PCT and Therapy

CSGnet Archive CSG1996
1

[From Rick Marken (960329.1300))]

Lars Christion Smith (960328 20:25 CET) to Bill Powers --

In which ways do you think a better knowledge of PCT will make RT therapists
better therapists?

Bill Powers (960328.1520 MST) --

I think it would be better for a practicing Reality Therapist to answer
your question than for me to try.

I'd like to try to answer Lars' question even though I am not (as Bill
Glasser pointed out to me when I volunteered to teach a PCT course for
Reality Therapists) an official Reality Therapist.

As we all know, RT is just one of many different approaches to therapy.
According to the practitioners of these therapies, each one "works" and it
works better than all others. I used to take this to mean that all approaches
to therapy are a crock but now I take this to mean almost the oppsite, viz.,
that all approaches to therapy are equally good to the extent that what the
therapist actually _does_ in therapy is consistent with the facts of human
nature (consistent with the fact that the patient _and_ the therapist are
hierarchies of perceptual control systems).

I think that most competent therapists will adjust what they do in therapy
in order to avoid the interpersonal conflicts that would result from treating
their patients like objects; and patients probably adjust to therapists in
order to get what they want from the therapy. This must be why so many
different approaches to therapy seem to work; there is no single "correct"
technique for doing therapy; the "correct" techniques are those that are
consistent with the PCT nature of people.

What PCT can contribute to RT therapists to make them better therapists is
a detailed understanding of the PCT nature of people. Once therapists know
how people work they will know why certain RT techniques work and why some
don't; they will also know why certain non-RT techniques work and why some
don't. They will learn that when your goal is to fix something (like a human
psychological problem) it is just as important to know what's wrong with the
person (based on PCT) as it is to know possible ways to fix it (based on
technique).

PCT is equivalent to a model of how a device, like a radio, works; when you
understand the model, and how it relates to observable characteristics of
the device, you can determine what's likely to be wrong with the device when
the device isn't working. A model of a radio helps you determine whether the
problem is a power source, a transistor, a panel switch or whatever. Once you
know the problem (based on the model) you can then go to your bag of
techiques and use the one that is relevant to it; if the battery is
dead, you have to replace it; if a panel-switch is stock you need to fix it.
The exact technique used to extracate and replace the battery (if that's the
problem) is less important than the fact that the technique is aimed at
solving the correct problem -- replacing the battery rather than fixing the
panel switch.

I think a theory like PCT is particularly important in therapy, where it
seems like the techniques available are not nearly as precise as those used
to fix a radio. I think it is VERY important for therapists to learn
techniques and to gain experinence applying these techniques. But I think
that what is far more important is for therapists to understand the nature
of themselves and the people they are dealing with first -- so they will
know what techniques to try in various circumstances, why those techniques
might work, and why they are not working when they aren't.

PCT encourages a very eclectic approach to therapy; whatever theraputic
technique works in the context of the current PCT organization of a patient
is the "best" approach to therapy for that patient.

Best

Rick

2

[From Fred Nickols (970805.1822 EST)]

  Bill Powers (970804.0742)

   Nando (970803) --

   >Any opinions on Glasser's or Ford's adaptation (!) of Perceptual Control
   >Theory for psychotherapeutic purposes (!)?

I'm in no position to respond to Nando's inquiry or to Bill Powers'
response; however, I have found a useful (to me) application of PCT for
therapeutic purposes (psychologically speaking).

In reflecting on my own behavior, I have asked myself, "What kind of
reference conditions would a person have to hold in order to behave the way
I behave?" In other words, assuming my behavior is reasonably effective at
controlling for something, what might that something be given the behavior
and the circumstances involved?

This is, I suspect, a far cry from "the test" (whatever that might be and I
assure you I cannot describe that device), however, this speculation has
proven very useful to me in dredging up and examining the kinds of formative
experiences that could have resulted in my formulating the set of reference
conditions that would account for my behavior.

Frankly, I doubt I can "know" my own reference conditions, or manipulate
them to suit myself, but I am finding all this very useful in changing my
own articulated view of myself and that, I believe, is in turn proving
useful in changing my own behavior.

Maybe I'm "spitting on nails" here but, so be it; it seems to be working...

Regards,

Fred Nickols
nickols@worldnet.att.net

3

[From Bill Powers (970806.0714 MDT)]

Fred Nickols (970805.1822 EST)--

In reflecting on my own behavior, I have asked myself, "What kind of
reference conditions would a person have to hold in order to behave the way
I behave?" In other words, assuming my behavior is reasonably effective at
controlling for something, what might that something be given the behavior
and the circumstances involved?

This is, I suspect, a far cry from "the test"...

According to theory (and my own experience), reference conditions are known
consciously in only one way: through imagination. Try this exercise. With
your hands resting on the table, look at the keyboard's space bar and
imagine pressing it down with one finger. Then create the imagined
perception by actually doing it. I maintain that while the "idea" of
pressing the space bar is rather abstract, in fact it is quite specific:
when I do this, I inevitably imagine using my right hand, and a particular
finger on that hand, and touching the space bar in a particular place.
Moreover, part of the imagined condition is tactile, not just visual, and
it involves not just configuration, but transition. When I tried it just
now, I realized that I had left out the sound of the key being pressed.
Maybe what I think of as pressing the key doesn't include an intention to
make a sound. I don't know how others experience it.

Another way to detect reference conditions indirectly is to notice that
some perceptions seem right and others seem wrong. When you're driving, you
may not be imagining the correct position on the road, but you can easily
tell when the car is in the wrong position. Wrong in relation to what? A
reference position.

This relates to the Test. When something happens to create a "wrong"
perception, you act to make it be the "right" one again. If a change in a
perception doesn't lead you to correct it, that's not related to a
reference condition for that perception. Sometimes the first thing you know
about a disturbance is perceiving your own action that opposes it. That's
how you can tell there's a crosswind when you're driving. It's how you
judge the weight of something when you pick it "up" -- by the effort your
muscles make to move it to the right amount of "upness."

Best,

Bill P.

4

[From Bruce Gregory (970806.0945 EDT)]

Fred Nickols (970805.1822 EST)]

Frankly, I doubt I can "know" my own reference conditions, or manipulate
them to suit myself, but I am finding all this very useful in changing my
own articulated view of myself and that, I believe, is in turn proving
useful in changing my own behavior.

Quite the contrary, you know _many_ of your own reference
conditions. Furthermore, you can manipulate many of them to suit
yourself. I use an approach similar to yours. "What outcome am I
trying to achieve?"

Bruce

5

[From Bruce Gregory (970807.1450 EDT)]

Bill Powers (970806.0714 MDT)

Fred Nickols (970805.1822 EST)--

>In reflecting on my own behavior, I have asked myself, "What kind of
>reference conditions would a person have to hold in order to behave the way
>I behave?" In other words, assuming my behavior is reasonably effective at
>controlling for something, what might that something be given the behavior
>and the circumstances involved?
>
>This is, I suspect, a far cry from "the test"...

According to theory (and my own experience), reference conditions are known
consciously in only one way: through imagination. Try this exercise. With
your hands resting on the table, look at the keyboard's space bar and
imagine pressing it down with one finger. Then create the imagined
perception by actually doing it. I maintain that while the "idea" of
pressing the space bar is rather abstract, in fact it is quite specific:
when I do this, I inevitably imagine using my right hand, and a particular
finger on that hand, and touching the space bar in a particular place.
Moreover, part of the imagined condition is tactile, not just visual, and
it involves not just configuration, but transition. When I tried it just
now, I realized that I had left out the sound of the key being pressed.
Maybe what I think of as pressing the key doesn't include an intention to
make a sound. I don't know how others experience it.

Bill is talking about one levels in the hierarchy below the
level I was addressing. The reference level at a someplace
higher in the hierarchy is "perceive yourself striking the space
bar". (Presumably, higher still, you are intending to type
something with some purpose in mind.)You normally know about
these higher order reference levels "directly". That is, you do
not have to imagine or infer what you are doing when you type.

Another way to detect reference conditions indirectly is to notice that
some perceptions seem right and others seem wrong. When you're driving, you
may not be imagining the correct position on the road, but you can easily
tell when the car is in the wrong position. Wrong in relation to what? A
reference position.

Here again, you know that you are trying to get somethere
without having an accident. You seem to have direct access to
this "intended outcome" or reference level.

Bruce

6

[From Bruce Gregory (970807.1610 EDT)]

Bill Powers (970806.0714 MDT)]

One of the things I have notice in my own case is that feelings
of anxiety seem invariably to be associated with fear of a
potential loss of control.

Bruce

7

Fred wrote:

In reflecting on my own behavior, I have asked myself, "What kind of
reference conditions would a person have to hold in order to behave the
way I behave?" In other words, assuming my behavior is reasonably
effective at controlling for something, what might that something be
given the behavior and the circumstances involved?

This seems strange to me, at first. If am satisfied in a given
situation, I know that what happened is what I wanted to happen, even
if I don't/can't verbalize what I wanted to happen. If I am
dissatisfied in a given situation, I know that I am not getting what I
want.

In other words, my feelings (which are a function of error signals) are
a direct indicator of whether I am controlling or not controlling in a
situation. As long as I can experience my feelings, I know whether I
was in control or not.

On the other hand, there is the how/why method of questioning in PCT
based therapy. I can ask my self: Doing X was the means by which I
experienced Y. What did I achieve, in terms of experience, by doing X.
I think, perhaps, this is what you are talking about and have
rediscovered.

For example, by writing this post (X), what am I achieving?
Possibilities--I am understanding better what you are saying. I am
letting you know that you are not alone in this interest area of PCT and
Therapy. I may get a discussion going on a topic which is more in tune
with my interests.

Which one of these possibilites are actually operating? My guess is the
last one to the greatest degree. I came to this conclusion by trying on
each of the possibilities. The last one has the fewest "error signal"
feelings associated with it.

The "How" part of the technique answers the question: Other than doing
X, what else could the person have done to obtain the desired
experience? Possiblities--I could have kept on lurking and not written
a post. I could have written you privatly. I could have made a
telephone call to someone. I could have spoken to another person at my
workplace about PCT therapy. I could have included reference to the
other posts on this topic but did not.

So, by looking at the Why, which is what you suggest, and the How, I
come to a better conclusion of what was my motivation to write this
post. You helped to remind me of the How/Why technique and the use of
it in exploring a person's experience.

The Test is as natural as conversation. If I said something which
creates an "error signal" in you, it is likely that you will engage in
some kind of corrective action (for example, by writing another post).
Suppose that I said that: Fred ignores feelings/emotions and only
considers behaviors and situations in his effort to identify desired
experiences? Any error signals?

···

From: David Goldstein
Subject: Fred Nickols (970805.1822 EST)--PCT and Therapy
Date: 08/08/97