Concepts

Method of Levels: A Therapeutic Approach Based on William T. Powers' Perceptual Control Theory

by Tim Carey

Disruptions of this nature are so common place that they go unnoticed most of the time. In fact, they were so common place for me that I hadn't noticed them until they were pointed out to me by Bill Powers. Now I sometimes find when I'm watching television I'm even able to " spot" the disruption occurring in the dialogues of the actors. The disruptions are perhaps like the phenomenon of control. Many people see behaviour as occurring in response to a stimulus or perhaps even caused by an internal thought or command. It was William T. Powers marvelous insight that behaviour is one element of a circular and seamless control process that allows people to think of behaviour in a way that they hadn't thought of before. In my experience, when disruptions of the kind that I am describing are discussed with people they almost instantly can identify with what I am explaining. I think perhaps that PCT provides us with a way of understanding these disruptions where before they were of little use to the process of therapy. Disruptions of this nature, however, are so important that they form the cornerstone of MOL.

The theoretical component of MOL comes from Perceptual Control Theory (PCT) as devised and described Powers. Powers developed PCT to explain the fact that living things are able to achieve consistent sensory experiences while living in a constantly changing environment. I am able, for example, to taste coffee in my mouth even though the kettle might be empty, and I have run out of milk and the coffee jar has been put in a place different to the one I left it in. I am also able to keep my car where I want it on the road even though a strong wind is blowing and the surface of the road is uneven and there are other cars around me. And I am even able to keep my reputation as a good teacher in tact even though the information I present changes and the people I present it to change and the venues I present it in change.

To do all these things, in fact, in order to live for any length of time in the environments we live in, Powers made the revolutionary insight that we must control information coming in rather than information going out. That is, we control our sensory input not our motor output. In other words we don't control our behaviour, we control the sensorial consequences of that behaviour. This idea seems counterintuitive until a moments reflection reveals that the idea of motor control is nonsensical.

Clench your fist. How did you do that? And how do you know your fist is clenched? For most people fist clenching is a trivially simple thing to do. You want to see your hand in a " clenched" configuration and voila!, before your eyes your hand is clenched. You know its clenched because you can see it and feel it. You could even clench it with gloves on or under water. Seeing and feeling your hand in a clenched position are both sensory experiences. Even if you wanted to, you are not able to experience the signals going out to your muscles. You experience the signals coming in to tell you that your goal has been achieved.

In order to control our sensory experiences and live in an unpredictably variable environment, Powers has proposed that living things are organized as negative feedback control systems. That is, whatever we are made of, we must have something inside us that specifies what is to be experienced, we must have something that detects what is being experienced, we must have a way of comparing the specification with what is being detected, and we must have some way of affecting the environment to change what is being detected. Since many living things are able to control complex experiences, Powers has proposed the basic arrangement that has just been described is repeated in a hierarchical order such that the way of affecting what is being detected at one level is to alter what is being specified at a lower level.

We now have the observation, disruptions occurring in a persons verbal description of an experience, and the theory, PCT. Another observation that will help to tie the disruptions that occur to the theory involves awareness. It seems to be the case that a persons awareness can move across the range of human experiences. At will, you can become aware of the brightness of the light in the room you are in, or the shapes of the books on your bookshelves, or the position of the lamp beside your favourite chair, or the satisfaction you derive from your relationships with people you are close to. Awareness could be thought of as passing a piece of black cardboard with a hole in the middle of it over the Mona Lisa. At any time you can move the cardboard anywhere on the painting you want to but you can only see what appears through the hole. Awareness seems to be able to move anywhere over the perceptual hierarchy of negative feedback loops, but at any one time you are only aware of a small portion of the totality of the experience of being you. When a disruption occurs it is assumed that for that brief period of time the persons awareness had shifted to a different level in the perceptual hierarchy.

From time to time it seems that negative feedback loops at one level specify incompatible experiences for loops at a lower level. In many instances, this incompatibility is handled without so much as a blip in performance. Will I have my eggs poached or scrambled? Will I go to a movie or the beach? Will I wear the blue or the checked shirt? At other times, however, this situation can endure and become chronic. Will I live on my own or stay in an unhappy relationship? Will I seek others approval or do what I want to do? Will I take the great job in another city or stay close to friends and family? When these kinds of situations persist we say that the person is in conflict.

Conflict occurs, from a PCT perspective, when a control system at one level specifies two incompatible experiences to be created at a lower level at the same time. Be here and be there, go left and go right, do this and don't do this. Often people first become aware of the conflict as a feeling of frustration, irritation, anger, anxiety, hopelessness, or despair. They may even become aware of one or both of the goals that are maintaining the state they are in. In almost all cases, however, people do not become aware of the situation that is creating the incompatibility between the two experiences. Leaving or staying in an unhappy relationship are perhaps only incompatible experiences within the context of the belief that the only way to be happy is to be in a relationship. A person who believed, on the other hand, that happiness could be created in many different ways and with many different people, might not experience conflict about leaving an unhappy relationship. If people are to resolve chronic conflicts, therefore, they must direct their awareness to the level in their hierarchy where the conflict is being created.

MOL is essentially an awareness shifting exercise, moving attention from the disruption to the level where it is created. Although MOL is a marvelous way of resolving internal conflict, however, you don't even have to experience conflict to enjoy the process. MOL is a wonderful, almost meditative, experience that two people can do together. As an exercise in self-awareness, one person takes the role of observer (O) and one person takes the role of experiencer (E). E begins talking about anything at all that comes to her mind. O's role is twofold. O must encourage E to discuss her experience as fully as possible. To do this it helps if O eliminates as much as possible the extent to which he makes assumptions about what E is describing. If E were to make a statement like " I'm feeling pretty satisfied at the moment" , O would assume that he knew nothing about being satisfied and might ask questions like: " Do you like being satisfied?" " Can you tell me about being satisfied?" " What's it like to be satisfied?" " How do you know you're satisfied?" " Where do you feel satisfied when you feel it?" .

The other aspect to Os role is to notice disruptions when they occur and to draw Es attention to them. O might notice E look away for a second or two and might say " What went through your mind when you looked away just now?" . Or E might pause mid-sentence and say something like " Am I doing this right?" . O would then draw Es attention to this by asking questions like: " Are you concerned about getting it wrong?" " Are you thinking there's a right way to do this?" " Do you feel that there are particular things I want to hear you saying?" .

The conversation proceeds in this manner until it reaches a natural conclusion. Often, E will sense she is at the end of the thread she started and will be left with a reflective feeling of greater self-understanding. At other times O and E might agree that today doesn't seem to be the day for one reason or another and might go on to another activity.

The process of MOL as just described may seem similar to other therapeutic techniques that people are familiar with. Many of the microskills of good counseling such as establishing rapport, nonverbal encouragers and reflective listening would all be used in an MOL session to assist the client to feel understood and valued. The experience of MOL, however, also has common elements with many other therapies. At times it may seem as though some of the clients beliefs are being disputed, it may seem that the therapist is educating the client, it may appear that the therapist and the client are discussing the choices available to the client, or that the therapist is helping the client understand the connection between thoughts and feelings. It may even seem like the client is free associating.

When people look at white clouds against a blue sky they often can identify shapes formed by the clouds. Different people will identify different shapes from the same clouds based on their own personal ideas and preferences. The same kind of identification process can happen with MOL. MOL, from the therapists perspective, is a neutral procedure where the only task is to assist the client to describe different aspects of their current experience. When this occurs different therapists with different theoretical perspectives may " see " their own kind of therapy occurring. Powers asserts that the process of shifting awareness to a higher level in order to come to a different understanding of your current situation may occur in every therapy whenever a client " gets better" . Although this assertion needs to be tested empirically it is a delicious possibility and may go a long way to helping therapists understand why MOL seems " just like " the therapy they are familiar with.

Outlined above is the basic MOL procedure. Sometimes however, when using the procedure, rather than ambling along a particular path, you will come to a fork in the road. That is, the person will describe a conflict. Essentially, the person will be saying " I want to go left and I want to go right" or " I want to go left but I don't want to go left" . Once again the procedure is for O to eliminate any assumptions she may have about what E should do. O doesn't make any suggestions about the path E should take. O simply asks E to describe both experiences. O might first ask about going left " Tell me about going left" and when E has described that O would ask about going right " Now tell me about going right" . O continues to ask E to go backwards and forwards from one side of the conflict to the other describing both of the incompatible experiences.

While listening to Es descriptions, O is also waiting for any disruptions that might occur. After describing both sides for a little while E might pause and say " I just don't know what to do anymore" . Since this statement seems to be an evaluation of the experience rather than a description from within the experience, O would say something like: " What's it like to not know what to do?" . From then on O would encourage a description of " not knowing" until the next disruption occurred.

Sometimes O might ask about a disruption and E will return to his original conversation or his description of the disruption might be unproductive. In this instance O returns to the conversation with E and waits for the next disruption. At all times, O is asking E to describe what is happening for E right now. O is not interested in how good Es memory is or the skill with which E can make educated guesses or draw logical conclusions. O is just interested in what Es current experience is.

MOL can be a difficult procedure for counselors and therapists to learn because in many cases it requires doing less rather than more. In MOL there are no necessarily right or wrong questions to ask and there are no particular activities, techniques, or strategies to use other than asking the person to describe their current experience of being. MOL practitioners recognize that the most helpful thing they can do is listen to the descriptions that are being provided and to ask for more detailed descriptions of experiences that might be hinted at only fleetingly.

In the course of a therapy session there may be a myriad of experiences that are hinted at. With experience an MOL practitioner can become increasingly selective about the experiences that are inquired about. Personally, I am particularly interested in any statements that are an evaluation of what E has just said. E might say some thing like " Does that make sense to you?" " I'm not sure if that's really it" " When I say that it sounds a bit weird" or " I'm so confused" . It is these evaluative type comments that I pick up on more than any other. When I am in the role of O, therefore, I might respond with statements like " Are you wondering whether I've understood what you've been saying? What's it like to wonder whether or not what you're saying is making sense to people?" " Can you explain a bit more what its like to be not sure?" " Tell me a bit more about weird" " Does it bother you to be confused?" .

For a beginning MOL practitioner it may be useful to pick up on any disruption that is detected. If it is not significant for the client this will be quickly identified. The conversation might begin to drift away from the original topic of concern or the client may show little interest in the new direction or may even indicate that what is discussed now is of no concern to them. At this point it is sensible to just regroup and return to the original discussion with perhaps a summary statement of what's been discussed so far provided by the therapist.

I have just described what the MOL experience might be like for the therapist conducting the session. It is also important to consider what the MOL experience might be like for the client. For many clients, MOL will seem unusual initially. There may even be some frustration as it seems like the therapist isn't really listening to them and certainly isn't advising them about their problem. For these reasons it is important to educate the client about the process before beginning. With a little explanation I've found that clients are easily able to identify MOL disruptions and also have little trouble understanding that often our goals are influenced by higher level goals. Spending time explaining the process initially will assist the client to make sense of what is happening when they begin MOL.

MOL is in the embryonic stages of its development. It is known by only a few people and used consistently by only some of the people who are familiar with it. A person who was to begin using MOL should perhaps think of him or herself as a pioneer. There is much work that needs to be done before I would be willing to confidently compare MOL to other therapies that have been empirically validated but early indications are promising. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT) for example is a well recognized, well researched, and well respected form of treatment for depression. A standard CBT treatment program can last for 6-12 weeks and the outcomes for clients are generally very good. I used MOL with one woman who scored in the " severely depressed" range on two standard measures of depression. After four sessions of MOL she scored in the " none/minimal depression" range. Even more interesting for me was that this woman was reporting using the MOL technique of going up a level in her daily life. She reported that more and more whenever she was feeling irritated she would begin to think about what she was doing and how she reflected on that. A dramatic result such as this is not nearly enough to establish with any certainty the credibility of a particular method but it surely indicates that there is something here that warrants further investigation.

I would invite therapists and counselors to begin their own research. Perhaps it would be useful to begin using MOL with just one or two clients and compare the results with clients experiencing your usual methods. When using MOL, however, I would urge you to use MOL exclusively. We are unlikely to establish the efficacy of MOL if, when it is used, it is blended with other techniques and strategies. For people wanting to find out more about MOL unfortunately the resources at the moment are limited. Powers has a paper in Living Control Systems II called " An Experiment with Levels" that outlines many features of MOL. I also have a paper published in Psychotherapy in Australia (1999, volume 5, number 3, pages 52-59) that describes the process in some detail. Additionally Dag Forssell videotaped the entire MOL workshop in July, 1999 held at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver. On video will be some interesting explanations and some demonstrations by Powers and myself of MOL. The video is able to be purchased from Dag. He may be contacted at www.forssell.com. At the conference another paper about MOL by Powers was distributed. Copies of that paper would need to come from Powers directly. He may be contacted at powers_w@FRONTIER.NET.

To this point I have been describing MOL as it might be used in a therapeutic context however I think the potential applications of MOL are much wider than that. MOL would be useful in any situation where a person is in conflict. I think at this stage, MOL is to be used with intrapersonal rather than interpersonal conflict since it deals with an individual perceptual hierarchy. In my experience, however, when people describe an interpersonal conflict there is usually a significant amount of intrapersonal conflict also occurring.

Suppose, for example, that an employee in a work situation is being disturbed by the constant chattering of the employee sitting beside him. This employee may want the other employee to stop chattering but may not want to say anything for fear of offending his colleague. What seems like an interpersonal conflict, then, is really an intrapersonal conflict for the person who is bothered by the chattering. He wants to say something but doesn't want to say something. MOL may help this person clarify the situation that is creating this conflict for him.

Often when intrapersonal conflict is expressed by one person, what is really being expressed is one side of an interpersonal conflict. Bullying is often thought of as interpersonal conflict, however, bullying may not be a conflict at all for the person doing the bullying. The bully may feel she has every right to provoke and belittle people who are weaker than her. A significant amount of conflict may exist for the victim however as she may want to stop the bullying she is experiencing but may also not want to report the bully. Again, MOL may help the victim clarify what is important to her.

It may be the case then, that whenever a person is feeling annoyed, irritated, frustrated, anxious, tense, or incensed that they are experiencing intrapersonal conflict. At the very least the previous statement reflects a hypothesis worthy of investigation. If it does turn out to be the case that some amount of intrapersonal conflict is occurring whenever a person experiences the kinds of emotions mentioned above, then MOL would be an appropriate technique to use. Perhaps a parent is frustrated because he wants his children to behave in a certain manner but doesn't believe in punishment. Or perhaps a teenager wants her friends to stop making jokes about her but doesn't want to risk being ostracized. Or perhaps a person wants to go outside to meet friends and do the shopping but is terrified that if he does something disastrous will happen. In each of these instances, the person's experience could be conceptualized as an intrapersonal conflict. In each of these instances then, MOL might be appropriate.

When an MOL practitioner works with an individual who is in conflict the practitioner recognizes that, like all of the individuals other experiences, the experience of conflict is a private affair. The individual has created the conflict and the individual can resolve the conflict. The solution to the conflict lies within the individuals own perceptual hierarchy. The MOL practitioner doesn't know what the solution is but knows that a solution can be found. The conflicted individual does both the looking and the finding. The MOL practitioner points out possible signposts along the way.

Copyright© 2002-2007 Compass Mental Health, LLC. All rights reserved.
WebMaster@CompassMentalHealth.com