Cool!

Might be useful to add the definition of the distinction between
arbitrary and non arbitrary.

In the AARR definition it is said "Learned relational responding that
can come under the control of arbitrary contextual cues, not solely
the formal properties of relata nor direct experience with them."
which is clearly consistent with what has been said in the current
thread. However, a definition of arbitrary for "arbitrary contextual
cues" might be of help.

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@...>:

> Matt,
>
> There is a glossary available on the ACBS site that covers at least
> some of the important terms. It might be expanded though.
>
> http://www.contextualpsychology.org/what_is_rft
>
> Ian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthieu Villatte [mailto:matthieu.villatte@...]
> Sent: 20 July 2009 13:17
> To: Stewart, Ian
> Cc: Andreas Larsson; raisonn@...; stevenchayes@...;
> niklas.torneke@...; rft@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [RFT] How to operationalize the arbitrary/non arbitrary
> distinction?
>
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>