[From Bill Powers (981019.1604 MDT)]
Tim Carey (981020.0620)--
I had what felt to me like my first "real" MOL session last night with one
of my clients.
What a breath of fresh air.
Best,
Bill P.
Tim,
Do you see the MOL as having played a role in the woman doing what you
described?
Can you fill in the dots for me, and maybe some others?
What are the alternative explanations for the change which you describe and
could you argue against them, leaving the MOL as the only standing
contender?
I don't mean for this to sound as a test. I would just like to hear your
thoughts on the matter.
Thanks,
David
···
From: David Goldstien
Subject: Re: MOL
Date: 10/19/98
[From Tim Carey (982010.2020)]
From: David Goldstien
Hi David,
Wow!! This was a really interesting idea you posted. I'll have a go at
answering it, just the very idea of it has me intrigued.
Do you see the MOL as having played a role in the woman doing what you
described?
To the extent that having sessions with me has contributed to her change I
don't know how else to account for it except the MOL. I know I'm not very
good at it yet (the best word I can think of to describe myself is "clumsy"
with MOL) but I've really tried to just do MOL with this woman. The
sessions have involved a little education about the process (my role and
her role) and then just discussing with her whatever was on her mind in
that particular session.
Can you fill in the dots for me, and maybe some others?
What are the alternative explanations for the change which you describe
and
could you argue against them, leaving the MOL as the only standing
contender?
This is a great question but I'm not sure how well I can answer it. The
problem I have David is that I don't know of any other models of
psychotherapy that explain how change occurs. I'm probably stepping on
pretty thin ice with some people by suggesting reorganisation as a robust
explanation but for me it's the most solid "how" answer I have. As an
example, I guess I could argue that the change was just a function of the
rapport we had established. This sounds feasible as we seem to have good
rapport and given that she has had pretty dreadful men in her life, the
opportunity to experience being respected by a man may have been enough to
generate change. The problem with this explanation is that I don't know
_how_ establishing rapport generates change.
Apart from that, I don't think I used any techniques from other therapeutic
approaches (e.g. disputing dysfunctional thoughts - Cognitive Behavioural
Therapy; need satisfaction - Reality Therapy; evaluating irrational beliefs
- Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy; the dialogue exercise, unfinished
business - Gestalt Therapy; assertion training - Behaviour Therapy;
structural analysis - TA) at least I didn't consciously use any so I don't
know that I could argue about other therapies.
I don't mean for this to sound as a test. I would just like to hear your
thoughts on the matter.
I'm not sure that I've been very coherent. If I haven't addressed what
you're getting at please let me know and I'll have another go.
Thanks for the post
Cheers,
Tim
Tim,
What was the key change in this woman? Conflict resolution? Starting to
use a new "laughing strategy" when her abusive husband became angry?
Understanding the difference between an abusive man (her husband) and one
who is empathetic and supportive (you, the therapist)? Learning to be less
impulsive and more reflective from her experience with the MOL?
Is this one of the cases you video taped? Then you could review the session
before and after the change happened. How does this woman seem to be
different in these two sessions?
I guess we have to say what changes we expect in a person from becoming
skilled a the MOL.
My starting list:
(1) viewing things from a higher, more abstract level than in the beginning.
(2) related to change (1), becoming more aware of stuff at the principle and
system levels of perception. This includes having a better sense of one's
values, sense of self, sense of others.
(3) related to change (2) and the MOL emphasis on self-exploration rather
than other direction, more confidence in self and self-reliance.
Warmest regards,
David
How did she arrive at this change? If by reorganization, this implies a
trial and error, random kind of process.
···
From: David Goldstein
Subject: Re: MOL
Date: 10/20/98
[From Tim Carey (981022.0545)]
From: David Goldstein
What was the key change in this woman? Conflict resolution? Starting to
use a new "laughing strategy" when her abusive husband became angry?
Understanding the difference between an abusive man (her husband) and one
who is empathetic and supportive (you, the therapist)? Learning to be
less
impulsive and more reflective from her experience with the MOL?
Hmmm, asking what was the key change is a great question. I'm not really
sure about the answer. One of the interesting things I noticed was that
most of the changes seem to happen away from the sessions. One thing this
woman started doing was building up "positive scenarios" in her head. She
always expected things to turn out negatively so she started rehearsing
positive outcomes. Interestingly she calls the positive scenarios my idea
and I can't ever remember discussing them. The laughing strategy caught me
completely by surprise. In the previous session I had discussed with her
how she might keep herself safe during the week since her partner seemed to
be getting more violent as her departure drew nearer. He had actually
already hit her in the head with a cushion from the lounge. So this seemed
to be something that just occurred to her. I have noticed that my clients
tend to use phrases like "I just realised that ....." or "It just occurred
to me that ..." alot, I don't know if that's common or even important.
Is this one of the cases you video taped? Then you could review the
session
before and after the change happened. How does this woman seem to be
different in these two sessions?
I guess primarily she just seemed calmer and less chaotic. In the initial
session she described herself as someone who "disrupts people's lives".
There didn't seem to be any great change from one session to another, this
seems to have just built up over the entire therapy period to date.
I guess we have to say what changes we expect in a person from becoming
skilled a the MOL.
For me, the change is almost paradoxical since I tell my clients that
change is not the focus of this process, understanding is. I go on to say
that once we have an understanding of the problem we could then look at
ways to change it if that is necessary. So far, with the people I've worked
with, it hasn't been necessary.
My starting list:
(1) viewing things from a higher, more abstract level than in the
beginning.
(2) related to change (1), becoming more aware of stuff at the principle
and
system levels of perception. This includes having a better sense of one's
values, sense of self, sense of others.
(3) related to change (2) and the MOL emphasis on self-exploration rather
than other direction, more confidence in self and self-reliance.
The system levels stuff did seem important to her. She spoke of wanting to
build a new life and that she didn't like the person she was at the moment.
I hope this has been of some help.
Cheers,
Tim
Tim,
You said: For me, the change is almost paradoxical since I tell my clients
that change is not the focus of this process, understanding is. I go on to
say that once we have an understanding of the problem we could then look at
ways to change it if that is necessary. So far, with the people I've
workedwith, it hasn't been necessary.
Yes, but...The process of doing the MOL, regardless of content, may bring
about a change in the person. The tentative list I posted the last time was
based on thinking about the MOL process. The content free changes in the
person may be more important than the content specific changes related to
the issues.
When I was doing my Ph.D. thesis, I looked at the effect of learning to
read on aspects of a child's functioning. I found out that learning to read
changes the way the child functions cognitively. I guess I am thinking
about the MOL in the same way.
The observation that she seemed calmer and less chaotic suggests that stress
was reduced, maybe from the reduction in conflict.
The imagining of postive outcomes strategy is interesting. I wonder what was
stopping her from doing this before? I think of a strategy as being a
principle kind of perception. Principle: Generate all the possibilities,
not just the negative ones. She thinks that you suggested this strategy.
But you don't seem to recall doing it. Interesting. Must have been an
implication of something you said. Or it might reflect the way you solve
problems.
···
From: David Goldstein
Subject: Re: MOL
Date: 10/21/98
[From Tim Carey (981024.0605)]
From: David Goldstein
Some interesting comments David. Thanks.
Cheers,
Tim
[From Tim Carey (981105.2220)]
Hi Bill,
I'm wondering if you'd mind giving me your opinion about a query I've had
recently with MOL. It concerns the directiveness of the therapist.
Essentially I'm having trouble deciding when aspects may or may not be
directive.
This query has arisen essentially from a session I had yesterday with the
woman who has had anger control problems. She has left the partner she was
with and has bought a new house. For the first time in 31 years she is
living independently of any male companion. She has described how difficult
this is and she has been constantly calling her ex male partner. While she
describes this situation as unsatisfactory because she knows he doesn't
want her except for casual sex.
The difference for me in this session was that I had found I asked a lot
more questions. Whereas in previous sessions I had just followed topics as
the client wandered around from one topic to another, in this session I
tended to stay more focussed on just one topic she brought up and I asked
her lots of questions about just that topic. I also asked evaluative type
questions which I hadn't asked previously. Questions like "Is having casual
sex with this man the kind of relationship you want?" I still tried to
ensure the questions I asked were of a clarificatory nature but I haven't
asked evaluative type questions in the past and I found myself wondering
throughout the session whether or not I was being too directive.
I guess I'm curious to know what you think because it seemed to be quite a
successful session. At times the woman looked really puzzled as the
contradictions in her stories became apparent to her. She frequently said
"That doesn't make sense" and would then spend a little time talking about
what that was like. She also said at the end of the session that she
thought differently about her relationship status now from the way she felt
at the beginning.
Where do you personally draw the line with regard to directiveness? If I
ask evaluative questions with no hidden agenda or no previous laid out
plan, is that nondirective? Does it only become directive if I have decided
the course of action the woman should take and I try and "steer" her down
that path?
What do you think?
Cheers,
Tim
[From Bill Powers (981105.0948 MST)]
Tim Carey (981105.2220)--
Hi Bill,
I'm wondering if you'd mind giving me your opinion about a query I've had
recently with MOL. It concerns the directiveness of the therapist.
Essentially I'm having trouble deciding when aspects may or may not be
directive.
If you're imposing your cultural, moral, intellectual, or political
attitudes on the other person, you're being directive. That's not so hard
to figure out, is it? So maybe you're really telling me you feel as if
you're being directive and asking me if that's OK just this one time, since
it seemed to work. Is that what's in the back of your mind?
This query has arisen essentially from a session I had yesterday with the
woman who has had anger control problems. She has left the partner she was
with and has bought a new house. For the first time in 31 years she is
living independently of any male companion. She has described how difficult
this is and she has been constantly calling her ex male partner. While she
describes this situation as unsatisfactory because she knows he doesn't
want her except for casual sex.
Who first used the term "casual sex?" If it was you, you were expressing
your own prejudices. If she used it first, all you have to say is "Casual
sex? What do you mean by that?"
By the way, does she have an "anger control problem" in the sense that she
needs better control over her anger, or in the sense that she needs to stop
trying to control herself against her will (conflict)? Has she ever said
which it is?
The difference for me in this session was that I had found I asked a lot
more questions. Whereas in previous sessions I had just followed topics as
the client wandered around from one topic to another, in this session I
tended to stay more focussed on just one topic she brought up and I asked
her lots of questions about just that topic. I also asked evaluative type
questions which I hadn't asked previously. Questions like "Is having casual
sex with this man the kind of relationship you want?" I still tried to
ensure the questions I asked were of a clarificatory nature but I haven't
asked evaluative type questions in the past and I found myself wondering
throughout the session whether or not I was being too directive.
Ah. So that was the thought in the back of your mind? When you noticed that
thought, what was your opinion of it? Were you getting a little impatient?
(Just a guess).
Where do you personally draw the line with regard to directiveness?
For myself, I draw the line where I start wishing the other person could
see the obvious things I'm seeing, and forget to notice where I'm being
led. But that's just me. Where do you draw the line?
Best,
Bill P.
[From Tim Carey (981106.0555)]
[From Bill Powers (981105.0948 MST)]
Thanks for your reply Bill ...
Tim Carey (981105.2220)--
If you're imposing your cultural, moral, intellectual, or political
attitudes on the other person, you're being directive. That's not so hard
to figure out, is it? So maybe you're really telling me you feel as if
you're being directive and asking me if that's OK just this one time,
since
it seemed to work. Is that what's in the back of your mind?
Hmmm, I don't think that's what I meant but I might need you to explain
what you mean by "imposing". Do you mean telling another person what's OK
and what's not OK, or what they should and should not be doing?
I didn't have the sense that I was imposing any of my beliefs on her (if
that's the way you mean it). I guess the problem I've had is that it seems
to me at the moment that when a client gives you a bunch of information you
need to make some decision about what to pick up on. This is where I'm
having trouble deciding what might be directive and what's not. For
example, this woman said to me "I know I shouldn't be having sex with this
guy but I find myself doing it anyway, I really don't want to have casual
sex anymore but I could if I wanted to, I just feel that he's embarassed to
be around me now and I feel really dirty when we have sex." After a
statement like that I've generally been asking about one of the terms she
brought up .... e.g., I might ask her to tell me more about "casual sex" or
I might ask her if there are other examples of times where she knows she
shouldn't do something but finds herself doing it anyway, etc. It's at this
point that I feel I'm deciding, at least in part, what the direction is.
This woman (as with some of my other clients) is also inclined to deviate
from what she was talking about, quickly and frequently. She often does it
a couple of times in the one sentence. She'll start talking about one thing
and that will remind her of something else etc.... I have started to say
things like "We got off the track a bit here, we were initially talking
about ... .could you tell me some about the time when ...." This also feels
like I'm imposing a certain amount of direction on the conversation.
Ahhhh, I think I've just clarified for myself what might be a problem in
terms between us in these posts. When I used the term "directive" I was
speaking from a "directional" point of view in terms of having some input
into _what_ we talk about. I don't think I'm directive at all in terms of
telling or suggesting to this woman _how_ she should think about things.
Who first used the term "casual sex?" If it was you, you were expressing
your own prejudices. If she used it first, all you have to say is "Casual
sex? What do you mean by that?"
Yep, she used it first and I asked her the kinds of questions you
suggested. I completely agree that if I had introduced the term "casual
sex" that would have been directive in terms of suggesting to the woman
_how_ she should think about the experience she was describing.
By the way, does she have an "anger control problem" in the sense that
she
needs better control over her anger, or in the sense that she needs to
stop
trying to control herself against her will (conflict)? Has she ever said
which it is?
She actually describes both situations. Interestingly, when she describes
her "anger control problem" it is usually in terms of what other people
have told her her problem is. We're only just now starting to talk about
how _she_ might see the problem.
>sex with this man the kind of relationship you want?" I still tried to
>ensure the questions I asked were of a clarificatory nature but I
haven't
>asked evaluative type questions in the past and I found myself wondering
>throughout the session whether or not I was being too directive.Ah. So that was the thought in the back of your mind? When you noticed
that
thought, what was your opinion of it? Were you getting a little
impatient?
(Just a guess).
When I noticed the thought, my opinion was something like "I'm not sure at
the moment whether this is unhelpful directiveness or not but she certainly
seems to be thinking about things in a way that I haven't seen before ...
I'll have to think more about this"
One of the specific situations I can think of was where, in the space of
about 6 or 7 minutes, this woman described how she really had this picture
in her head of her ideal man, she also described how her current expartner
had been yelling at her on Saturday and she hated it because she doesn't
want to be yelled at anymore, and she also stated that she still really
loved him and wanted to be in a relationship with him.
When these kinds of conversations happen, I try to come from an attitude of
"confusion" or "I'm just trying to understand" or "Can you just explain
this bit" and I asked her something about being in a relationship with a
man who yelled at her ... something like: "So in this instance are you
meaning that you're willing to be involved in a relationship with a man who
yells at you?" She thought about this for a while and said "No, that
doesn't make sense does it, that's not the picture I want". I then went on
to ask her to tell me a bit more about her picture.
>Where do you personally draw the line with regard to directiveness?
For myself, I draw the line where I start wishing the other person could
see the obvious things I'm seeing, and forget to notice where I'm being
led. But that's just me. Where do you draw the line?
Yep, wishing people could see the obvious things I'm seeing is a part of
it. Probably for me directiveness has a lot to do with how much of the
therapeutic experience is my decision, for example, who decides what the
goals will be, who decides what we'll discuss in a session, who decides
what this client _really_ needs or want ... those kinds of issues?
The being led thing is something I'll have to think about though, that's a
crucial point I think.
Cheers,
Tim
[From Bruce Gregory (981105.6235 EDT)]
Bill Powers (981105.0948 MST)
By the way, does she have an "anger control problem" in the sense that she
needs better control over her anger, or in the sense that she
needs to stop
trying to control herself against her will (conflict)? Has she ever said
which it is?
Is anger a CV? I have been thinking of it as an emotional "signal" of a
failure to exercise control. When I experience anger, I "look for" the
perception I am failing to control. This process seems to reduce the
intensity of the anger most of the time.
Bruce Gregory
[From Bill Powers (981106.0433 MST)]
Tim Carey (981106.0555)--
Hmmm, I don't think that's what I meant but I might need you to explain
what you mean by "imposing". Do you mean telling another person what's OK
and what's not OK, or what they should and should not be doing?
That's what I had in mind. I don't know how culture-free you are -- maybe
you're offended by the idea of casual sex. Or maybe you love it. Your
attitude toward it should be irrelevant.
I didn't have the sense that I was imposing any of my beliefs on her (if
that's the way you mean it). I guess the problem I've had is that it seems
to me at the moment that when a client gives you a bunch of information you
need to make some decision about what to pick up on. This is where I'm
having trouble deciding what might be directive and what's not. For
example, this woman said to me "I know I shouldn't be having sex with this
guy but I find myself doing it anyway, I really don't want to have casual
sex anymore but I could if I wanted to, I just feel that he's embarassed to
be around me now and I feel really dirty when we have sex." After a
statement like that I've generally been asking about one of the terms she
brought up .... e.g., I might ask her to tell me more about "casual sex" or
I might ask her if there are other examples of times where she knows she
shouldn't do something but finds herself doing it anyway, etc. It's at this
point that I feel I'm deciding, at least in part, what the direction is.
I see. Maybe the thing to do when she tosses out a lot of subjects like
that is to say "You just mentioned a lot of subjects -- causal sex, his
being embarrassed, your feeling dirty. Is one of those the most important
to you?"
Of course you always have to decide what to ask about. As you get more
skilful, I think you become more able to pick out the up-a-level comments,
but often there are parallel threads going on. My feeling on that is just
to pick any one of them that seems clear to you and ask about it -- the
others will come up again, if they're really a problem. Also, if you pick
the wrong comment, in my experience the person will just ignore you and go
back to the subject that's of more interest.
Another thing to consider. Therapy is not a way of life; it's supposed to
help people deal with their problems, and more important than that, to help
them learn ways of dealing with their problems when you're not there. Your
aim as a therapist is to reach the end of the need for help as quickly as
possible. This doesn't mean continuing with a client until all problems are
solved. It just means continuing until you can see (and the client sees)
that the client can take it from there. It sounds as if your client is
getting near that point. I don't mean that you would abandon a client
unready to stand on his or her own -- just that you might bring up the
subject, and ask the client if he or she is starting to get the idea of how
to handle these life problems. You could suggest a test period of
independent operation, if the client agrees, with the option of coming back
any time.
Since I don't know your client, you're the only one who can decide what to
do about kicking her out of the nest. Maybe you need to discuss with her
what she's learned about handling problems, and sort of warn her that some
time fairly soon she's going to be on her own again. Therapy can become
such a habit that people forget what it's for.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Bill Powers (981106.0454 MST)]
Bruce Gregory (981105.6235 EDT)--
Is anger a CV? I have been thinking of it as an emotional "signal" of a
failure to exercise control. When I experience anger, I "look for" the
perception I am failing to control. This process seems to reduce the
intensity of the anger most of the time.
I think it's a bit more complicated than that, although your description
sounds reasonable. My concept of emotions like anger is that they start
with specifying a reference level in the hierarcy. For anger, I think the
goal would be something like applying a strong force to someone or
something else; to attack, to hurt, to drive away. If no conflict arises --
that is, if you have no reason to hold back -- the lower systems will
receive the appropriate reference signals for strong action, and the
internal biochemical systems will be adjusted to provide what the motor
systems need for strong action. The action will take place and the newly
released energy will be used up.
As those biochemical systems are adjusted to new states, sensations arise
from them which the brain can sense as physical feelings. The combination
of those physical feelings plus the ones from the motor systems and
perceptions in higher hierarchical systems is what we mean by the name of
the emotion. However, when action follows immediately, the feelings are
short-lived, and we probably would not call them by an emotion name.
They're just part of acting energetically. We are much more inclined to
call these feelings and mental states emotions when something prevents the
action. An inner conflict can do that; you're angry at your boss, but a
satisfying punch in the nose is out of the question. Or you see yourself as
a nonviolent person, and so have oppose your own desire to attack. Whatever
the reason for the blockage of action, you are left in a highly prepared
state with no way to dissipate it. The wise person will walk around the
block, or six blocks, to use up the energy, or do something equally
demanding. An even wiser person will go up a level and choose a better
means than physical attack of accomplishing the higher level goal. If you
don't desire to attack, you will have no anger to deal with.
That's my take on it, anyway.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Tim Carey (981107.0635)]
[From Bill Powers (981106.0433 MST)]
Thanks for this post Bill it was really helpful.
That's what I had in mind. I don't know how culture-free you are -- maybe
you're offended by the idea of casual sex. Or maybe you love it. Your
attitude toward it should be irrelevant.
Making my attitudes irrelevant in therapy is the position I strive for and
I think most of the time I get there. I'm pretty particular about not
giving opinions or advice and using the terms and language that the client
uses wherever possible.
I see. Maybe the thing to do when she tosses out a lot of subjects like
that is to say "You just mentioned a lot of subjects -- causal sex, his
being embarrassed, your feeling dirty. Is one of those the most important
to you?"
Yep, thanks that's a great suggestion. Again, I always miss the simple
obvious answers.
Of course you always have to decide what to ask about. As you get more
skilful, I think you become more able to pick out the up-a-level
comments,
but often there are parallel threads going on. My feeling on that is just
to pick any one of them that seems clear to you and ask about it -- the
others will come up again, if they're really a problem.
Good, thanks. This is kind of where I'm at. I try to pick up on any terms
the client used that were unusual or that she seemed to place a little more
emphasis on than the rest of the things she said. I guess these are the
"rules" I have at the moment for deciding what to ask about. Of course,
when they make an "up a level" comment it makes it all the easier. I really
like your observation below as well.
Also, if you pick
the wrong comment, in my experience the person will just ignore you and
go
back to the subject that's of more interest.
Yep, I think you're right. This is where I think as a therapist the "being
led" might come in. It would be very easy to decide that what I wanted to
talk about was more important and to try and steer them in that way. When
they go back to the subject that's of more interest, it seems critical at
that time to be "led".
Another thing to consider. Therapy is not a way of life; it's supposed to
help people deal with their problems, and more important than that, to
help
them learn ways of dealing with their problems when you're not there.
Your
aim as a therapist is to reach the end of the need for help as quickly as
possible. This doesn't mean continuing with a client until all problems
are
solved. It just means continuing until you can see (and the client sees)
that the client can take it from there. It sounds as if your client is
getting near that point. I don't mean that you would abandon a client
unready to stand on his or her own -- just that you might bring up the
subject, and ask the client if he or she is starting to get the idea of
how
to handle these life problems. You could suggest a test period of
independent operation, if the client agrees, with the option of coming
back
any time.
This was a wonderful paragraph for where I'm at at the moment Bill. I had
kind of thought that therapy should continue until the client had
"ascended" or become unconflicted and it was really concerning me that we
had been going for 10 or 11 sessions and this hadn't happened yet. The
suggestions you made above are exactly what I needed.
Since I don't know your client, you're the only one who can decide what
to
do about kicking her out of the nest. Maybe you need to discuss with her
what she's learned about handling problems, and sort of warn her that
some
time fairly soon she's going to be on her own again. Therapy can become
such a habit that people forget what it's for.
Yep, I think you're right. This has been really helpful. Thanks heaps.
Cheers,
Tim
Hi, Tim --
Thanks for this post Bill it was really helpful.
I was just guessing-- glad it worked out. 3-day workshop sounds like fun.I
hope you're starting to train people to help Ed spread the word.
Bill
[From Bill Powers (981127.0723 MST)]
Tim Carey (981127.08100]--
I don't know
whether this will last or not but for me it was significant that he'd gone
48 hours without moving anything when he previously described moving
things up to 12 times a day for 30 years. I was also interested in the
fact that he hadn't even realised it.
I think that just getting him to describe his problems got him up a level
(enough to stop moving things compulsively). Maybe this also shows that
problems which look really bad to others may sometimes be trivial when it
comes to fixing them. "Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder": that ought to be
worth at least ten grand.
Best,
Bill P.
Tim,
Sounds like this man realized somethings before he came to you:
As he was crying he was thinking "Why do I always have to do what other
people want me to do".
Also, sounds like he is at a point in his life when he wants to change this.
If you had asked him to talk about the "up" topic, you probably would have
attributed the change to this fact.
Waiting a while before following up on "up" topics may be a good strategy to
use.
David
···
From: David Goldstein
Subject: Re: MOL [From Tim Carey (981127.08100]
Date: 11/27/98
[From Tim Carey (981128.0615)]
From: David Goldstein
Hi David,
Also, sounds like he is at a point in his life when he wants to change
this.
Yep, I think you're right. After his wife told him he was going to the
doctor he then told her everything that had been happening for him over the
last 30 years and he also told his sons. His wife or sons had no idea that
he had these kinds of problems. The man thought that telling his family may
have contributed to part of the "fixing". He may very well be right but he'd
told his family at least a couple of weeks before seeing me and was still
moving things around.
If you had asked him to talk about the "up" topic, you probably would have
attributed the change to this fact.Waiting a while before following up on "up" topics may be a good strategy
to
use.
Hmmm, that's a good way to think about it. Thanks,
Tim
[From Tim Carey (981128.0620)]
[From Bill Powers (981127.0723 MST)]
I think that just getting him to describe his problems got him up a level
(enough to stop moving things compulsively).
Yep, I reflected on this afterwards. It's more than a little ironic. Because
it was an "intake interview" I wasn't worried about doing MOL at that stage,
I just wanted to get lots of information about the problem. After the
session though I reflected on how some parts of it were pretty neat MOLish
type moments.
Maybe this also shows that
problems which look really bad to others may sometimes be trivial when it
comes to fixing them. "Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder": that ought to be
worth at least ten grand.
Yep, it certainly is interesting. He may come in to the next session and say
that he's moving things again, even so ... he had a couple of "moving-free"
days. I had chatted to my colleagues after the intake interview and they had
described to me the standard treatment for OCD. It essentially involves
graded exposure where you spend a lot of time having the person resist the
obsession for longer periods of time each time. Of course it's much too
early to draw any firm conclusions but as usual I'm just hugely excited
about the possibilities of MOL (I'm a bit of an MOL junkie actually ;-)).
The reason that I took this case on primarily (apart from my hours) was
because I hadn't worked with a person with OCD before. He certainly a
fascinating man.
Cheers,
Tim
[From Bjorn Simonsen (2004.12.10,11:00 EST)]
From Kenny Kitzke (2004.12.08)
This was the earlier Re: Tennis Players, Ball Players and Decisions.
Knowing how to go up a level and change those perceptions is a major part
of
what PCTers might call "reorganization." I prefer calling it "learning"
for practical
if not theoretical reasons.
I had not heard about MOL before I joined CSG. It is an interesting theme,
but it is not easy to find much about it in the archives on CSG. I have seen
the video from the pre-conference at the CSG meeting in St. Louis in July
2001 where Tim Carey described MOL the way he understood it and where David
Goldstein and Bill demonstrated a MOL session. Bill's basis was a "client"
who didn't know anything about HPCT. Therefore he didn't ask which level
David tried to control his perception on in the dialog, and he didn't ask
David to go up a level. He used at technique where he asked if there were
any underlying aspects in David's case. (I don't remember exactly how he
worded himself).
Regarding MOL I would like two things to happen.
1. I would appreciate if you Kenny (or anybody else) could write an article
about MOL and present it on CSG. I am most interested in what may happen if
we move up a level. Why do the conflicts on lower levels disappear? Is MOL
really a kind of reorganization? Or is the structure of ECUs given when we
control other perceptions?
2. I would like to see how you, Kenny (or anybody else) word yourself when
you shall help your client to a higher level without using the HPCT
nomenclature. Generally with examples.
Bjorn