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

________________________________

Från: 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