The MOL and Therapy

CSGnet Archive CSG1998
1

[From Dick Robertson] (980126.1140cst)
The MOL and therapy

Hey, sounds like a new John Carre novel, what?

Once again David Goldstein has started an interesting PCT thread with a wealth
of real material to sink our teeth into. I know that I shall save the roster
of studies for plenty of further review.

My own take on it might be a somewhat different slant than has been forthcoming
in the discussion so far. I have been trying to use the MOL in my therapy
practice for a fair number of years (i.e. at least 15 or more). I mean that
from time to time I have intervened after a statement of a client/patient to
ask, "What is your attitude toward what you just said?" Sometimes I would
repeat what the other person had said. Or, I would ask, "How do you feel about
that,"...and then might follow it up with, "and how do you feel about feeling
that way?" In each instance I was hoping that the clt would begin to notice
that there was a part of her/himself that was Implicitly Choosing her or his
way of experiencing the matter first reported. My hope was that if s/he
realized that, then the possibility of different options at that level would
open up.

It actually worked that way in a recent session. My clt was broken up by the
fact that her boy friend had a stable of other women (No, that's not who I
mean!) and lied to her that it wasn't so in the face of powerful circumstantial
evidence. I said, "Well, how do you feel about that?" She said, "I think I
ought to break up with him." (Notice that that is not a feeling.) I said,
when you think about that, how do you feel?" She said, "But I love
him....WELL, MAYBE INSTEAD OF GETTING SO ANGRY I COULD JUST ACCEPT THAT'S THE
WAY HE IS (emphasis mine rjr)...Nancy says she knows that xxx cheats on her but
she let's it go, she's getting what she wants out of the relationship."

However, many times my effort to use MOL goes awry. I don't think it is a
method of therpy, it is a tool that sometimes can aid therapy. Many clts don't
go up a level when invited to, they go sideways. I suspect that when that
happens they are still in the process of organizing the next level - it doesn't
have enough settings on the "rheostat" (i. e. the system forming at that
level).

I think therapy is about fostering reorganization, holding the clts hand when
he is feeling the anxiety that often (maybe always) accompanies reorg., and
sometimes using "the test" to confirm or disconfirm what I think the clt is
controlling in a given moment - mostly as a test of my own hypothesis about my
understanding of what he or she is communicating. As I read Sig Freud and Carl
Rogers I think I see evidence of them often doing the same, by the way, as a
result of their practical experience, I would guess.

To illustrate what I meant above when I said that I don't always get where I
hope to in attempting the MOL in a session I have created an imaginary
alternative course at one point in Dave Goldstein's "Report on MOL chats of
1/18/98. Since I don't have recording of my sessions this imaginary outcome
allows me to extract a common feature of many attempts and also illustrates
the way I often attempt to apply it.

From: David Goldstein
Subject: Report on MOL chats
Date: 1/18/98

I have had a few more chats. I am enclosing a transcript of one I had
today. For reasons unknown, it ended suddenly. The explorer,
littleredtoo, was experiencing some very strong emotions...

If you read the transcript and would have followed a different line than
I did, I would like to hear from you.

OK, here goes

<littleredtoo> Good morning David
<David> Good morning littleredtoo.
<David> Are you interested in trying the self-exploration exercise?...

<littleredtoo> Well lets give it a shot. I'm in touch with my inner self and
my thought process.

<David> OK. This last statement is a good one to start with. It is a self
observational kind of one.
<David> I would ask: What is it like to be in touch with your inner self?

<>littleredtoo> For me to be in touch with my inner self is refreshing and a

kind of renewal of ones self expression, allowing me to be honest and
forthright not only with myself but others as well.
<littleredtoo>

<David> Describe what it is like when you are this way.
<littleredtoo> Well, for me its freedom to be me finally in my life. I find
that trying to be what others want you to be annoying, but have only come to
that conclusion in the past 6-8 years, and not without some pain and >

<frustration along the way.

[OK, here's my imaginary alternative, RJR]

How do you feel about having had that pain and frustration?
{IT MAKES ME MAD}
Are you feeling that way right now?
{YES}
How do you feel about feeling that way right now?
{WHAT DO YOU MEAN?}
Well, you feel angry about the pain and frustration from the experiences of
trying to be what others wanted of you; so you're angry about feelings you have
had from that, Right?
{UM, YES}
Does the "YOU" that is angry now about that seem like the same "YOU" that has
suffered the pain and frustration?
{ARE YOU SAYING I HAVE A SPLIT PERSONALITY?}
No, I mean, when you said you are angry about having had that pain and
frustration, did it seem like a different part of you was angry than the part
that had the pain?
{UM, UM, YEAH, I GUESS SO...(pause) UM, I'M NOT ANGRY ANY MORE. DO YOU THINK I
SHOULD BE?}
etc. End of imaginary dialogue. returning to the real thing:

<littleredtoo>
<David> What is the opposite of being free for you?
<littleredtoo> inprisioned in my mind and expression of being a complete
person.
<littleredtoo>
<David> If you notice any thoughts or feelings as you say things, please feel
free to say them. That is the idea of the process.
<littleredtoo> Don't you worry about me saying what I think, sometimes that
gets me into trouble when i say what i thing or feel to some people. It has
inthe past and used to bother me and keep me from saying what I wanted to,
but not any more....

I constructed my imaginary dialogue before going on to read what actually
happened but now that I've done that it strkes me that the real thing is not a
bad example of what I meant by the clt "going sideways." Howver later I think
we do see him going up a level, but I'm not clear that he gets any insight that
he is doing that.

<David> What is it like to discover new sides of yourself?
<littleredtoo> I'm feeling like its akward because its something unfamiliar to
myself, but because of my curious nature I have to explore it no matter the
outcome.
<littleredtoo>
<David> Tell me about your curious nature.
<littleredtoo> My curious nature is a part of me that has been kept under
control not by me I don't thing but by othes, because what others thought of
me an my behaviors always ruled what I did, therefore, I never allowed myself
to express being curious but it is a way for me to let others know who I am
and not always with welcome arms.
<David> The part of you which stopped you from expressing your curiosity, can
you tell me about that ?

<>littleredtoo>
<>littleredtoo> I suppose it stems from growning up in a home where there were

two parents who faught not only verbally but physically, and seeing that my
mother was not allowed to express herself and i'm sure it was a lasting
impression on me as a person.
<littleredtoo>

<David> How would you compare the new you and the old you?
<littleredtoo> older naturally and more informed of life and what life can or
can not do for me. I know today that i am the whole of myself and everything
else past, present or future is a part of that, but I try really hard to focus
on taking care of me the woman.

Dave mentions that he gets caught up in the therapist role, and I can
sympathize with that, especially when the person seems to be working on the
Princple and Self-system level as I think <littleredtoo> was near the end.
That's exciting to me. Many would-be clients never seem to operate there in a
conscious fashion.

I think that Bill Powers and Kirk Sattley might have got more dramatic results
from the MOL because they already had a hierarchical view of "mind" and this
helped the interviewee focus on the process. I'm all for further attempts to
research the MOL, and clinical research will probably have to accumulate a lot
of records before anybody begins to conceive of how to model it. As for
therapy, now and then it works as a useful tool. Here is another snippet in
which I can illustrate some alternative ways of carrying it out:

From: David Goldstein
Subject: 10th MOL example

<Ash> Ash is back, yes i can see where your going, perhaps i could spend more
time talking instead of being engrossed in my work, i will make a point of it
from now on

RJR: here DMG sets the ? that invites Ash to the next higher level. Nice.

<David> What were you thinking about which helped you to decide to make this
change?

<Ash> some-one out-side of my affairs hitting the nail on the head
<David> What thoughts/feelings do you have about yourself when you think about
the way you used to be, come home and rush to listen the tapes?
<Ash> i was that engrossed in it, that i wanted to see if i could be better
next week
<David> And you can still achieve this by listening to the tape a little
latter?
<Ash> looking at it now, yes

RJR: You could possibly elicit the next level up by asking something like,
     "When you said, (quote) `looking at it now, yes' - who were you when you
     said that? I mean, Did it feel like it was a different part of you that
     did the looking? [and if, Yes,] What can you say about that part of you?

From here I agree with Bill Powers that your therapist self overcame your

researcher self, not an uncommon experience for me either, I afraid.

<David> The thought that is at the back of my mind is that you become very
engrossed in something and sometimes lose track of other things, people who
matter to you. Is this anywhere on target?

[From Bill Powers (980125.-114 MST)]

From: David Goldstein
Subject: 10th MOL example

Listen to yourself offering advice and help. You have dropped out of the MOL
mode at this point.

Yup.

Best, Dick RobertsonFrom ???@??? Mon Jan 26 13:39:11 1998
Return-Path: bnevin@cisco.com
Received: from T530_95b-pc ([171.69.210.54]) by pilgrim.cisco.com (8.8.5-Cisco.1/8.6.5) with SMTP id NAA19615; Mon, 26 Jan 1998 13:09:57 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19980126130428.00a28c48@pilgrim.cisco.com>
X-Sender: bnevin@pilgrim.cisco.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32)
        Multiple recipients of list CSGNET <CSGNET@POSTOFFICE.CSO.UIUC.EDU>

···

Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 13:04:28 -0500
To: "Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)" <CSGNET@POSTOFFICE.CSO.UIUC.EDU>,
From: Bruce Nevin <bnevin@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Slippery Wording
Cc: bn@cisco.com
In-Reply-To: <19980125225728.AAA7204@LOCALNAME>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-UIDL: fdc1bb9399700ef49b78336e6a068bb0

[From Bruce Nevin (980126.1240)]

(Fred Nickols (Sun, 25 Jan 1998 22:57:30))--

... If by
"stimulus" is meant the series of numbers beginning with 1314.., then the
statement is true but pointless.

I think that is what was intended. A person who has learned to read has
developed a control system that
"cancontrolhisorherperceptionofaseriesofblackmarksonpaperintounits which he
or she can identify as words even when they are not presented in the form
of single units." Suppose the person has developed a different control
system like this, only for numbers.

"Once organized in the nervous system of a person, a control system (like
the one needed for the above task) can then execute commands such as seeing
a series of number symbols on paper as either (1) a set of random numbers
(look at the numbers in blocks of three)
13141516171819202122232425262728292031, or (2) as a continuation of the
sequence 123456789101112. Notice that how you "see" the upper line of
numbers is not controlled by the environment; it is controlled by you the
organism. The "stimulus" is exactly the same in both cases."

The parenthetical instruction is a clarification so that the reader gets
the point; it is not part of the "stimulus" whose hypothetical presentation
is described. The source of confusion is that we, the readers, are
implicitly invited to present the "stimulus" to our own internal versions
of such a control system.

I think the parenthetical instruction could have been left out. It may have
been inserted fairly late at the suggestion of a reviewer or editor. I
doubt you would have had a problem if it had said "for example, it might
perceive a sequence of 3-digit numbers".

In reading the paragraph I was taken by

the manipulation of what I know as "set" (a predisposition to see, believe,
or act in certain ways).

It might be an illuminating exercise to describe "set" as a control
phenomenon, and see what people here have to say about your description.
It's a great way to learn. Would you be willing to try that?

  Bruce Nevin

2

It is very nice hearing your voice on the CSG-L, welcome back Dick!

I carried away from your discussion several points:

1. Your opinion that the MOL is a therapy tool rather than a therapy in
its own right. While I think this is true, from Bill's comments about
my MOL conversations, it is clear to me that I still have a way to go
to learn how to do "pure vanilla" MOL. Do you think that the sort of
questions you are asking are "pure vanilla" MOL? If neither you or I
are following "pure vanilla" MOL, do you think we should reserve
judgement on the the therapeutic benefit of doing MOL by itself?

2. It is obvious that there are alternative pathways which could be
followed in an MOL discussion and you proposed several in your post.
The question then becomes which pathway is better. How are we to
decide? Bill mentions that the only way to evaluate an MOL session is
how many level changes occurred. Given a session which is "pure
vanilla" enough, it would be interesting to determine how well we could
agree where the level changes occurred.

3. Right now, the criteria for a "pure Vanilla" MOL session is fuzzy
for me. The explorer is talking in the present tense. The explorer is
not attempting to relate to the guide as a person. The guide does not
give personal advice. The guide does not express any opinion about what
the explorer says. The guide asks two kinds of questions: (a) One is
aimed at finding out what the explorer is experiencing right now. (b)
One is aimed at checking out guesses about background issues. I think
that it would be helpful if we could define classic or pure vanilla MOL
better.

···

From: David Goldstein
Subject: Re:The MOL and Therapy; [From Dick Robertson] (980126.1140cst)
Date: 1/26/98

3

i.kurtzer

If you posted recently before, i somehow missed it and wished to say "its good
to see you're still around".

I think the MOL thread is one of the best in a while. I sincerely hope that
clinicians continue to become active contributors so that we can all benefit
from a different emphasis. Imagine a time, maybe 25? 40? years from now when
the DSM will have its lines hewn with a control hierarchy in mind.

i.

4

[From Bill Powers (980127.0133 MST)]

From: David Goldstein
Subject: Re:The MOL and Therapy; [From Dick Robertson] (980126.1140cst)
Date: 1/26/98

It is very nice hearing your voice on the CSG-L, welcome back Dick!

I concur.

3. Right now, the criteria for a "pure Vanilla" MOL session is fuzzy
for me. The explorer is talking in the present tense. The explorer is
not attempting to relate to the guide as a person. The guide does not
give personal advice. The guide does not express any opinion about what
the explorer says. The guide asks two kinds of questions: (a) One is
aimed at finding out what the explorer is experiencing right now. (b)
One is aimed at checking out guesses about background issues. I think
that it would be helpful if we could define classic or pure vanilla MOL
better.

These, I agree, are some aspects of the behavior of the guide and the
explorer. But as we know, it's hard to grasp what a control system is doing
just by looking at its actions. I think it might help to look at the theory
and goals of the MOL process, as opposed to those of non-MOL therapy.

Consider advice-giving. What is the theory behind the therapist's offering
suggestions to the client about what to do about a problem? I don't mean
"it seems to help," but what's being assumed about how advice-giving works?
If a person says "I have difficulty with going out of my house," what sort
of advice might a therapist give, and why should it make any difference?

In the little experience I have had, it seems that the advice is usually
some prescribed course of action, usually simple and obvious: for example,
"try just going out on the front porch for 5 minutes a day, then 10
minutes, and so on until you can do it for extended periods. Then try going
out to the sidewalk."

The problem with advice of this sort is explaining why, if it's so simple
to do this, the person hasn't already done it. In the case of the military
disk jockey, the advice was for the wife to record the program without
listening to it and then listen to it with DJ, instead of forcing the wife
to hear it twice (as I remember it). Why should this advice have been
helpful? Is it because the person was too stupid to think of this obvious
way out of the problem? Unless the advice is something exceedingly clever,
which the person with the problem never would have thought of, I can't see
what theory lies behind advice-giving except that the therapist is smarter,
or less shut-down, than the client, and that all that's necessary to solve
the problem is to change the behavior.

The PCT assumption would be that the behavior is not the problem, if the
solution is as simple as it usually is. The problem lies in not being aware
of the nature of the problem from a higher level where a _goal_ can be
changed, rather than just a behavior. If the goal is changed, behavioral
changes will follow, assuming that the person is just as capable of finding
effective behavior as the therapist is (which I think is usually the case).

The problem with our disk jockey was that he wasn't really aware that there
was a problem with his wife, other than the fact that she didn't like his
listening to his recorded program when he came home. It hadn't occurred to
him to see his relationship with her as a problem; therefore he hadn't
tried to find any solution for it. The increased level of awareness he
admitted to didn't come from listening to your solution; it came from
realizing the implication of your solution, which was that he needed to
treat this as a problem. Let's face it: any idiot could have thought of the
solution you offered -- once he had become aware of the problem as
something to be solved.

To use a different example for a moment, what about a child who doesn't
follow the rules? One solution to this problem seems to be to ask the child
what the rule is, and then to ask the child to make a plan, which basically
amounts to not doing whatever it was that is against the rule. If the child
doesn't come up with an acceptable plan, the adviser does: "How about, I'll
keep my hands to myself?" In other words, what you did was against the
rules, so don't do it any more, OK?

This does not strike me as very deep. If this procedure seems to be
helpful, it's probably not because of the plan-making, but because of the
attitudes of the people running the system, once they understand PCT; what
they show the child, rather than what they tell the child.

So it is with advice, I think. Giving advice is just a way of conveying to
the person that there is a problem. But it doesn't put the person in a
position from which the _next_ problem of the same kind can be solved
without help. Just telling the person what to do, or not do, doesn't
provide any answer to the next problem.

When a person alludes to a problem to which you can see an obvious simple
solution, the question is not whether your solution will work, but why the
person didn't think of it. The answer I am proposing is that the person's
awareness is so involved at the level of the problem that reorganization is
not going on where it needs to be going on. What the person needs to do is
to consider the higher-level reasons for the problem; why it exists in the
first place. When awareness is focussed at the level where the reasons
exist, reorganization will happen where it needs to happen, rather than
just reshuffling the parameters of control at a level where there's
basically no problem. The person who is afraid to go out of the house is
very good at controlling for not going out of the house. So advising this
person to go out of the house is of little help, compared with helping the
person find out why the goal is to stay inside. Even to try to carry out
your advice, the person must _somehow_ change the goal of staying inside,
even if only for 5 minutes. Wouldn't it be more effective to deal directly
with the level that can alter this goal?

In the case of the disk jockey, the problem with the wife, while real, was
not the salient problem, the one that the person was already struggling
with. His problem was so much more serious that he wasn't even aware of the
problem in his relationship to his wife until you changed the subject. This
is the problem I described as being self-centered. The first thing he did
every night after doing his show was to rush home and listen to a tape
recording of it. What was he listening for? He said he was trying to learn
how to do it better. So what was wrong with the way he was doing it? What
was he afraid of hearing when he played back his performance? What is it
like to listen to a two-hour performance you have already given, knowing
that a lot of people have heard it and being unable to change a thing about
it, and wondering whether you did it well enough?

Maybe he is very unsure of his abilities. Maybe he is afraid he might have
said something that others will be upset about. Maybe he has no clear idea
of what makes a good show. Maybe he is a perfectionist, getting down on
himself for even an imagined bobble. Or maybe he's just perfecting his art,
like any professional practicing to improve his skills. The only way to
find out what's going on is to get him to talk not about what he does every
night, but about why he's doing it. It's obviously important to him, more
important than his relationship with his wife. Why?

The main hypothesis behind the method of levels is that the reason why is
always there: the higher systems that are responsible for the goals of the
behavior that is going on right now. The higher systems are not like deep
layers of the unconscious, hidden from view and hard to find. They are
right up front all the time, actively controlling. But they're not in
awareness.

Another hypothesis behind the MOL is that if you listen to what the person
says, he will tell you what the most active and therefore accessible
aspects of the next higher level are. They are always in the back of his
mind. They come through as meta-comments, comments not on the subject but
as attitudes, thoughts, and feelings about the subject. They may come
through only as an implied point of view, an implied evaluation, a
justification, a self-criticism. The job of the guide is simple: it is to
try to bring these background things into the foreground. My mental model
of this implies that in order to focus on these background subjects, the
person must literally change his point of view so he is operating from a
higher level -- the principle being that you're never aware OF the level
you're operating IN. And if my idea about awareness is right, this will
move the locus of reorganization to a higher level, where it might do some
good if good needs to be done. Of course this brings in a new set of
background materials, of which the person is not aware but which govern
what he is doing.

So that's the combination of theory and hypothesis that is behind the
method of levels. If you think about the mechanical procedures that I have
described, and which you summarized, you may see how they relate to these
underlying ideas. If you use the method without this basic understanding,
it probably doesn't make much sense -- if you can see an obvious solution
to a person's problem, why not just give him a hand and tell him about it?
If you want him to feel good and like you, why not just praise him when he
does something good? Why not help, if you're there to help?

If you consider the theory, however, you will see that it's not help with
solutions that's needed, but a point of view from which solutions can be
generated without help. Since you never know what the next point of view
will be, the best thing you can do is simply to jog the person up a level,
and wait to see what develops. If that doesn't reveal a problem, or solve
the problem, do it again. And then keep doing it until the person informs
you that this is the end of _that_ trail.

Best,

Bill P.

1 Like
5

[From Tim Carey (980128.0708)]

[From Bill Powers (980127.0133 MST)]

Thanks for this post Bill. It is brilliant ... very clear and helpful. It
will be a great resource to return to from time to time as I try and figure
out the MOL for myself.

I am curious about a comment that has been made recently on the CSG
concerning MOL and that is that it may be used as a tool within a broader
therapeutic intervention. don't understand this. Given the theory that MOL
is based on and given that most other therapeutic interventions are not
based on any theory (well certainly not a theory in the same sense that PCT
is a theory) and any theory they are based on would most likely be the
opposite of PCT (control of output), how do these different approaches
become combined? As therapists, what do people control for in their general
therapeutic approach? What techniques are used to achieve this goal? How
does MOL supplement other approaches? Are there other PCT based approaches
around that I'm not aware of?

As a sideline comment, I find the word "therapist" interesting. If you look
at the word in a particular way it can become "the rapist". Is this an
explanation for some therpeutic approaches perhaps?

Cheers,

Tim

6

[From Tim Carey (980128.0745)]

From: Bill Powers <powers_w@FRONTIER.NET>

higher level -- the principle being that you're never aware OF the level
you're operating IN. And if my idea about awareness is right, this will

Hi Bill .... I've been reading through this again and was wondering if you
could clarify the above statement a little more. Hypothetically speaking if
I notice the world as bunches of categories, would you say that I was
operating IN the category level of perception but if I was aware that I was
noticeing lots of categories then I would be doing this from a higher
level?

So that's the combination of theory and hypothesis that is behind the
method of levels. If you think about the mechanical procedures that I

have

described, and which you summarized, you may see how they relate to these
underlying ideas. If you use the method without this basic understanding,
it probably doesn't make much sense

This is probably some of what I was getting at in my most recent post.
Theory is supposed to inform practice isn't it? What's the theory behind
considering MOL a strategy and using this approach as a tool along with
other strategies (like reflective listening perhaps)?

Cheers,

Tim

7

i.kurtzer (970127)

[From Tim Carey (980128.0745)]
Hypothetically speaking if
I notice the world as bunches of categories, would you say that I was
operating IN the category level of perception but if I was aware that I was
noticeing lots of categories then I would be doing this from a higher
level?

i know you asked bill, but if i might give my two cents. The answer from me
would be yes.

One consensus that seems to be arrived on the "structure" of mind ala a
heirarchy of perception is that when attending to a "kind A"--say
categories--all the "kinds" below "kind A" remain cognisized while everything
above is not--well, fringe enough to be noticable when brought to focus.
The rule: consciousness always looks down.
It can go up, but its gaze is down.
The best determinant of being above "kind A" is cognizing the the current
instance of "A" is only one of the many it might be.
Now this cognisizing has to be of the "sincere" variety.
Its like when one hears the cocktail grist about the meaning of life, and some
shmedrick says "oh well, life has no meaning" . Often this comes off with such
clucking that i surmise that this is not really what this person feels at a
system level per se, but as some conclusion brought by the fiat of a level
below that, namely logic--begin with a certain set of premises and follow them
given these rules. When persons conclude the status of meaning at a logic
level it seems one thing and from a systems level its seems another.
[Actually, consistancy would require these two questions to be fundamnetally
_different_] The conclusion ala logic is one to be enjoyed at a distance.
Instead, since system percepts are--in the West--extremely associated with the
"i" a "no" often strikes vicously . I know that when i was in such a
situtation the last thing i would be doing it enjoying some riposte. Instead,
i didn't eat. I usually eat. That was bad.
Anyway, the conclusions are:
1)attention is focused to "kinds".
2) the focus is that..there remains a fringe..which is above..and the center
which is the "kind" you're at and all the ones below.
3)the above of attention..or how to tell "where" you are... is effeciently
given by the sincere cognizance of some moment as being able to take one a
condition other than the one at present.

As one last example, when you drive to work and listen to the radio. And that
rock n' roll or classical for our more bourgesie types is just jammin, or your
thinking about Mary Sue Baker and her cute fanny... has the reference state for
the last willed reference ever changed without your awareness?? That is, have
you ever gone driving and the last thing before Mary and her fanny came to mind
was the "I'm going to McDonalds"--- as part of "I'm going to McDonald's and
then head over to Dave's place"---and that you either 1) stopped 2) drove to
Mexico 3) checked the engine or anythin else not considered within "I'm going
to McDonalds"
or arrived at Dave's place and left without it coming to focus.
It can happen but both are exceptions.
The first is usually attributed to clarivuoance as when a fellow gets off his
trolly two stops early as if the trip was completed. And then after realized
his folly and hitching another finds the exitted trolley on the side of the
road in flames.
As to the second it seems not but there are conditions of such embeddedness...
as the last willed reference was so high up.. that one can cope for a great
deal of time before it comes to the forefront again.
This would like a mother losing her child and being seemingly "fine" untill she
notices herself plan the gift for what would be his next birthday.
Then comes her pain.

i.

8

Bill's post is very helpful towards understanding the MOL but I wonder
whether the readers of this list could use his description to do "pure
Vanilla" MOL. Time will tell.

What Bill says about the MOL is similar to the idea that: If you give a
person a fish you feed him for a day but if you teach him how to fish he
can feed himself for a lifetime. Who can disagree with this?

But if it takes the person several days to learn to fish, giving the
person a fish during the learning time will certainly be welcome and
maybe a necessary short term step. And should we actually teach him how
to fish anyway? Or, should we help him understand the problem from the
right point of view so he can discover fishing for himself? And why
should we help him at all, every person should be completely autonomous
and independent, and not need the help of another person.

Now that I have gotten this out of my system, thanks for great post
Bill.

Bill Powers wrote:

···

From: David Goldstein
Subject: Re:The MOL and Therapy
            Bill Powers (980127.0133 MST)
            Rick Marken (980127.0730)
            Tim Carey (980128.0708)
Date: 1/27/98

[From Bill Powers (980127.0133 MST)]

>From: David Goldstein
>Subject: Re:The MOL and Therapy; [From Dick Robertson] (980126.1140cst)
>Date: 1/26/98
>
>It is very nice hearing your voice on the CSG-L, welcome back Dick!

I concur.

>3. Right now, the criteria for a "pure Vanilla" MOL session is fuzzy
>for me. The explorer is talking in the present tense. The explorer is
>not attempting to relate to the guide as a person. The guide does not
>give personal advice. The guide does not express any opinion about what
>the explorer says. The guide asks two kinds of questions: (a) One is
>aimed at finding out what the explorer is experiencing right now. (b)
>One is aimed at checking out guesses about background issues. I think
>that it would be helpful if we could define classic or pure vanilla MOL
>better.

These, I agree, are some aspects of the behavior of the guide and the
explorer. But as we know, it's hard to grasp what a control system is doing
just by looking at its actions. I think it might help to look at the theory
and goals of the MOL process, as opposed to those of non-MOL therapy.

Consider advice-giving. What is the theory behind the therapist's offering
suggestions to the client about what to do about a problem? I don't mean
"it seems to help," but what's being assumed about how advice-giving works?
If a person says "I have difficulty with going out of my house," what sort
of advice might a therapist give, and why should it make any difference?

In the little experience I have had, it seems that the advice is usually
some prescribed course of action, usually simple and obvious: for example,
"try just going out on the front porch for 5 minutes a day, then 10
minutes, and so on until you can do it for extended periods. Then try going
out to the sidewalk."

The problem with advice of this sort is explaining why, if it's so simple
to do this, the person hasn't already done it. In the case of the military
disk jockey, the advice was for the wife to record the program without
listening to it and then listen to it with DJ, instead of forcing the wife
to hear it twice (as I remember it). Why should this advice have been
helpful? Is it because the person was too stupid to think of this obvious
way out of the problem? Unless the advice is something exceedingly clever,
which the person with the problem never would have thought of, I can't see
what theory lies behind advice-giving except that the therapist is smarter,
or less shut-down, than the client, and that all that's necessary to solve
the problem is to change the behavior.

The PCT assumption would be that the behavior is not the problem, if the
solution is as simple as it usually is. The problem lies in not being aware
of the nature of the problem from a higher level where a _goal_ can be
changed, rather than just a behavior. If the goal is changed, behavioral
changes will follow, assuming that the person is just as capable of finding
effective behavior as the therapist is (which I think is usually the case).

The problem with our disk jockey was that he wasn't really aware that there
was a problem with his wife, other than the fact that she didn't like his
listening to his recorded program when he came home. It hadn't occurred to
him to see his relationship with her as a problem; therefore he hadn't
tried to find any solution for it. The increased level of awareness he
admitted to didn't come from listening to your solution; it came from
realizing the implication of your solution, which was that he needed to
treat this as a problem. Let's face it: any idiot could have thought of the
solution you offered -- once he had become aware of the problem as
something to be solved.

To use a different example for a moment, what about a child who doesn't
follow the rules? One solution to this problem seems to be to ask the child
what the rule is, and then to ask the child to make a plan, which basically
amounts to not doing whatever it was that is against the rule. If the child
doesn't come up with an acceptable plan, the adviser does: "How about, I'll
keep my hands to myself?" In other words, what you did was against the
rules, so don't do it any more, OK?

This does not strike me as very deep. If this procedure seems to be
helpful, it's probably not because of the plan-making, but because of the
attitudes of the people running the system, once they understand PCT; what
they show the child, rather than what they tell the child.

So it is with advice, I think. Giving advice is just a way of conveying to
the person that there is a problem. But it doesn't put the person in a
position from which the _next_ problem of the same kind can be solved
without help. Just telling the person what to do, or not do, doesn't
provide any answer to the next problem.

When a person alludes to a problem to which you can see an obvious simple
solution, the question is not whether your solution will work, but why the
person didn't think of it. The answer I am proposing is that the person's
awareness is so involved at the level of the problem that reorganization is
not going on where it needs to be going on. What the person needs to do is
to consider the higher-level reasons for the problem; why it exists in the
first place. When awareness is focussed at the level where the reasons
exist, reorganization will happen where it needs to happen, rather than
just reshuffling the parameters of control at a level where there's
basically no problem. The person who is afraid to go out of the house is
very good at controlling for not going out of the house. So advising this
person to go out of the house is of little help, compared with helping the
person find out why the goal is to stay inside. Even to try to carry out
your advice, the person must _somehow_ change the goal of staying inside,
even if only for 5 minutes. Wouldn't it be more effective to deal directly
with the level that can alter this goal?

In the case of the disk jockey, the problem with the wife, while real, was
not the salient problem, the one that the person was already struggling
with. His problem was so much more serious that he wasn't even aware of the
problem in his relationship to his wife until you changed the subject. This
is the problem I described as being self-centered. The first thing he did
every night after doing his show was to rush home and listen to a tape
recording of it. What was he listening for? He said he was trying to learn
how to do it better. So what was wrong with the way he was doing it? What
was he afraid of hearing when he played back his performance? What is it
like to listen to a two-hour performance you have already given, knowing
that a lot of people have heard it and being unable to change a thing about
it, and wondering whether you did it well enough?

Maybe he is very unsure of his abilities. Maybe he is afraid he might have
said something that others will be upset about. Maybe he has no clear idea
of what makes a good show. Maybe he is a perfectionist, getting down on
himself for even an imagined bobble. Or maybe he's just perfecting his art,
like any professional practicing to improve his skills. The only way to
find out what's going on is to get him to talk not about what he does every
night, but about why he's doing it. It's obviously important to him, more
important than his relationship with his wife. Why?

The main hypothesis behind the method of levels is that the reason why is
always there: the higher systems that are responsible for the goals of the
behavior that is going on right now. The higher systems are not like deep
layers of the unconscious, hidden from view and hard to find. They are
right up front all the time, actively controlling. But they're not in
awareness.

Another hypothesis behind the MOL is that if you listen to what the person
says, he will tell you what the most active and therefore accessible
aspects of the next higher level are. They are always in the back of his
mind. They come through as meta-comments, comments not on the subject but
as attitudes, thoughts, and feelings about the subject. They may come
through only as an implied point of view, an implied evaluation, a
justification, a self-criticism. The job of the guide is simple: it is to
try to bring these background things into the foreground. My mental model
of this implies that in order to focus on these background subjects, the
person must literally change his point of view so he is operating from a
higher level -- the principle being that you're never aware OF the level
you're operating IN. And if my idea about awareness is right, this will
move the locus of reorganization to a higher level, where it might do some
good if good needs to be done. Of course this brings in a new set of
background materials, of which the person is not aware but which govern
what he is doing.

So that's the combination of theory and hypothesis that is behind the
method of levels. If you think about the mechanical procedures that I have
described, and which you summarized, you may see how they relate to these
underlying ideas. If you use the method without this basic understanding,
it probably doesn't make much sense -- if you can see an obvious solution
to a person's problem, why not just give him a hand and tell him about it?
If you want him to feel good and like you, why not just praise him when he
does something good? Why not help, if you're there to help?

If you consider the theory, however, you will see that it's not help with
solutions that's needed, but a point of view from which solutions can be
generated without help. Since you never know what the next point of view
will be, the best thing you can do is simply to jog the person up a level,
and wait to see what develops. If that doesn't reveal a problem, or solve
the problem, do it again. And then keep doing it until the person informs
you that this is the end of _that_ trail.

Best,

Bill P.

9

[From Bill Powers (980127.2205 MST)]

Tim Carey (980128.0745)--

higher level -- the principle being that you're never aware OF the level
you're operating IN. And if my idea about awareness is right, this will

Hi Bill .... I've been reading through this again and was wondering if you
could clarify the above statement a little more. Hypothetically speaking if
I notice the world as bunches of categories, would you say that I was
operating IN the category level of perception but if I was aware that I was
noticeing lots of categories then I would be doing this from a higher
level?

I think that's how it works. The up-a-level transition is going from "There
seem to be a lot of categories out there," to "I seem to be seeing
categories in everything."

Best,

Bill P.

10

[From Bill Powers (980127.2208 MST)]

From: David Goldstein
Subject: Re:The MOL and Therapy
           Bill Powers (980127.0133 MST)
           Rick Marken (980127.0730)
           Tim Carey (980128.0708)
Date: 1/27/98

Bill's post is very helpful towards understanding the MOL but I wonder
whether the readers of this list could use his description to do "pure
Vanilla" MOL. Time will tell.

They might. I've worked out (and demonstrated and described) one way; there
may be others. But as we both know, it's not easy to stay on track and
really do the MOL consistently. This takes practice.

What Bill says about the MOL is similar to the idea that: If you give a
person a fish you feed him for a day but if you teach him how to fish he
can feed himself for a lifetime. Who can disagree with this?

That's not quite the idea. It's more like "if you teach a person how to
move his arms and legs in a certain way, he may end up pulling a fish out
of the water. But if he understands that the purpose of the movements is to
put a baited hook in the water where a fish is, you don't need to tell him
how to move his arms and legs, and he'll probably catch the fish a lot
sooner."

Telling the DJ's wife to record the program but listen to it later is like
telling the DJ, or her, how to move the arm and legs. It would be more
helpful if the DJ or his wife were to start by recognizing what the problem
is: that she doesn't want to sit through it twice. Given that, and a desire
to solve the problem, I don't think it would have taken either of them long
to come up with a solution -- maybe yours, maybe another one.

You may remember that the DJ did find another solution: he started using
headphones. Somehow I got the idea that this didn't solve the _real_
problem. It's possible that his wife didn't want him to come home and spend
two hours ignoring her. But that's not the problem the DJ was focused on.

But if it takes the person several days to learn to fish, giving the
person a fish during the learning time will certainly be welcome and
maybe a necessary short term step. And should we actually teach him how
to fish anyway? Or, should we help him understand the problem from the
right point of view so he can discover fishing for himself? And why
should we help him at all, every person should be completely autonomous
and independent, and not need the help of another person.

People _are_ completely autonomous and independent. That's how they're
built. However, this doesn't mean that they don't ever need help, or never
ask for it. Or that you shouldn't give it if asked, and if you want to. I
can independently and autonomously ask for help, can't I?

I think that if you are asked for help and want to give it, you would
probably want to do so as effectively as possible. I've considered the
possibility that when any therapy works, it works because it has the same
effect as the method of levels. However, most therapies entail doing a lot
of other things as well, such as giving advice, analyzing dreams, or
administering rewards and punishments, to mention a few. It's quite
possible that those other things are irrelevant to any beneficial effects
that occur as a result of therapy. They may even slow the process, although
they don't necessarily stop it because the client is also being encouraged
to move to higher levels of awareness.

I'm not saying this is true, only pointing out the possibility. Since it is
a possibility, we need to check it out. To check it out we have to try the
method of levels by itself, without doing all those other things. If it
turned out that with the method of levels, the client had more insights
more quickly and was able to change more easily and with less conflict with
the therapist and himself or herself, that would suggest that the other
techniques that were left out had actually been slowing the process instead
of helping. Of course if results were slower in coming and more difficult
to get to, the MOL might become suspect. Either way, it would be good to
know the truth. Wouldn't it?

Best,

Bill P.

11

[From Bruce Nevin (980128.934)]

Bill Powers (980127.2205 MST)--

Tim Carey (980128.0745)--

... you're never aware OF the level
you're operating IN.

... if
I notice the world as bunches of categories, would you say that I was
operating IN the category level of perception but if I was aware that I was
noticing lots of categories then I would be doing this from a higher
level?

I think that's how it works. The up-a-level transition is going from "There
seem to be a lot of categories out there," to "I seem to be seeing
categories in everything."

1. Aren't we operating at many levels at once?

2. Can't we be concurrently aware of more than one perception at once?

3. Can't we be aware IN categories and at the same time be aware OF
perceiving categorically? (And also attend to a configuration, a
transition, or an intensity?)

4. Perhaps people differ in their access to concurrent modes of perception,
or their aversion to simultaneity. This was a factor identified in Ned
Herrmann's brain dominance profile (stereotypically
left-right/cerebral-limbic). Somewhat analogous to one's tolerance of
ambiguity, and to one's demand for closure (willingness to wait out the
distress of chronic error until some good alternative ways of resolving the
conflict have emerged from reorganization).

   Bruce Nevin

1 Like
12

[From Bill Powers (980128.0835 MST)]

Bruce Nevin (980128.934)--

1. Aren't we operating at many levels at once?

Yes, all the way from bottom to top.

2. Can't we be concurrently aware of more than one perception at once?

Yes, but we are limited in how many and at how many levels. All the
perceptual signals in all the active systems are there all of the time, but
we are consciously aware of only some of them.

3. Can't we be aware IN categories and at the same time be aware OF
perceiving categorically? (And also attend to a configuration, a
transition, or an intensity?)

Hard to do. Most generally, I think we "reside" most comfortably at a
particular level, with our attention on the world as represented at that
level (and lower levels). The higher levels remain invisible until, for
some reason, we move our conscious point of view higher in the hierarchy.
Of course they are acting all the time. You have a lot of higher-level
reasons for reading this post, but while you're reading it they aren't in
awareness (although as soon as I mention them, you probably see more of them).

If one habitually sees the world in terms of categories, these categories
just seem to exist in all the lower-level perceptions, and even outside in
the environment. There's a chair, there' a person, there's a sensation, and
so on. We categorize automatically without sensing this as something we're
doing. To become aware _of categorizing_, we must somehow move to a higher
level, so that categorizing becomes an object of attention -- not the
categories themselves, but the process of creating them. Only then can we
see that categories impose a lumpy structure on a world that is actually
continuously variable. Things that are alike categorically are not alike at
any lower level.

The method of levels is, in part, an exercize in moving the locus of
awareness to different levels. I don't worry about whether they fit the
levels in my model; they are what they are. If you pay conscious attention
to categorizing, you must (according to the hypothesis), be operating from
some higher position -- perhaps logic, or principles, but who cares?

4. Perhaps people differ in their access to concurrent modes of perception,

Definitely. That's what the MOL is all about. Most people stay stuck at a
particular levels most of their lives, with the higher levels working much
as they did when first acquired, in childhood. Most people, for that
reason, have very incomplete higher-level systems, which they are aware of
only occasionally. Most people, as the man said, live lives of quiet
desperation, caught up in conflicts that can't possibly be resolved at the
level where they're expressed -- yet it's only by luck that they find a
higher point of view where they can reorganize the systems that are
responsible for the conflicts.

Best,

Bill P.

1 Like
13

From Stefan Balke (970130)

[Bill Powers (980127.0133 MST)]

I want to say, what all the others said before, thanks for that
great post Bill.

As a practitioner of Ed's program I've some questions concerning your
student example:

To use a different example for a moment, what about a child who
doesn't follow the rules? One solution to this problem seems to
be to ask the child what the rule is, and then to ask the child
to make a plan, which basically amounts to not doing whatever it
was that is against the rule. If the child doesn't come up with
an acceptable plan, the adviser does: "How about, I'll keep my
hands to myself?" In other words, what you did was against the
rules, so don't do it any more, OK?

This does not strike me as very deep. If this procedure seems
to be helpful, it's probably not because of the plan-making, but
because of the attitudes of the people running the system, once
they understand PCT; what they show the child, rather than what
they tell the child.

Do you mean that the teachers should better use the MOL process
with the students instead of making plans and giving advices? If
so, would this include to ask why-questions (e.g. why did you
disturb again?) in order to reach the higher level. Ed shows us,
that why questions will directly lead to excuses, but not to take
responsibility for the own behavior.

Could it be a possibility to ask a student why it is so important
_not_ to be held responsible for a disturbance and how it feels to
be responsible?

A disruptive kid isn't really willing to deal with the teacher, at
least it doesn't share the goal of the teacher, that everybody in
the classroom should follow the rules. They control for other
perceptions like to be accepted by the others or having fun.
Could it be possible to do a MOL session, if the explorer has the
goal to hide his insights?

If 'making plans' and 'giving advices' doesn't go far and the MOL
is strictly based on a non-directive way, what else could work ?
To create a trustful relationship at first ?

Best, Stefan

14

[From Bill Powers (980131.0134 MST)]

Stefan Balke (970130)--

As a practitioner of Ed's program I've some questions concerning your
student example:

Do you mean that the teachers should better use the MOL process
with the students instead of making plans and giving advices? If
so, would this include to ask why-questions (e.g. why did you
disturb again?) in order to reach the higher level. Ed shows us,
that why questions will directly lead to excuses, but not to take
responsibility for the own behavior.

What does Ed mean by "excuses?" He means things like "He hit me" or "She
made fun of me." While people (not just children) will often give answers
like this to a "why did you do that" question, such answers don't really
explain why the person acted as he or she did. All they do is describe a
disturbance of something they were trying to control. What they are
omitting is a description of the goal, which they set themselves: I didn't
want to be hit; I didn't want to have faces made at me. If you ask "why"
about those goals, you get an entirely different kind of answer.

Since "why" is very often interpreted to mean "what was the disturbance,"
it's probably a good idea to avoid using that word. However, it's still
desirable for the child to describe the goal that was being served by the
action. After all, the child is going to be asked, "Does that action get
you what you want?" Before asking that question, it might be a good idea to
call attention to what the child wants.

The correct first question is, "What are you doing?" This means "Please
describe to me the action you just carried out." But the next question, the
one that works toward moving up a level, is "And what were you trying to
accomplish by that action?" If the child offers an excuse -- "he was making
faces at me" -- you simply continue to ask for the reference condition:
"Were you trying to stop him from making faces at you?" And if the answer
is "yes," you can NOW ask "Is he really going to stop making faces at you
from now on? Does hitting him work?" See George Venetis' chapter in Ed's
new book for a beautiful example of how to do this.

An alternative is to ask "Why don't you want him to make faces at you?" A
likely answer is, "Because it makes me angry, it makes me feel bad." You
can talk about that for a while, and then, depending on what comes up,
shift attention to _why_ it makes the child feel angry or bad. But that's
more like therapy, and a young child may not have any good answer. The
simplest thing to do is just to get the child to see that not only is the
action ineffective, but it has unwanted side-effects in _this_ school.

Could it be a possibility to ask a student why it is so important
_not_ to be held responsible for a disturbance and how it feels to
be responsible?

That's probably too big a jump. I'd rather stick closer to the details.

I think it's important to be completely fair. The child is not, in fact,
responsible for "the disturbance," meaning what the other child did. The
child was trying to keep something from happening that he dislikes or
trying to make something happen that he likes. Of course you are referring
to the disturbance of the classroom, what Ed calls the "disruption." But
that, in most cases, is an unintended side-effect of the action. Before you
get into that, it's important to let the child know that it's natural to
resist disturbances, to try to get what you want, and to make sure both you
and the child know what perception was being protected by the action that
happened to cause a disruption. This establishes what the child wants, so
you can ask if the action is getting the child what is wanted.

Of course the place to follow this line of questioning is in the RTC, not
in the classroom. Let's face it: in the classroom, what matters is not what
the disrupting child wants, but what the teacher wants. Secondarily, what
matters is what the majority of other children want, assuming the teacher
isn't boring them to tears, too.

If the teacher says, "I'm throwing you out of the classroom because you're
breaking the rules," the teacher is doing exactly what the child isn't
supposed to do: making an excuse, blaming the teacher's action on the
child's behavior or on some impersonal set of rules. If the teacher is to
serve as a PCT role model, the teacher must say, "I'm giving you the choice
of stopping your disruptions or going to the RTC, because I intend to teach
without disruptions. So which is your choice?" The teacher takes
responsibility for the teacher's actions. This doesn't need to be done in
an angry, hostile, or punitive way: it's just stating a fact.

There are all sorts of ways to say this; what's important is the meaning.
The meaning is, if you do that again, I will send you to the RTC. That's
the truth, isn't it? Once the child has been warned, there is no second
chance. The teacher may say, "I see you have chosen to go to the RTC," but
in truth there is no longer any choice. That way of putting it is simply
avoiding the teacher's responsibility for _sending_ the child to the RTC. I
don't think it fools the child, either: if the child disrupts again, the
reason is still an attempt to resist a disturbance from someone else or to
get something the child wants; it's not that the child thought, "Gee, I
think I'll go to the RTC, and disrupting the class is a good way to do
that." So saying that the child "chose" to go to the RTC is just a lie, and
the child knows it. It is not good to lie to the children. From that, they
learn the effectiveness of creating verbal distortions to avoid taking
personal responsibility.

Just imagine this: suppose a child explains to the teacher, "I told him
that if he made faces at me again, he was choosing to have me hit him.
Well, he made faces again, and I hit him, so he was the one who chose to
cause the disruption." How is that different from telling the child "You
chose to go to the RTC?"

To keep this discussion from seeming like unrelieved criticism, let's
change the subject. In terms of PCT, why is Ed's program effective? It is
effective, and there are many reasons.

First, the teacher is acting as a good control system, and the social setup
actually allows good control. The teacher has to tolerate a disruption only
once, and then can turn the problem over to someone else. This avoids
conflict, and the teacher doesn't have to resort to extreme efforts and
emotions.

Second, as a consequence of the above, disruptions are handled in a calm,
matter of fact way. There is no need for anger or punishment; the child is
not labeled as "bad." The setup makes it perfectly clear that disruptions
have inevitable consequences, but the consequences are not harmful to the
child, degrading, or discouraging. The child's self-esteem is not under
attack; past misbehaviors are not used cumulatively against the child, in
the attempt to control the child. Forgiveness is taken for granted, because
blame is never used. There is no "debt to society" to be paid.

This means that a great deal of the effectiveness of the program comes from
things that are _not_ done to the child, things that are commonplace in
traditional classrooms. And in order not to do these things, the teacher
and the administrators must undergo a radical change of attitudes and
methods. They must see the futility of trying to control the children by
force, intimidation, punishment, and invalidation -- and also by bribes,
rewards, and false praise. They must stop feeling they need to control the
children, and thus stop _wanting_ to control them. Ed's program gives them
not only a reason to change their relationship to the children, but a
simple and direct means of doing so. Each teacher who learns to carry out
the program successfully will inevitably experience a personal
transformation -- as many of them have, in fact, said.

Another very important factor is that when the classroom is calm and
relaxed, children have far less reason to want to be elsewhere or to spoil
the atmosphere. Ed says "they want to be with their friends," but that's
only part of the story. Children like to learn things, not only with their
friends but with a friendly teacher. Ed puts this in terms of removing
privileges and then giving them back for good behavior, but that is an echo
of an older philosophy, the methods of behaviorism. The point of going to
the RTC is not to punish or to earn back rewards that have been withdrawn,
but to work out problems in a way that's useful and satisfying. There is a
positive reason for going to the RTC, a net gain for the child. In the RTC,
the child learns about controlling and being controlled, about working out
problems with other people so they cease to be problems, about how people
and societies work when they are working well. And then, upon going back to
the classroom, the child sees a small example of such a society in action,
so what is learned in the RTC is validated.

A disruptive kid isn't really willing to deal with the teacher, at
least it doesn't share the goal of the teacher, that everybody in
the classroom should follow the rules. They control for other
perceptions like to be accepted by the others or having fun.
Could it be possible to do a MOL session, if the explorer has the
goal to hide his insights?

No, and this is a good reason not to complicate the classroom interactions.
In the classroom, the teacher takes responsibility for establishing the
rules and for sending disruptors to the specialists who deal with them.
With older children, (As LeEdna Custer has shown), it is very effective to
take the time to discuss the rules with the whole class, because the
children will see why they're needed and will be supportive of them. But
once the rules have been discussed, the teacher has to say, "Those are the
rules I intend to live by, and since I have the right to control my own
life, and you have the right to control yours, here's how we will make sure
the rules are carried out. Anyone who doesn't want to live by them will get
one chance to reconsider, and the second time will go to the RTC to try to
work out a better way of being in our class. That's how it's going to be."

As to using the MOL in the RTC, I think that's the answer, but we have to
work out how to do it. What we don't need are plans like "keep my hands to
myself." A much better plan is "save it for recess," or "ask if I can move
my seat," or "ask for a pass to the RTC when I get too angry" or "remember
that words can't hurt me." The idea is not to suppress one's anger or
restlessness, but to get a little insight into where it comes from, so some
real solution can be found. Just making resolutions not to break the rules
any more is no answer. A real plan is a way to get what the child wants
while allowing the teacher to get what the teacher wants. Maybe with very
young or troubled children, "keep my hands to myself" is the most you can
expect, but
it's not a final solution by any means.

Best,

Bill P.

15

[From Rick Marken (980131.1000)]

Bill Powers (980131.0134 MST) --

Great post on the relationship of MOL to RTP. I especially like
your imaginary description of a kid blaming his actions on
the disturbance (and not taking responsibility for his own
controlling):

Just imagine this: suppose a child explains to the teacher, "I told
him that if he made faces at me again, he was choosing to have me
hit him. Well, he made faces again, and I hit him, so he was the
one who chose to cause the disruption." How is that different from
telling the child "You chose to go to the RTC?"

Of course, this a completely make believe example. It's like
imagining that a person on CSGNet would think: "I told him that
if he said I was wrong about the relationship between behaviorism
and PCT again he was choosing to have me call him "tactless". Well,
he said I was wrong about the relationship between behaviorism and
PCT again so I said he was "tactless", so he was the one who chose
be called "tactless". Of course, that's ridiculous. Who would
blame their own behavior on the disturbances to the variables they
are controlling? Certainly no grown-up;-)

Love

Rick

···

--

Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/

16

[From Tim Carey (980201.0645)]

[From Bill Powers (980131.0134 MST)]

This was a great post Bill, thanks.

Tim

17

[From Stefan Balke (980205)]

Bill Powers (980131.0134 MST)

Bill,

I like to thank you for your post about the MOL and the RTP. In your message it
became clear, that your view differs from Ed's view on certain points. I will
think about both views and try to find out what makes best sense for me.

Sorry, if I hit a wound point between you and Ed.

Best, Stefan