Still trying
[From Bill Powers (971216.0647 MST)]
Mark: Most of the time the focus is on their issues with control. Most
suicidal people have convinced their selves that, they never had, currently
don't have, nor expect to have, control over anything of importance in their
life. Their issues stated in their own words are usually in effect "I am not
getting what I want." So, the focus that works best is to, keep the CT in the
present and looking foreword, because that is where the control they have can
be effective.
Bill: When a person tries to commit suicide, the message is "Everything is so
awful that I just want to end it all." This message has two parts: everything
is awful, and I want to end it all. If you focus on the "end it all" part you
get into direct conflict with the person's immediate choice of action. But if
you focus on "everything is awful," you're really going up a level. The basic
question is, if everything weren't so awful would you still want to end it
all?
Mark: that is exactly what I do.
Here is a hypothetical nomithetical conversation.
I ask what is "everything." For Example, the Client (Ct) would state, "you
don't want to know" or "you don't have time for it." Or my personal favorite
"nothing."
Mark: "Well, really that is why I am here�." (And leave it at that; I don't
add to, listen, to help, or to decide what should happen).
If the Ct said "nothing." I ask, "Is it common for you to spend a Friday
night in a hospital bed?"
Ct: No.
Mark: Then, something must have happened out of the Norm�.. (again I leave the
thought open)
Now, the Ct will fill in the blank.
Ct: Well, ___________________(The Ct will list the present problem or
problems)
After listing the issues, now is the good time to ask, if you did not have
these problems/issues, would you still want to kill yourself.
Ct: (the answer should be) "NO" if the Ct answers yes, you're in trouble, you
probably have not found the main conflict. Or the person is "gaming" meaning
may they are lying so they can go to a higher level of care, to get a warm bed
and some food. Or worst, the person is committed to this course of action.
If the Ct answered No and you have completed the method of level to find the
highest level of conflicts. This is when I will begin to talk about Control.
(By now the person has listed their Major stressors. This is when I become
more active in the intervention. I discuss the different ideas of control
with the Ct. Keep in my I am dealing with someone who has a short attention
span and most likely is not interested in a soliloquy or in debating
semantics.)
I tell them on the first level of control - we can, and do control for what we
want, need, and desire. We can choose to do the things we like, or choose
to avoid the things we don't like. Also, we can choose to do nothing. Doing
nothing is still a choice. Along with being able to choose actions, we
choose our way of looking at things. It is easier to learn this than apply
it. You do have the choice of looking at any event and labeling it good, bad
or indifferent. An event by itself has no value. You determine the value of
the event, in what you do about it. I grant you this may be easier said than
done, regardless it is true.
(Now for a sidebar away for the conversation with the Ct to a soapbox.)
All that I said so far was about the control one has over one's self and one's
perceptions. You have "100% control over your own perceptions"
Bruce: Does it mean that I can perceive anything I like? If I go to the
parking lot and find one of my tires is flat, can I simply perceive it to be
filled with air? Sounds great! Exactly how do I this, I wonder
Mark: "100% control over one's own perceptions" Is not telekinesis.
What I mean by 100% control is - A person can choose any perception they want
and attempt to control for it. This does not guarantee successful control
over that perception, as in the case with the flat tire. But, one can still
choose to try to inflate the tire with the power of their mind, under the
belief they have enough air in their head to do so.
(this is when "I am chasing the problem around the loop" with the Ct).
Chasing the problem around the loop:
This is where the Ct is more active in the interaction. Mostly, I start with
the Reference signal above the level of conflict discovered by the Method of
Levels. I help the person evaluate their goals, wants, needs or desires.
I start here, only because the Reference signals (Intentions or Goals) are
usually where the problems lay. For example, the Ct may have the knowledge and
abilities to obtain a goal, to be successful in an area of life, but the Ct
has no goals in that area, or if a goal was set it would be in conflict with
other goals already set in/on that level. This is akin to knowing you
"should" or "could" do "it" but you don't.
However the "Break in the Loop" is what I am looking for and it could be
anywhere. The person may have a very obtainable goal. But, the Ct doesn't
know what to do about it or what to do first.
These are the things I look for:
1) Reference Signals a.k.a. Goals, wants, needs, desires and intentions.
2) Perceptions - how and what they consider important things to control for.
3) The comparisons they may make between the two. (e.g. are they making
reasonable comparisons.)
4) Output -- Do they have a plan(s) of action and are they capable of acting
on it - is the plan reasonable, are they likely to change, or control for the
perception they wish.
Depending on the person the problem could be in any one of these 4 areas. If
I am lucky it is just one area, but it is possible to have trouble in all 4
areas.
The next area of control, I explain to the Ct, refers to controlling for
something outside yourself. This is when I tell the Ct that when other people
in your life are needed as a part of achieving your goal, you only have 2
forms of control available: Cooperation or Coercion.
(Back to the conversation with the CtJ
Mark: Both are effective means of controlling for what you want.
Coercion is the easiest form of control and the most common form that is
taught. It is the basis of Psychology. Sometimes it is called Positive
reinforcement, negative reinforcement or punishment, no matter the terms, it
is still coercive in nature. When practicing it, you are giving something to
a person they don't like until they do what you want. Or you're taking away
something they do like until they do what you want. Finally, if they do
something you don't like they get punished for it. You probably know all this
works, but you don't like it when it is done to you; so you can see that
others wont like it when it is done to them. It may work for you in the short
term. In the long term you or anyone else will try to find a way to
circumvent this coercive form of control.
(Now for a sidebar away for the conversation with the Ct to a soapbox.)
This is a cut and paste from my Thesis-
[[ A more tangible approach to determine the origins of collective action is
provided by Miller, Hintz, and Couch (1975). Their approach was to
investigate experimentally the point at which two people go from acting
independently to acting interdependently (openings) and the means by which
people achieve collective action. Openings have three essential and ordered
aspects: (1) A verification of reciprocally acknowledged attention; (2) a
verification of mutual responsiveness; and (3) a common or reciprocal focus.
These conditions must be met before concerted behavior can occur. Concerted
behavior is continually constructed, sustained, disintegrated, and
reconstructed in circular fashion (Miller, et al., 1975).
When people are acting interdependently they "share" a common reference.
Therefore, they either communicate through the environment to achieve a goal.
In control theory terms, cooperation is defined as "... actions that are made
in concert by two or more individuals, to control mutually-desired perceptions
of environmental variables. In cooperation, the controlled perceptions are
ones the individuals (a) cannot achieve by acting alone, or (b) elect to
achieve by acting in concert, rather than by acting alone. To deliberately
cooperate and achieve mutually desired perceptions, each individual adopts a
subordinate goal of controlling a portion of the intended superordinate result
(personal communication, W. T. Bourbon, June 25, 1991)."
McPhail and Tucker (1990) use the term "collective action" to describe two
kinds of social interaction. The first type of collective action describes
two people working together and performing the same behavior simultaneously.
Examples would be two or more people clapping at a football game, running in a
marathon, or singing in a choir. The specific term defining these behaviors
is "collective action-in-common" (McPhail and Tucker, 1990). The second type
of collective behavior is when two or more people are working together in
tandem. The term McPhail and Tucker (1990) use to describe this behavior is
"collective action-in-concert". Examples of activities defined as collective
action-in-concert are, a game of chess, a conversation, or any activity that
involves two or more people taking turns to accomplish a goal. ]]
When done right counseling would also be cooperative in nature.
Counseling is cooperative even though the major goals of the counselor and
Client are different. The counselor "should" be trying to place him/her self
out of business. Meaning they are "trying" to help the person be more
independent, capable of selecting and controlling their own perceptions, so
the Ct has no further need of the counselor's service.
A person wont seek out what they don't need, if what they are doing is getting
them what they want they are satisfied, and they don't believe they need
counseling. The same can be said for the behavioral scientist, if what they
are doing is getting them what they want they are satisfied, and they will not
believe they need for PCT.
Your friend in PCT,
Mark Lazare