Q. P1 Æ? What other resultants of the precursor P1 exist?
Remember that there are generally many complex processes which can involve a particular subprocess. We have already sought to find all the process chains which contain the central process C. Now we are looking for all the chains leading on from P1. We may end up with several. Suppose that we have as a precursor of C an increased feeling of anger A, then we may discover the following resultants of mA:
Ê A Æ Ê C Æ... ;
Ê A Æ Ê {Shouting} Æ...;
Ê A Æ Ê {Squash playing} Æ...;
Ê A Æ Ê {Stomach Acid} Æ...;
Ê A Æ Ê {Desire to sell (in a salesman)} Æ...
If these are the primary ones then we can be pretty sure that if the connection Ê A Æ Ê C is somehow removed, then one or more of the other four processes will happen. One of these has no redeeming features as it can lead to ulcers rather directly. The shouting may or may not be advantageous: we would have to follow the chain a bit further to discover the consequences. If it were to be properly orchestrated it might be neutral or even advantageous. The other two should lead to a healthier body and a healthier bank balance respectively. The job of the Hypnotherapist is then to ensure that simultaneously with removing the effect of A on C, one of the two (or three) favourable connections is selectively enhanced, so that the overall result is beneficial to the Client. If the removal of C leads to an unfavourable resultant of A, then this will act to increase the motivation to return to C again. Thus many people have returned to smoking because the simple elimination of smoking from the chain:
Ê {Anger} Æ Ê {Smoking}
has led to the alternative process:
Ê {Anger} Æ Ê {Distress of spouse} Æ Ê {Spouse insisting that smoking be renewed} Æ Ê {Smoking}.
This is another example of the homeostatic properties of negative feedback loops.
For another example suppose that the presented central symptom S is over-eating. In response to the questions answering ? Æ Ê C let us suppose that we find that there are many causes as follows:
Ê {family rows} Æ Ê C Ê {boredom} Æ Ê C Ê {feeling unloved} < Ê C
Ê {worry about ailing parents} Æ Ê C.
In a case like this there will probably be still more such chains leading to overeating, but we will take just these four for simplicity. It should be clear that we have a complicated case on our hands, because we need to know the answer to mP1d ? for each of the four precursors above.
What will our Client do after a family row if she does not eat? What will she do if she is bored?
What will she do when feeling unloved? What will she do when she thinks about her parents? If we did use a Hypnotic technique simply to block the over-eating,then we might find her going into a deep depression, having an affair, taking to drink, gambling or even developing an illness herself.
In such a case then it will be worth synchronising a slow change in the eating pattern with other changes designed to improve each of the above chains. If we were to find that the family rows were rooted in financial worries, then it might be worth putting effort into giving her the confidence to get a job. This would have as side-effects a reduction in boredom and a greater feeling of being appreciated (if not loved). We might also find that channelling some of the desire to eat into the pattern of seeing the parents and cooking them a very nice meal in which she would join, would both help her to feel that she was doing something for them and reduce any secret worry-binges. We might suggest that joining some club in which she would find herself appreciated - ideally something active as well - would simultaneously make her feel less unloved and help to lose weight. Although it may take time to work through all these possibilities, it is time well spent because the result is permanent beneficial change.
As an analogy imagine that we are in control of a water system of streams and rivers. To solve a flooding problem downstream we may try damming a river. But this will generally have effects upstream as well. What is going to happen to the waters running down to the dam? They have to flow somewhere.
If the engineer does not plan a safe path for them, then they will either build up until they could even destroy the dam, or find their own path, which could easily be just as disastrous. (Of course engineers are never as stupid as that.) But in the same way if we ignore precursors in making changes to the primary system, we may enjoy a temporary success but then find the whole work completely destroyed by the power of those precursors either forcing the original symptom to return for lack of other outlet, or forcing another outlet which may well be far worse than the original symptom. Our careful analysis of the problem is a very necessary way to avoid such problems.
Perhaps at this stage some readers are thinking that this all seems rather complicated. They might then remember the analogy of the problem of changing an ecosystem. If you start to mess around with one species then it has effects on a large number of others, both up and down the food chain, and therefore indirectly on most of the other species involved. We no longer live in times when it is acceptable to say, "You have a problem with species C? Fine. We will simply exterminate it by means of chemical X or prey species Y." This has led too often to worse problems. An ecologist has to propose a detailed and convincing case for the proposed change, and this involves FIRST analysing the existing food chains upwards and downwards in a great deal of detail.
In the same way we should analyse the existing causal chains involved in the various mental, emotional, practical and social processes which are connected to the problem, directly or indirectly, if we hope to make an "ecologically sound" organic change for the better.
In fact the systematic foundation which we have established has made it quite easy to work our way around even very complicated problems without getting lost. Let us summarise in our shorthand the questions asked so far to emphasise this point.
It really amounts to the repeated asking of the simple questions, |X Æ? and ? Æ |X, i.e. "What resultants are there of a change in the activity of process X?" and "What are the precursors of a change in the activity of process X?"
Step 1 was based on establishing the causal chains involving an increased activity of the central process C, by asking the two questions:
? Æ Ê C Æ?,
which led, by repetition, to a collection of chains involving Ê C, each of the form:
... Æ |P3 Æ |P2 Æ |P1 Æ |C Æ |R1 Æ |R2 Æ |R3 Æ....
Of particular importance was the discovery of feedback loops involving C.
Step 2, which we have met in this chapter, was based on two questions which illuminate what would happen if we succeeded in reducing the activity of process C:
ÌC Æ?,
which will tell us what the resultant will be if we succeed in reducing the activity of C; and:
|P1 Æ?,
which will tell us what the resultant of P1 is likely to be if the activity of C is reduced. The first of these will very often lead to the discovery of a negative feedback loop for C, which is very important in maintaining a problem, or causing a relapse, depending on how you look at it. The second is rather more likely to reveal alternative problems which could arise if C were eliminated.
The only other question which focuses directly on the central process C which we can ask within our formal structure is:
? Æ ÌC,
i.e. what immediate precursors to a decrease in the activity of C can we find?
This question is, of course, very important. It brings us to the key issue in treatment which is the question, "HOW are we to remove the problem?" We will treat this in the next chapter.
But before we finish this chapter it will be noticed that although the dynamic structures revealed by the systematic analysis on the above lines are, in this book, primarily applied to the systems of importance in Hypnotherapy, they are of much wider applicability. We have already noted that sound ecology goes through the same process. If S is some species of interest, then sound ecology involves finding all the factors that are involved in either increasing or decreasing the numbers (and hence activity) of that species. The analysis again involves a repeated asking of what causes or results from a change in the activity of a given species or (more generally) from a change in the non-organic environment.
The same process could, and should, be used by a businessman who wants to make changes in the functioning of a company, to ensure that the change is advantageous and efficient. There may be (I am not an expert in the field) Management Consultants who step into a business, make a few dramatic changes which produce immediate positive results and then leave, without thinking through any negative feedback loops involved. We may then find a year or so later that things are worse than before.
As an imaginary example: suppose that the expert brings the company into profit by cutting costs in a way that involves a great loss of personnel. In six months he brings it back into profit. But a natural consequence is that morale will drop and uncertainty rise in the remaining workforce.
Even if it is the case that only the less productive personnel were sacked, there will be a tendency for the remaining, better people to look for other jobs. Within twelve months this could come about: quality will drop; a little later this will result in a drop in sales. The collapse of the emaciated company is only too likely: and all because the probable consequences were not thought out. The better approach would have been to anticipate this, and work hard to ensure the continuing morale of the people remaining.
Notice that although the disastrous final consequence was a result of the consultant's poor analysis, superficially it looks as if the consultant did well, and that it was his absence that led to the poor results! Poor Psychotherapy can look the same.
We have already noted examples of this in family therapy, which further underlines the fact that the theoretical approach in this book can be applied to all organic systems, not simply the human mind, which is our primary concern in this book.
SUMMARY
In this chapter we have examined the important therapeutic principle that a symptom should not be treated in isolation and spelled out HOW this can be done in a systematic way by thinking through the consequences of reducing a symptom. It is important to note that this involves looking not only for any direct consequence of a symptom reduction, but also for the indirect consequence of what the precursor leads on to if not to the symptom.