Control Mastery Theory as a Basis for Normal Psychology

• The Roles of Control Mastery Theory in a New Model of REM Dreaming by Vic Comello, 5/8/97
  • Welcome Vic! by Jesscia Broitman, 5/9/97
    
    

I will answer your questions in two notes, deferring the sleep-related questions for later, because a nonsleep-related comment you made caught me by surprise.

Historical Background I was trained as a theoretical physicist. Twenty-four years ago, I left a position as Director of Research and Development at the Minwax Co. to pursue full-time some ideas I had about the nature of mammalian sleep--don't ask me why. Two years later, I sent a manuscript around to eight of the leading sleep researchers of that day. The manuscript contained an interpretation of many of the physiological concomitants of sleep along with an outline of an interpretation of Freud's Irma dream. The "new" model of REM dreaming I mentioned in my posting is actually 22 years old. To make a long story short, the reaction I received to the manuscript was less than I had hoped for, so practical considerations led me to abandon the quest. I am now putting together an updated and expanded version of this manuscript for publication on a Web page.

My research in the '70s led me to several papers by Joseph Weiss, papers that supported me in my suppositions even though they did not relate specifically to sleep. Weiss was showing that even seemingly irrational behavior is highly rational, which was precisely what I was saying about dreams. A few days ago, I typed his name onto a Web search engine to see what he's up to nowadays. That's how I was led to your Web page and discussion forum. I never really thought I would have the opportunity to discuss these ideas with anyone; it's a wonderful opportunity.

I have tremendous respect for Weiss's experimental approach. It is only through experimentation also that definitive answers will be reached regarding the nature of dreams and sleep. In the early days of sleep research, a good deal of effort was directed at understanding sleep in terms of psychological processes. Freud's theory of dreaming, in particular, received much testing, and was found to be totally inadequate. Lacking an alternative theory of the same stature, sleep researchers moved off to concentrate on the physiological aspects of sleep.

Frankly, sleep research is foundering at the present time. The reason is that no matter how carefully an experiment is conducted, the results remain open to various interpretations. Sleep research needs to begin with a theory that's in the right ballpark, and for that it needs a credible theory of normal psychology. I see Weiss's theory as comprising the basis of such a theory, which is why I was surprised to have you label my hypothesis concerning Freud testing Fliess as "original and thought provoking."

Control Mastery Theory as a Basis for Normal Psychology I don't believe that the unconscious plan Weiss speaks of is merely a reaction to pathogenic beliefs. Rather, I believe that each of us carries within him an ill-defined and largely unconscious life plan and that beliefs become pathological when they interfere with progress toward our inner goals. Patients come to you when something they can't define or control keeps them off-track, keeps them from maintaining their course in life. This sort of movement toward an ill-conceived yet tangible goal is plainly evident in the case of Freud, who sought and attained a position in history that cut across many established professional boundaries, and as such did not exist before he attained it.

Many of the pathogenic beliefs Weiss talks about arise not from extraordinary parental cruelty, but rather from convergences of circumstance that lead a child to misperceive reality. These misperceptions arise simply because the person is a child and thinks the way a child does.

Is it ever possible to so manage a child's existence as to exclude the possibility of "pathogenic" beliefs being formed? I believe not. In the first place, a child is a mystery unfolding. There is no way that parents can anticipate the inner goals a child will develop, so there is no way that parents can guide their child unswervingly in those directions, although being sensitive to a child's predispositions and accommodating them certainly helps greatly.

The second reason I believe that pathogenic beliefs are inevitable as normal concomitants of human development is that a child is driven to make of himself an amalgam of what his parents seem to be, as a first approximation of what he or she should be. As a child's predispositions become more assertive in late childhood and adolescence, there is no way avoid clashes between these inner goals and inappropriate beliefs that arose from the child's early identifications.

What I am saying is that the kinds of insights Weiss is providing in a clinical setting should be taught outside that setting, because what's involved are problems that inevitably arise during normal human development. People need to be taught to value their inner predispositions and to recognize that it is normal for these inner assertions to butt heads with childhood beliefs, and that when they do, the thing to do is maybe not to "settle down" with the lives their parents lived, but shed themselves of those identifications in moving toward lives that are truly their own.

As for personal information. I am married, have a daughter, and live in a Chicago suburb. I work as a Senior Editor at Research and Development Magazine.

• (No title) by (No author), 2/21/99
• (No title) by (No author), 2/26/99