Dick Robertsons posts

CSGnet Archive CSG1998
1

[From Dag Forssell (980204 (0640)]

Dick Robertson's posts in yesterday's digest (posted earlier this morning)
are mime encoded for some reason. Since I have already decoded them for the
archive, here they are for your enjoyment.

···

===========================
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 07:32:45 -0600
From: R J Robertson <R-Robertson@NEIU.EDU>
Subject: Martin's editorial

[From Dick Robertson] 980204.0735CDT

The editorial seemed fine to me with a few minor observations. In
paragraph four you state

Not only living things but also inanimate objects such as computers

contain >signal values. If those values correspond to states in the world
outside the >computer, they may legitimately be called "perceptions...."

I wonder whether it would keep the reader reminded of the point you make
just prior to add "in the world outside the computer *or organism"*?
I find that when I am reading something quite novel I tend to take a change
- from a reference to two entitities to one entitity - as a distinction
more often than I carry the prior attributes forward.

I assume your detailed artillery example is well targeted to your audience
of human-computer journal readers. I especially liked your way of dealing
with all the usual objections to pct.

Best, Dick

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 07:34:53 -0600
From: R J Robertson <R-Robertson@NEIU.EDU>
Subject: Back to MOL discussion

[From Dick Robertson] 980204.0738CDT

I getting back to some of the discussion of MOL and therapy from before I
was out of town.

Subject: Re: RERERE MOL & Therapy
[Tim Carey (980129.1335)]

We might be using the term "theory" in different ways. Do you consider Carl
Rogers writings to be a theory?

Yes, for its era. Though I consider PCT the first theory of behavior to
meet the hard science standards for theory I go along with Kuhn's view of
stages of development of theorizing in a given field.

I like Carl Rogers writings a lot, I just don't think of them as a theory.
When Rogers talks about perception is he alluding to the idea that as human
beings we are designed to control our perceptual input and not our
behavioural output?

Rogers came into the field when the established wisdom was the Cartesian
paradigm as elaborated by Pavlov, Watson and Skinner (etc.) but with
competition from the Freudian camp in which he originally trained. That he
knew there was something wrong with these roots is evident in the famous
series of debates with B. F. Skinner.

[From my previous]

Third, we don't yet have a model of what a perfect
(ideal, competent) MOL performance would be.

And we won't get one while people adopt the buffet approach to counselling.
The way to get a competent MOL performance consistently would be to do lots
of MOL-only sessions.

I concur with what David Goldstein said to you on this

From: David Goldstein
Subject: MOL and Therapy; Tim Carey (980129.1335)
Date: 1/29/98

Tim,

You certainly have had an interesting assortment of training experiences
to date:

This is the right time in your training for you to ride the PCT horse
and see how far it can take you by itself. Unless you are in a very
unusual program, I doubt that your teachers will allow this completely.
Hey, maybe they do things differently in Australia....
Ride that pony!

For me to try to do therapy exclusively by the MOL would be irresponsible.
As I said previously my goal in joining this discussion was to salute
David's contribution of giving us some real live material of using the MOL
with volunteers. This is the next best thing to a live process of being
either guide, subject or audience as a means of getting familiar with it.
And that was my main objective: to increase my own skill.

I am disappointed that noone had anything to say about my own real live
example, or my imaginary path in David's (#3 I think). What I hoped for
was more examples from others that might illustrate better methods of
focusing on *that portion of* the speaker's remarks that might dispose him
toward moving up to the "right" higher level. Bill's remarks were helpful
in this regard, but I like actual examples best of all.

Although I don't mind dabbling in the philosophy of science - about what
constitutes a theory, or the stages in scientific evolution - now and then
that is not my real interest in our discussion of the MOL. What I want is
to understand it as best I can. Then I will be in a position to see what I
can do with it.

Best, Dick Robertson

2

[From Tim Carey (980205.0825)

[From Dick Robertson] 980204.0738CDT

For me to try to do therapy exclusively by the MOL would be

irresponsible.

This doesn't leave a lot of room for discussion then Dick. As far as I can
see, if I believe in the principles and basic tenets of PCT, and accept the
premises of reorganisation, then it would be irresponsible of me to use
anything *other* than MOL when I work with people. Unless of course I'm
just having a chat and giving a bit of friendly advice, but then I
consider that a different type of communication than the one we're talking
about.

Cheers,

Tim

3

[From Tim Carey (980205.1215)

Rogers came into the field when the established wisdom was the Cartesian
paradigm as elaborated by Pavlov, Watson and Skinner (etc.) but with
competition from the Freudian camp in which he originally trained. That

he

knew there was something wrong with these roots is evident in the famous
series of debates with B. F. Skinner.

Lots of people knew Skinner was missing something ... isn't that what the
whole "cognitive revolution" was about? Knowing there was something wrong
with what Skinner had to offer is still a long way from knowing that
organisms are designed to control their perceptual input and not their
behavioural output.

Although I don't mind dabbling in the philosophy of science - about what
constitutes a theory, or the stages in scientific evolution - now and

then

that is not my real interest in our discussion of the MOL. What I want

is

to understand it as best I can. Then I will be in a position to see what

I

can do with it.

To "understand MOL as best I can" is my goal too Dick. I just don't know
how you can do that if it's just one of the many ingredients in a
therapeutic "stew". Did Rogers ever recommend using his therapeutic
approach as a "tool" within a total therapeutic package?

Cheers,

Tim

4

[From Tim Carey (980205.1220)]

Sorry these weren't all sent as one ....

[From Dick Robertson] 980204.0738CDT

For me to try to do therapy exclusively by the MOL would be

irresponsible.

Could you explain a little more what you mean by this? How could following
a therapeutic procedure that is based on a workable model of a living
organism be irresponsible? There must be some *big* points I'm not picking
up on in psychotherapy.

Cheers,

Tim

5

Tim,

I know that you addressed the question to Dick, but if you don't mind,
I would like to join the conversation.

Several reasons why the exclusive use of MOL would be considered
irresponsible, at this time, by others:

(1) There are no studies which show that it is an effective therapy for
any identified problem.

(2) There are studies like this for other treatment appraoches.

For example, to take the case of OCD, the established treatment
approaches include: medication, certain kinds of behavioral therapy.
If one used just MOL, and one did not present it as an experimental
procedure, and one did not inform the patient of the other known
treatment approaches which are considered established, the person would
probably have a good legal case.

All of the above is why I said that you are at a good point in your
career to ride the PCT pony. As a student, and as part of a research
project, you could evaluate the therapeutic benefits of MOL Therapy
exclusively for people who fall in certain diagnositic categories. After
a trial of MOL Therapy one would reevaluate the patient. If no
significant gains occurred then the person could be referred for
standard treatments.

Seligman, the current present of the American Psychological
Association, has edited a book called effective therapies. By looking
at this book, you could get a sense of what is considered to be the
established treatment approaches for a wide variety of problems.

···

From: David Goldstein
Subject: Re: Dick Robertsons posts; Tim Carey (980205.1220)
Date: 2/4/98

6

[From Tim Carey (980205.1955)]

Hi David (and Dick),

Thanks for your post, from my point of view .... I give up ..... I honestly
and sincerely can't comprehend how someone can claim to subscribe to PCT
and all that it implies (e.g., about ... conflict, reorganisation,
awareness, etc.,
etc., ) on the one hand and yet only use MOL (which is the therapeutic
approach derived *directly* from the premises of PCT) in conjunction with a
bunch of other strategies which *do not* derive from PCT, on the other
hand.
Obviously, I'm missing something here, but I won't pester you anymore with
it. I think this thread has outlived it's usefulness .... I'll go back to
the MOL discussion groups I was having and try and figure things out there.

In reply to the points you raise:

Several reasons why the exclusive use of MOL would be considered
irresponsible, at this time, by others:

(1) There are no studies which show that it is an effective therapy for
any identified problem.

And how will there *ever* be any studies which show it as an effective
therapy while clinical psychologists who are in a position to know it best,
see it only as a tool to be used in conjunction with a variety of other
therapeutic approaches?

(2) There are studies like this for other treatment appraoches.

So what's the problem with conducting studies like this for MOL? ... I
understand that both you and Dick are currently in practice, you must have
a bunch of
clients, or at least some who would be willing to participate, the sample
sizes of clinical studies are typically not very large. This is something
that I'll certainly be looking to do once I've finished my course but as
you alluded to in an earlier post, at the moment I'm pretty well under the
direction of my course supervisors.

For example, to take the case of OCD, the established treatment
approaches include: medication, certain kinds of behavioral therapy.

How did these get to be the "established treatment approaches" David? Was
it
from approaching them as "tools" to be used within a total therapeutic
package?

If one used just MOL, and one did not present it as an experimental
procedure, and one did not inform the patient of the other known
treatment approaches which are considered established, the person would
probably have a good legal case.

So .... present it as an experimental procedure and inform the patient of
other known treatment approaches which are considered established ...

All of the above is why I said that you are at a good point in your
career to ride the PCT pony. As a student, and as part of a research
project, you could evaluate the therapeutic benefits of MOL Therapy
exclusively for people who fall in certain diagnositic categories. After
a trial of MOL Therapy one would reevaluate the patient. If no
significant gains occurred then the person could be referred for
standard treatments.

If I can possibly get an opportunity to do this at all, I'll be going for
it without a doubt. And if it doesn't happen while I'm on the course, it
*will* happend once I graduate.

Seligman, the current present of the American Psychological
Association, has edited a book called effective therapies. By looking
at this book, you could get a sense of what is considered to be the
established treatment approaches for a wide variety of problems.

I have a couple of books that give a run down on different therapies. My
opinion is, is that they're all making guesses at what works (some are
guessing better than others) because they don't have a plausible model of
how humans are put together to base their "stories" on.

But this is starting to go over old ground. You and Dick both have much
more experience at this than I, so for the time being I'm bowing out. I'll
defer to your experience from time in the trenches.

Thanks for your patience

Tim