therapy

CSGnet Archive CSG1999
61

[From Richard Kennaway (990917.1512)]

Rick Marken (990916.1250):

What's wrong with blaming the "victim" when the victim is the
one who is making himself the victim?

Because the "blaming" is just an expression of one's own resentment against
the victim not doing what one thinks they obviously should be doing. The
only perception that is successfully controlled by this action is the
blamer's perception of superiority over the victim.

-- Richard Kennaway, jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk, http://www.sys.uea.ac.uk/~jrk/
   School of Information Systems, Univ. of East Anglia, Norwich, U.K.

62

[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?

Best

Rick

···

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

63

[From Rick Marken (990915.0930)]

Norman Hovda (990915.0730 MST)--

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

I was not aware of Branden's technique but it doesn't seem
like the technique aims for the kind of attention shift you
get in the method of levels (MOL). The attention shift in MOL
is less like attending to how you might complete a sentence
than it is like attending to how you feel about doing
sentence completion. In MOL the attention of the client
moves "up a level", from the task at hand (completing
sentences, say) to one's attitude _about_ the task at hand
("this is fun", "this is boring", whatever).

Best

Rick

···

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

64

[From Rick Marken (990915.1530)]

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.

Best

Rick

···

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

65

[From Rick Marken (990916.1240)]

Kenny Kitzke (990916.0800) --

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.

Yes. More agreement!

I think that that part of the human spirit is called a
_control system_. It's a _big_ part of the human spirit.
Control systems want to get the "right" perception; that
is, they want the value of the perceptual signal to match
the (possibly varying) value of a reference signal. The
_right_ value of a perceptual signal is the value of its
corresponding reference signal.

I think this urge resides at the highest level in the PCT
hierarchy.

I think it resides at _all_ levels of the hierarchy; we want to
perceive the _right_ temperature (intensity) of shower water; we
want to live in the right neighborhood (configuration, principle),
we want to worship the _right_ god(s) (principle, system concept),
we want to say the _right_ things about how to do therapy (program,
principle, system concept). People want everything they experience
(perceive), including their experience of aspects of their own
behavior, to be _right_ (to match their references for these
perceptions) When all their perceptions are right enough (close
enough to their references), they are _in control_; when some
of their perceptions are not right enough (not close enough to
their references) they feel angry, depressed, spiritually
empty -- that is, they are not in control.

Dick Robertson (990916.0748CDT) --

See, now this is the sort of thing that I get upset about with
the net...
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.

I think what you are seeing on the net is just good ol' conflict;
person A wants person B to agree that "X is true and Y is false";
person B wants person A to agree that "Y is true and X is false".
In science, these conflicts are supposed to be resolved by
modeling and test; you build a model that is based on the
assumption that "X is true and Y is false", say, and then see
if the behavior of the model matches the behavior of the system
under study. Of course, this is idealized scientific conflict
resolution; real science is carried out by real people (control
systems) who don't abandon their references (all of which are
set as the means of controlling some other perceptions) just
because scientific test proves that they are wrong. So even
scientific conflicts get extreme; people just want the
perceptions they want -- even scientist people.

I think these conflicts over ideas are more tame in person
because most people are controlling for variables that keep
them from "going too far" in person; they don't really like
to see other people sad or embarrassed, for example. So I think
you are right; the conflicts on the net get extreme because
we can't control for many of the social variables (such as
another person's tone of voice, facial expressions, etc) that
keep our "in person" interactions (reasonably) civil -- because
we can't perceive these variables.

My own feeling is that this aspect of the net can actually
be quite productive. The conflicts on the net tend to get
to the nitty gritty issues and (sometimes) good suggestions
for research or modeling can come out of them. This kind
of productive conflict can actually be less likely in person
because, in person, everyone is busy trying to be nice. So
the conflict is smoothed over and nothing happens: the Pope
goes home thinking he's convinced you think the moon may
be a perfect sphere and you go home thinking that the Pope
is going to take a look through the telescope you left him.

I think it's nice to avoid direct ad hominum comments on
the net; but it strikes me that ad hominum is very rare
on the net. What the opponent in an argument says can
_feel_ to you like ad hominum because something of yours
(your idea) is being challenged. I've found that if I
assume that my opponent is just challenging my ideas --
not my value as a human being -- then even fairly intense
scientific conflicts can be quite comfortable and even
fruitful (at least, from my perspective).

Best

Rick

···

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

66

[From Rick Marken (990916.1250)]

Tim Carey (990916.0535)

Bill pointed out at CSG, that conflict is really the only
psychological problem. If you have a lack of skill, and no
associated psychological problems you just go find yourself
a coach. If you're coming up against insuperable disturbances
and there are no associated psychological problems then you
just change goals or environments.

Bruce Gregory (990816.1533 EDT)--

This seems facile to me. It seems to invite blaming the victim.

What's wrong with blaming the "victim" when the victim is the
one who is making himself the victim? Who do you blame if you
are the one setting the conflicting references for perceptions
that keep you from controlling either perception? Aren't you
the only one to blame for making yourself miserable in this
case?

Best

Rick

···

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

67

[From Rick Marken (990916.1600)]

Me:

What's wrong with blaming the "victim" when the victim is the
one who is making himself the victim?

Bruce Gregory (990816.1750 EDT) --

Is the slave making himself miserable by wanting to be free?

No. The slave's problem is that he is being forced to do
something. The slave is a victim of coercion (even in the
extremely unlikely event that the slave wants to do what he
is being forced to do).

Tim Carey (990916.0535) had said that when one has no
internal conflict one can deal with "insuperable disturbances"
by changing goals or environments. I think Tim is right here.
The unconflicted person can deal with disturbances; such a
person is in control.

Maybe you think Tim is saying that, therefore, the slave's
should be blamed for his problem because a non-conflicted slave
would just change goals or environments. But I don't think
Tim is saying this at all because the slave is not just
dealing with an insuperable disturbances (like hurricane
Floyd); the slave is dealing with much stronger (armed)
_control systems_ who, unlike hurricanes and other innanimate
disturbances, will actively adjust their actions as necessary
to keep the slave enslaved. The slave can't solve his problem
(being enslaved) by changing his goal or his environment.
The slave can change his goal but he is still enslaved;
the slave cannot change his environment because there are
much stronger control systems actively working to prevent that.

I think Tim was (correctly) saying that the problems most
people come into therapy for are loss of control problems
that result from internal conflict; people whose problems
are the result of internal conflict can be "blamed" for
creating their own problems. People whose control problems
are the result of actions by external agencies (like slavers)
are obviously not to blame for their problems -- at least,
not from a PCT perspective.

Best

Rick

···

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

68

[From Rick Marken (990917.0710)]

Tim Carey (990917.1245) --

The "change the goal or change the environment" scenario I was
referring to when the problem of control was insuperable
disturbances. MOL is my method of choice when the problem
of control is conflict.

Bruce Gregory (9909.0650 EDT) --

I take you are a proponent of Bill's "stop wanting that"
solution to problems that do not involve conflicts.

I think "stop wanting that" is the solution of choice
_only_ when there is internal conflict. Internal conflict
is caused by incompatible wants; the only way to solve
such conflicts is to stop wanting the perception on one
side or the other of the conflict.

Is "stop wanting to live" your advice to the individual
stricken with cancer?

Cancer is not an internal conflict, is it?

Best

Rick

···

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

69

[From Rick Marken (990917.1700)]]

Me:

What's wrong with blaming the "victim" when the victim is the
one who is making himself the victim?

Richard Kennaway (990917.1512)

Because the "blaming" is just an expression of one's own
resentment against the victim not doing what one thinks
they obviously should be doing.

I meant "blaming" in the sense of "placing responsibility",
not in the sense of "finding fault". But I know that "blame"
has both these implications so I really wouldn't want to say
that I "blame" the victim of internal conflict. All I meant
to say is that, when a person has a problem due to internal
conflict, the person him/herself is the only one responsible
for that problem and is the only one who can solve the
problem -- by changing the goals that are creating the conflict.

People who suffer from internal conflict are not in control
of the conflicted perceptions. For example, if I want to go
to a party _and_ go to visit my ailing mother I am not in
control of either perception and I am likely to attribute my
problem (and the possible solutions to my problem) to
outside influences. If my mother falls ill just when the
party is scheduled then I might feel like Mom, or her illness,
is the cause of my problems. If the party hostess postpones
the party then I might feel like the hostess has solved my
problem.

Since the party and Mom perceptions are not under control,
disturbances that push these perceptions towards or away
from their desired states will seem like the solution or
the cause of the problem (not getting what I want). In fact,
I am the cause of the problem because I (control systems in me)
am setting the goals that produce the conflict. The only way
to permanently solve such a conflict (according to PCT) is to reorganize
the higher level control systems that are setting
the conflicting goals. So I am the one to "blame" (who is
responsible) for my problem.

Best

Rick

···

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

70

[From Rick Marken (990922.0910)]

Bill Powers (990919.1428 MDT)

Perhaps the phrase "stop wanting that" would seem more
reasonable if stated differently: find a higher-level
position from which you can change your present reference
signal into one more appropriate to the situation.

Bruce Gregory (990921.2104 EDT)--

This seems to me to be an important point. Sometimes you
cannot directly set a reference level, but you can
synthesize a higher order perception, the control of which
sets the reference level.

Do the phrases "find a higher-level position" and "synthesize
a higher order perception" mean the same thing to you? They
don't to me.

When Bill talks about "finding a higher level position" I
think he is talking about an attentional position. In MOL
we are apparently dealing with a aspect of ourselves (the
conscious aspect) that is "outside" the perceptual control
hierarchy and can, thus, observe (attend to) the operation
of the hierarchy from different points of view ("positions").
When we go "up a level" in the MOL what is presumably going
"up" is our attentional position relative to the levels of
the control hierarchy; we are looking at our own controlling
from a new (higher level) point of view. The perceptions being
controlled at this higher level were always there; we were
just not conscious of them because our attention was focused
elsewhere (at lower level perceptions).

When you say "synthesize a higher order perception" I think
you are describing a process of intentionally forming a
new perception from more elementary perceptions; for example,
forming the perception of a figure from a set of randomly
placed dots. So "synthesize a higher order perception"
means something quite different to me than "find a higher-
level position".

So I guess I'm asking what you mean when you talk about
"synthesizing a higher order perception"; are you talking
about what I understand Bill to be talking about when he
says "find a higher-level position"; or are you talking
about what I think you are talking about. And if it's the
latter, could you explain how "synthesizing a higher order
perception" could help people change the goals (references)
that are producing intrapersonal conflict.

Thanks

Rick

···

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

71

[From Rick Marken (990922.1305)]

Bruce Gregory (990922.1319 EDT)--

Does the MOL uncover existing perceptions or does it
create new perceptions?

My experience with the MOL suggests that it brings our
attention to perceptions that we didn't know we were
controlling. So I would say that MOL uncovers existing
perceptions.

Let's imagine that I perceive someone to be (1) extremely
knowledgeable, and (2) often abrasive. Let's say that when I
perceive the person to be abrasive I respond in kind

I suspect that you do this in order to control for seeing
the person be less abrasive. So one perception you are
controlling for is the abrasiveness in others.

and this clashes with my belief that being abrasive is
unproductive.

And you are also controlling for being productive. So there
are your conflicting goals: wanting low abrasiveness in others
and wanting high productivity in yourself. You can't achieve
both goals by being abrasive. If you are abrasive there
is error in the system controlling for productivity; if
you are not abrasive there is error in the system controlling
abrasiveness in others.

if I perceive the other person's abrasiveness to be a form
of defensiveness, I may react quite differently to it.

I think what you are doing is noticing a new perceptual
variable to control: defensiveness. You are not really
synthesizing a new perception because you were able to
perceive defensiveness all along; you just hadn't noticed
that perceptual dimension of the "abrasive" person's behavior.

If controlling defensiveness and abandoning control of
abrasiveness works in the context of your existing hierarchy
of goals, then this change could, indeed, solve your intra-
personal conflict: you can control for the desired level
of defensiveness you want to see (possibly none) and the
desired level of productivity you want to see simultaneously,
sans conflict. because you don't need to be abrasive to
control either variable.

When I come to the realization that what I have been calling
abrasiveness could also be called defensiveness I am aware
of a new perception--the perception that the person is
defensive.

What you are saying here is what I've heard many therapists
say about how to help people solve their problems. They say:
"Help people _perceive_ things in a _new_ (and presumably
better) way". You are saying that you have solved your problem
by learning to perceive the same behavior as "defensive"
rather than as "abrasive".

I believe that what is actually going on when people solve
conflicts by "perceiving things in a new way" is that they
are "controlling a different perceptual variable". I think
your example shows that people can solve conflicts without
"going up a level". If people can be persuaded to try
"looking at things differently" they may end up replacing
conflicting with non-conflicting goals when they start
controlling a different perceptual variable.

So suggestions about how a person could "look at things
differently" might be a good tool to keep in the
therapist's toolkit. But I think the MOL, to the extent
that it can be used, can get the patient to see his/her
conflict and, thus, find a solution to that conflict much
more efficiently.

Best

Rick

···

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

72

[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

···

--

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

73

[From Rick Marken (990918.1600)]

Me:

I think "stop wanting that" is the solution of choice
_only_ when there is internal conflict.

Bruce Gregory (990817.1020 EDT) --

So you differ with Tim. Tim believes that "stop wanting that" is
appropriate when the problem is insuperable disturbances, not
conflict.

I think Tim's point was that disturbances are only "insuperable"
when there is either lack of skill, an internal conflict or, I
would add, a coercive agent producing the disturbances. And I
agree with Tim on this.

An insuperable disturbance is an influence on a controlled
variable that cannot be countered by the control system. That
is, an insuperable disturbance is one which keeps a controlled
variable away from its reference state despite the best efforts
of the control system.

In a control system, like a thermostat, that controls just one
variable, an insuperable disturbance (like an open window on
a cold Minnesota night) will keep the controlled variable
(sensed room temperature) from ever reaching its reference
state (say, 68 degrees). An insuperable disturbance to room
temperature causes chronic error in the thermostat control
system. The thermostat will continuously produce maximam output,
to no avail; the controlled variable never gets close to its
reference state.

In a hierarchy of control systems, an insuperable disturbance
is evidence that something is wrong; either the system has
not learned the skills necessary to avoid the effects of the
disturbance (if the thermostat were part of a human type
hierarchy of control system, other systems in the hierarhcy
could learn to shut the window or move to LA), the system is
in conflict (it can't get up to close the window because other
systems want to stay seated in a comfortable chair drinking
a hot toddy) or a stronger, external agent is acting to keep
room temperature cold. This agent is actively working to nullify
all efforts of the hierarchy of control systems to keep the
temperature variable at 68 degrees.

Best

Rick

···

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

74

[From Tim Carey (990915.0755)]

From: David M. Goldstein, Ph.D.

I think that a therapist has to have many tools in his therapy box. I
consider the MOL to be one of my tools.

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.

Cheers,

Tim

75

[From Tim Carey (990915.1715)]

From: David M. Goldstein, Ph.D.

Example 1 of a non-MOL problem: I saw a 8-year-old girl today for the

second

time.

I agree that from your description that this girl doesn't need MOL. That's
because she doesn't have a psychological problem. I would see an inability
to read as a learning problem not a psychological problem. I would still
maintain however that with an understanding of how we acquire the ability to
control certain variables (which is the task of reading) such as Bill
discusses in "A cybernetic model for research in human development" (LCS 1)
you might be able to come up with something a bit more helpful for the girl
than:

after I show her how, (b) Neurofeedback (brain exercises) program to help

I know of no valid research supporting the efficacy of "brain exercises".

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.

The MOL did not have

any obvious applicability in reducing the risk of self-harm.

Perhaps you (and your clients) would benefit by considering the way you are
applying it rather than a shortcoming in the technique because it didn't
change her behaviour.

Example 3: A couple who is having marriage problems in their first year of
marriage.

Again, if this is a simple case of conflict between two people then I agree
that MOL is probably not what you would use. But _again_ based on the PCT
conceptualisation of interpersonal conflict it shouldn't take too long to
have this couple negotiating their way to a happier marriage.

In my experience, when conflict between two people persists it is usually
because there is some significant _intrapersonal_ conflict going on. The
husband, for example, might really hate how much money his wife spends but
he also wants her to be happy. It's easy in this instance to focus on the
wife as the source of the conflict. The wife, however, is only _half_ the
conflict. MOL would, again, be my method of choice in this situation.

Psychoanalytical Therapy also emphasized the central importance of conflict
and insight.

Did Psychoanalytical Therapy also emphasise the idea of hierarchical
perceptual levels and reorganisation?

In modern times, other therapy approaches came to replace this

sort of approach because it did not seem to work for a particular kind of
problem, or population.

Sure, NO therapy works for a particular population or problem. In fact NO
therapy works all the time even for a single population or problem. Doesn't
that tell you something David? Isn't there a chance that there all missing
something? Don't you find it a little interesting that with all the research
going on about psychotherapy effectiveness that the most important
ingredient researchers can come up with is the _relationship_ between the
therapist and the client? And to top it off they don't even know why this is
important?

Aren't you prepared to even entertain the notion that it's because _no-one_
out there in the world of psychotherapy has an accurate handle on how humans
are put together?

DSM-IV labels don't impress me at all David. I don't think they tell you
anything about a person because fundamentally they are based on the
observable actions of the person. My understanding is that from a PCT
perspective, how an individual acts tells you _almost nothing_ about what
the person is doing.

I think that the MOL has a role to play in resolving internal conflict.

So do I. And I also think that internal conflict is _the_psychological
problem to deal with.

This

is great. What if the problem is in the input function? What if the problem
is in the output function? What if the problem is in the comparator

function

but is not related to a conflict?

I can't see how any of these would necessarily effect a person's capacity to
control. And what if there was a problem with a person's comparator? What
form of psychotherapy do you know of that even _recognises_ that a person
has a comparator let alone what to do with a fautly one. PCT and MOL would
_still_ be the way to go.

Look David, I'm sincerely not trying to criticise the work you do or the
beliefs you have at all. From what you've described you're a very competent
psychotherapist that has a lot of success. I'm not denying that at all. I do
think it's fair though, when you present your ideas on psychotherapy to
people who perhaps are not in the field, for someone else to present an
alternative view.

Cheers,

Tim

76

[From Tim Carey (990916.0510)]

[From Norman Hovda (990915.0730 MST)]

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"?

Hi Norman,

No I'm not aware of this tool and I'm not really interested in becoming
aware of it. I don't want to sound critical or disrespectful but I have lots
of tools and techniques that I have learned over the years. With MOL I've
found that they just muddy the water. As Bill so often puts it, MOL is about
doing _less_ as a therapist _not_ more.

MOL is really not about the latest clever technique that a therapist has
used. In fact I am appalled at workshops and lectures that I go to where
programs are presented for treating this disorder or that disorder.
Psychotherapists DO NOT treat disorders. They treat people.

For me, MOL describes the experience of psychotherapy from the _client's_
perspective. Frankly, I don't care what people do as long as it's helping a
client shift their awareness to a level that reorganisation will do some
good (if they want to experience "some good"). I've found that the most
parsimonious way of doing that is just to ask them about both sides of any
conflict they are experiencing and then to ask them about any up-a-level
comments that they make.

Cheers,

Tim

77

[From Tim Carey (990916.0517)]

[From Bruce Gregory (990815.1002 EDT)]

Do you know any valid research supporting the efficacy of MOL?

Good point Bruce. No I don't. I have an N=1 that I have sent away for
publication but it's validity is pretty weak.

The only valid research supporting the efficacy of MOL is the amount of
valid research that supports the efficacy of PCT. In psychotherapy, the
words therapy and theory are hopelessly interchanged and it seems that every
psychotherapist comes up with their own model of mental illness. I have
maintained that I think it is this lack of a coherent conceptualisation of
human nature that has held back both the theory and the practice of
psychotherapy. At the moment, I don't think psychotherapy researchers even
know the questions to ask let alone the answers to find.

It is the theory that MOL is based on that I see as its strength. As I said
in my post to Norman, for me, MOL is about what is happening for the
_client_. There is no psychotherapy theory that I know of that is able to
describe in any sensible way _how_ clients get better. I think PCT does
that.

Who knows? I'm probably just as wrong as every other psychotherapist out
there who is sure they have the answer.

Thanks for picking me up on a sloppy point.

Cheers,

Tim

78

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Cheers,

Tim

79

[From Tim Carey (990916.0535]

From: David M. Goldstein, Ph.D.

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.

I've worked with people whose perceptions I thought were unrealistic, yes.
In those cases I worked real hard to try and keep my biased and judgmental
opinions to myself. How do you know that it's unrealistic. From what I've
heard, talent is what's necessary to make it as a Rock-n-Roll musician.

And if this was the case wouldn't it be interesting to find out what he was
controlling for by pursuing a career as a Rock-n-Roll musician? In fact,
what are they controlling for by even _telling_ you that that is what they
want to do?

Are they telling people they want to be a Rock-n-Roll musician because they
know they'll never be one but they're acutally scared shitless of getting
any kind of job. If they work hard on their guitar and tell people that
they're pursuing a career in R-n-R then people get off their case about
looking for a job.

The point is "who knows"? I could make up lots of other fairy stories based
on the information you've given me. I just think, PCT provides you with the
information necessary to start asking some reasonably sensible questions.

Or, a person has difficulties with facial recognition and often

misperceives

who he/she was talking to and the more subtle social cues involved in
interpersonal interactions.

Then again, I don't see this as a psychological problem. Why doesn't she/he
just say "I'm sorry dear, I'm a bit confused - who am I talking to?". If the
person baulks at a strategy like that (as I would) then I'd say there might
be some psychological distress going on _along with_ the inability to
recognise faces. An inability to recognise faces doesn't _cause_ you to
become distressed David, unless you also _want_ to be able to recognise
faces. And the situation where you _want_ to be able to do something but are
_unable_ to do it, sounds pretty much like internal conflict to me.

A friend of mine recently worked with a woman who had problems with short
term memory. She would be in a social situation with some friends and would
start telling them a story. If someone interrupted she would then not be
able to remember where she was up to and would start again.

Her _problem_ however was that she was looking foolish in front of her
friends. She could have just said "Now, where was I up to" (in my judgmental
opinion) but from _her_ perspective that would have been admitting that her
memory wasn't what it used to be and she didn't want to face that. I would
see MOL as being very appropriate if this woman was ever going to get
through her psychological distress.

David: Tim, I have no problem with an alternative view. It is too bad that
people have to take such an all or nothing attitude about the MOL. My view
is that it is not all, and it is not nothing.

It's not MOL I'm taking an all or nothing view of - it's PCT. And in my mind
PCT _is_ all or nothing. Frankly David, I don't know how you simultaneously
hold the ideas that a person is a living control system AND they are vessel
that is caused to think and feel different things but events (internal or
external) that happen to them.

I think that the PCT perspective allows for other possibilities for failure
to control than conflict.

Sure, and then MOL is not appropriate - but to me that would suggest they do
not have a _psychological_ problem. Some time back Rick suggested that there
were three ways that failure to control could be manifested: lack of skill,
insuperable disturbances, and conflict.

Bill pointed out at CSG, that conflict is really the only psychological
problem. If you have a lack of skill, and no associated psychological
problems you just go find yourself a coach. If you're coming up against
insuperable disturbances and there are no associated psychological problems
then you just change goals or environments.

In my experience, however, very often (and research would be great to
investigate this more) there are psychological problems associated with the
other problems of control.

A child, for example, may have learning problems. That might be a lack of
skill. He wants to get better at schoolwork but doesn't want to go to the
learning support teacher because then the other kids will tease him. That to
me, would be a conflict _associated_ with a lack of skill.

A woman may be getting sexually harassed at work. That may be an insuperable
disturbance. If there's no other problem, she'd just report the boss, or
change jobs. What if, however, she doesn't think she can get another job and
she can't be out of work because she is supporting 5 kids. She doesn't want
to report him because her co-workers will shun her if she does. I would call
that a conflict _associated_ with insuperable disturbances.

MOL would, I think, be appropriate in both instances.

In fact, I think Bill has made the point that whenever problems persist over
a period of time there is likely to be some conflict getting in the way of
reorganisation (again an empirical question) otherwise the system just
reorganises and gets on with it.

Actually I don't see what you and Dick see the problem is with people
learning new control systems. That is what happens from the time a person is
born. I would think it is far more the exception than the rule (perhaps
another empirical question). When this learning is prevented or delayed or
interfered with I would first suspect some conflict somewhere in the system
and would want to discount that before moving on to other things. When I say
"first" I am assuming you have ruled out neurological problems such as might
be the case with a blind person wanting to learn to see.

I am a fan of PCT and MOL. Really, I swear!

All evidence to the contrary ;-). Actually, I wouldn't describe myself as a
fan of PCT. For me PCT is just the way things are. I also wouldn't describe
myself as a fan of gravity. MOL, on the other hand, is something I'm pretty
impressed about. I'm impressed because it is an application of the theory
that works. Just like I'm impressed that people can land on the moon (as an
application of the laws of gravity).

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.

I don't know what to say to that David (apart from thanking you for letting
me know one of the things you control for). At university I'm surrounded by
people just as "deserving" of respect as you (guess how much I show them). I
have _never_ (that I can remember) subscribed to the notion that a person
should just be granted respect because of their position or title or years
of experience.

And since there is a lot of research out there to suggest that a therapists
credentials and years of experience are _unrelated_ to the effectiveness of
therapy (as are "type" and "duration" of therapy), I see no reason to grant
you respect based on the criteria you offer.

On the other hand, I don't think I have been disrespectful either. If I am
being disrespectful by apparently criticising your "use a range of
techniques" approach, aren't you being just as disrespectful when you
criticise my "use MOL" approach?

Anyway, I'll bow out now. As I said my only goal was to give people reading
this list an alternative idea about psychotherapy than the one you and Dick
present. I've done that now so.

Thanks for providing me with an opportunity to clarify again my ideas on
psychotherapy.

Cheers,

Tim

80

[From Tim Carey (990915.1400)]

[From Rick Marken (990915.1530)]

Thanks for the post Rick.