Would it be accurate to describe the reorganization as the expected mechanism of change in MOL therapy?
I asked a somewhat inarticulate question in the online training today about a “struggle” I had early on with the notion that we didn’t work on anything a client didn’t present or experience as a problem. The notion from my experience in other modalities is that clients will often bring in a presenting issue, but that therapists often “intuit” or assume that there are other “actual” problems underlying the presenting issue.
If I had it to ask again, I would have framed the question more this way. “My struggle early on with MOL was the notion that reference signals are not or shouldn’t be inherently seen as maladaptive, dysfunctional, etc… For example, a reference signal a pedophile might have that sex with minors is ok. But that we as MOL therapists only work with issues where the client is experiencing distress. Any thoughts on that?”
So… back to my first question re: mechanism of change. Can reorganization make changes in the following ways: evaluating the hierarchical level of a reference signal (prioritizing it or deprioritizing it) compared to a conflicting reference; reducing and/or increasing the gain for any perceived error; changing a reference signal to something that doesn’t create any comparator error; completely eliminating or deleting a reference signal? Any others?
Thanks for any thoughts/replies.