Helping to go up

CSGnet Archive CSG1995
1

[from a.winter (951114.0020 PST)]

Helping People Go Up a Level

MY impression is that once people get to know a little pct they are pretty
careful about not saying one person can make another person do/control
something. However, as a therapist, helper, leader, etc. is seems that one
really does want someone else to go up a level and control a variable at a
higher and perhaps resolve some conflict. In the practitioners discussion a
while back there didn't seem to be much discussion about the mechanisms of
one person disturbing the controlled variables of another person such that
that person went up a level and found happiness. There has no doubt been
lots of discussion on the net about these mechanisms but I have probalbly
overlooked it or never related it specifically to the art/skill of one
person leading, pursuading, convincing, helping another person.

I have a lot of questions how one person can help another move up a level
and maybe someone can direct me to some of the text or demos that may help.
I have most of them.

Has it got anything to do with getting another person's attention?

Do you get anothers attention by disturbing such that an error signal
increases or decreases?

Can a person disturb/effect a control system in another person so that it
comes into or goes out of its "range of control"(something Rick mentioned a
while back (950927.0945)?

Can a person disturb a fuzzy(not clearly formed) higher level contolled
variable of another person such that control gets better or the control
system becomes clearer?

Does the use of the word (fuzzy) above imply probability to anyone?

Is is easier to disturb a controlled variable(such that control becomes
better) in a system with a large error than one that is in good control to
begin with?

What is the mechanism behind asking a really "re-organizing/sleep on it"
question and the resulting learning if any?

What's the difference between a "whack across the back of the head" in a Zen
Monastery and in an inner city home?

Besides the physical pain/damage, don't they both lead to re-organization of
some sort?

Or does one lead to conflict and the other going up a level? How?

If one can physically override a control system of another person why can't
one disturb a higher level controlled variable such that control is lost?

What does a good therapist do? Guess at another's controlled variables and
helps(disturbs them) somehow by doing something as in the above questions?

Is there such a thing as fuzzy conflict? Would clear conflict take care of
itself?

- waiting for a metaphorical whack across the back of my head

autumn

2

<[Bill Leach 951114.21:10 U.S. Eastern Time Zone]

[a.winter (951114.0020 PST)]

I don't think that really addresses what you are talking about but there
is an important difference between wanting to help someone "go up a
level" and trying to "force" them to do so.

Much of what you read in Ed Ford's books are examples of ways that one
might help someone "go up a level".

An important concept (I think), in Ed's "Discpline" book, is that
questions can help a person in conflict to think about something other
than the immediate conflict. Once a person's attention is directed at
something other than "applying more force" against the current
disturbance it is probably possible for the person to think about higher
level goals.

There is (again, I think) a great deal of "baggage" associated with what
Ed is doing and suggesting... assumptions that are not by any means
proven or in some cases even recognized. One such unproven assumption
that is, I believe, vital to Ed's efforts is that the subject wants to
be "get along" with others. The proof of such an assumption is possibly
very important to PCT as a research activity but not so important to Ed
(particularly to the extent that the assumption seems to be supported by
success in helping kids).

I am not so sure that one necessarily has to disturb controlled
perceptions to help another. Indeed, it is probably not a good thing in
general to do so. Creating a disturbance might be justified (as it is in
the school setting) to prevent one person from doing violence to another
but once the immediate critical problem is "stablized" the "stablizor"
now have both the original problem and the problem of having applied
overwhelming force (or whatever).

-bill

3

[from Autumn Winter (951115.0036.51 pst)]

<[Bill Leach 951114.21:10 U.S. Eastern Time Zone]

[a.winter (951114.0020 PST)]

Thanks for the reply, Bill.

I don't think that really addresses what you are talking about but there
is an important difference between wanting to help someone "go up a
level" and trying to "force" them to do so.

I perhaps didn't express myself too well. I guess that I am trying to
figure out what the model is for someone helping another person go up a
level(no doubt a long term project). I wasn't referring specifically to what
Ed Ford is doing as much as to the language people including myself use such
as helping, facilitating, coaching or whatever (I don't use the last 2).
This language doesn't help with me trying to figure out a model.

When it comes to helping, teaching etc. I see 2 ways of looking at it.

1. The first is to stick with the "what of helping" (the variable being
controlled at the higher level if that is the purpose). If this is not made
explicit, I am not much interested the the particular approach, technique
strategy etc.

2. The second is too work on what the model/mechanisms are? Again, the words
don't help much here. I guess this is just my long term project. I will go
back to studying the demos and maybe rigging up my computer to work with
Tom's experiments.

An important concept (I think), in Ed's "Discpline" book, is that
questions can help a person in conflict to think about something other
than the immediate conflict.

I am just curious about the nature of questioning.

I am not so sure that one necessarily has to disturb controlled
perceptions to help another. Indeed, it is probably not a good thing in
general to do so.

I don't know how one can help/interact with another without disturbing
controlled perceptions?

bedtime

autumn

4

<[Bill Leach 951115.17:45 U.S. Eastern Time Zone]

[Autumn Winter (951115.0036.51 pst)]

I am pretty much "out of my element" here but I'll try to express some
thoughts about what I think happens or can happen...

In the first place, I think that both items you mentioned are necessary.
As is usual for THE TEST, you as a counselor must guess at what is the
"object" of control. Even if the person tells you, you still are not
certain that either what you understand the person to be saying is
actually what is controlled. If that were not bad enough, there is both
the possibility that the person is not telling you the truth or the
possibility (rather likely actually) that they do not actually know
exactly what controlled perception is not controlling well.

So, where you think that you might know what it is that the other person
is attempting to control you can then attempt to help them in that
effort. It would be important to observe as best you can for signs that
they really do control when possible and in the direction that your guess
would indicate is correct. If not, then there is a good chance that
either your guess is wrong (ie: They are not controlling what you
thought they were controlling) or there is a conflict between two or more
references.

In trying to apply THE TEST at very high levels of abstraction it will be
extremely difficult to obtain "cut and dried" results but the principles
should still be true.

In Ed's examples, I believe that questioning works as well as it appears
to work primarily because of the circumstances. When someone "wants"
something but does not know how to "go about" obtaining it, I believe
that questioning can help a great deal.

I don't think that the matter is so simple when the person does not
believe that there is anything wrong with what they are doing but rather
perceive that all the problems are due to the actions of other people.

If a person's problems are at the "Systems Concepts" or "Principle"
level, you probably really have your work "cut out" for you. It is in
this area that Ed's "Freedom from Stress" and "Love Guaranteed" are
working with the "Quality Time" efforts. The concept, as I understand
it, is that if one is to believe the world to be a certain way then one
has to experience the world in that way. It is not enough to just think
about it or "will" it.

I don't know how one can help/interact with another without disturbing
controlled perceptions?

In a very exacting sense, you can not. I really should have used
"conflict" as opposed to disturb. We are disturbing each others
perceptions in this exchange but what I was really trying to say is that
it is probably best not to disturb perceptions to the point of conflict.

-bill