of course he was exaggerating--I don't think either Watson or Crick has a bodyguard, for example. But it may be out of our hands. As Rick mentioned, the helping professionals at the conference are getting a pretty solid grasp of the theory and its application. And, conflicted or not, that's encouraging!
/Bruce