research into levels and awareness

CSGnet Archive CSG2004
1

[From Bruce Nevin (2004.08.27 10:16 EDT)]

"Scientific detachment" is an instance of "going up a level".

Here's a topic: In the method of levels does the subject really move up the
levels of the perceptual hierarchy? Why don't we use MOL as an
investigative technique to clarify the perceptual hierarchy and maybe even
to clarify what shifting awareness is about. Ethical considerations? Just
get the participants' agreement. Record instances of MOL and analyze them
to identify the levels of perception involved. Record a second session
immediately after, in which the participant elaborates on what kinds of
perceptions were in their awareness at each juncture of the first session.

It might shake things up. But that, of course, is no reason to resist it.

        /Bruce Nevin

2

From [Marc Abrams (2004.08.27.1055)]

[From Bruce Nevin (2004.08.27 10:16 EDT)]

"Scientific detachment" is an instance of "going up a level".

Here's a topic: In the method of levels does the subject really move up
the
levels of the perceptual hierarchy? Why don't we use MOL as an
investigative technique to clarify the perceptual hierarchy and maybe even
to clarify what shifting awareness is about. ...

Bruce, this comes to the crux of my questions about the hierarchy.

How do you know if a perception is up or down (dependent on) as in a
hierarchy, or sideways (influential, but not _necessarily_ dependent) as in
a network?

The assumption in a hierarchy is that one level is _strictly_ dependent on
the level above. No ifs ands or buts. It is a linear _one_ way relationship.

There are of course variations on a hierarchy that allow interactions among
various levels while still maintaining a dependency from level to level, but
they are no longer considered pure "hierarchy's".

Marc

3

[From David Goldstein (2004.08.28 0748 EDT)]
[Bruce Nevin (2004.08.27 10:16 EDT)]

"Record instances of MOL"

Bruce, I can see that one could record a session. Video recording would be
preferable because much of the nonverbal information is visual.
Are you thinking that this would be an actual therapy session or one in
which the person was just using MOL?

If a person were just using MOL, then I believe is should be identified as a
research session with no charge. The same applies to the follow up session.
This means that two sessions are involved in your proprosal. This is a cost
of doing the research.

OK, let us assume it is identified as a research session to the person who
is participating. "Analyze the record to identify the levels of perception
involved." It would be important to come up with a way to do this so that
there would be good interobserver agreement. When doing the MOL, the
therapist is looking for examples of the patient going up. Can these moments
be identified reliably? If two observers viewed the same taped session and
they were asked after every minute to make a judgement about this (yes, no,
can't tell), how good would the agreement be? A reliability study needs to
be done.

It is possible that the patient could be the other observer during the
second research session. The therapist could go through the exercise after
viewing the tape for the first time. Then the patient views the tape and
does the exercise as the therapist records the answers. For segments on
which there is agreement that the patient was going up a level, the patient
could be asked the follow up question. Please tell me what you were noticing
at that moment.

Bruce, I like your idea. I think it is doable.

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Nevin" <bnevin@CISCO.COM>
To: <CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu>
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 10:16 AM
Subject: research into levels and awareness

[From Bruce Nevin (2004.08.27 10:16 EDT)]

"Scientific detachment" is an instance of "going up a level".

Here's a topic: In the method of levels does the subject really move up

the

levels of the perceptual hierarchy? Why don't we use MOL as an
investigative technique to clarify the perceptual hierarchy and maybe even
to clarify what shifting awareness is about. Ethical considerations? Just
get the participants' agreement. Record instances of MOL and analyze them
to identify the levels of perception involved. Record a second session
immediately after, in which the participant elaborates on what kinds of
perceptions were in their awareness at each juncture of the first session.

It might shake things up. But that, of course, is no reason to resist it.

        /Bruce Nevin

4

From [Marc Abrams (2004.08.28.1038)]

[From David Goldstein (2004.08.28 0748 EDT)]

Bruce, I can see that one could record a session. Video recording would
be...

I think the MOL is fine for therapy. I think it's useless as a tool for
understanding interactions between people. I think the ladder of inference
provides a much better perspective on a situation then focusing in on what
one individual may or may not be controlling for at any one point in time.

Marc

5

[From Bill Powers (2004.08.28.0815 MDT)]

Bruce Nevin (2004.08.27 10:16 EDT)]

"Scientific detachment" is an instance of "going up a level".

Yes and no. Sometimes it's a technique for denying higher-level perceptions
of what one is doing, as in vivesection. But I agree in general.

Here's a topic: In the method of levels does the subject really move up the
levels of the perceptual hierarchy? Why don't we use MOL as an
investigative technique to clarify the perceptual hierarchy and maybe even
to clarify what shifting awareness is about. Ethical considerations?

I've suggested that a number of times, and have always emphasized that the
MOL practitioner should ignore the levels I have proposed and think only in
terms of relative levels. I've suggested keeping a record of sessions and
using both multiple judges and the client to identify shifts of level. When
there is a large enough data base, we could try to find common themes in
the before and after subject matter involved in each shift. Then we could
stitch the pairs together into a hierarchy -- if there really is a hierarchy.

The problem with this proposal has been finding someone to do the research.
At present, the only full-time MOL practitioners are Tim Carey and his
(few) colleagues in Scotland. Tim has applied for a grant and will be doing
some preliminary studies of this kind. David Goldstein has done some work
in this direction, but since he uses other approaches in combination with
MOL, there's no way to tell what is causing any changes that are seen, and
as he points out, mixing methods raises practical questions.

It might shake things up. But that, of course, is no reason to resist it.

Who's resisting? The main thing that is resisted is actually doing it,
which requires not only credentials for doing research with humans, but
lots of time and at least some money -- not to mention people using MOL
with clients.

Your proposal is a good one, and David's amplification of it sounds
practicable, so I hope this idea catches on and is carried out.

Best,

Bill P.