therapy

[David_Goldstein1]

Re.: Bill Powers (990916.0333 MDT)

As soon as I sent my post, I knew I should have just kept it to myself.

Tim, I apologize for my remark. I agree with Dick Robertson that it has no
place on the discussion list. I apologize to the other members of the CSG
list for the personal attack.

I really don't know you, or your therapy experiences background or your life
experiences. I do think these count for something. It is not the years per
se. It is not the lack of a degree or a license to practice psychology. If
these really mattered, I wouldn't have such high respect and admiration for
Bill Powers and PCT.

I wouldn't go to a doctor who didn't have a lot of experience in the problem
I was having. Yes, I would be attracted to a doctor who had a good theory to
bring to the problem.

I have given some thought to how to apply PCT to psychotherapy.I do think
that limiting "psychological problems" to internal conflict is too limiting.
But if that is how you want to limit it, fine.

···

From: David M. Goldstein, Ph.D.
Subject: Re: Re: therapy
Date: 9/16/99

[Kenneth_Kitzke_Value]

[From Kenny Kitzke (990916.0800)]

In a message dated 9/15/1999 11:17:12 PM, davidmg@SNIP.NET writes:

<< From: David M. Goldstein, Ph.D.

Tim, since you don't really know me, you didn't really detect what was my
background thought. What I really wanted to say is that you display a very
arrogant, know-it-all attitude for someone who is only a graduate student.
It is very unbecoming and annoying. I guess your not as good at MOL as you
think you are. >>

Mr. Goldstein:

I don't know you, but I know Tim Carey a little bit. I perceive him as
arrogant at times, just like you perceived him in this case. He sometimes
appears to take the ideas of others and brush them aside as rubbish,
especially when they run contrary to what he "knows" to be the case in his
very limited lifetime of experience. He has done this to me as well.

On the other hand, your observations of Tim Carey seem to be the type often
spoken by people who overvalue age, certifications and personal experience.
They usually nod wisely but speak foolishly.

Now, I have also noticed that not only does Tim have this "know-it-all
attitude" at times, others do too! In fact, it is hard to find any one on
this forum that does not come across like this at times. Some more often
than others, but still everyone. That includes Bill Powers, Rick Marken,
you, me; well, everyone.

I propose there is a part of the human spirit in all people that wants to be
perceived as being right and worthy of respect. I think this urge resides at
the highest level in the PCT hierarchy. Is it a principle or belief
reference anyone would write down as a reference? Or, is it a system level
reference concept that people will admit they establish principles and
beliefs to be able to control for all the time?

Or is it some perception of self that is way deep inside our psyche that
flares up only under certain very special and perhaps rare perceived
conditions? But, when it does flare up, our actions come forth at very high
gain to make us feel good again, at least in our own eyes? And, if we look
foolish to others, so what?

Respectfully,

Kenny (not even a PhD candidate)

···

Subject: Re.: therapy
Date: 9/15/99

[Kenneth_Kitzke_Value]

[From Kenny Kitzke (990917.1200)]

<Bill Powers (990916.2041 MDT)>

<The real solution, I should think,
would be to stop _wanting_ to say such things, which would imply a
fundamental change of attitude.>

Based on your proposed HPCT model, at what level would you think his
reference perception for "wanting to say such things" resided in Dr.
Goldstein's hierarchy? Could you speculate on how such a reference
perception would have originated?

from what level of his hierarchy would this reference perception be changed
and stopped? Or, are you convinced that some "reorganization" mechanism
within him somewhere would do it?

These are serious questions I have. I have a belief of respecting my elders;
except when they prove unworthy of my respect. Situation ethics, I suppose?
I would certainly respect your answers.

[DTSDTO]

Mr. Powers you display a very arrogant, know-it-all attitude, for someone who
is only an old guy. You are not even a graduate student in psychology. What
makes you think you have any right to even talk about PCT.

I think before someone can talk about and understand Newton's laws of motion
they should be at least as old as he was when he discovered them. Also, I
still believe the world is flat, because I am only 34 and Christopher
Columbus was 41 when he discovered America proving to his peers the world was
not flat. Further I believe the earth is the center of the universe, and I
will continue to believe that until I am as old as Copernicus.

Even when I am as old as Newton, Columbus, and Copernicus, until I get my
degree in Physics, Geography, and Astronomy I will keep my mouth shut and
listen.

Mark

[Marc_Abrams3]

from [ Marc Abrams (990915.1025) ]

From: David M. Goldstein, Ph.D.
Subject: Re: therapy
Date: 9/15/99

David: Have you ever worked with a person who had an unrealistic

perception

of some aspect of him-/herself? For example, the person wanted to be a
Rock-n-Roll musician but didn't have the talent for it.

David, what is an unrealistic perception?

Also Tim, on a serious note, I am a few years past my Ph.D. (26 years),
which I understand you will be receiving in a few years, and you should

show

more respect to your elders.

How should he do this? By accepting what you say at face value?

Marc

[Marc_Abrams3]

from [ Marc Abrams (990915.1034) ]

[From Dick Robertson,990915.0730CDT]
.
I have been using the MOL for many, many years and I"m still trying to learn
more about it. With some people, if it would work with them, it needs some
greater skill than I for one have. I have a person right now who seems
merely to get confused every time I try to get her to move up a level. I
have recently resorted to Ed Ford's technique of teching some basic PCT.
It's too early to say what the results are.
It's too easy to decide in the abstract that you know what would be the best
therapy for everyone.

I know i am not being "politically" correct but,
Dick, i am a bit confused here. You said you used MOL for " many, many
years". Ed has been around PCT as long as you have. If MOL has not been that
effective in your practice why only recently have you tried Ed's technique.
Maybe Tim was right in suggesting that maybe it has been the implementation
of MOL and not the approach itself that has been the problem.

I don't think that Tim was suggesting that MOL was the "right" therapy for
everyone or everything. I think he made a _number_ of important points.

1) The DSM is a joke. According to that tome's definitions _everyone_ is
afflected with any number of "psychological" ailments

2) That a lot of Psychological "problems" are really not either problems or
"pshycological" in nature.

3) You as a therapist can't "get her/him" to do anything.

4) It's not only the MOL, but the enitre approach and thinking about the
problem that is, or should be affected by your knowledge of PCT.

I'm not a clinician any more then I'm a doctor. But my experiences with both
over the years gives me a pretty good perspective on practice and it's _not_
comforting.

Marc

···

from my perspective:

[Marc_Abrams3]

from [ Marc Abrams (990916.1044) ]

[From Dick Robertson,990916,0711CDT]
Wait. what do you mean by that? Have you had a bad experience with some
particular clinician? If so, do you think that tells what it would be

with all

clinicians?

Of course not. Actually my feelings about clinicians ( some of my best
friends are clinicians ) are two fold. One from personal experience
which in _retrospect_ was BS, my experience that is ) and the more
powerful image while working with them with "Special Ed kids" and the whole
area of "testing", "categorizing" and generally putting the kids into no win
situations. The clinicians themselves were nice people. They just did not
have a clue. These were pre-K kids that would effectively be stigmatized for
life by some of these "tests". It's amazing how Special Ed grew as the
budget for it grew. H'mmm. Am I being a bit cynical? After my experiences I
really don't think so.

Dick, I think Tim brought out some very cognizant points. As a clinician you
can only do what your client will let you do. The sooner clinicians and
health care providers understand this, the better off everyone will be. This
is not to say that a clinician cannot be helpful. A clinician can be very
helpful. But _only_ if the client is interested in getting the help.

Marc

[Marc_Abrams3]

from [ Marc Abrams (990916.1244) ]

[From Bill Powers (990816.1004 MDT)]

Thanks for the historical clarification and the addition to the
ecord.( i.e. the archives )

Marc

To verify what Dick said: Powers, Clark, and MacFarland gave a seminar on
feedback theory at Carl Rogers' Counselling Center at the University of
Chicago in 1957. Dick Robertson was there, and has followed "PCT" (as it's
called now) since then. So Dick Robertson has been a PCT-aware
psychotherapist for 42 years.

Ed Ford first attended a meeting on "PCT" (as I remember it) at Palo Alto,
CA, as part of a 1983 meeting of the American Society for Cybernetics; I
believe he had been interested for one or two years prior to that.

While the idea for the method of levels was born in the 1950s, it was not
seriously considered as a method of psychotherapy in itself until the

'80s.

···

And I didn't start pushing it with any confidence until the late '90s.
That's "1990's" for anyone with a Y2K bug.

Best,

Bill P.

[Bill_Powers1]

[from Mary Powers (990913)]

David G. 9/10/99

I think you have the wrong idea about MOL therapists being neutral and
detached. As though they were being cold fish by not expressing their
opinions. I think an MOL session involves a very intense and close
relationship between client and therapist.

You say "I don't think we can say we really know the best way of doing the
MOL with different sorts of people. As far as I know, we have some case
studies on a very few people".

And it is pretty clear that you are not going to contribute any yourself.

Too bad.

Mary P.

[Bill_Powers1]

[from Mary Powers (990916)]

David: Saying that Tim is "only" a graduate student and that therefore he
is displaying an "arrogant and know-nothing attitude" reveals a scorn and
prejudice and stereotyping about graduate students that is astonishing to
me. You seem to be unable consider his remarks on their own merit because
of your assumption that they were written by one of these lower life forms.

As you said about Tim, very unbecoming and annoying.

Mary P.

[Norman_T_Hovda1]

[From Norman Hovda (990915.0730 MST)]

[From Tim Carey (990915.1715)]

>From: David M. Goldstein, Ph.D.

[snip]

>Example 2: A 34-year-old woman with DID (Dissociative Identity Disorder).
>This woman has had several alters which were suicidal.

I completely disagree with you here. From what you've written this woman is
bursting at the seams with conflict. If that is the case and _if_ PCT is an
accurate description of the organisation of a human being then regardless
of what _you_ do to her, the only thing that this woman can do to solve her
problems is to shift her awareness to a position where reorganisation can
do some good. MOL is the most direct approach I know of for that.

"shift her awareness" bring to mind a tool I think quite useful. The
"sentence completion technique" developed by Nathaniel Branden.

http://www.nathanielbranden.net/psy/psy02.shtml

Are you aware of it and do you feel such an approach is applicable to
_shifting_ client "awareness to a position where reorganisation can
do some good"?

Usually learning,
nth

[Philip_Runkel]

from Phil Runkel on 990915:

···

On Wed, 15 Sep 1999, Richard Marken wrote:

Tim, all your posts on the topic of "therapy" have been
wonderful but this last one [Tim Carey (990916.0535)] was
absolutely brilliant. It's a joy for me to see that you,
in the therapeutic trenches, have come to the same conclusions
about the relationship between PCT and therapy as I have.
You may not have your PhD yet but your clear thinking and
intellectual integrity have sure earned you my respect.

Mine, too.

--PJR

[Philip_Runkel]

Here Phil Runkel on 16 Sept 99 says "Thanks" and "Delicious" to Mark
Lazare, who so modestly admitted on 990916 to being younger than Newton,
Columbus, and Copernicus.

(Finis)

[Dick_Robertson]

[From Dick Robertson,990915.0730CDT]

Richard Marken wrote:

[From Rick Marken (990914.0720)]
David Goldstein (9/14/99) –

I think that a therapist has to have many tools in his

therapy box.

Why? I know that if one’s only tool is a hammer then one is

inclined to treat every problem as a nail. But what if every

problem is a nail (ie. conflict); why, then, would you

need any tool other than a hammer (MOL)? I guess what I’m

asking is: what are the many different problems you, as a

clinician, run into that require many different tools

(besides MOL) to solve?

Richard S. Marken
Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313

Why? I’ll tell you why. Because it’s not established that
every problem is a conflict. That’s an hypothesis, and it’s a fairly
good one in many instances. But, some clients appear to need to develop
new control systems before they can achieve objectives that they might
gain from: fantasies that they understand only symbolically, not
functionally; or by attempts at imitating perceptions that they don’t fundamentally
understand; or maybe several other types of “defects.” Other types
of problems appear to involve some form of overwhelment (pardon the neologism)
of emotion. I have not always been able to identify conflict in such
cases. There may be still other types of problems. Since therapy
is art and skill as well as (we hope) science, it’s too soon to say that
anyone knows everything about what it should consist of, in my opinion.
I have been using the MOL for many, many years and I"m still trying
to learn more about it. With some people, if it would work with them,
it needs some greater skill than I for one have. I have a person
right now who seems merely to get confused every time I try to get her
to move up a level. I have recently resorted to Ed Ford’s technique
of teching some basic PCT. It’s too early to say what the results
are.

It’s too easy to decide in the abstract that you know what would be
the best therapy for everyone.

Best, Dick R.

[Dick_Robertson]

[From Dick Robertson,990815.0748CDT]

Rick Marken wrote:

[From Rick Marken (990914.1810)]
David M. Goldstein –

I think that a therapist has to have many tools in his therapy box.
I

consider the MOL to be one of my tools.

Tim Carey (990915.0755)–

I think that is a statement therapists make when they don’t

base their practices on a coherent, scientific theory about

how living things are organised.

Nicely put.

Best

Rick

I don’t agree.
Best,

Dick

···

[Dick_Robertson]

[From Dick Robertson,990916,0711CDT]

Marc Abrams wrote:

>From [ Marc Abrams (990915.1034) ]

[From Dick Robertson,990915.0730CDT]
.
I have been using the MOL for many, many years and I"m still trying to learn
more about it. With some people, if it would work with them, it needs some
greater skill than I for one have. I have a person right now who seems
merely to get confused every time I try to get her to move up a level. I
have recently resorted to Ed Ford's technique of teching some basic PCT.
It's too early to say what the results are.
It's too easy to decide in the abstract that you know what would be the best
therapy for everyone.

I know i am not being "politically" correct but,
Dick, i am a bit confused here. You said you used MOL for " many, many
years". Ed has been around PCT as long as you have.

Not Quite, I think. I got interested in "General Feedback Theory of Behavior"
in 1957.
Ed did, I think, about 1970. Correct me if I'm wrong about that.

If MOL has not been that
effective in your practice why only recently have you tried Ed's technique.

I was speaking about my work with one particular person there.

Maybe Tim was right in suggesting that maybe it has been the implementation
of MOL and not the approach itself that has been the problem.

That is always a possibility. As I said in my earlier post, I'm still trying to
gain skill in my use of it. Could be I'm a slow learner.

I don't think that Tim was suggesting that MOL was the "right" therapy for
everyone or everything. I think he made a _number_ of important points.

Yes, I agree.

>From my perspective:

1) The DSM is a joke. According to that tome's definitions _everyone_ is
afflected with any number of "psychological" ailments

2) That a lot of Psychological "problems" are really not either problems or
"pshycological" in nature.

3) You as a therapist can't "get her/him" to do anything.

4) It's not only the MOL, but the enitre approach and thinking about the
problem that is, or should be affected by your knowledge of PCT.

I'm not a clinician any more then I'm a doctor. But my experiences with both
over the years gives me a pretty good perspective on practice and it's _not_
comforting.

Wait. what do you mean by that? Have you had a bad experience with some
particular clinician? If so, do you think that tells what it would be with all
clinicians?

Marc

Best, Dick R.

[Dick_Robertson]

[From Dick Robertson,990816.0723CDT]
Tim Carey wrote:

[From Tim Carey (990916.0525)] [From
Dick Robertson,990915.0730CDT] Dick:Why? I’ll tell you why.
Because it’s not established that every problem is a conflict.
That’s an hypothesis, and it’s a fairly good one in many instances. Tim:Yep,
good point. It is an hypothesis. But tell me Dick, from a theoretical point
of view, if PCT is an accurate conceptualisation of human nature in what
other way would you define a psychological problem.
This is a good question and worthy of more thought. My short answer
is that we were talking about therapy. That, in turn, can be a kind
of catchall for what clincians do, which is the sense in which I was using
it. Sometimes I, as clinician, do something you might call coaching.
On rare occasions I provide some information. Sometimes I encourage
my client to do some introspecting or searching for information.
I may do other things that I don’t quite notice myself.

As I have said here on the net on past occasions, I think it’s great
that you, Tim, came on PCT early in your training in therapy. You
might well have a purer application of PCT than some of us like David and
me. I was already an intern in Carl Rogers’ non-directive therapy
when I first learned about what later became PCT. And old habits
are strong. One does not reorganize totally even upon becoming as
thoroughly excited as I did when I first heard Bill and the 2 Bobs.

Dick:But, some clients appear to need to develop new control
systems Tim:

Then, for me, this is a learning problem not a psychological problem.

See above.

Dick:Since therapy is art and skill as well as (we hope) science, Tim:And
that may very well account for the confused state its in currently.

I agree, but I don’t think we’re yet equipped to do all the research
we need to (see your own answer to Bruce Gregory on today’s net).

Dick:it’s too soon to say that anyone knows everything about
what it should consist of, in my opinion. Tim:Yep, that would be my
opinion too. Unfortunately psychotherapy research is not moving any closer
to answering that. In lots of cases it’s not even asking the question.

See above.

Dick:I have been using the MOL for many, many years and I"m still
trying to learn more about it. Tim:That’s a much bolder statement
than I would make Dick. I have been dabbling in MOL for about 12 months
now. I would say that in only a couple of cases have I used pure MOL. In
other cases I tried to push too hard, or started to advise and suggest
things to the client, or had some intent of solving the clients problem
or seeing them behave differently.

Yes, me too. But, I have admired those of your case presentations
that gave enough detail that I could get a feel for what you were doing.
Fortunately, I didn’t have to learn not to give advice, being trained by
Rogers in non-directive therapy. But, I can’t say I never do.
Some lessons I have to learn over and over.

Dick:It’s too easy to decide in the abstract that you know what
would be the best therapy for everyone. Tim:Yep, and it would be nice
if there was some research around to establish that. In my opinion, however,
a rigorous scientific theory is not abstract.

I won’t quibble about whether a scientific theory is or isn’t abstract.
This seems like a semantic question to me. Any kind of theory, real
theory, I think is a systems level concept and that I call abstract.
But I think I know how you were using the word in a different sense.
To that I say, yes, but let’s keep PCT as a theory distinct from a theory
of therapy. PCT is a general theory the applications of which are
mainly still to be drawn out. Just like you can’t build bridges directly
from Einstein or even Newton, so I don’t think PCT immediately suggests
what I should say to someone suffering psychological pain in a given conversation,
with a given background at a given moment.

I have in the past published cases where I derived from PCT some suggestions
for how to proceed in a given case at a given moment, with satisfying results.

Cheers, Tim

Same to you, Best, Dick R.

[Dick_Robertson]

[From Dick Robertson,990916.0748CDT]

David Goldstein wrote:

From: David M. Goldstein, Ph.D.
Subject: Re.: therapy
Date: 9/15/99

Tim, since you don't really know me, you didn't really detect what was my
background thought. What I really wanted to say is that you display a very
arrogant, know-it-all attitude for someone who is only a graduate student.
It is very unbecoming and annoying. I guess your not as good at MOL as you
think you are.

Cheers,
David

See, now this is the sort of thing that I get upset about with the net. I
think both of you guys are really fine fellows, and I don't think you would
either of you come off as so arrogant in a in-the-flesh conversation. David,
I took your original remark about respect as a bit humorous way of pointing
out to Tim that he was perhaps saying more than he could really back up.
(Which I noticed that he admitted in his reply to Bruce Gregory.)

Was I wrong?

Then each reply gets a little more extreme. I have seen it happen over and
over here on the net. I wonder if it comes from treating netposts like real
conversations but without having the benefit of hearing tones of voice,
changes of facial expression etc. The unintended result, I think, finely
comes down to unnecesary rudeness.

Best, Dick R.

[Dick_Robertson]

[From Dick Robertson,990916.0757CDT]

Bill Powers wrote:

[From Bill Powers (990916.0333 MDT)]

>From: David M. Goldstein, Ph.D.
>Subject: Re.: therapy
>Date: 9/15/99
>
>Tim, since you don't really know me, you didn't really detect what was my
>background thought. What I really wanted to say is that you display a very
>arrogant, know-it-all attitude for someone who is only a graduate student.
>It is very unbecoming and annoying. I guess your not as good at MOL as you
>think you are.

What's all this about respect for age? I thought you were joking,

So did I and I still think I was partly right,

but now
it seems you were serious. Respect for age is earned, not automatically
granted after you acquire a certain amount of seniority. And anyway, it's
not respect for age per se -- plenty of people have had one year's
experience many times, which is not quite the same thing as many years'
experience.

If respect for age is the big thing, David, then our argument is over,
isn't it? Just do as I tell you and you'll be OK, young fellow.

Best,

Bill P (73 age points).

But, anyhow, you only have 73 + one month. I have 73 + 4 months,
So there.

Best, Dick R.

[Dick_Robertson]

[From Dick Robertson,990918.0704CDT]

[From Tim Carey (990917.0545)] [From
Dick Robertson,990816.0723CDT] >>Dick:in which I was using it.
Sometimes I, as clinician, do something you might call coaching.
On rare occasions I provide some information. Sometimes I encourage
my client to do some introspecting or searching for information. >Tim:OK,
thanks. We’ve already discussed the coaching idea in terms of it being
perhaps more a learning problem rather than a psychological problem. I
can see “providing information” might fall under the “coaching” umbrella.
If you’re basing your practice on PCT, though Dick, how does PCT inform
the practice of “introspecting” or “searching for information”?

Dick: Tim, I don’t think PCT informs the practice of introspecting
one way or the other. Some people notice events and situations outside
themselves almost to the exclusion of what’s going on inside. You
can’t even begin to understand what their intentions are (or thus, offer
the MOL to them) until they take a look inside. That is just one
of many possible examples. Don’t jump all over it as if I were my
total explanation of how I do therapy. Think about it in terms of
all the things you do that aren’t strictly the MOL. Ask yourself
why you do them.

Dick:habits are strong. One does not reorganize totally
even upon >Tim:I’m not sure what you mean here. I thought you either
reorganised or you didn’t. I’m not sure what a partial reorganisation is.
Dick: Tim, Did I say partial reorganization? If so, I might have
been trying to take a shortcut. What I meant was that in any given
reorganization some of the hardwiring might change. But, that doesn’t
affect everything that one does. For example, for me to become let’s
say an airline pilot I would expect to reorganize over and over again.
Sometimes habits that I already have could well interfere with good practices
and I would have to reorganize if the anxiety/scare/malfunction that I
might experience would be enough to trigger enough intrinsic error to trigger
reorganization again. And then, remember that reorganization is basically
a random process, if you accept Bill’s hypothesis about it. So, it
might have to be triggered repeatedly before a successful outcome.
Meantime, however, you go on doing things, based upon how you are organized
at each point in time. Some of that doing might involve controlling
perceptual variables for which you are organized but which in retrospect
turn out not to have been functional for the goals you had (what I called
old habits dying hard).

Dick:I agree, but I don’t think we’re yet equipped to do all
the research we need to (see your own answer to Bruce Gregory on today’s
net). >Tim:Hmmm. Maybe I stuffed up again with my communication in
my post to Bruce Gregory. I don’t think it’s “not being equipped” that’s
holding back psychotherapy research Dick. There’s oodles of research going
on. The only thing that’s lacking is a coherent theory of human organisation
to guide the research.

Dick: Tim, I meant WE pct’ers who might want to do psychotherapy research
aren’t yet well equipped, never mind all the other researchers who don’t
have a clue. I might add, BTW that DAvid Goldstein has made a number
of attempts a year or two back to stick his neck out with descriptions
of MOL attempts that he tried. That would look to me like attempting
to begin finding out how to start some PCT based therapy research.

Dick:theory of therapy. PCT is a general theory the applications
of which are mainly still to be drawn out. Just like you can’t build
bridges directly from Einstein or even Newton, so I don’t think PCT immediately
suggests what I should say to someone suffering psychological pain in a
given conversation, with a given background at a given moment. >Tim:Nope,
I don’t think PCT suggests that either. PCT isn’t that kind of theory.
PCT does, however, provide a pretty neat description of internal conflict.
If that is going on then the only thing for the person to do is to reorganise
from a level that will have some impact on the conflict. How the person
gets to that level would, I think, be a great research project.

Dick: Yes, here we could probably get some help from Plooij’s research,
both the results and his methods. The last time I visited with him
he was strongly recommending that we do videotapes of peple doing the things
we are interested in and then analyze them in terms of our understanding
of the hierarchy. I recall passing this on when you first began describing
your earliest experiences in doing MOL. I think you even did some
taping, didn’t you?

As I’ve tried to say before on the net, for me MOL says much
more about the experience of the client than the experience of the therapist.
It seems to be the case (again, only my opinion and something that could
perhaps be explored empirically) that alot of what happens in psychotherapy
actually interferes with the person shifting their awareness. MOL is
about only doing what is fundamentally necessary. At the moment that seems
to be providing opportunities for the client to shift their awareness to
a higher level. The most parsimonious way of doing that that I know of
so far is to notice background or meta comments and to encourage a new
conversation around that topic rather than at the level they were previously
conversing.

Dick: Yes, I agree. And as I’ve said previously, this part comes
fairly easily to me because of my original work with Rogers’ non-directive
therapy approach.

Perhaps one of the reasons that MOL will be resisted is because
it really trashes the idea of the psychotherapists omnipotence and ability
to heal. MOL is perhaps the approach to therapy that recognises most explicitly
that if there’s any “fixing” that goes on, it can only ever be the client
who fixes him/herself. For a lot of psychotherapists I suspect that’s going
to be an uncomfortable realisation.

Dick: I don’t quite understand where all this business about the
omnipotence of the therapist comes from. Most of the great pioneer
therapists, in their writings at least, said the same things about the
clients being in the lead and fixing themselves. Even Freud.
But, unfortunately a lot of people nowadays find it fashionable to trash
Freud without having read him.

By the way, a little while ago there was a query about what
research could be done with MOL and PCT based ideas of psychotherapy. That’s
the reason I’ve been indicating what I’ve felt where reasonable research
ideas throughout my posts.

Yes, good. As I’ve told you before I find your detailed descriptions
of what you said and what your client said, etc, as your best contributions.
Keep it up.

Cheers, Tim

Best, Dick R.