Hi,

Just wanted to thank you all for your help on this issue. It is (after
a few readings) much clearer now.

Going back to the précis of the book, I was wondering if that wouldn't
be a good idea to have also a glossary of the main RFT terms and
concepts (as Catania's for behavior analysis). We could find a good
place for it on the website.
Or is there already something like this somewhere that I missed?

Best,
Matt

--
Matthieu Villatte, PhD

Université de Picardie
Université de Lille
France
+33(0)610771146
http://www.lemagazineact.fr/Matthieu%20VILLATTE.html


Quoting "Stewart, Ian" <ian.stewart@...>:

> Glad you enjoyed the workshop Andreas! Next time we'll both wear
> shades and offer red and blue pills at the start. Hmm... possible
> follies sketch.
>
>
>
> I think the distinction between AARR and NARR is crucial for a
> number of reasons. For one thing, and not necessarily the most
> important theoretically or otherwise, it separates our species from
> all others we know of - at least in so far as we are exceptionally
> good at doing AARR whereas no other species seems to be able to get
> too far past the NARR 'starting gate'.
>
>
>
> Another possible definition of AARR- responding relationally under
> the control of a contextual cue that specifies the relation such
> that the relational response can be brought to bear on any relata
> regardless of their physical properties.
>
>
>
> (Commence fire!)
>
>
>
> Ian
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Andreas Larsson [mailto:andreas.larsson@...]
> Sent: 17 July 2009 12:48
> To: raisonn@...; stevenchayes@...; Stewart, Ian
> Cc: niklas.torneke@...; rft@yahoogroups.com;
> matthieu.villatte@...
> Subject: SV: [RFT] How to operationalize the arbitrary/non arbitrary
> distinction?
>
>
>
> So I start to think "arbitrarily means when the relation is
> abstracted from the relation and can be used without respect to the
> relata", is that somewhere in the vicinity? Then I try to find
> aspects of relata that may be untouched by arbitrary relations for a
> verbal organism without resorting to dualism. Tricky. So could
> arbitrary be something like "defined by the relation between relata
> rather than features, however verbal, of the relata that are not
> part of the relation from the level of analysis".
>
>
>
> What is the pragmatic gain of the distinction? Would it be possible
> to remove the distinction arbitrary / non-? I started thinking about
> this after the RFT & the Self WS you did with Jennifer at the WC,
> Ian (I'll never get why people fall asleep reading THE PURPLE BOOK,
> it makes me stay awake for hours). Anyway, as you were speaking
> about that everything is behaviour and, I think, the different selfs
> were patterns or streams of behaviour I started thinking about the
> scene from the last Matrix movie (bear with me I'm getting to a
> point). At the end Neo [Keanu Reeves] is blinded and has started
> seeing the real world (as opposed to the Matrix) as glowing contours
> and lines. I thought that it was an amazing metaphor for viewing
> the world as patterns. (It was, "really fucking hot" and no air in
> the room - I may have been hallucinating) So I spent some time at
> coffee trying to look at the world that way. And then I had an
> epiphany (to me, and once again, hot and probably just reoxygenated
> after spending time in zaal 6)! I didn't need to try to see the
> world as molten gold (even if it was an interesting experience) I
> already saw the patterns of behaviour. Because it's all there is to
> see. It doesn't matter if we call some kinds of patterns verbs and
> other nouns or adjectives. "Inging" doesn't change physical things
> into behaviour, they already are.
>
>
>
> Is that too subjectivist?
>
>
> Andreas Larsson
>
> ________________________________
>
> Frĺn: RFT@yahoogroups.com [mailto:RFT@yahoogroups.com] För raisonn@...
> Skickat: den 16 juli 2009 22:58
> Till: stevenchayes@...; ian.stewart@...
> Kopia: niklas.torneke@...; rft@yahoogroups.com;
> matthieu.villatte@...
> Ämne: Re: [RFT] How to operationalize the arbitrary/non arbitrary
> distinction?
>
>
>
>
>
> I have a question and a suggestion.
>
>
>
> Steve, you wrote:
>
>
>
> Suppose I teach a cockroach to run to the darker of two holes when
> the table vibrates, but to the lighter of two holes when there is
> none.
> Isn't that a relational response controlled by "features beyond
> those of the relata?" (the vibration)
>
> I ask:
>
> Does the vibration really control a relational response here? Or is
> this just a conditional/contextual discrimination? What exactly is
> the training?
>
>
>
> Don't you first train the relational response so that the cockroach
> has to choose always the darker or the lighter hole to be
> reinforced? And then in a second step you bring this already trained
> relational response under the additional contextual control of the
> vibration?
>
>
>
> And if it is possible to train the cockroach in seemingly one step
> to do both discriminations, can we really consider the vibration as
> a contextual cue that controls a relational response or haven't we
> confounded a discrimination-generalization training (darker-lighter)
> with a conditional discrimination training (vibration).
>
>
>
> Whatever the training, I would say (not sure whether correctly) the
> related events control the relational response in the first place.
> Only after this relational discrimination has been established or
> while this relational discrimination is being established an
> additional contextual cue is trained to control which of both
> related events is approached; AND this discrimination also depends
> of the formal properties of the related events (approach of the
> lighter or darker hole which is not beyond the formal properties of
> the related stimuli).
>
>
>
> Hoping that I do not confuse things altogether I would suggest the
> following short definitions (my summary to see if I got it):
>
>
>
> A non-arbitrary relational response is a response that is controlled
> by formal properties of the related stimuli (any formal properties
> that are trained to do so).
>
>
>
> An arbitrary relational response is a response that is controlled by
> contextual cues other than (any) formal properties of the related
> stimuli and the stimulus functions of these contextual cues have
> been established through social whim or convention.
>
>
>
>
>
> Rainer
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Talking I make use of my language saw.
> In doing so, whether I like it or not, I am sawing into the branch I sit on.
> So silence would be a better choice?
> But how, then, could I feel the branch that gives me hold?"
> - Franz Mon (my translation)
>
>
> Dr.med. Rainer F. Sonntag
> Behavioral Psychiatrist in Private Practice
> In der Wüste 18
> 57462 Olpe
> Germany
>
> Tel +49 (0)2761 96670
> Fax +49 (0)2761 966767
> Email raisonn@...
>
>
>
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.387 / Virus Database: 270.13.16/2241 - Release Date:
> 07/16/09 05:58:00
>
>
>