[From David Goldstein (2008.07.31.0931 EDT]
[About Rick Marken (2008.07.30.2020)]
Rick,
I enjoyed seeing you at the CSG 2008 and playing tennis with you.
What is the relationship between PCT and MOL?
The short answer is that the same person created both, namely WTP.
As I understand it, something like the MOL attitude was part of the creation
of the levels of perception in PCT. If you look at the video on Edgemoor
Conference website on the origins of MOL Therapy by WTP, you will see this.
MOL therapy went through a process of development. It started out as the
How/Why Technique, which also came from WTP, and which I talked about at a
CSG Conference in Haimowoods Wisconsin. I dropped it because my attitude was
that it was too mechanical and lacked easy incorporation into a therapy
session. Also, I wasn't prepared to make it 100% of my therapy tool box
which WTP preferred.
The next installment of MOL Therapy came with Tim Carey who was willing to
take on the challenge of basing his entire therapy practice on MOL Therapy.
As you can see from his two books on MOL Therapy, there was an evolution
from the How/Why technique. However, at this point, Tim is limiting its
application to individual therapy. He summarized the outcome statistics on
MOL Therapy at the International CSG Conference in Manchester.
New members of the USA CSG (Gary Padover, John White, Carter Cloyd and David
London) are exploring its extention to family therapy, couples therapy and
group therapy.
MOL Therapy continues to develop.
I have done two case studies on MOL Therapy. If you look at the pdf file of
my presentation this year, you will see that the interobserver agreement
between WTP and DMG (me) is about as high as the test-retest reliablity of
WTP at time 1 and WTP at time 2.
Your suggestion for MOL Therapy research is interesting and needs to be
done. The only other person who has done research along these lines is
Sache, a German Psychologist. If you look at the www.moltherapsists.com
website and look at the references in my article there, you will see his
name and can look at the internet write-up that he has done on his research.
Take care,
David
···
davidmg wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Marken" <rsmarken@GMAIL.COM>
To: <CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 11:35 PM
Subject: MOL and PCT> [From Rick Marken (2008.07.30.2020)]
>
> Well, it's been some time since the meeting and even longer since I
> posted but I have a few minutes now so I would like to see if I can
> start a couple of threads on topics that I didn't bring up at meeting.
> The first topic is "MOL and PCT". The CSG has evolved from being
> evenly divided between scientists and practitioners to being nearly
> all practitioners. That's fine with me; I'm as interested in
> practical applications of this stuff as the next person. But it struck
> me that the main practice being discussed at the meeting, MOL, seemed
> to require very little, if any, knowledge of the science of PCT. It
> seemed to me, from the way MOL was discussed, that the one who knew
> nothing at all about the science of PCT could do MOL just as well --
> possibly better -- than someone who does know it. That's fine with me
> but then I wonder why MOL therapists would need have anything more
> than the most casual acquaintance with PCT. Tim Carey has written a
> wonderful little book about how to do MOL. As I recall there is a
> little about PCT -- the hierarchy, perceptual goals and conflicts --
> but I don't recall seeing anywhere that this knowledge would lead to
> one doing MOL any better than by just following the rules, which
> include: look for evidence of a background thought, when you see such
> evidence (such as a laugh or hesitation) ask "what was that about?",
> don't analyze and don't make suggestions. I think all this could be
> done by just about anyone; I think there was talk about teaching it to
> kids to do with one another. So my question is: what, if anything,
> does one have to know about PCT in order to do MOL? If the answer is
> "nothing" then why teach MOL in the context of PCT? If the answer is
> not "nothing" then how, exactly, does what one has to know about PCT
> relate to what they do, as the "guide", in an MOL session.
>
> I would also be interested in knowing whether there have been any
> studies to see if independent "experts" on MOL agree about when MOL is
> actually being done. For example, it would seem to me that two MOL
> experts who view, independently, the same MOL session done by a third
> party as the "guide", should agree nearly 100% on when the "explorer"
> has gone "up a level"; they should give pretty consistent descriptions
> of what "level" the "explorer" was at before going "up a level" and
> what the "level" was after going "up" (or "down", for that matter).
>
> I'll be back in a moment with my next thread.
>
> Best
>
> Rick
>
> Richard S. Marken PhD
> rsmarken@gmail.com
>This E-mail, including any attachments, may be intended solely for the personal
and confidential use of the sender and recipient(s) named above. This message
may include advisory, consultative and/or deliberative material and, as such,
would be privileged and confidential and not a public document. Any Information
in this e-mail identifying a client of the Department of Human Services is
confidential. If you have received this e-mail in error, you must not review,
transmit, convert to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail or any
attachments to it and you must delete this message. You are requested to notify
the sender by return e-mail.