I received some email questions from 2 students and I will try to answer them here. These first ones are from Malou Laureys (ML). I am RM.
ML: memory: does PCT make a difference between implicit emotional memories (when Amygdala is still involved because of unprocessed emotions of stressful events) and explicit autobiographical memories and how?
RM: At the moment the PCT model of emotion and memory is in its infancy since there is no research aimed at testing it. But in its current state PCT would say that all emotions are the sensed physiological consequence of error and differ only in terms of the cognitive interpretation placed on the cause of that error. To the extent that an emotion is remembered it would be a memory of the cognitive interpretation of the physiological state. And since such memories are always about the error in one’s own control system(s) such memories are always autobiographical. So I guess I would say “no”, PCT makes no distinction between implicit emotional memories and explicit autobiographical memories. All memories of emotion are autobiographical.
ML: what is the link between memories and reference levels?
RM: Reference signals (not levels – those are the observed states of controlled variables) can be stored as addressable memories.
ML: reorganization: is it always random?
RM: I would say yes. Reorganization presumably happens when control is not working. If one knew how to repair a non-working control process then that repair process would itself be a non-randomly operating control system. Random reorganization happens when the control hierarchy doesn’t know how to “fix” itself.
ML: reference levels: conscious/unconscious reference levels?
RM: According to PCT, consciousness operates outside the perceptual control hierarchy. I think one can become conscious of one’s reference levels – one’s own specifications (goals) for perceptions; these specifications can become the object of conscious awareness by being played back as perceptions.
ML: origin of reference levels: genes, past experiences, conscious choices ?
RM: All three. But the most common source of reference levels (actually, reference signals, which specify the levels of a controlled variable) are higher level systems in the control hierarchy. Genes are presumably the source of reference specifications for intrinsic (mainly physiological) variables; past experiences influence – via reorganization – the way higher level control systems set references for lower level control systems; and conscious choices reflect the volitional aspect of consciousness making random (arbitrary) selection of references as a way of solving conflict. In PCT, having to choose or decide is always a sign that there is a conflict. Skilled control never requires choice or decision.
ML: does each level in the hierarchy have intrinsic reference levels?
RM: No, intrinsic references are for physiological variables, like blood O2 levels, that are affected by the performance of the perceptual control hierarchy.
ML hierarchical levels of perception: what do you think is the level above system concepts? where does this level gets its reference levels from?
RM: I don’t know whether there is a level above system concepts or what level might be. Indeed, I don’t know whether the system concept level (or any other level) actually exists. The whole hierarchy is a hypothesis although there is pretty good evidence for the existence of levels up to programs. But above that, who knows. The theory does say that if there is a top level of the hierarchy the systems at this level get their references set via reorganization, which means that it would be tough to change it. Which seems right. If the top level actually is systems concepts then surely the religion (or lack thereof) one is raised in would count as a system concept. And since people typically continue to control for that system concept as a grown up (by maintaining the practices and/or beliefs of that religion) it’s pretty good evidence that once the reference for that system concept has been established through rearing it’s tough to change it.
RM: And here’s some questions from Marissa Brioni
MB: - from an MOL psychotherapy perspective, why does a disruption in the client’s talk/body language/etc. indicate a background thought?
RM: I don’t think there is a formal explanation for these disruptions in the PCT model. But that won’t stop me from trying to give a PCT explanation of them. A “background thought” is another way of describing the “point of view” from which the client’s consciousness is aware of what they are talking (or body languaging) about. The “point of view” or “background thought” is presumed to be from some level of the hierarchy relative to the level at which the client’s problem (conflict) manifests itself. A disruption presumably occurs when the client’s point of view suddenly shifts to a different level in the hierarchy (up or down) from the one they are currently at. So suddenly they are aware of what they are talking about from a new perspective. When this happens they are likely to experience what they are saying or doing as an error relative to what they would want to say or do from this new point of view. So they stop what they are currently saying or doing in order to eliminate the error – hence, the observed disruption. And there is often laughter or giggling , which suggests that the physiological consequences of the error are being “spent” or used up by this activity. One of my favorite examples of this phenomenon happens at the beginning of Dylan’s 115th dream:
See if you can figure out the point of view change that resulted in the laughter that disrupted the beginning of the track.
MB: - how does one know when goals shift upwards in the hierarchy?
RM: It’s not goals that shift upwards but “point of view”. And right now whether that point of view shifted up or down is based on an interpretation of what the client said; whether the client now seems to be discussing things from a higher or lower point of view. Basically, it is part of the “art” of doing MOL therapy. As a non-artist myself I’ve always hoped that someone could write a paper (possibly called “MOL for Dummies”) that would explain in terms understandable to beginners like myself how to tell whether, after a disruption, a client is now looking at the problem from a higher or lower level point of view.
Hope this helps.
Best regards
Rick