------------------- ASCII.ASC follows --------------------
[Hans Blom, 950829c]
(Bill Powers (950828.1112 MDT))
I would describe such an exchange as "exploring the patient's
model" ...
Perhaps one difference (that doesn't really make a lot of
difference) is that I conceive of this primarily as the
_patient_ exploring the patient's model. The onlooker (me)
really gets only a very sketchy view of what is going on in the
other person (the tip of the iceberg and all that).
I don't know whether it makes a lot of difference, but for me it
is _me_ who is exploring the patient's [client's, friend's,
partner's, etc.] model. Call it my curiosity that wants to know
how the other person experiences the world. And, although I know
that I can only glimpse the tip of the iceberg (too little time
to explore all), I want an _accurate_ view of that tip. I am not
satisfied with a sketchy view. I want the other to fill in all
the details, so that my picture is as complete and vivid as I
need it in order to be able to "calibrate" my internal model of
the other person to his/her own internal model. If the other is
willing to provide answers, _I_ get an accurate picture of his/
her internal model / belief system, and, as a side effect, so
does the other -- and conflicts seem to solve themselves. There
is nothing to do BUT explore -- except give some education, once
in a while, on which intermediate goals might be adopted as tools
or steps on the path.
I've even done this, with apparently happy results, with a
person who decided he didn't want me to know exactly what
thoughts were occurring to him ...
This in itself gives already an indication already that openness,
honesty and trust are items to be explored, carefully, slowly...
I worked this out with Kirk Sattley back in about 1953 or 54. We
came across this idea that there was always a point of view
toward whatever subject we were thinking about, a point of view
that wasn't the subject itself, but about it, or about the
thinker.
Yes, there is always a focus. And I believe that anything can be
a focus. I sometimes compare this to looking up the meaning of a
word in a dictionary. That meaning is expressed in terms of other
words. Thus the word connects to a primary meaning, new words, in
a circle around the original word. And so on, in ever expanding
circles of meaning in a "semantic network". And just like two
dictionaries are not identical but similar, two persons are not
identical but similar (humans, but different humans). One dictio-
nary may be more complete and have more words and fuller explana-
tions. Similarly, one person may have more focal points and/or
connections. This is metaphor, of course, not description...
We wondered how many steps of this we could go through if we
made a formal project out of it. This was, I am sure, before
there was any coherent hierarchical control model.
In a dictionary, there is no end. You keep going in circles. One
item evokes new ones, until you have explored all. Which takes
too much time, however, so you never get there in practice. But,
somehow, the important items seem to present themselves over and
over again...
Conflicts just seem to go away once the patient is looking at
things from the right level.
From the right perspective, I would say. I'm not so sure about
levels. In a bad dictionary, two terms that you know are synomyms
may have conflicting definitions. I would hesitate to use the
term "levels" here.
Actually, I'm uncomfortable with calling the other person a
"patient." That sounds too much like playing doctor: diagnosing,
recommending, prescribing, advising. When I do this process with
someone, I never get the feeling that I know what's going on
better than the other person does, nor am I trying to push for
any particular outcome. That wasn't always true, but I found
that the process always went farther and worked better when I
was just content to follow instead of lead. Once in a while, a
pointed question or two does seem to help, like asking about one
side of the conflict, then the other, then the first side again,
and so on until the person says "Oh, my god, that's a conflict,
isn't it?" But you can't do that until the person has already
laid out both sides pretty clearly.
I agree about the "patient-doctor" stuff. I see the process as
getting to know the other person, perhaps even getting to know
him/her better than he/she knows him/herself...
I haven't had a lot of experience doing this with other people;
a few dozens at most.
I know that I have the tendency to "explore" any person I meet.
But some persons just aren't interesting enough to pursue the
exploration very far. Optimal time allocation...
When you reach a point where there are no more levels to go up,
there just doesn't seem to be anything left to do. I've
experienced that a few times...
I thought so.
It was the result of that experience in which there don't seem
to be any more levels to occupy that led me to think this
process might be fundamental to therapy.
Yes! Yes! Yes!
I agree with your assessment that such an experience can "leave
a deep impression of significance." Your experience has been
much like mine. And others have had it, too, without putting it
into any kind of formal model of what's happening.
The "deep impression of sigificance" is for me the indication of
an essential change in the internal model. Not so much going up a
level as feeling that a piece of the jigsaw puzzle suddenly drops
into place. In my terminology: the model converges to certainty
in some of its parameters and we KNOW, intuitively, not intellec-
tually, that we have discovered something new, important and
TRUE. As if it is the goal of the internal world-model to con-
verge to a state that truly and certainly corresponds with the
outside world.
I had a great experience a few years ago ... So when the session
was over, I went up to him and said "You've been there too, I
take it." He gave me an astonished look and said "But there's
not much I can say about it, is there?" And I said no, and after
a little more checking back and forth to make sure we were
talking about the same thing, we shook hands and parted.
There are no words to express experiences like that. Yet we
sometimes try. It is as if, when we have experienced something,
we have somehow modelled it internally. And because we have a
stored internal model, we can now perceive / recognize the same
thing again even if our observation of another occurrence is
vague, coarse, or noisy.
David Goldstein sent me a copy of an issue of "The Journal of
Dissociation" or some such unlikely title, in which people were
discussing a new concept they called "The Helper."
Hilgard describes something like it as "The Hidden Observer".
Yoga describes it as "The Witness". In both descriptions, pure
OBSERVATION is emphasized; there is no DOING. Doing follows
automatically. You say something similar:
... the point of the method of levels as I use it isn't to do
anything in particular about what is found at a given level ...
I don't think that the hierarchy has a single apex; rather, each
level is a collection of perceptions and goals of a different
type, without any one perception or goal being the only one or
even the predominant one. Are you a parent, a scientist, or a
citizen? Depends on the time of day and what's going on.
Not only does the hierarchy not have a single apex, the heights
of the apices changes over time. Maslow found that after what he
called "peak experiences" people often have important new goals.
The same thing happens after a crisis; parents who have lost a
child may suddenly find that their enjoyment of family life
becomes a much more important part of their lives than it was
before.
In model-based control, too, "crisis" (a perceived change of the
properties of the outside world) is a time when previously con-
verged model parameters _must_ acquire wider uncertainty limits,
so that new learning may ensue, hopefully to truer and more accu-
rate values of the model parameters. This is the positive side of
a crisis. Another thing that may happen is that we discover that,
where we had an old model before, we now have a different one;
that a model that we have at any point in time is just one of
many possible ones, mainly determined by our history; that our
model is, most likely, not final and will change time and again;
and, finally, that we HAVE such a model, one of the many possible
ones that we could have haqd if our personal history had been
different, as the thing that makes us tick. A basic lesson in
humility.
Greetings,
Hans